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
|
|||
|
|||
"J Haggerty" wrote in message
news:sQzee.4525$Ri4.3415@okepread07... Matt Whiting wrote: To show him what an instrument approach looks like? If the instructor was qualified and current, this shouldn't have been a problem. Descending below minimums is the problem, it doesn't matter who is flying or who is in the right seat. Matt He may not have been far from his minimums if he was flying the ILS. DA for the ILS was 639 MSL, and based on the accident report, combined with terrain elevations north of the approach end, and 75' tree height, he may have impacted the tree at about 610 MSL. This would have been possible if he was below glideslope, and then initiated go-around at his DA (DH). He would have had some height loss expected before the aircraft responded. But he was still a mile out when he crashed. Well above the DA, he'd have to have been fully below the glideslope, which calls for an immediate missed-approach execution. The DA has no relevance in that situation. --Gary |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote: But he was still a mile out when he crashed. Well above the DA, he'd have to have been fully below the glideslope, which calls for an immediate missed-approach execution. The DA has no relevance in that situation. --Gary Yes, he would have been well below the theoretical glideslope elevation a mile out (GS elev at that point is approx 812 MSL), but if for some reason (GS malfunction, undetected false glideslope, equipment problem) he thought he was on the glideslope, then he probably would not have initiated go-around until the 639 MSL DA, which would have been too late based on the elevation of the terrain. If the 200 AGL ceiling was at the same MSL (839) elevation at the crash site, then it was only about 20' AGL at the crash site elevation. Hopefully the final report will shed more light on what happened, as all we can do is guess. JPH |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve S" wrote in message
... How about why is an instructor taking a primary student, he doesn't even have a pp-asel, up in 200- 1/2 with a 0 temp/dew point spread? It's not necessarily unreasonable to show a primary student what LIFR is like, if the student is interested in the experience. (I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot who wants to come along sometime when I shoot approaches in IMC. I'm happy to oblige, and I'm not even a CFI.) The reported winds were benign, and the reported ceiling and visibility were adequate for the approach. It should've been easy for a competent instrument pilot. But given the low-altitude alert and the apparently continued low altitude until impact, it seems conceivable that the instructor was actually letting the student fly the approach, and failed to take control when the plane got dangerously low. --Gary |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Farris wrote: Come on now, that's a wild guess! Could have been any number of things. Maybe they couldn't find the GS. Maybe they thought they were still above it, when they were already below it. Sounds like there was some confusion about what their actual altitude was, which should not be going on if established on an ILS a mile out. According to the controller's radar they lost 300ft in 14 sec - trying to duck under? Trying toget their GS indicator to come alive? Maybe there was something wrong with the instrument - we can't exclude that at this early stage. The weather report indicated 200 ft - but that was 20 minutes earlier. The Citation reported 200 also, but when I hear jets reporting minimums, I always wonder if it's really lower, and they just don't want to say it. For now, it remains a tragedy for the freinds and families of the victims, otherwise an approach accident in low IFR, and we'll have to wait to know more. G Faris What do you do when you cannot get the GS on approach? Can you descent? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
i"JimBob" wrote in message
oups.com... What do you do when you cannot get the GS on approach? Can you descent? If you cannot get the GS in an ILS apporach, then it turns into a localizer approach, which has higher minimums. You can descend down to the MDA (minimum descent altitude), which typically can be as low as 400'AGL... but if there are obstacles around it may be a lot higher (i.e here at FTY in atlanta its about 700'AGL.). If you cannot make it, then you shall go to your alternate. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do when you cannot get the GS on approach? Can you
descent? If you are ready for it, and the approach contains LOC minima, you can do a LOC approach, and descend as appropriate when you pass the given fixes. OTherwise, do not descend, proceed to the MAP, and go missed. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Farris" wrote in message
... In article , says... But given the low-altitude alert and the apparently continued low altitude until impact, it seems conceivable that the instructor was actually letting the student fly the approach, and failed to take control when the plane got dangerously low. Come on now, that's a wild guess! I clearly characterized it as a guess. I don't think it's particularly wild though. Could have been any number of things. Maybe they couldn't find the GS. Then they should have flown above the LOC minimums, or gone missed. Any other decision would be grossly incompetent. I'm making the charitable assumption that the CFII at least knew how to fly an approach properly himself, but may not have developed a sound technique for letting a student fly it safely. Maybe they thought they were still above it, when they were already below it. Sounds like there was some confusion about what their actual altitude was, which should not be going on if established on an ILS a mile out. According to the controller's radar they lost 300ft in 14 sec - trying to duck under? Could've been just 200', if the controller's radar was rounded to the nearest 100. Still, that's indeed on the faster side. But in any case, trying to duck under a reported 200' ceiling from a mile out would not have been a competent decision. Trying toget their GS indicator to come alive? Maybe there was something wrong with the instrument - we can't exclude that at this early stage. Trying to get the GS indicator to come alive by diving while inside the FAF and after having acknowledged a low-altitude altert a few hundred feet AGL? That would be beyond mere incompetence. It's conceivable that the GS was giving a false reading without flagging (and without the needle just being stuck in one place, which would've been readily noticeable), though I've never heard of that happening (if you penetrate the GS at the prescribed altitude). But if the GS did falsely indicate a proper altitude, the pilot should certainly have gone missed as soon as the altitude alert was issued. If your GS says you're on target and the controller's radar says otherwise, you don't continue the approach until you figure out which is right. The weather report indicated 200 ft - but that was 20 minutes earlier. The Citation reported 200 also, but when I hear jets reporting minimums, I always wonder if it's really lower, and they just don't want to say it. Could be, but they crashed a mile out. A lower ceiling wouldn't have had any effect until they reached DA (and even then, the only effect it should have is to trigger a missed approach). --Gary |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
It's conceivable that the GS was giving a false reading without
flagging Is there a way you can check the GS reading? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
While I'd agree that taking a student pilot may be wasting resources if he
tries to shoot IFR approaches before getting his pilot's license, I think taking a student pilot for an IMC flight is extremely valuable and may help him realize how easy is to get disoriented and how worthless our sense of balance turns once we are in the clouds. My personal preffered way to do it is taking friends who are students pilots to get a free ride in the back seat when I am doing practice instrument approaches in IMC with my instructor (I am IFR rated but I want to keep current). I think having students pilots experience IMC is great for awareness of how tough it could be to fly IMC. Probably would not be very useful trying to make them fly the approach. I think it is not even useful to have instrument students fly approaches their first few lessons. guillermo "Steve S" wrote in message ... How about why is an instructor taking a primary student, he doesn't even have a pp-asel, up in 200- 1/2 with a 0 temp/dew point spread? "Peter R." wrote in message ... Tom Fleischman k wrote: If you want to read something really disturbing, this is it. Is there something specific that is disturbing, or are you referring to the entire report? I read through it and, while it is always disturbing when an accident results in fatalities, I honestly didn't see anything that stuck out as *really disturbing* such as drugs, alcohol, or a blatant mistake. What did I miss? -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for a See and Avoid NTSB report | Ace Pilot | Piloting | 2 | June 10th 04 01:01 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Wellston Crash Report Quote | EDR | Piloting | 26 | November 21st 03 10:50 PM |
Report blames pilots in crash of two Navy jets | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 26th 03 01:27 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |