Mooney drops into my backyard

Here's the story from today's local paper. They quote AOPA accident statistics.
Guess AOPA got the word out that they are the source of expertise for GA stories...

"Crashes of small planes are infrequent, considering how many take to the skies,
said Warren Morningstar of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a
national group of more than 400,000 pilots.

Of the 40 million general aviation aircraft flights per year, there are about
1,800 accidents, he said.

About 75 percent of the accidents are attributed to errors in judgment by
pilots, he said."


http://www.news-observer.com/front/s...-3167666c.html

Dave

Dave Butler wrote in message ...
Here's the story from today's local paper. They quote AOPA accident statistics.
Guess AOPA got the word out that they are the source of expertise for GA stories...

"Crashes of small planes are infrequent, considering how many take to the skies,
said Warren Morningstar of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a
national group of more than 400,000 pilots.

Of the 40 million general aviation aircraft flights per year, there are about
1,800 accidents, he said.

About 75 percent of the accidents are attributed to errors in judgment by
pilots, he said."

Its good to see AOPA letting everyone know we're idiots. I can't see
what value there is in telling the press that most accidents are a
result of sunday flyers. Gee, we could probably get more favorable
comments from these guys..

www.stopthenoise.org

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Gee, we could probably get more favorable
comments from these guys..

And if some reporter asks *you* what the major cause of GA accidents is, what would
you say?

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

Mostly accidents due to human error, bad planning, and omissions, just
as in commercial aviation and automobiles


And if some reporter asks *you* what the major cause of GA accidents is, what would
you say?

Bob Miller wrote:

Mostly accidents due to human error, bad planning, and omissions, just
as in commercial aviation and automobiles

Which is probably just what AOPA said. And the reporter cut out the last clause, just
as they would for you.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

On Fri, 07 May 2004 01:39:59 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



Bob Miller wrote:

Mostly accidents due to human error, bad planning, and omissions, just
as in commercial aviation and automobiles

Which is probably just what AOPA said. And the reporter cut out the last clause, just
as they would for you.

The rule is that you do not have to answer the question as if you were
on a quiz show. Answers of the form: "Let me show you the
regulations that must be met by pilots and their planes before they
can take to the air" (holding up a copy of the FARs), is permissible.
The reporter needs some information to write a story with by a certain
deadlline. What goes into the story is the result between a
collaboration between you and the reporter. Save confession for your
priest.

Another rule: If you want to be quoted, speak with animation in
short, simple sentences. If you don't want to be quoted, never say
"no comment." Instead, speak in a monotone and ramble.

And another: If you don't like a question, ask one of your own. R:
"What do you think is behind all these light plane crashes?" You:
"Have there been that many? How many auto wrecks have you seen in the
same period of time? Have you any idea how many pilots have made that
exact instrument approach in the last year?"

Don

EDR wrote
What type approach was in use?
800 and 2 miles is pretty good for an ILS.
If he missed twice, what were the actual conditions at the DH?

Well, the problem is you don't know.

Yesterday I took a short businees trip in my plane. Conditions were
forecast/reported as marginal VFR, so I filed. I got to the airport,
and while it was slightly hazy, there was not a cloud in the sky and
stuff 5+ miles away was clearly visible. Rather than messing with a
void time, I took off VFR.

My destination was GTU, only 115 nm away. (For those playing along on
the home game, the approach there is available at:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0404/05724N18.PDF). So I'm cruising
along at 2000 ft to stay out of the winds, enjoying the day, and I
decide to give Flgh****ch a call to see if maybe the conditions over
there have not improved. Well, they're still MVFR - 1000 SCT, 1600
NKN, 2200 OVC, vis 10+. OK, it's MVFR, and I can see the cloud deck
in the distance so I climb and activate, but I'm expecting a total no
brainer approach, or maybe even a visual.

So I'm over the top, and I get switched to Austin. Austing asks if I
have the weather, and I do - the latest is 900 SCT, 2300 BKN, vis 10+,
which really means I can get in on the visual - but something doesn't
smell right so I ask for the NDB. The controller clearly isn't happy,
but I really don't like the fact that every time I check, the weather
is something a little different.

So I get PD to 3000, slide into the soup at about 4500, and at 3000 I
can see down to the ground most of the time. I figure as soon as I
drop down to 2600 after crossing the NDB, I'll be out of it and just
ask for the visual. Well, I cross the NDB and drop to 2600, but now
I'm in solid soup. So I figure it's just a bad patch, and as soon as
I do the procedure turn and drop down, I'll be out. I'm still not
really in hard IFR mode - not really in the game. My mindset is still
in the "penetrate a cloud layer" rather than "shoot approach to
minimums" mode.

Well, I intercept inbound, drop to MDA - and I'm in and out of soup,
and the only stuff I can see is straight down or nearly so. Visual
aircraft control is impossible - I'm on instruments and diverting
attention to look out. Now I realize I haven't briefed the miss
because it never occurred to me I might have to miss from this
approach - until now. I'm 3 miles from the airport and I can't see
anything I recognize. So I quickly glance at the missed, and
fortunately it starts with a straight climb to 2600 so I figure I'll
have time to sort it out. NOW I'm in the game. I also realize it has
been over eight months since my last recurrent training - I'm getting
rusty. I should have snapped to this a lot quicker. My scan tightens
up, and I concentrate on keeping the altitude dead on. I don't dare
go below mins, and even 30 ft above makes a noticeable difference in
the vis.

Finally, about a mile from the airport, I spot the North hangars
through the haze and mist. That tells me where the runways is, and I
spot the REILs so now I'm golden. I make a descending right turn
(still partially on instruments) and then a descending left turn (now
visual), and fortunately I have a stiff headwind on final so I don't
have to do anything really ugly to make the runway.

On the ground, the visibility is 10+ miles. A CFI in a Cessna asks me
where the bases are. I tell him right at mins, and I wasn't sure
until the last minute whether I would get in or not, so he takes off
for some VFR pattern work with a student. Automated weather claims
900 SCT, 2000 OVC, vis 10+. I look to the South of the airport. The
clouds there are clearly higher and less solid, so I guess the weather
station isn't broken. That's just the way it goes.

What did that pilot see on the approach? How long had it been since
his last recurrent training? All we can do is speculate. I once made
an ILS approach that was advertised at 900 and 3 - and it was right at
minimums, no ****, couldn't even see the approach lights until I was
below 250 ft. An airliner came in behind me and reported the approach
at mins. This wasn't some little podunk place, either - this was SHV,
a major Class C regional like RDU. My guess is that the Mooney pilot
encountered some conditions that were probably landable but more
demanding than what he was expecting, and he never got his head back
in the game.

Michael

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
Dave Butler wrote in message
...
Here's the story from today's local paper. They quote AOPA accident
statistics.
Guess AOPA got the word out that they are the source of expertise for GA
stories...

"Crashes of small planes are infrequent, considering how many take to
the skies,
said Warren Morningstar of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,
a
national group of more than 400,000 pilots.

Of the 40 million general aviation aircraft flights per year, there
are about
1,800 accidents, he said.

About 75 percent of the accidents are attributed to errors in judgment
by
pilots, he said."

Its good to see AOPA letting everyone know we're idiots. I can't see
what value there is in telling the press that most accidents are a
result of sunday flyers. Gee, we could probably get more favorable
comments from these guys..

www.stopthenoise.org

-Robert

What I take from the AOPA comment is that you should be careful who you fly
with. There are idiots out there, and at your home field, you probably know
who most of 'em are. So, don't fly with 'em and make sure your friends think
carefully before riding with someone they don't know particularly well.

KB

The NTSB now has its own preliminary report on the accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20040506X00564

Here's the key paragraph:

A preliminary review of radar data shows the pilot was conducting an ILS
approach, and was attempting to land on runway 5R. The pilot reported that
he was not familiar with the area and needed some assistance. RDU tower
controller provided the pilot with radar vectors to runway 5R. After the
two attempts to land, the Raleigh Durham tower offered to divert the pilot
to Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport. The pilot refused and
stated he needed to land at RDU. On the third attempt the tower controller
lost radio and radar contact with the airplane.

The report does not yet state why the pilot aborted the landings: it may
have been because of lower-than-reported visibility at the runway (such as a
small fog bank), or simply difficulty flying the approaches (such as
drifting too far off the LOC or GS and deciding to go around each time).
There is no mention of mechanical problems or fuel exhaustion, but that
might still be under investigation.


All the best, and fly safe,


David

[apologies if this has gone out twice]

The NTSB now has its own preliminary report on the accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20040506X00564

Here's the key paragraph:

A preliminary review of radar data shows the pilot was conducting an ILS
approach, and was attempting to land on runway 5R. The pilot reported that
he was not familiar with the area and needed some assistance. RDU tower
controller provided the pilot with radar vectors to runway 5R. After the
two attempts to land, the Raleigh Durham tower offered to divert the pilot
to Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport. The pilot refused and
stated he needed to land at RDU. On the third attempt the tower controller
lost radio and radar contact with the airplane.

The report does not yet state why the pilot aborted the landings: it may
have been because of lower-than-reported visibility at the runway (such as a
small fog bank), or simply difficulty flying the approaches (such as
drifting too far off the LOC or GS and deciding to go around each time).
There is no mention of mechanical problems or fuel exhaustion, but that
might still be under investigation.


All the best, and fly safe,


David