Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 18, 2014, 04:38:31 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Lear35 crashes at GON today 6/2
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Lear35 crashes at GON today 6/2  (Read 8897 times)
ecrane99
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



« on: June 02, 2006, 07:27:49 PM »

Lear  N182K crashed on ILS5.  Possible cause could be the visibility.  This happened around 2:15p today.  Please post the weather for that time if you have it for GON (groton, ct).   Unfortunaley both pilots died in the crash.    Ed
« Last Edit: June 02, 2006, 07:31:18 PM by ecrane99 » Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2006, 11:46:44 PM »

Lear  N182K crashed on ILS5.  Possible cause could be the visibility.  This happened around 2:15p today.  Please post the weather for that time if you have it for GON (groton, ct).   Unfortunaley both pilots died in the crash.    Ed

Here was the METAR at that time (2:03PM) at Groton.  It's a shame...

KGON 021803Z 21006KT 2SM BR BKN001 21/19 A2985 RMK AO2

I really haven't received much information on it yet...but once I know more I can start to draw my own conclusions about it.
Logged
Fryy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2006, 01:35:07 AM »

wow. very sad. accidents like this just give me the chills.
Logged

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

Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2006, 04:34:27 AM »

just got on theFAA registry site, and the N-number is registered to a ROBERTSON ASSET MANAGEMENT INC which is owned by pat robertson the televangelist.  I dont have my FAR/AIM handy, but it sounds to me like it was a part 135 flight with three pax aboard, I was just looking at the approach plate for the ILS 5 approach and the minimums are listed as 200'-1/2 with an airport elevation of essentially sea level.  So, if that METAR is correct the ceiling was 100' below minimums.  As a part 135 pilot i thought you couldn't begin the approach unless the weather reporting station reports at or better than minimums? 

I don't mean to be sounding like i'm criticizing what the pilots did, just trying to peice it together. 
Logged

*  It is a good thing to learn caution from the misfortunes of others *
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2006, 08:56:20 AM »

just got on theFAA registry site, and the N-number is registered to a ROBERTSON ASSET MANAGEMENT INC which is owned by pat robertson the televangelist.  I dont have my FAR/AIM handy, but it sounds to me like it was a part 135 flight with three pax aboard, I was just looking at the approach plate for the ILS 5 approach and the minimums are listed as 200'-1/2 with an airport elevation of essentially sea level.  So, if that METAR is correct the ceiling was 100' below minimums.  As a part 135 pilot i thought you couldn't begin the approach unless the weather reporting station reports at or better than minimums? 

I don't mean to be sounding like i'm criticizing what the pilots did, just trying to peice it together. 

That's correct.  ...you're legally not allowed to initiate the approach unless the field is at or above minimums.  It looks like he busted minimums and payed the price for it...

What a shame.
Jason
Logged
ecrane99
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2006, 11:07:36 AM »

Thanks Jason.

Additional detail on minimums:

Part 135/121 operators are bound by additional requirements. In order to attempt the approach, the visibility must be at least at minimums (or better) when the flight crosses the final approach fix. If they don't have the vis when they reach the FAF, they cannot continue the approach. If the vis drops after crossing the FAF, then they can continue to fly the approach down to minimums, at which point they must see the appropriate visual cues to continue, or they must go missed.

Since part 91 operators are not bound by FAA Operations Specifications, they can choose to attempt an approach, regardless of the weather conditions. That doesn't mean that they will be able to land, but they are welcome to give it a go under the FARs.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2006, 11:09:25 AM by ecrane99 » Logged
bwicker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2006, 09:34:21 PM »

ecrane99-
Just flipping through the FAR/AIM And i believe what you're talking about is related to 135.225(2)(c) but the way i understand it that's if the airport does not have an approved weather reporting station.  KGON has an ATIS.  I was just flipping through it and might have misread something, correct me if i'm wrong.

Brian
« Last Edit: June 03, 2006, 09:35:53 PM by bwicker » Logged

*  It is a good thing to learn caution from the misfortunes of others *
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2006, 10:36:05 PM »

ecrane99-
Just flipping through the FAR/AIM And i believe what you're talking about is related to 135.225(2)(c) but the way i understand it that's if the airport does not have an approved weather reporting station.  KGON has an ATIS.  I was just flipping through it and might have misread something, correct me if i'm wrong.

Brian

So...here's the deal with the FARs.  Legally, under 14 CFR Part 135, the mins are visibility only. If you fly commercially, you follow you an ops spec manual.  They all say visibility is "king" & ceiling means nothing so to speak. These ops specs are sanctioned by the FAA.  You still need to descend to the DH, but if you have the "runway environment" (approach lights) in sight, you can descend another 100 feet until you a) See the runway and land or b) Don't see anything and go missed.

For example: Say you're coming from Canada to Islip (NY). Islip is calling 800 ft RVR with 700 RVR rollout. If you were operating under Part 91, if you go down to the DH and see something, but isn't the runway, you would go missed and head to another field/alternate.  Say Brookhaven (HWV) is calling 1/2 vis & 100 over. When you get to the DH, you could end up having the runway in sight & landing. Mins there are 1/2-300. If the cloud was really at 100 ft, you probably would not see the runway. The Ceiling machines at the airports for the most part suck. RVR readings are usually good. If the Ceiling reader is on runway 24 & you are landing 33, you might be a mile away & in very different WX.

Sometimes when it is being called 100 over, it really isn't, or maybe between 100 ft & 300 ft is so thin that you can see through it.

The reported GON weather (2SM visibility) suggests that it would be legal to commence the approach under Part 135, but with a 100-foot ceiling, the likelihood of a successful visual acquisition of the runway lights or the runway environment would be rather low, and a prudent pilot would probably be spring-loaded to the missed approach position.

In any event, while it's pretty clear what happened (the aircraft went below DH and impacted short of the runway), the possibilities on how and why it happened can include everything from pilot/crew error to systems malfunctions. There's no doubt those will be the questions for which the NTSB will be seeking answers for, but while absent a lot more data, it's pretty hard to make speculation on and is a bit premature at this point.  The NTSB has a whole lot more information on it than we do.

Just some insight,
Jason

P.S. Also keep in mind that if it was a Part 91 flight, the regs we all just discussed are completely irrelevant to this accident.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2006, 05:17:23 PM by Jason » Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2006, 07:21:34 PM »

This being the internet, where any whacko can listen to the clips, it might be prudent to edit that 911 caller's personal info out...
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2006, 08:57:26 AM »

If you were operating under Part 91, if you go down to the DH and see something, but isn't the runway, you would go missed and head to another field/alternate.

Just to clarify, with regards to part 91 in the US, if an aircraft comes down the ILS to the decision height (DH) and the pilot sees the approach lighting system for that runway, that pilot is allowed to continue down the glideslope to 100 feet above touchdown.

From "FAR § 91.175:   Takeoff and landing under IFR."
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2006, 02:18:51 PM »

If you were operating under Part 91, if you go down to the DH and see something, but isn't the runway, you would go missed and head to another field/alternate.

Just to clarify, with regards to part 91 in the US, if an aircraft comes down the ILS to the decision height (DH) and the pilot sees the approach lighting system for that runway, that pilot is allowed to continue down the glideslope to 100 feet above touchdown.

From "FAR § 91.175:   Takeoff and landing under IFR."


Correct.  Thanks for clarifying, Peter.

Regards,
Jason
Logged
jdrunr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2006, 08:47:59 PM »

Ya, Im a Line Technician at Norfolk International (ORF) where 182K operated by IJC and its pilots were based. I was the one who actually disconnected the GPU and marshaled them out. The captain was about 6'3" and about 280 lbs. and I watched him struggle to get inside that tiny cockpit. I know from his history that he was real cocky and didn’t get along with other pilots. The copilot shot the approach the night before 2 times on his simulator and felt comfortable with the airport. What supposedly happened was that they missed one approach and then came back for another. The tower had them on glide slope until 600ft where they loose the altitude. After that, they crashed into the approach lights, which were about 10ft off the ground, only 1600ft short of the runway into a marshy area.
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!