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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Montblack" wrote in message
... ("Gary Drescher" wrote) [Bob Moore] My rant for the day...but back to the subject, if one ascribes to professionalism, one must carefully weigh each and every word. In that case, please note that you meant "aspires", not "ascribes". :-) I'm cool with "ascribes" in this case... With ascribed, you've assigned yourself that quality - professionalism. No, not as Bob put it; look again. It would be proper to speak of ascribing professionalism to oneself. But that's not what Bob said. He spoke instead of "ascribing to professionalism". That makes no sense. (Ascribing *what* to professionalism?) In contrast, "If one *aspires* to X, one must do Y" is a standard formulation. --Gary |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The other thing about the OP's note is the pilot asked for circle to
land after flying the ILS to what sounds like MDA before breaking out. Fate punching one's ticket happens, but those of us who fly SEL in IMC often (at least if they were trained as I was) fly the approach expecting to fly the miss and treat finding the runway as a happy accident. We'd just not consider requesting circle to land under a 200 foot ceiling. Also, for those without a lot of 'actual' time, take that "expect to fly the miss" seriously. My experience is that about 5 percent of my IMC approaches (I flew a lot in New England, often to uncontrolled airports) were misses, and expecting to "fly runway heading to 1100 feet, right turn" etc is a lot less confusing than expecting to see the runway and then having to consult the approach plate at a faily busy time. That's my story and I'm sticking to it(and await the grammer police with a grin on my face, but Mooney jocks usually have a grin on their face). |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony" wrote in message
oups.com... That's my story and I'm sticking to it (and await the grammer police with a grin on my face, but Mooney jocks usually have a grin on their face). Don't worry--I, for one, consider it impolite to correct others' grammar, except when they themselves are lecturing on proper usage. :-) --Gary |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony" wrote in message
oups.com... The other thing about the OP's note is the pilot asked for circle to land after flying the ILS to what sounds like MDA before breaking out. Fate punching one's ticket happens, but those of us who fly SEL in IMC often (at least if they were trained as I was) fly the approach expecting to fly the miss and treat finding the runway as a happy accident. We'd just not consider requesting circle to land under a 200 foot ceiling. Exactly. A "circle to land" under a 200' ceiling can't possibly be legal or safe, so the very request already shows serious confusion about elementary IFR procedure (even though the crash itself didn't occur until the subsequent approach). --Gary |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote: "Tony" wrote in message oups.com... The other thing about the OP's note is the pilot asked for circle to land after flying the ILS to what sounds like MDA before breaking out. Fate punching one's ticket happens, but those of us who fly SEL in IMC often (at least if they were trained as I was) fly the approach expecting to fly the miss and treat finding the runway as a happy accident. We'd just not consider requesting circle to land under a 200 foot ceiling. Exactly. A "circle to land" under a 200' ceiling can't possibly be legal or safe, so the very request already shows serious confusion about elementary IFR procedure (even though the crash itself didn't occur until the subsequent approach). OK, I agree on this specific point. My OP on "getting your ticket punched" was more addressed at the suggestion that a 1400 hour pilot was unlikely to be involved in a fairly common, garden-variety accident mode. I still think it's grasping at straws to suggest that it was CO poisonin or a medical, but I suppose one could make a case for it. I still think the fact he was from Phoenix says an awful lot, potentially. -cwk. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
ups.com... Gary Drescher wrote: Exactly. A "circle to land" under a 200' ceiling can't possibly be legal or safe, so the very request already shows serious confusion about elementary IFR procedure (even though the crash itself didn't occur until the subsequent approach). OK, I agree on this specific point. My OP on "getting your ticket punched" was more addressed at the suggestion that a 1400 hour pilot was unlikely to be involved in a fairly common, garden-variety accident mode. I still think it's grasping at straws to suggest that it was CO poisonin or a medical, but I suppose one could make a case for it. I still think the fact he was from Phoenix says an awful lot, potentially. Ordinarily I'd agree, but the testimonials about his flying all over the place (not just in Arizona) suggest more familiarity with IMC than I'd be inclined to assume just from his hours and certificates. But yeah, I probably am grasping at straws--there just doesn't seem to be a really good explanation yet for this crash. --Gary |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, I should add that one reason I thought of pilot incapacitation is that
this crash reminded me of a similar fatality at KBED a couple of years ago. There too, a very experienced pilot crashed in benign IMC after exhibiting serious confusion during his first approach. In *that* case, the NTSB reported that a shaving kit found in the pilot's baggage contained used diabetes paraphernalia (even though the pilot, a physician, had not disclosed diabetes to his AME). http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?...FA205& akey=1 --Gary |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony" wrote in message
oups.com... Fate punching one's ticket happens, but those of us who fly SEL in IMC often (at least if they were trained as I was) fly the approach expecting to fly the miss and treat finding the runway as a happy accident. Yup. And even if the you forget to brief the missed approach, it still should be instinctive, once you know an approach has been botched, to climb using the final-approach heading (or just *any* heading) and then, when the climb is stable a few seconds later, to consult the chart or the tower to find out what to do next. That's especially true in this case since GON is in a flat coastal area, as the pilot would've known from even the most cursory preflight planning. --Gary |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
That's interesting. I'm based at BED and remember that crash pretty
well. The report doesn't draw any specific connection (nor did I see it call the items "used") but a 6.4% A1C would be consistent with diabetes. Best, -cwk. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com... That's interesting. I'm based at BED and remember that crash pretty well. The report doesn't draw any specific connection (nor did I see it call the items "used") It said "The Concord Police Department found a diabetic test kit, including a glucose test meter... The glucose test meter was read out at the manufacturer's facility under the supervision of an FAA airworthiness inspector. The readings were consistent with a diabetic person." So the test meter must've been used. --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Yet another A36 crash | H.P. | Piloting | 10 | April 23rd 05 05:58 PM |
update on Montrose crash | Bob Moore | Piloting | 3 | November 29th 04 02:38 PM |
Bizzare findings of Flight 93 crash in PA on 9-11 | Laura Bush murdered her boy friend | Military Aviation | 38 | April 12th 04 08:10 PM |
Bad publicity | David Starer | Soaring | 18 | March 8th 04 03:57 PM |
Sunday's Crash in LI Sound | Marco Leon | Piloting | 0 | November 5th 03 04:34 PM |