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

IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 5th 05, 08:56 AM
Judah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

No, but it can prevent you from having your altimeter set incorrectly
so that you fly into the water when you think you are 500' above
it...


So can listening to an ATIS or ASOS/AWOS broadcast. Flight following
would not have prevented this accident.

Are you saying that JFK Jr's altimeter was improperly set? If so,
what is your evidence?


No. I am saying is none of us know for certain what happened that night.
There are many theories, but incomplete evidence. There is no way to
definitively prove the root cause of the accident. Your theory of him
getting into a graveyard spiral, while popular and seemingly plausible,
also has holes. As was described earlier in this thread - he had over 100
hours of hood time, and should have been capable of recognizing that
something was wrong and turning on his autopilot...
  #2  
Old November 5th 05, 12:21 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?

Judah wrote:

As was described earlier in this thread - he had over 100
hours of hood time, and should have been capable of recognizing that
something was wrong and turning on his autopilot...


Where are you getting this "100 hours of hood time" fact? The NTSB
accident reports estimates that JFK only had 310 hours. Additionally, the
NTSB report mentions that he has 13.3 hours of time with a CFII during his
instrument training and 16.9 hours of simulator time.

Your "over 100 hours of hood time" is not at all believable, much less
supported by the facts reported in the accident report.

Here, it appears to me that the facts of the accident report may not be as
fresh on your mind as they once we

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X19354&key=1

--
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 =----
  #3  
Old November 5th 05, 12:29 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

No. I am saying is none of us know for certain what happened that night.
There are many theories, but incomplete evidence. There is no way to
definitively prove the root cause of the accident. Your theory of him
getting into a graveyard spiral, while popular and seemingly plausible,
also has holes.


I posited no such theory.



As was described earlier in this thread - he had over 100
hours of hood time, and should have been capable of recognizing that
something was wrong and turning on his autopilot...


A loss of control due to spatial disorientation best fits the evidence.


 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.