NTSB final report on Hendrick crash

Maule Driver wrote:

The implication is that the plan to fly to this airport, in that
weather, with that aircraft flown by those pilots, was a bad decision.
Everything seems fine to me. That situation seems to me to be exactly
why race teams use GA.

For a personal flight it wouldn't be a bad decision at all given the
marginal weather. For a "must arrive" situation it was bad planning.

Two competent, proficient, experienced pilots just botched it. There
are a lot things to learn from it and avoid having it happen again.

I don't know what the lesson to be learned is, other than they were
certainly not competent and proficient that day.

I've been watching this stuff for a long time, and these kinds of errant
blunders happen over and over. That's why airliners have TAWS these
days, which was an outgrowth of GPWS, whicn in turn came about because
of an air carrier errant blunder.


Of all GA users, one might guess that NASCAR race teams understand the
balance between pursuing goals, risk taking, and safety. Nothing is
100% - you simply keep trying to get there.

Sam Spade wrote:
Maule Driver wrote:

The implication is that the plan to fly to this airport, in that
weather, with that aircraft flown by those pilots, was a bad decision.
Everything seems fine to me. That situation seems to me to be exactly
why race teams use GA.

For a personal flight it wouldn't be a bad decision at all given the
marginal weather. For a "must arrive" situation it was bad planning.

Someone did suggest that there was some urgency to the flight (urgency
is relative, without urgency, no need to fly). But there's *no*
indication that there was any 'get there-itis' or "must arrive" pressure
involved was there? It appears they pushed on beyond the miss point
because they didn't realize they missed the miss.

Two competent, proficient, experienced pilots just botched it. There
are a lot things to learn from it and avoid having it happen again.

I don't know what the lesson to be learned is, other than they were
certainly not competent and proficient that day.
Huh? "How to use and not use a GPS' lessons seems to be written all
over it. But if you just want to knock the pilots, then nothing will be
learned. My personal conclusion and lesson is that you need to stick
with your primary navigation instruments and use the backup as backup.
But that's me.

I've been watching this stuff for a long time, and these kinds of errant
blunders happen over and over. That's why airliners have TAWS these
days, which was an outgrowth of GPWS, whicn in turn came about because
of an air carrier errant blunder.

And tomorrow we will be wondering why *anyone* would dare fly a trip
uncoupled from TO to landing or even consider flying in an aircraft with
out a autopilot capable of flying from startup to shutdown. This wasn't
an airline flight and yet they were well equipped and the operation
seemingly well managed.

Maule Driver wrote:
..

Huh? "How to use and not use a GPS' lessons seems to be written all
over it. But if you just want to knock the pilots, then nothing will be
learned. My personal conclusion and lesson is that you need to stick
with your primary navigation instruments and use the backup as backup.
But that's me.


There are no new lessons to be learned from this accident. Because of
the lack of a CVR the NTSB is being speculative about the use of the GPS.

Sam Spade wrote:

Maule Driver wrote:
.

Huh? "How to use and not use a GPS' lessons seems to be written all
over it. But if you just want to knock the pilots, then nothing will be
learned. My personal conclusion and lesson is that you need to stick
with your primary navigation instruments and use the backup as backup.
But that's me.


There are no new lessons to be learned from this accident. Because of
the lack of a CVR the NTSB is being speculative about the use of the GPS.

Sam that is perhaps the case with most accidents. I hear "We must
learn from this." In most cases yet the mistakes are recurring ones.
Maybe a listing of pilot screwups would help yet I suspect that you
won't reduce accidents much.

Technology can help in some cases. Even a simple Garmin with terrain
functionality, especially if there is an audible alert, may prevent
some accidents yet not flying in those conditions works 100%.

Personally, I would prefer to quit hearing about "We can all learn
from this fatality" and have those experts determine how to prevent
them in the first place.

Ron Lee

Personally, I would prefer to quit hearing about "We can all learn
from this fatality" and have those experts determine how to prevent
them in the first place.

Um... that's what we're trying to learn from them.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

Personally, I would prefer to quit hearing about "We can all learn
from this fatality" and have those experts determine how to prevent
them in the first place.

Um... that's what we're trying to learn from them.

Jose

Um, do you have to have people fly into buildings to know that it is
not a good thing to do?

Fly into Class 5 (?) thunderstorms?

Scud run in the mountains?

Run out of fuel?

Take off on a runway that is too short?

How many unforeseen accident causes do we really see that a competent
pilot with good judgement should know to avoid?

Ron Lee

Um, do you have to have people fly into buildings to know that it is
not a good thing to do?

I'm glad I read the newsgroups. I just learned that crashing is a Bad
Thing.

The question is =why= an otherwise good pilot made a bad mistake. Or
sometimes, why a small mistake turned out really bad this time.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.