Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 22, 2014, 04:17:34 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.  (Read 25265 times)
Jayhawk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« on: February 16, 2008, 04:15:37 PM »

http://www.katu.com/news/local/15699987.html

Can anybody dig up the clip?

Logged
moto400ex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2008, 10:22:03 PM »

Listening to PDX approach 1600z-1630z.  Seems to be N621ER.  Theres a few transmisisons at the beggining but unintelligable. 

Heres the flightaware data.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N621ER

Deffinetly weather related. 

KPDX 161732Z 07004KT 1/8SM R10R/0700V1400FT FG OVC002 02/02 A3037 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 1/4 $
KPDX 161719Z 06003KT 1/4SM R10R/1000V2000FT FG VV002 02/02 A3036 RMK AO2
KPDX 161715Z COR 07003KT 1/4SM R10R/1000V2000FT FG VV002 02/02 A3036 RMK AO2
KPDX 161653Z 00000KT 1/4SM R10R/0800V1400FT FG BKN001 OVC009 02/02 A3037 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP282 T00170017
KPDX 161553Z 24003KT 1/8SM R10R/0600V0700FT FG BKN001 OVC009 01/01 A3035 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 SLP278 T00110011

Sounds like he crashed on his second attempt.  First attempt tower controller reports RVR's 700 and he goes missed a few minutes later. On his second attempt is when he crashes.  I looked at the KPDX ILS runway 10L approach plate, looks like a min flight vis requirment for him would have been 2400 RVR.  Highly unlikley him or his airplane were CAT IIIa certified since if I  remeber correctly CAT II and CAT III approaches require a flight crew of a pilot and copilot. 

I tryed recording some of the action but its just so broken and unclear.  Maybe someone else wants to try.


« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 11:25:20 PM by moto400ex » Logged
Fryy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 416



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2008, 11:26:33 PM »

Found most of the initial accident. Again, another chilling audio clip.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 03:47:59 AM by Fryy » Logged

Volunteer KSUU feeder
http://d.liveatc.net/ksuu.m3u
Jayhawk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2008, 06:06:49 AM »

That was hard listening too.
Logged
KASWspotter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2008, 10:13:48 AM »

Man oh man. Thats tough to gut.
Logged
Panop
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2008, 12:26:50 PM »

Airport chart available at: http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/PDX/APD/AIRPORT+DIAGRAM/pdf

If I hear it correct the pilot (Dr. Richard E. Otoski from news reports) was cleared to land on 10R with an RVR of 600 feet and then later was instructed to maintain 2000 feet on what was obviously another missed approach.  I presume there is a section of recording missing on the clip as there are no comms in the clip that leads up to the instruction to maintain 2000 feet - presumably there was either a call from the pilot to advise that he was going around or an instruction or advice from the Tower that led to the go around.  Either way it was tragically all too late by then.

On another forum at http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=44861 there is discussion that the wreckage was on a service road as if the pilot possibly mistook the road for the runway in the low vis.

There is news footage at http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_021608ORB_plane_crash_KS.ca736fa3.html which shows the wreckage on a partially fenced long straight road approximately parallel to and approaching, but offset from, what I take to be 10R threshold though I am not at all familiar with KPDX so maybe I am wrong.  The road has broad line markings not at all dissimilar to runway centreline markings and in low visibility the road could easily be mistaken for a runway.  There is damage to the fence next to the wreckage which suggests the aircraft clipped it either in a landing attempt or a 'too low' missed approach. 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/lsg/rvr/
states: 
RVR is a critical component in determining what the ILS minimums will be for each landing Category. The lowest authorized ILS minimums, with all required ground and airborne systems components operative, are: (a) Category I Decision Height (DH) 200 feet and Runway Visual Range (RVR) 2,400 feet (with touchdown zone and centerline lighting, RVR 1,800 feet); (b) Category II DH 100 feet and RVR 1,200 feet; (c) Category IIIa No DH or DH below 100 feet and RVR not less than 700 feet; (d) Category IIIb No DH or DH below 50 feet and RVR less than 700 feet but not less than 150 feet; (e) Category IIIc No DH and no RVR limitation.

My utmost sympathies go to all concerned but, as general questions, I cannot avoid asking myself why someone would attempt to land in such poor conditions in non cat III aircraft and why US ATC is not, apparently, allowed to prevent 'below minima' approaches in these situations. 

My understanding is that in some other countries, an approach would not be permitted by ATC unless RVR met prescribed limits.  These rules have been introduced after unnecessary loss of life in other accidents.

(I would appreciate any correction or clarification of this situation from any 'insiders'.)

According to news reports the pilot was very experienced.
See http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPLzpPeI3GtJRsgYBGq-rRHx6PVgD8URT87O0
and http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/120322050791860.xml&coll=7

The join between the air and the ground is very unforgiving.  Treat it with care.

There is an old and very true saying: There are old pilots and there are bold pilots.  There are no old, bold pilots. 

Please let others learn from this tragedy so that it is not repeated.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2008, 02:12:17 PM »

My utmost sympathies go to all concerned but, as general questions, I cannot avoid asking myself why someone would attempt to land in such poor conditions in non cat III aircraft and why US ATC is not, apparently, allowed to prevent 'below minima' approaches in these situations. 

The US FAA regulations DO restrict part 121 (scheduled service) and part 135 (air taxi, cargo, etc) aircraft from beginning an approach if weather is below minimums. 
However, Part 91 (general aviation) is free to begin an approach when weather is below minimums, as part 91 is also permitted to take off in zero/zero conditions.  Is this always safe to do so?  ATC acting like an aviation cop in these cases is not the answer.  Only the pilot can truly answer this question, since there are many variables (remaining fuel, a pilot's proficiency, etc) involved that can only be interpreted from the yoke side of the mike.

As an active IFR GA pilot, I can attest to the extreme variability of weather minimums.  Literally one minute the visibility and ceilings can be below minimums, the next minute above.  It happens all the time that the first approach could end in a miss and the next ends in a successful landing.  Are there cases where no amount of approaches would be successful?  Definitely.  As a pilot, do I want the freedom to make my own decision on how to proceed or leave it up to an ATC aviation cop (note that this is a HYPOTHETICAL label here)?  I'll take the freedom to decide myself, which is still one of the dwindling freedoms we have as GA pilots here in the US. 

 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 02:13:59 PM by KSYR-pjr » Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
moto400ex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2008, 02:28:37 PM »

Even if he made it in, he would have some explaining to do.  It would be hard to explain how he saw the required flight vis with the weather reports and RVR values.  According to FAA Airman certificate search, he held a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2008, 02:52:56 PM »

It would be hard to explain how he saw the required flight vis with the weather reports and RVR values.

I disagree.  Right there in your posted weather observations above are two facts:  1)  They were not taken minute by minute so how can you or anyone actually state with certainty that there wasn't a moment where the visibility improved slightly?   2)  The RVRs being reported were varying, so the weather WAS fluctuating.

As with any accident, what seems obvious to the people on the outside may not, in fact, be the cause of the crash.  For all you know the poor pilot could have been stricken with a heart attach on approach.  I would wait to definitely offer a cause until the NTSB completes its investigation.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
KASWspotter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2008, 03:12:29 PM »

I have to agree with KSYR-pjr. We probably wont know for awhile what the exact cause is as he was the only person onboard. Weather may or may not have been a factor. He went around once with no issues and obviously had no problem making the decision to go around. As I have commented in several of the other accident threads, there is not 1 thing the makes an aircraft crash. Its a chain of events that can be broken if recognized granted it is sometimes unavoidable in some instances. Maybe he called missed and got distracted by something in the cockpit and kept descending. Maybe he added power and didnt have it. Fuel exhaustion??? A definate maybe. The weather may or may not be a factor in what caused this crash. Because weather was present, it definately needs to be looked at as factor. This is a good discussion guys. The more we talk about things like this, the more it makes us learn for ourselves.
Logged
moto400ex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2008, 03:38:50 PM »

It would be hard to explain how he saw the required flight vis with the weather reports and RVR values.

I disagree.  Right there in your posted weather observations above are two facts:  1)  They were not taken minute by minute so how can you or anyone actually state with certainty that there wasn't a moment where the visibility improved slightly?   2)  The RVRs being reported were varying, so the weather WAS fluctuating.

As with any accident, what seems obvious to the people on the outside may not, in fact, be the cause of the crash.  For all you know the poor pilot could have been stricken with a heart attach on approach.  I would wait to definitely offer a cause until the NTSB completes its investigation.

Haha ok, never flown around the Portland area and dont know too much of the weather patterns there but its highly unlikely the weather would change so rapidly that he could prove he had the required vis to land because before and after the accident RVR values were still not near what was required.    While listening to the archive, there was a plane that landed and couldnt even see a taxiway to exit.  Never flown or seen this type of situation but if you cant see a taxiway while your on the runway, sounds pretty bad.

Your right, I shouldnt call this a solely weather realated accident as it could have been a number of other things.  With my limited Actual IFR experience ( Just under 10 hours) I just felt like it had to be because of the extreme concentration level you must have during a precision approach and any distractions or frustration can cause you to lose it. (At least for me)   Could have been looking outside too much for the runway and not on his instruments when he crashed.  Thats just what I was thinking.
Logged
baronb55
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2008, 03:44:25 PM »

not likely a fuel problem, huge fire post crash. I live in Portland and that was one foggy morning, very sad, his timing was about a half hour off as far as low ceiling. He flies out of lmt, high desert, much more predictable weather there. just some thoughts.
Logged
KASWspotter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2008, 04:26:08 PM »

Hadnt heard about the huge fire so it might rule out fuel. I can relate a little about weather. Rode shotgun in a KingAir into MSP a few years ago. We went around once and never saw the runway. Was a slow part of the day so it didnt take too long to get back. Maybe 10 minutes at the most, and we got to where we had gone around the first time and we both picked up the runway fairly easily. It was a rather foggy afternoon. The wind had picked up since our first approach and we followed a 737 the second time in. Was kinda neat because it seemed like we were flying through a tunnel shaped like a 737. You see some pretty cool stuff when you fly.
Logged
Hollis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2008, 05:56:08 PM »

I'm not going to speculate on this either, but I did take the liberty to enhance his audio msg by adding a little echo and looping it. To me, it sounds like:

"...alright,,,?hit Richard...you're gonna craaash!"

Obviously he knew he was in serious trouble, for whatever reason.
Logged
moto400ex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2008, 08:06:53 PM »

I'm not going to speculate on this either, but I did take the liberty to enhance his audio msg by adding a little echo and looping it. To me, it sounds like:

"...alright,,,?hit Richard...you're gonna craaash!"

Obviously he knew he was in serious trouble, for whatever reason.

Wow!!! MAkes it even more chilling to listen to it.  Im going to have nightmares shocked
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!