Hendrick Motorsports Report

It doesn't need to say that and the NTSB can't because there
was no cockpit voice recorder or other means to know what
was going on. But since the DME is on the LOC and the
approach chart shows 1 DME as the runway threshold/MAP and
they were tracked miles past the airport before they began a
missed approach proper use of the DME can be rules out.

Since the NDB is the IAP fix and they were well past the NDB
when they began the approach that can be relied on as being
an indication that the crew needed to have their two heads
working.

The GPS, should have shown them a clear view of the general
position of their airplane to the airport.

Since I am not a government official, I am not restricted
from making educated statements about the obvious.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
| In article 28IPf.116573$QW2.54634@dukeread08,
| says...
|
|
| It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
| They never were in position to do the approach. They did
| not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.
|
|
|
| The report doesn't really say that.
|
| GF
|

In article NTBQf.116896$QW2.34594@dukeread08,
says...


The GPS, should have shown them a clear view of the general
position of their airplane to the airport.

Since I am not a government official, I am not restricted
from making educated statements about the obvious.


Nor do I believe you should be restricted from giving your best guess on
it. However, the report states they were using the GPS, and strongly
hints they may have misinterpreted it, or not fully understood how to fly
it.

If true, it could be a case of pilots fully conversant with the "legacy"
IFR system, bcoming over-reliant on the GPS, because it's "easier" when
in fact they haven't even fully mastered its use. I believe it's more
constructive to speculate on how trained, qualified people get into
situations like this, than to state they crashed because they were
"stupid".

GF

I'm not sure I said they were stupid, I think I said they
did a stupid thing. The GPS was not IFR approved if I
remember what the report said. The approach is a LOC w DME
and LOM.

It is really a shame we are left with guessing about what,
how and why the crew made so many mistakes.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
| In article NTBQf.116896$QW2.34594@dukeread08,
| says...
|
|
| The GPS, should have shown them a clear view of the
general
| position of their airplane to the airport.
|
| Since I am not a government official, I am not restricted
| from making educated statements about the obvious.
|
|
| Nor do I believe you should be restricted from giving your
best guess on
| it. However, the report states they were using the GPS,
and strongly
| hints they may have misinterpreted it, or not fully
understood how to fly
| it.
|
| If true, it could be a case of pilots fully conversant
with the "legacy"
| IFR system, bcoming over-reliant on the GPS, because it's
"easier" when
| in fact they haven't even fully mastered its use. I
believe it's more
| constructive to speculate on how trained, qualified people
get into
| situations like this, than to state they crashed because
they were
| "stupid".
|
| GF
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

The GPS was not IFR approved if I remember what the report said.

Also, the accident aircraft's GPS database had expired by more than a year,
FWIW.


--
Peter

I think is why it wasn't an approved system.


"Peter R." wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| The GPS was not IFR approved if I remember what the
report said.
|
| Also, the accident aircraft's GPS database had expired by
more than a year,
| FWIW.
|
|
| --
| Peter

Jim Macklin wrote:

I think is why it wasn't an approved system.

Perhaps, but as you know it is possible to have an IFR-certified GPS unit,
such as the Bendix/King KLN90, installed in such a manner that it is not
certified for IFR flight.

A former acquaintance of mine (since moved to Arizona) flew a nicely
equipped Cessna P210 turbo. Nicely, that is, except for the fact that his
panel-mounted Bendix/King KLN89 was not IFR-certified, due to the
installation. He did mention that he had an appointment with an avionics
shop to rectify this, but I never did find out if he followed through or
what was needed in his case to certify the installation.

In the case of the King Air accident report, I don't recall reading
specifically why their GPS was not IFR certified.

--
Peter

It did not have a current database, which the NTSB reported
in the text as the reason it wasn't "approved."

The GPS apparently auto-cycled from the LOM to the airport
wpt when they over-flew the LOM and that caused the crew to
see the GPS as being about 6 miles from their position.

The crew was lost and confused, which should have resulted
in a missed approach while they were at 4,000 feet in the
area of the LOM. Instead they pressed on, to low altitude
straight into the mountain.

The had the equipment, but did not used it properly. If you
are using a GPS, you need to "hold" the auto-sequencing as
you approach a holding fix, you need to use the NDB and
DME/LOC to fix your position. When there is a question,
make a missed approach and ask ATC for a radar fix.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter R." wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| I think is why it wasn't an approved system.
|
| Perhaps, but as you know it is possible to have an
IFR-certified GPS unit,
| such as the Bendix/King KLN90, installed in such a manner
that it is not
| certified for IFR flight.
|
| A former acquaintance of mine (since moved to Arizona)
flew a nicely
| equipped Cessna P210 turbo. Nicely, that is, except for
the fact that his
| panel-mounted Bendix/King KLN89 was not IFR-certified, due
to the
| installation. He did mention that he had an appointment
with an avionics
| shop to rectify this, but I never did find out if he
followed through or
| what was needed in his case to certify the installation.
|
| In the case of the King Air accident report, I don't
recall reading
| specifically why their GPS was not IFR certified.
|
| --
| Peter

On 3/11/06 12:05 PM, in article , "Greg
Farris" wrote:

In article NTBQf.116896$QW2.34594@dukeread08,
says...


The GPS, should have shown them a clear view of the general
position of their airplane to the airport.

Since I am not a government official, I am not restricted
from making educated statements about the obvious.


Nor do I believe you should be restricted from giving your best guess on
it. However, the report states they were using the GPS, and strongly
hints they may have misinterpreted it, or not fully understood how to fly
it.

If true, it could be a case of pilots fully conversant with the "legacy"
IFR system, bcoming over-reliant on the GPS, because it's "easier" when
in fact they haven't even fully mastered its use. I believe it's more
constructive to speculate on how trained, qualified people get into
situations like this, than to state they crashed because they were
"stupid".

GF

What I find odd is that the missed approach calls for an immediate climbing
right turn, and there appears to be no turn at all after they went missed.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

The entire approach was flown improperly. And the missed
approached was out of the protected area and as you said,
does require an immediate climbing turn.


"Wizard of Draws"
wrote in message
news:C0389B43.6639B%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
| On 3/11/06 12:05 PM, in article
, "Greg
| Farris" wrote:
|
| In article NTBQf.116896$QW2.34594@dukeread08,
| says...
|
|
| The GPS, should have shown them a clear view of the
general
| position of their airplane to the airport.
|
| Since I am not a government official, I am not
restricted
| from making educated statements about the obvious.
|
|
| Nor do I believe you should be restricted from giving
your best guess on
| it. However, the report states they were using the GPS,
and strongly
| hints they may have misinterpreted it, or not fully
understood how to fly
| it.
|
| If true, it could be a case of pilots fully conversant
with the "legacy"
| IFR system, bcoming over-reliant on the GPS, because
it's "easier" when
| in fact they haven't even fully mastered its use. I
believe it's more
| constructive to speculate on how trained, qualified
people get into
| situations like this, than to state they crashed because
they were
| "stupid".
|
| GF
|
| What I find odd is that the missed approach calls for an
immediate climbing
| right turn, and there appears to be no turn at all after
they went missed.
| --
| Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
|
| Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
| http://www.wizardofdraws.com
|
| More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
| http://www.cartoonclipart.com
|

On 3/11/06 7:13 PM, in article SPJQf.116929$QW2.4426@dukeread08, "Jim
Macklin" wrote:

The entire approach was flown improperly. And the missed
approached was out of the protected area and as you said,
does require an immediate climbing turn.


I wonder if they had current, or correct charts, or even looked at it from
the way the approach was flown.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com