I had been a controller 3 years when that mishap occurred, and I recall
that I wondered why the pilot would have descended so low when he hadn't
yet crossed Round Hill, where the 1800 segment began. 2 big clues that
the 1800 wasn't a good altitude are the MSA which is higher and the spot
elevation depicted right about where they were flying showing terrain at
1764 MSL. Nothing on the chart indicates that 1800 is a safe altitude at
that point. (They actually were about 1670' when they hit the ground.)
I do remember that controllers weren't required by 7110.65 (or was it
still FAAH 7110.8 back then) to provide an altitude to maintain until
established on a portion of the approach until after, and as a result of
this accident. It's a good rule, it's just too bad that the need for
that rule wasn't recognized back then.
There's a good article by AOPA on line at
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html that shows that other
pilots reacted differently to the same clearance.

JPH

wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:02:26 -0700, wrote:


So, you guys would have probably flown to the FAF at 7,000 then descended to
touchdown (300 feet) in some 5 miles. ;-)

I don't have a copy of the approach at hand, and I cannot recall how I
would have flown it. Clearly your supposition is ludicrous. However, I
would NOT have descended from 7,000' until I was on a charted portion of
the approach.

If you have a copy of that approach, I would be able to give you more
precise information.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)


It's on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

And, I stand corrected, there was information in the plan view (that should have
been in the provile view, that would have permitted descent from 7,000 11.6 miles
prior to the FAF. The flight crash 2 or 3 miles prior to ROUND HILL because they
descended to 1,800 prior to ROUND HILL based on their training and use of the
profile view.