A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NTSB Preliminary report on HPN crash



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 5th 05, 01:41 PM
Greg Farris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...


But given the low-altitude alert and the apparently continued low altitude
until impact, it seems conceivable that the instructor was actually letting
the student fly the approach, and failed to take control when the plane got
dangerously low.



Come on now, that's a wild guess!
Could have been any number of things. Maybe they couldn't find the GS.
Maybe they thought they were still above it, when they were already below it.
Sounds like there was some confusion about what their actual altitude was,
which should not be going on if established on an ILS a mile out. According to
the controller's radar they lost 300ft in 14 sec - trying to duck under?
Trying toget their GS indicator to come alive? Maybe there was something wrong
with the instrument - we can't exclude that at this early stage.

The weather report indicated 200 ft - but that was 20 minutes earlier. The
Citation reported 200 also, but when I hear jets reporting minimums, I always
wonder if it's really lower, and they just don't want to say it.

For now, it remains a tragedy for the freinds and families of the victims,
otherwise an approach accident in low IFR, and we'll have to wait to know
more.

G Faris

Ads
  #12  
Old May 5th 05, 03:54 PM
JimBob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Greg Farris wrote:
Come on now, that's a wild guess!
Could have been any number of things. Maybe they couldn't find the

GS.
Maybe they thought they were still above it, when they were already

below it.
Sounds like there was some confusion about what their actual altitude

was,
which should not be going on if established on an ILS a mile out.

According to
the controller's radar they lost 300ft in 14 sec - trying to duck

under?
Trying toget their GS indicator to come alive? Maybe there was

something wrong
with the instrument - we can't exclude that at this early stage.

The weather report indicated 200 ft - but that was 20 minutes

earlier. The
Citation reported 200 also, but when I hear jets reporting minimums,

I always
wonder if it's really lower, and they just don't want to say it.

For now, it remains a tragedy for the freinds and families of the

victims,
otherwise an approach accident in low IFR, and we'll have to wait to

know
more.

G Faris


What do you do when you cannot get the GS on approach? Can you
descent?

  #13  
Old May 5th 05, 04:11 PM
Guillermo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i"JimBob" wrote in message
oups.com...

What do you do when you cannot get the GS on approach? Can you
descent?

If you cannot get the GS in an ILS apporach, then it turns into a localizer
approach, which has higher minimums.
You can descend down to the MDA (minimum descent altitude), which typically
can be as low as 400'AGL... but if there are obstacles around it may be a
lot higher (i.e here at FTY in atlanta its about 700'AGL.).
If you cannot make it, then you shall go to your alternate.


  #14  
Old May 5th 05, 04:15 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What do you do when you cannot get the GS on approach? Can you
descent?


If you are ready for it, and the approach contains LOC minima, you can
do a LOC approach, and descend as appropriate when you pass the given
fixes. OTherwise, do not descend, proceed to the MAP, and go missed.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #15  
Old May 5th 05, 04:24 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 5 May 2005 11:11:31 -0400, "Guillermo"
wrote:

i"JimBob" wrote in message
roups.com...

What do you do when you cannot get the GS on approach? Can you
descent?

If you cannot get the GS in an ILS apporach, then it turns into a localizer
approach, which has higher minimums.
You can descend down to the MDA (minimum descent altitude), which typically
can be as low as 400'AGL... but if there are obstacles around it may be a
lot higher (i.e here at FTY in atlanta its about 700'AGL.).
If you cannot make it, then you shall go to your alternate.



If you cannot make it, then you shall go wherever you are subsequently
(or already) cleared, which might be your alternate, and it might not.
  #16  
Old May 5th 05, 04:30 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
But given the low-altitude alert and the apparently continued low altitude
until impact, it seems conceivable that the instructor was actually
letting
the student fly the approach, and failed to take control when the plane
got
dangerously low.


Come on now, that's a wild guess!


I clearly characterized it as a guess. I don't think it's particularly wild
though.

Could have been any number of things. Maybe they couldn't find the GS.


Then they should have flown above the LOC minimums, or gone missed. Any
other decision would be grossly incompetent. I'm making the charitable
assumption that the CFII at least knew how to fly an approach properly
himself, but may not have developed a sound technique for letting a student
fly it safely.

Maybe they thought they were still above it, when they were already below
it.
Sounds like there was some confusion about what their actual altitude was,
which should not be going on if established on an ILS a mile out.
According to
the controller's radar they lost 300ft in 14 sec - trying to duck under?


Could've been just 200', if the controller's radar was rounded to the
nearest 100. Still, that's indeed on the faster side. But in any case,
trying to duck under a reported 200' ceiling from a mile out would not have
been a competent decision.

Trying toget their GS indicator to come alive? Maybe there was something
wrong
with the instrument - we can't exclude that at this early stage.


Trying to get the GS indicator to come alive by diving while inside the FAF
and after having acknowledged a low-altitude altert a few hundred feet AGL?
That would be beyond mere incompetence.

It's conceivable that the GS was giving a false reading without flagging
(and without the needle just being stuck in one place, which would've been
readily noticeable), though I've never heard of that happening (if you
penetrate the GS at the prescribed altitude). But if the GS did falsely
indicate a proper altitude, the pilot should certainly have gone missed as
soon as the altitude alert was issued. If your GS says you're on target and
the controller's radar says otherwise, you don't continue the approach until
you figure out which is right.

The weather report indicated 200 ft - but that was 20 minutes earlier. The
Citation reported 200 also, but when I hear jets reporting minimums, I
always
wonder if it's really lower, and they just don't want to say it.


Could be, but they crashed a mile out. A lower ceiling wouldn't have had any
effect until they reached DA (and even then, the only effect it should have
is to trigger a missed approach).

--Gary


  #17  
Old May 5th 05, 05:06 PM
Guillermo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

While I'd agree that taking a student pilot may be wasting resources if he
tries to shoot IFR approaches before getting his pilot's license, I think
taking a student pilot for an IMC flight is extremely valuable and may help
him realize how easy is to get disoriented and how worthless our sense of
balance turns once we are in the clouds.
My personal preffered way to do it is taking friends who are students pilots
to get a free ride in the back seat when I am doing practice instrument
approaches in IMC with my instructor (I am IFR rated but I want to keep
current). I think having students pilots experience IMC is great for
awareness of how tough it could be to fly IMC. Probably would not be very
useful trying to make them fly the approach.
I think it is not even useful to have instrument students fly approaches
their first few lessons.

guillermo



"Steve S" wrote in message
...
How about why is an instructor taking a primary student, he doesn't even
have a pp-asel, up in 200- 1/2 with a 0 temp/dew point spread?


"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Tom Fleischman k wrote:

If you want to read something really disturbing, this is it.


Is there something specific that is disturbing, or are you referring to
the
entire report? I read through it and, while it is always disturbing

when
an accident results in fatalities, I honestly didn't see anything that
stuck out as *really disturbing* such as drugs, alcohol, or a blatant
mistake. What did I miss?

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----





  #18  
Old May 5th 05, 05:35 PM
JimBob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's conceivable that the GS was giving a false reading without
flagging

Is there a way you can check the GS reading?

  #19  
Old May 5th 05, 06:22 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"JimBob" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's conceivable that the GS was giving a false reading without

flagging

Is there a way you can check the GS reading?


A few ways. One check, of course, is to determine that the ILS is properly
IDed and the GS is not flagged. You can also check that the GS needle
actually moves (if you're so precise a pilot that it's staying at dead
center, you can deliberately deviate slightly to confirm its
responsiveness). When you cross the FAF at GS altitude, you should check the
altimeter against the expected altitude as indicated on the profile; past
the FAF, you can check the altimeter against the expected altitude for your
distance from the FAF (as measured by markers, DME, or other fixes if
available, or just by dead reckoning). Third, if the controller's radar
shows your altitude, you can get an altitude alert (as the HPN pilots did).
These checks assume the GS needle isn't fully deflected (past the FAF); if
it is, you should be executing a missed approach whether the GS is working
or not.

--Gary


  #20  
Old May 5th 05, 07:16 PM
OtisWinslow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The main thing (other than the questionable decision to make the flight) is
that the
CFI's last medical was on Mar 7, 2003 which means it was expired. Neither
of the pilots was licensed to be up there.


"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Tom Fleischman k wrote:

If you want to read something really disturbing, this is it.


Is there something specific that is disturbing, or are you referring to
the
entire report? I read through it and, while it is always disturbing when
an accident results in fatalities, I honestly didn't see anything that
stuck out as *really disturbing* such as drugs, alcohol, or a blatant
mistake. What did I miss?

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking for a See and Avoid NTSB report Ace Pilot Piloting 2 June 10th 04 01:01 PM
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Naval Aviation 0 December 12th 03 11:01 PM
Wellston Crash Report Quote EDR Piloting 26 November 21st 03 10:50 PM
Report blames pilots in crash of two Navy jets Otis Willie Naval Aviation 0 September 26th 03 01:27 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.