Just push the blue button!

"Bob F." wrote in message
. ..
"Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote in message
news
"Tman" x@x wrote in message
. ..
Bob Noel wrote:

hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still
\
I think you're confusing VMC and VFR.
It may have been legal VFR.
legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
VMC?
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent
over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.
Factors in the accident were haze, and the dark night.

That's IMC buddy. Could be a clear VACU night over water with no
moonlight, and if you can't maintain a horizon due to those factors,
thats IMC even though it is also very much legal VFR.

No, that's not necessarily IMC. IMC means less than legal VFR.

I believe he WAS in IMC, however there's little doubt he was at least in
instrument conditions, which is not the same as IMC.


As they say, looks like he flew into Cumulo-Granite.

--
Regards, Bob F.
Loks like you are combining multiple accidents:

1. J.F.Kennedy Jr. was asserted to be VFR in VMC sans horizon with
horizontal visiblility well above minimum. He was generally regarded as a
novice pilot and may have shown poor decision making and instrument skills.

2. Some have recently speculated that Steve Fossett may have encountered a
mountain while in or exiting a brief period of IMC; but that has certainly
not been established. He was regarded as an excellent pilot with, so far as
I know, no detractors.

Somehow, the parallel is not obvious.

One thing regarding Steve Fossett...

He was flying a Super Decathlon, many of which do not carry any gyro
instruments.

Gyros do not like aerobatics, which is one of the primary missions of the
Super Decathlon.



"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .
"Bob F." wrote in message
. ..
"Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote in message
news
"Tman" x@x wrote in message
. ..
Bob Noel wrote:

hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but
still \
I think you're confusing VMC and VFR.
It may have been legal VFR.
legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
VMC?
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a
descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial
disorientation. Factors in the accident were haze, and the dark night.

That's IMC buddy. Could be a clear VACU night over water with no
moonlight, and if you can't maintain a horizon due to those factors,
thats IMC even though it is also very much legal VFR.

No, that's not necessarily IMC. IMC means less than legal VFR.

I believe he WAS in IMC, however there's little doubt he was at least in
instrument conditions, which is not the same as IMC.


As they say, looks like he flew into Cumulo-Granite.

--
Regards, Bob F.
Loks like you are combining multiple accidents:

1. J.F.Kennedy Jr. was asserted to be VFR in VMC sans horizon with
horizontal visiblility well above minimum. He was generally regarded as a
novice pilot and may have shown poor decision making and instrument
skills.

2. Some have recently speculated that Steve Fossett may have encountered
a mountain while in or exiting a brief period of IMC; but that has
certainly not been established. He was regarded as an excellent pilot
with, so far as I know, no detractors.

Somehow, the parallel is not obvious.

Tman,

That's IMC buddy.


Show me the regs! Show me where it says in the regs that IMC is defined
as "any weather in which only flight by reference to instruments is
possible" or something to that effect. And good luck!

The conditions may have been such that you could not maintain your
flight attitude without reference to instruments - but that's got
nothing to do with IMC.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

The conditions may have been such that you could not maintain your
flight attitude without reference to instruments - but that's got
nothing to do with IMC.

It doesn't matter, since you risk ending up dead either way.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert writes:

The conditions may have been such that you could not maintain your
flight attitude without reference to instruments - but that's got
nothing to do with IMC.

It doesn't matter, since you risk ending up dead either way.


You're an idiot.


Bertie

Bob Noel wrote:

Mike wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote:

Mike wrote:

Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. I don't know
that it has ever made a difference, however there are a large number
of fatalities caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).

John-John was VFR to IMC?

Yep.

hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still
legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
VMC?

Conditions were reported at above VFR minimums. The FAA manager at the
airport said that conditions were likely better than the official reports
at the time of the accident.

The NTSB report simply said that there can be illusions when flying over
sparcely-populated areas or over water in hazy conditions. In this case,
the loss of horizon:

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

"James Robinson" wrote in message
.. .
Bob Noel wrote:

Mike wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote:

Mike wrote:

Diamond already has this on some of their aircraft. I don't know
that it has ever made a difference, however there are a large number
of fatalities caused by VFR to IMC (just like John-John).

John-John was VFR to IMC?

Yep.

hmmm, all the wx reports I saw were legal VMC (not smart VMC, but still
legal). Do you have reference to reports that the conditions were not
VMC?

Conditions were reported at above VFR minimums. The FAA manager at the
airport said that conditions were likely better than the official reports
at the time of the accident.

The NTSB report simply said that there can be illusions when flying over
sparcely-populated areas or over water in hazy conditions. In this case,
the loss of horizon:

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

He didn't crash at the airport. Also any conditions reported by automated
wx stations only report conditions on the ground. Nantucket was reporting 4
miles visibility with mist in the area at the time. So even going by the
ground stations, clearly there were conditions in the general area that were
damn close to IMC. He didn't loose it near the ground either, he lost it at
altitude and probably around 2-3,000'.

One pilot reported visibilities as low as 2 miles in the area. Another flew
over Martha's Vinyard and thought there was a power outage because he saw no
lights. Most pilots in the area reported conditions much lower than was
forcast. Furthermore no pilot operating under VFR is going to tell the NTSB
they were in IMC.

At the time of the accident, John-John was training to get his instrument
ticket and he had flown in IMC with an instructor at night. Although he
wasn't ready for his checkride, he also wasn't completely ignorant of IFR.
Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some moonlight.
That's why I think he probably got into a bit of IMC and lost it before the
crash. I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to trip him
up.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:08:06 GMT, Mike wrote:

At the time of the accident, John-John was training to get his instrument
ticket and he had flown in IMC with an instructor at night. Although he
wasn't ready for his checkride, he also wasn't completely ignorant of IFR.
Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some moonlight.
That's why I think he probably got into a bit of IMC and lost it before the
crash. I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to trip him
up.

He couldn't multi-task and was in MT overload adding spatial
disorientation, pitiful pre-flight and a bad foot. He screwed the pooch
when he failed to redirect his bank prior to pitch, spiral city.

His CFIs should have picked up on this MT thing..perhaps.

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:08:06 GMT, Mike wrote:

At the time of the accident, John-John was training to get his instrument
ticket and he had flown in IMC with an instructor at night. Although he
wasn't ready for his checkride, he also wasn't completely ignorant of
IFR.
Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
moonlight.
That's why I think he probably got into a bit of IMC and lost it before
the
crash. I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to trip
him
up.

He couldn't multi-task and was in MT overload adding spatial
disorientation, pitiful pre-flight and a bad foot. He screwed the pooch
when he failed to redirect his bank prior to pitch, spiral city.

His CFIs should have picked up on this MT thing..perhaps.

They did.

"The CFI stated that the pilot's basic instrument flying skills and
simulator work were excellent. However, the CFI stated that the pilot had
trouble managing multiple tasks while flying, which he felt was normal for
the pilot's level of experience."

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:45:48 GMT, Mike wrote:

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:08:06 GMT, Mike wrote:

At the time of the accident, John-John was training to get his instrument
ticket and he had flown in IMC with an instructor at night. Although he
wasn't ready for his checkride, he also wasn't completely ignorant of
IFR.
Clearly he was a victim of spatial disorientation, which certainly can
happen at night, but that particular night he had at least some
moonlight.
That's why I think he probably got into a bit of IMC and lost it before
the
crash. I think it would have taken more than just a bit of haze to trip
him
up.

He couldn't multi-task and was in MT overload adding spatial
disorientation, pitiful pre-flight and a bad foot. He screwed the pooch
when he failed to redirect his bank prior to pitch, spiral city.

His CFIs should have picked up on this MT thing..perhaps.

They did.

"The CFI stated that the pilot's basic instrument flying skills and
simulator work were excellent. However, the CFI stated that the pilot had
trouble managing multiple tasks while flying, which he felt was normal for
the pilot's level of experience."

Hmmmm, 300 hours dual and still having this problem. It was his
decision, probably thinking that he could auto pilot most of the way. So
many majorly bad decisions.