Wellston Crash Report Quote

In article , Larry
Fransson wrote:

hey Larry, how about using CR/LF or linewraps in your posts? please.

--
Bob Noel

"EDR" wrote in message
...

AWOS and ASOS are no substitute for human observers and balloons.
It would be an interesting study to learn how many accidents have been
caused by pilots flying into conditions reported by ASOS and AWOS.


You still don't get it. AWOS isn't substituting for a human observer at
EVM. There was no human observer at EVM before the AWOS. If EVM didn't
have AWOS it would have no weather reporting at all.

In article k.net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

You still don't get it. AWOS isn't substituting for a human observer at
EVM. There was no human observer at EVM before the AWOS. If EVM didn't
have AWOS it would have no weather reporting at all.

No, you don't get it.
Weather observers were not just located at FSSs and airports. They were
also reported from other stations. For example, up until about five
years ago, there were a human observer reports from ECK. Is ECK an
airport? No. Is ECK a FSS? No. What is ECK? It's a VOR. You have to go
back and find a list of weather reporting stations from 20 years ago to
determine what other stations in the EVM area reported weather. Weather
reported from 100 miles or more distant from your destination is not
going to give you an accurate picture.
The guys and gals that worked in the local FSSs got to know local
conditions. They could look at an area forcast, get a big grin on their
faces and say to themselves, "Not here it isn't."
On my way back from Oshkosh this year I spoke with a briefer at Terre
Haute, and discussed local conditions between Fort Wayne and Muncie.
She had been around long enough and educated by the briefers that had
once been located in Eastern Indianna, and she knew that the weather in
how local conditions affected the area forecast. That kind of knowledge
is very rare in todays forecasting environment.
Computer graphics, ASOS and AWOS are helpful, but they do not fill in
the vast gaps of knowledge that were previously available to the
system.

"mike regish" wrote in message news:OxVub.191838$9E1.1021751@attbi_s52...
I thought this was a part 91 flight. Wasn't his kid flying the plane with
him in the right seat?

How's that a 135 operation?

I think you're confusing the Wellstone crash (charter flight
operating under part 135, flown by pilot who lied about his
prior training and experience into icing conditions) with
the Carnahan crash (pt 91 flight)

Even so, it's a mischaracterization of the latter. Randy Carnahan
was a commercial multiengine pilot and practicing lawyer over the
age of 21, not usually described as "kid". Mel Carnahan was a commercial
SE pilot not qualified to fly the C310 involved in the crash, and
while seating is unknown it's the testimony of friends that it was
his habit to sit in the back during such flights.

FWIW
Sydney

In article , Snowbird
wrote:

[snip]
SE pilot not qualified to fly the C310 involved in the crash, and
[end snip]

Cessna 337, wasn't it?
The family is suing Parker-Hanifin.

"EDR" wrote in message ...
In article , Snowbird
wrote:

[snip]
SE pilot not qualified to fly the C310 involved in the crash, and
[end snip]

Cessna 337, wasn't it?
The family is suing Parker-Hanifin.

335 actually which is a non-inline twin (shares the type certificate with the
320 and the 340 models).

EDR wrote in message
He stalled it because he flew into icing conditions and iced up.
AFSS's are so widely located the the local weather the smaller local
FSS's would gather provided filled in the gaps.

Hey - the NTSB sure could have used your help. They completely missed
the icing factor. In fact, the NTSB said that ICING WAS NOT A FACTOR.

Sometimes it helps to read what the NTSB actually says. From their
press release dated 18 November 2003:

The Board judged that while cloud cover might have prevented the
flight crew from seeing the airport, icing did not affect the
airplane's performance during the descent. Cockpit instrument readings
on course alignment and airspeed should have prompted the flight crew
to execute a go-around.

Instead, as others have said, the pilot just stalled the plane. In
short, it was just poor flying. Again, from the press release:

"During the later stages of the approach," the Board said, the flight
crew "failed to monitor the airplane's airspeed and allowed it to
decrease to a dangerously low level (as low as about 50 knots below
the company's recommended approach speed) and to remain below the
recommended approach speed for about 50 seconds." The airplane then
entered a stall from which it did not recover.

50 knots off the approach speed??? I don't think that even meets the
private pilot PTS standards.

So, now maybe you can clarify your point by explaining how the closure
of FSS resulted in this pilot not being able to fly the proper
approach speed.

Ace Pilot wrote:
Hey - the NTSB sure could have used your help. They completely missed
the icing factor. In fact, the NTSB said that ICING WAS NOT A FACTOR.


Interesting... the "Press Release" contains more information than the
final report contained in the database webpage.

DCA03MA008

On October 25, 2002, at about 1022 central daylight time, a Beech King
Air A100, N41BE, operated by Aviation Charter, Inc., crashed while on
the VOR approach to runway 27 at Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport
(EVM), Eveleth, Minnesota. The accident site was located approximately
two miles southeast of the runway 27 approach end. The airplane was
destroyed by impact forces and post-crash fire, and the six passengers
and two flight crewmembers were fatally injured. The airplane was being
operated as a charter flight under Title 14 CFR Part 135 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (FARs). Instrument meteorological conditions
existed at the time of the accident, and an instrument flight rules
(IFR) flight plan had been filed.

The public docket on this accident has been opened and includes NTSB
group chairman factual reports.

On 2003-11-20 04:23:29 -0800, Bob Noel said

In article , Larry
Fransson wrote

hey Larry, how about using CR/LF or linewraps in your posts? please

--
Bob Noe


Hmmm...my posts appear fine to me (in two different newsreaders, even). Which newsreader are you using? Do all of my posts have that problem, and does anyone else see them badly formatted

I'm beta testing a new newsreader, so if it has formatting problems, that would be good to know!

"Larry Fransson" wrote in message
news:2003112012393116807%newsgroups@larryandjenny. net...
Hmmm...my posts appear fine to me (in two different newsreaders, even).
Which newsreader are you using? Do all of my posts have that problem, and
does anyone else see them badly formatted?

You have to define "badly formatted". Your posts appear to not wrap text
within a paragraph. Some newsreaders will go ahead and reformat such test
for display, while others just clip the text at the edge of the window.

You'll also notice that, even though my newsreader wrapped your lines for me
so that I could read the whole message, when I went to quote it, only one
quote character per paragraph is used, since they are put at the beginning
of each CR/LF terminated line.

"Normal" practice would be to break lines at some reasonable point, usually
in the neighborhood of 72 characters (to allow for quote characters while
still remaining below 80 characters). Maybe your newsreader has a setting
that allows you to specify that.

Pete