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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
It's conceivable that the GS was giving a false reading without
flagging Is there a way you can check the GS reading? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |