NTSB Preliminary report on HPN crash

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2 - It appears that his medical was out of date and he was not legal to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

"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

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

"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

"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.