Fatal Turboprop Crash in New Bedford, Massachusetts

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:14:28 -0500, Owen Rogers
wrote:


Is there any indication that Providence TRACON didn't know about the
NOTAM? The EWB ATIS certainly has included the glideslope (if not the
entire ILS) is out of service for some time.

In other words is there any indication that the aircraft was cleared for
the ILS 5 approach?

That's kind of what I was wondering.

"Denny" wrote:
What will cause lawsuits in this case is leaving the ILS transmitter
on when notamed out of service...
Bob Noel wrote:
Any such lawsuit should be immediately dismissed unless the OTS
system was transmitting a valid ident.
How many instrument-rated pilots remember that any navaid can be
on when OTS? How many instrument-rated pilots remember what the
ident will be in such a situation?

If only the glideslope portion is not working correctly, would not the
approach revert to a localizer approach with the accompanying increase
in criteria? (Hence no need to turn the system off.) As others have
posted, if you do not receive the propper identifier, don't use the
signal.

In article , Owen Rogers wrote:

Funny thing about Massachusetts is they feel the need to have some
little state agency run around and "investigate" airplane accidents.
This despite the NTSB (and/or FAA as needed) already does that anyway.

You can't spend all the taxpayer money (excuse, me, STATE money), unless you
some state agency "doing" something.

(-{

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel asked
... How many instrument-rated pilots remember that any navaid can be
on when OTS? How many instrument-rated pilots remember what the
ident will be in such a situation?

I do! I do!

Never mind. Blueskies beat me to it.

Reminds me of a Ron Machado joke. He'd learned to copy Morse code so he
could verify idents without looking at a chart. On a flight once his
instructor asked why he hadn't identified a navaid. Ron said he had. The
instructor said he saw Ron hadn't looked at the chart. Ron explained that he
could copy Morse code. The instructor tested him by tuning in another navaid
and challenging him to identify it. "What did that say?" "Dah-di-di-dit
di-dah-dah-dah dah-di-dah-dit," Ron replied. I'm still waiting for the
chance to try this gag.

Jon

B A R R Y wrote:

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:14:28 -0500, Owen Rogers
wrote:


Is there any indication that Providence TRACON didn't know about the
NOTAM? The EWB ATIS certainly has included the glideslope (if not the
entire ILS) is out of service for some time.

In other words is there any indication that the aircraft was cleared for
the ILS 5 approach?

That's kind of what I was wondering.

We should find out when FAA releases the accident summary tomorrow morning.
It usually includes the last clearance, e.g. Cleared for XXX approach.

On Feb 3, 10:08 am, Owen Rogers wrote:
A Pennsylvania trial lawyer, his wife, and a third person were killed in
tragedy last night when their Socata TBM turboprob crashed during a
second approach to New Bedford Regional in southeastern Massachusetts.
Weather conditions weren't great, with a mix of rain and snow, low
ceilings (around 200'), very low freezing levels, and reduced ground
visibility.

Also, the runway 5 ILS has been NOTAMed out of service, and there has
been a NOTAM that the approach lights to rwy 5 have been out of service
since about August due to a vegetation issue.

The Boston Globe had a detailed article about the crash, but the
discussion about the lighting system is very confusing.

"Norman Komich , a retired US Airways pilot, said airline pilots were
not allowed to land if ILS runway edge lights are not operating."
[who knows what the reporter told him about the crash to get that
quote about "edge lights."]
.....
"Lang confirmed that the runway lights that were part of New Bedford
Regional's ILS were off at the time of the crash. The lights extend from
the end of the runway 2,400 feet down each side of the strip."

[My impression is that approach lighting systems are part of the ILS,
but runway edge lights are not. There is no indication that there were
any NOTAMs for runway edge lights being inoperative, so perhaps the
2,400 ft is beyond the runway threshold, and the reporter misinterpreted
that as "down each side the strip."

(Boston Globe is owned by New York Times Co. so that may explain any
misreporting).

Boston Globehttp://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/02/03/th...

Allentown Morning Callhttp://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-karolykilled0203,0,4753162.story?...

Are you saying he was cleared for an approach that was NOTAM'd as
closed?

-Robert