NTSB Preliminary report on HPN crash

"Hilton" wrote in message news:Li_ee.8399
Tom Fleischman wrote:
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, ...

He had an opportunity (and responsibility) to verify his altimeter reading
when crossing the FAF. And when he acknowledged the low-altitude alert, the
altitude he reported was consistent with ATC's radar. And regardless of his
altimeter reading, he would've been well below the glideslope.

He was already inexplicably low; he acknowledged a low-altitude alert while
continuing to descend, taking the time to report his altimeter setting and
his indicated altitude, but without mentioning any mechanical or medical
problems; and then he had a heart attack, or his student carried out a
murder-suicide? I think Tom is justified to conclude that such a sequence is
unlikely.

--Gary

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
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...

Just a point of terminology--2000' is the minimum altitude there, but it's
not the MSA. The MSA there is 2900', and wouldn't be relevant. (As is often
the case, the FAA has violated a cardinal rule of clear naming: when two
names are similar, the difference between them should reflect the difference
in their meanings. The MSA differs from the minimum altitude not with regard
to being safe, but with regard to applying when off-course.)

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?

Is it possible to pick up a false GS a few hundred feet *below* the proper
altitude?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
:

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Just a point of terminology--2000' is the minimum altitude there, but
it's not the MSA. The MSA there is 2900', and wouldn't be relevant.
(As is often the case, the FAA has violated a cardinal rule of clear
naming: when two names are similar, the difference between them should
reflect the difference in their meanings. The MSA differs from the
minimum altitude not with regard to being safe, but with regard to
applying when off-course.)


A valid point. The MSA for the northeastern region within 25 NM is
2900', though the published minimum allowable (and presumably safe)
altitude while flying the ILS inside Faran is 2000'. Is there a name for
that published altitude?


snip

Maybe he was tracking a harmonic?

Is it possible to pick up a false GS a few hundred feet *below* the
proper altitude?

According to the document published at

http://afsafety.af.mil/magazine/htdo...8/dontneed.htm

if a heavy was holding inside the ILS Hold Short Line it could generate
interference that could cause the glideslope to fail high or low...

Not really a harmonic, I guess, but apparently a possibility.

"Hilton" wrote in
ink.net:

snip
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, ...

snip

The whole situation is unfortunate, and it is impossible for anyone to
accurately state what happened.

However, on an ILS approach, I don't believe a failed PitotStatic System
would prevent the glideslope from reading fully deflected at 1 mile and
300' low. If I'm not mistaken, at 5 miles, the reading is about 50' per
dot, and at 1 mile the reading is about 8' per dot.

Furthermore, the fact that he is reported to have read back his altitude
in response to the warning and it was within 100' of what they told him
during a descent strongly implies that he did not have a blocked static
port...

Additionally, the fact that he was as much as 400' low outside the FAF
implies that he was not properly managing the airplane for a significant
amount of time.

While it is not clear what exactly went wrong, there seems to be
evidence that the instructor may not have been very conservative or
attentive. Whether or not that was the cause of the accident or even
contributed to it is impossible to say.

Gary Drescher wrote:
Hilton wrote:
Tom Fleischman wrote:
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, ...

He had an opportunity (and responsibility) to verify his altimeter reading
when crossing the FAF. And when he acknowledged the low-altitude alert,
the
altitude he reported was consistent with ATC's radar. And regardless of
his
altimeter reading, he would've been well below the glideslope.

He was already inexplicably low; he acknowledged a low-altitude alert
while
continuing to descend, taking the time to report his altimeter setting and
his indicated altitude, but without mentioning any mechanical or medical
problems; and then he had a heart attack, or his student carried out a
murder-suicide? I think Tom is justified to conclude that such a sequence
is
unlikely.

I absolutely agree that it *appears* that the CFI messed up. Most accident
sequences are pretty 'obvious', this one included. But just when you think
the cause is obvious, it turns out to be something else. I've just seen too
many accident reports like this to state absolutely what happened only a few
days after the accident with minimal investigation. Perhaps some guy taxied
into the ILS critical area by mistake? Heck, I don't know. While the
'obvious' conclusion is that the CFI screwed up, let's not trash the guy's
name too early in the investigation.

Hilton

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
:
Just a point of terminology--2000' is the minimum altitude there, but
it's not the MSA. The MSA there is 2900', and wouldn't be relevant.
(As is often the case, the FAA has violated a cardinal rule of clear
naming: when two names are similar, the difference between them should
reflect the difference in their meanings. The MSA differs from the
minimum altitude not with regard to being safe, but with regard to
applying when off-course.)

A valid point. The MSA for the northeastern region within 25 NM is
2900', though the published minimum allowable (and presumably safe)
altitude while flying the ILS inside Faran is 2000'. Is there a name for
that published altitude?

The NACO approach-plates legend just calls it the "minimum altitude".

--Gary

"Hilton" wrote in message
news
I absolutely agree that it *appears* that the CFI messed up. Most
accident
sequences are pretty 'obvious', this one included. But just when you
think
the cause is obvious, it turns out to be something else. I've just seen
too
many accident reports like this to state absolutely what happened only a
few
days after the accident with minimal investigation.

Agreed. But Tom merely stated conservatively that mechanical failure was not
a "likely cause", based on the available evidence. If anything, I think
that's an understatement.

Perhaps some guy taxied into the ILS critical area by mistake? Heck, I
don't know.

Even if that happened, and went unnoticed at the time, and remains unknown
to the NTSB so far, the CFI should have gone missed upon reaching the DA
(according to topographic maps, the terrain at the crash site was at most a
few feet higher than the TDZE). And even if his altimeter or static system
*also* failed--which it didn't, given the agreement of ATC's radar with the
altitude the CFI reported moments before crashing--he should have gone
missed when he received the low-altitude alert. Even with latitude to
speculate freely, no one here has proposed a plausible scenario consistent
with the available facts that doesn't include a major blunder by the CFI
during the approach.

While the 'obvious' conclusion is that the CFI screwed up, let's not trash
the guy's
name too early in the investigation.

As opposed to suggesting that his student committed a murder-suicide? In
any case, to propose that the CFI made a critical mistake while flying is
not to accuse him of negligence or other moral culpability; I don't think it
"trashes" him.

Aside from the apparent in-flight mistake, Tom also impugns the CFI's
judgment in undertaking the flight at all, given the reported and forecast
weather conditions. I disagree with Tom's assessment there, but that's a
different question--the actual cause of the crash, whatever it turns out to
be, isn't relevant to whether the decision to fly was warranted by the
information available to the CFI at that time; there's no need to await a
final report before debating *that* question.

--Gary

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 May 2005 17:03:31 -0600, "Michael 182"

Well, different strokes for different folks, but there is no way I am
doing an IPC in IMC with someone I've never flown with in an aircraft
I've never been in.



Really, why not? I can see saying you want to check out the plane (which is
maintained by the same FBO the CFI works from - he can simply talk to the
head mechanic) and see my log book. The plane has dual controls. Unless I'm
suicidal what is the concern?

Michael

I guess you might call it "instructional personal minimums".

I won't launch into IMC in an aircraft I've never been in in any
event, even to do an x/c. I fly in lots of different aircraft, and
every one needs familiarization to some extent, since no two panels
are alike, and they all have their own idiosyncracies, which I don't
like discovering for the first time while IMC. Yesterday I flew in
one that wouldn't register below 13" MP once power went below that
number. I just don't like discovering that sort of thing the first
time I try to set power for an ILS descent in actual conditions and
discover it from curious and unusual aircraft performance.

As a practical matter, one needs to do partial panel approaches and
partial panel unusual attitudes during an IPC. I'm not about to
discover that the guy is not real good in recovering from steep
spirals or imminent stalls while IMC with instruments covered. It's
also sometimes difficult getting a block of atltitude from ATC to do
them in, even if I wanted to.

One other matter is the question of being PIC. I once asked an
examiner if he would be willing to conduct a practical test in IMC.
"Not on my ticket", he told me.

Mine either.




On Sat, 7 May 2005 21:44:06 -0600, "Michael 182"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 May 2005 17:03:31 -0600, "Michael 182"

Well, different strokes for different folks, but there is no way I am
doing an IPC in IMC with someone I've never flown with in an aircraft
I've never been in.



Really, why not? I can see saying you want to check out the plane (which is
maintained by the same FBO the CFI works from - he can simply talk to the
head mechanic) and see my log book. The plane has dual controls. Unless I'm
suicidal what is the concern?

Michael

If your "instructional personal minimums" don't include training In
IMC down to legal minimums, in an airworthy aircraft, you are cheating
your students and charging too much, at any price. My students get
what they pay for. "Not on my ticket" is not an option for a
competent instructor.

Bill Zaleski www.instrumentratings.com


On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:26:58 GMT, wrote:

I guess you might call it "instructional personal minimums".

I won't launch into IMC in an aircraft I've never been in in any
event, even to do an x/c. I fly in lots of different aircraft, and
every one needs familiarization to some extent, since no two panels
are alike, and they all have their own idiosyncracies, which I don't
like discovering for the first time while IMC. Yesterday I flew in
one that wouldn't register below 13" MP once power went below that
number. I just don't like discovering that sort of thing the first
time I try to set power for an ILS descent in actual conditions and
discover it from curious and unusual aircraft performance.

As a practical matter, one needs to do partial panel approaches and
partial panel unusual attitudes during an IPC. I'm not about to
discover that the guy is not real good in recovering from steep
spirals or imminent stalls while IMC with instruments covered. It's
also sometimes difficult getting a block of atltitude from ATC to do
them in, even if I wanted to.

One other matter is the question of being PIC. I once asked an
examiner if he would be willing to conduct a practical test in IMC.
"Not on my ticket", he told me.

Mine either.




On Sat, 7 May 2005 21:44:06 -0600, "Michael 182"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 6 May 2005 17:03:31 -0600, "Michael 182"

Well, different strokes for different folks, but there is no way I am
doing an IPC in IMC with someone I've never flown with in an aircraft
I've never been in.



Really, why not? I can see saying you want to check out the plane (which is
maintained by the same FBO the CFI works from - he can simply talk to the
head mechanic) and see my log book. The plane has dual controls. Unless I'm
suicidal what is the concern?

Michael