182 crash at GON

"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

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).

"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

"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

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.

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

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

"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

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.

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