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
  #51  
Old May 7th 05, 03:45 AM
G. Sylvester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I had the same experience a few years ago when I went for an IPC. At that
point I had about 1000 hours with about 100 approaches in actual. First he
refused to fly in my plane, which is a hell of a lot better maintained and a
much better IFR platform than the FBO planes. Then he added that he was
uncomfortable flying in actual since he didn't know me. Needless to say I
found another CFII.


jeez, I had my IFR checkride scheduled for may 7th. I have about 11 out
of 50 hours in actual with about 25 of that at night which is a good
substitute for actual when under the hood. I told my instructor that
I wanted to fly in the worst crap out there so I'm comfortable when the
**** hits the fan. I had a few flights that were very bumpy and weird
ATC routings. I'm glad I did it as I wouldn't say I'm
comfortable in hard IMC but in smooth IMC I think I'd do quite well.
I do think I'm more comfortable than most instructors as most
instructors I think have mostly private students and don't stay IFR
current and IFR proficient themselves.

So my FBO is ****ing me off because what they consider IFR capable
is not so in my book. I don't trust anyone who says a plane with
an AI that takes "10 or 15 minutes" to erect is IFR capable even in
severe clear.

well I'll get my shot in a couple of weeks in a well maintained airplane.

Gerald
Ads
  #52  
Old May 7th 05, 03:52 AM
Judah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Fleischman k wrote
in
news:2005050612522816807%bodhijunkoneeightyeightju [email protected]:

On 2005-05-06 09:48:46 -0400, "Peter R."
said:

snip
Regardless of who was flying the instructor was doubtless PIC. Now I
know that the Passeur Airport Monitor
(http://www4.passur.com/hpn.html) does not give an officially
recognized altitude readout, but if you set that site to begin on 4/23
at about 16:15 local time you can track the flight. If you compare
their altitude readout to other aircraft flying the same approach it
seems evident that they were below the approach segment altitude even
before they crossed the outer marker. In fact it shows them crossing
HESTR already 100' too low (1900'). I can not fathom what this
instructor was thinking continuing the approach so far below the
glideslope, even after an altitude alert from the tower.

snip

If you go back to about 15:10 and set the window to 20 miles you can pick
him up as low as 1600' just south of Yorktown Heights over 134, which I
believe is inside the FARAN intersection, but clearly outside the Outer
Marker - ie: Minimum Safe Altitude is 2000', and he is 400' low...

It's tough to say how accurate and to-scale the Passur site is, but if you
set the scale to 5 miles and watch as he enters the area, it would imply
that he passed the Outer Marker at around 1200'...

Maybe he was tracking a harmonic?

  #53  
Old May 7th 05, 03:54 AM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael wrote:

You lack imagination.


Lack instructing experience and knowledge, definitely, but lack
imagination? Absolutely not.

During minor outpatient surgery many years ago I was hooked up to an IV and
awaiting the arrival of the doctor. With nothing else to occupy my mind, I
started to imagine what the IV needle must have looked like inside my vein,
the tip of the submerged needle pressing against the inside wall of the
vein and the suger-water dripping out of the point to mix with my blood,
creating a pinkish hue as the mixture was carried off downstream. The
image in my mind was so vivid I then passed out. :-)

Sorry to digress but I had to rebut ...

--
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 =----
  #54  
Old May 7th 05, 03:56 AM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Fleischman k wrote:

Things
like this just give all of us as pilots a black eye because in todays
society the general public seems to paint everything with a very broad
brush . That is what really disturbs me.


I am in total agreement with you.

--
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 =----
  #55  
Old May 7th 05, 08:41 AM
Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Fleischman wrote:
Baloney, it contains a lot that is new.

1 - There was communication with the tower throughout the approach and
the pilot was WARNED that he was too low and continued to descend
anyway.


Do you think that a descent rate of more than 1200 fpm (300' in 14 seconds)
is normal after being warned that he was too low? Since something around
500 fpm would be more 'normal', perhaps there was something else gong on
other than he "continued to descend anyway"?


2 - It appears that his medical was out of date and he was not legal to
be PIC on that flight.


Perhaps the web site does not have the latest data and the pilot just came
from the doc?


3 - There was nothing wrong with the major aircraft systems that could
be evaluated on the preliminary report suggesting that a mechanical
problem was not a likely cause.


Exactly - nothing on the *preliminary* report - that's why they don't stop
there. This does not suggest that "mechanical problem was not likely the
cause". All it says is that the preliminary report showed nothing wrong
with the major aircraft systems. Do you know that his static port wasn't
blocked, that his altimeter was set correctly and reading correctly, that he
didn't suffer a heart attack, that the student didn't committed suicide, ...


4 - It appears that American Flyers is incapable of even keeping track
of the medical currency of their instructors, a fairly simple task.


See my above comment on his medical.


That is gross negligence IMHO.


I would consider making unsubstantiated and potentially completely false
claims with minimal knowledge of the real facts gross negligence.


I don't know where you get the idea that I have set myself up as judge
and jury on this.


Read your post again.

Hilton


  #56  
Old May 7th 05, 11:03 AM
David Cartwright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...
I started IFR instruction with an instructor that refused to fly in
actual. I fired him and got another instructor. Nothing more goddam
useless than an IFR instructor who won't fly IFR.


You should try the instructors at my club then. If you're out on a checkride
or some other such exercise that has no formal content requirement (e.g. the
club has a new aircraft and they want you to do a dual hour so they can show
you the knobs and dials) they'll almost certainly try to find some cloud to
go and play in, icing conditions permitting. When we got our "new" PA-28
with different radio navaids than I was used to, when we went out for my
check ride I found myself in the grey stuff doing holds and finishing with
an ILS down to a 1,200' cloudbase. Not minima, I'll admit, but it's good
that all our instructors are of the opinion that the more you fly in IMC,
the more likely you are to stay in one piece when the cloud is lower than
you thought.

D.



  #57  
Old May 7th 05, 11:05 AM
David Cartwright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
As you know, when this happens the VOR1 instrument would show the CDI
alive
(but really tracking the GPS's course for the localizer). The glideslope
needle, however, would be flagged and remain perfectly centered, as if the
pilot were flying a perfect glideslope.

The 172R has the same switch (button actually) and yes, it is easy to
forget.
But as you correctly state, this produces a flagged, immobile GS
indicator.
This would be very difficult to stare at for very long before realizing
that
something was wrong.


I've been surprised, in the half-dozen or so different aircraft I've sat in
the front seat of, how much the visibility of the flags in instruments
varies. A PA-28 I got into recently had instruments with flags that all but
obscured the dial - so you absolutely couldn't miss them. An aircraft I flew
a while back, though, had rather smaller flags, and I strongly suspect that
under stress, one's brain could have completely failed to acknowledge they
were there.

D.


  #58  
Old May 7th 05, 11:08 AM
David Cartwright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom Fleischman" k wrote in
message
news:2005050607023016807%bodhijunkoneeightyeightju [email protected]
Let's see, you are maybe a few hundred feet above the ground in the clouds
when you get a low altitude alert and new altimeter setting from the
tower. Multiple choice: a) you acknowledge the tower call, look over to
the other side of the cockpit to check the altimeter setting, look at the
approach plate, calm down the student pilot in the right seat and say, in
about 14 seconds, hit the cumulogranite; or b) you add power and climb in
a go-around, realizing something is wrong and sort it out at a safe
altitude.


I've kinda been there in an IMC training flight (in proper IMC). The reports
and the tower said the cloudbase was 800 feet, and althought the instruments
were telling us everything was normal (i.e. glideslope, DME and altimeter
cross-matched), we still couldn't see civilisation at 500 feet. We took
option (b) - up is a very good way to go until you know what's going on.

D.


  #59  
Old May 7th 05, 11:12 AM
David Cartwright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
In hindsight, the fact that his medical had expired by a
month (Class III expires in two years from March '03, right?) was somewhat
interesting for a large flight school such as AF. Did it expire because
of
oversight or did it expire because the instructor had a condition that
wouldn't allow him to pass? We don't know.


And as someone else said, if memory serves, it could well be that he'd just
renewed it and the paperwork hadn't caught up. I don't know about the US,
but in the UK the doctor issues a new medical certificate directly to the
pilot, and then sends notification to the authorities. It's believable that
there could be a few days/weeks before stuff shows up on the official
records.

D.


  #60  
Old May 7th 05, 12:43 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom Fleischman" k wrote in
message
news:2005050612522816807%bodhijunkoneeightyeightju [email protected]
Now I know that the Passeur Airport Monitor
(http://www4.passur.com/hpn.html) does not give an officially recognized
altitude readout, but if you set that site to begin on 4/23 at about 16:15
local time you can track the flight. If you compare their altitude readout
to other aircraft flying the same approach it seems evident that they were
below the approach segment altitude even before they crossed the outer
marker. In fact it shows them crossing HESTR already 100' too low (1900').


True, but 100' is within PTS tolerance prior to the FAF. After the FAF, they
just need to stay on the GS.

I can not fathom what this instructor was thinking continuing the
approach so far below the glideslope, even after an altitude alert from
the tower.


Yup, that's where it was totally botched.

--Gary


 




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 05:42 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.