If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago lawyers plane found in Toronto harbour
I heard on the radio that a small plane from Chicago went missing in the fog
during a landing attempt at the Toronto City Centre Airport. This morning I see in the newspaper that the plane and the pilot have been located at the bottom of Lake Ontario. The plane was a Beechcraft that could seat six people. There has been no known reason, as yet, as to the cause of the crash, according to the article. I think this type of crash may be preventable, if it was due to poor visibility, by the construction of radio signal buoys parallel to the runways lights and a simple receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing over the runway. All of this technology is available, is it not? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
We have radio signals that parallel the runways, they are called localizers.
Light beams have been tried all the way back to before WWII without any favorable outcomes. Rick Pellicciotti "Wooduuuward" wrote in message ... I heard on the radio that a small plane from Chicago went missing in the fog during a landing attempt at the Toronto City Centre Airport. This morning I see in the newspaper that the plane and the pilot have been located at the bottom of Lake Ontario. The plane was a Beechcraft that could seat six people. There has been no known reason, as yet, as to the cause of the crash, according to the article. I think this type of crash may be preventable, if it was due to poor visibility, by the construction of radio signal buoys parallel to the runways lights and a simple receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing over the runway. All of this technology is available, is it not? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Wooduuuward" wrote in message ... I heard on the radio that a small plane from Chicago went missing in the fog during a landing attempt at the Toronto City Centre Airport. This morning I see in the newspaper that the plane and the pilot have been located at the bottom of Lake Ontario. The plane was a Beechcraft that could seat six people. There has been no known reason, as yet, as to the cause of the crash, according to the article. I think this type of crash may be preventable, if it was due to poor visibility, by the construction of radio signal buoys parallel to the runways lights and a simple receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing over the runway. All of this technology is available, is it not? Don't take this as a flame or a slam. It is becoming more and more apparent to me (and others, I would think) that you are new to aviation. As a place to learn, this is a great forum. I do have a suggestion that will keep you from coming off as a know-it-all, or an ass. As in the case of this post, instead of suggesting a solution to a problem, why not come out with a question, as to what is available? You will get answers, but without making yourself look foolish. In other words, be humble, confess that you don't know it all, and seek answers. It will keep your reputation much less unstained. YMMV. -- Jim in NC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wooduuuward wrote:
receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing over the runway. All of this technology is available, is it not? Yes it is. It's called a VASI. If you can't see that, you can't see a laser beam either. -- ----Because I can---- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/ ------------------------ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Three disagreements with what you said:
1) Whatever the statistics say, it is purely wild speculation that it was pilot error in this case. 2) I strongly disagree that technological innovations will not help reduce pilot errors. Technology has made a huge difference. 3) Single pilot IFR is far from "as dangerous as it gets." Plenty of flying activities are significantly more dangerous. "Rick Pellicciotti" wrote in message news:3f0ee130$1@ham... Wrong. He was instrumented rated and his airplane was instrument equipped. He was also a fairly accomplished aerobatic competitor and airshow pilot. There hasn't been nor will there ever be a technological solution to pilot error. Flying solo, in a complex airplane, in IFR conditions is about as dangerous as it gets. Rick Pellicciotti "Hal Davey" wrote in message news:uKzPa.35615$H17.10623@sccrnsc02... Sounds like a case of a non-instrument rated pilot trying to find the bottom of the overcast. He did. Cheers, Hal Davey |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message et... Three disagreements with what you said: 1) Whatever the statistics say, it is purely wild speculation that it was pilot error in this case. 2) I strongly disagree that technological innovations will not help reduce pilot errors. Technology has made a huge difference. 3) Single pilot IFR is far from "as dangerous as it gets." Plenty of flying activities are significantly more dangerous. "Rick Pellicciotti" wrote in message news:3f0ee130$1@ham... Wrong. He was instrumented rated and his airplane was instrument equipped. He was also a fairly accomplished aerobatic competitor and airshow pilot. There hasn't been nor will there ever be a technological solution to pilot error. Flying solo, in a complex airplane, in IFR conditions is about as dangerous as it gets. Rick Pellicciotti "Hal Davey" wrote in message news:uKzPa.35615$H17.10623@sccrnsc02... Sounds like a case of a non-instrument rated pilot trying to find the bottom of the overcast. He did. Cheers, Hal Davey Thanks for a voice of reason. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message ... On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:39:28 GMT, Ernest Christley wrote: Wooduuuward wrote: receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing over the runway. All of this technology is available, is it not? Yes it is. It's called a VASI. If you can't see that, you can't see a laser beam either. Toronto Island is a tricky airport. Between the smog of Hogtown and the weather overLlake Ontario, there are a LOT of poor visibility days. Single Pilot IFR is not TOO dangerous if you are an accomplished IFR pilot and familiar with the airport. You want to be GOOD at the IFR thing. Being good takes lots of practice. Remember the Bonanzas? Lots of Doctors and lawyers Nope. Not lawyers. They're fork-tailed doctor killers. I like doctors but they are remiss at gassing up. Mostimes they run out of fuel. Hell. One ran out of fuel and landed his B00nanza in the lot at Epcot Center. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Many runways have localizers or other radio aids to help aircraft land. The
most precise of these is the ILS system, which allows you to not only track in to the runway, but also guides you down in altitude as well. GPS with WAAS promises such precision approaches will someday be available at airports that do not have expensive ILS equipment. There is no such thing as a visible laser beam. In order for you to see any kind of light, it has to be reflected off some kind of surface. If you want to see a laser beam you have to shine it through a fog or cloud of dust of some kind. I know that in Hollywood you can always see laser beams, but all Hollywood movies use physics from some other universe than our own. This is why in movies you not only see laser beams, but also bullets always flash when they hit something, people can outrun shock waves, and people can stand around in shorts and without oxygen masks in a cargo plane that has the doors open in flight, but the hero needs oxygen and a protective suit the moment he leaves the airplane. You cannot shine a laser beam at an airplane cockpit because it might blind the pilot. The same fog or clouds that render an airport invisible will also obscure a laser beam. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Riley" wrote in message news :There has been no known reason, as yet, as to the cause of the crash, according :to the article. :I think this type of crash may be preventable, if it was due to poor visibility, by the :construction of radio signal buoys parallel to the runways lights and a simple :receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing over the runway. :All of this technology is available, is it not? Easily preventable, it just takes money. Good IFR instruments and a rated pilot would take care of it. The new GPS terrain aware maps, and terrain view horizions, would have prevented it easily. But they aren't cheap. You should offer your services to the NTSB since you know the reason for this accident without even seeing the aircraft or knowing anything else about the circumstances. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The area was fogged in at the time of the crash.
C J Campbell wrote: snip. . . There is no such thing as a visible laser beam. In order for you to see any kind of light, it has to be reflected off some kind of surface. If you want to see a laser beam you have to shine it through a fog or cloud of dust of some kind. I know that in Hollywood you can always see laser beams, but all Hollywood movies use physics from some other universe than our own.P |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | October 1st 04 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | September 1st 04 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | July 1st 04 08:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | June 1st 04 08:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | December 1st 03 06:27 AM |