C-172 down at HPN - 2 fatalities

What he was doing was putting IMC time in the CFI's logbook.


It's worth noting that the student was NOT an instrument student. He
was still working on his private ticket. It was a pretty low day for a
student pilot to be shooting instrument approaches, in fact I have no
idea what they were doing out there that day. I can't imagine my
primary instructor allowing me out in such low weather.

Tom Fleischman wrote:

Believe me, by the time he got to his final position he would have been
handed off long ago. Normally NY App does the handoff shortly before
clearing for the approach, certainly outside the HESTER (the outer
makrker/FAF). He went down less than a half mile from the threshold.

How is the approach clearance delivered *after* the handoff?

Andrew Gideon wrote:

It's possible that there was no contact with the tower if the pilot hadn't
been handed off yet (or if he never made contact with the tower after the
hand-off).

He's 1/4 mile from the runway and hasn't been handed off yet?

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote:

It's possible that there was no contact with the tower if the pilot
hadn't been handed off yet (or if he never made contact with the tower
after the hand-off).

He's 1/4 mile from the runway and hasn't been handed off yet?

Or he never completed the hand-off. TRACON might have switched him at 5
miles, but the aircraft never contacted the tower. I don't know.

Frankly, there's a lot about this that confuses me. No warnings about being
too low from ATC? I once has a TRACON controller contact me almost
breathlessly about my altitude (which was, fortunately, a transponder
problem). And this was in VMC.

Also, although I'm not sure how that's come out, people here are now
speaking of the student as a primary student. That makes the flight a lot
more odd.

But perhaps he wanted to see what IMC was like, for some reason, or...I just
don't know.

This does trigger a memory, though. During my primary training, my CFI
wanted to go up into a snowstorm. Not knowing any better, I questioned it
but didn't refuse. We were at the hold line just about to get onto the
runway when the tower talked some sense into the CFI (and the controllers
tone helped me push the matter).

What if that hadn't occurred? I don't recall the CFI carrying any extra
(ie. IFR) charts. And those weren't planes I'd take into IMC myself (from
my current perspective) anyway.

Scary.

- Andrew

George wrote:

Westchester is a controlled field, yet the
reporter states that the "pilot had no verbal contact with the air
tower"?

Technically, this might be correct. Perhaps approach had yet to hand
off the aircraft to the tower.

Conditions were IMC, yet "their arrival was not scheduled"?

Again, technically, this might be considered correct, too. The
aircraft was operating under part 91, not part 121.

Its possible those facts were relayed to the reporter, who then added
them to the article out of context.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
oups.com...
George wrote:

Westchester is a controlled field, yet the
reporter states that the "pilot had no verbal contact with the air
tower"?

Technically, this might be correct. Perhaps approach had yet to hand
off the aircraft to the tower.

Conditions were IMC, yet "their arrival was not scheduled"?

Again, technically, this might be considered correct, too. The
aircraft was operating under part 91, not part 121.

Its possible those facts were relayed to the reporter, who then added
them to the article out of context.

--
Peter


And gets information he doesn't understand he should follow up on it, not
just stick it in the story.

Its possible those facts were relayed to the reporter, who then added
them to the article out of context.

--
Peter


And gets information he doesn't understand he should follow up on it, not
just stick it in the story.

I've never seen a reporter do that... they think they have it right the
first time and are the most stupid people I've seen... seeming to be
experts at things they no nothing about... they don't even know enough to
ask the question..

but that's JMHO
BT

In article 240420051342072877%bodhijunkoneeightyeightjunkatm , Tom Fleischman wrote:

A Cessna 172 crashed yesterday short of the approach end of RWY 16
killing the pilot and instructor aboard. No cause for the accident has
yet been established, but the weather was at or near minimums for the
ILS-16 approach at the time of the crash and and tracking the flight
on:

Expletive. This hits too close to home. My sympathies to both
families.


Morris

I flew with this instructor...we finished the Instrument Rating I had
started 10 years ago.

He was a careful pilot. He was meticulous in checking the weather.

We did approaches that went missed in IMC, particularly at FOK..

Greg
PP-ASEL-IA


"Tom Fleischman" k wrote
in message
news:240420051342072877%bodhijunkoneeightyeightjun ...

A Cessna 172 crashed yesterday short of the approach end of RWY 16
killing the pilot and instructor aboard. No cause for the accident has
yet been established, but the weather was at or near minimums for the
ILS-16 approach at the time of the crash and and tracking the flight
on:

http://www4.passur.com/hpn.html

at 15:10 local time on 4.23.05 shows the flight significantly below the
glideslope for much of the approach.

From the news reports I'd guess that it was an instrument student and a
CFII returning from ALB on a long IFR cross country flight.

Here are a couple of news reports:

http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/...27983&SecID=33
http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3252575