Posted on 11/22/2004 6:31:19 AM PST by Mamzelle
Gulfstream clips pole at toll booth--hits down close to major freeway
Sorry. Sarcasm tag should have been self-evident.
thag
I'll step in for MindBender:
"100 foot altimiter errors usually put them down,"
In this statement he's saying that errors in altimeter reading of + or - 100 feet are not unusual.
" on the localizer,"
The localizer is a radio signal "located" at the airport which aircraft can follow to get to the airport. So "on the localizer" means that the pilot was flying on a specific compass heading towards the localizer (you will often hear this called 'flying the radial')
" but about 4 miles short of the threshold. "
The thresold, is of course, the near end of the runway. So he's saying that the if your approach is 100ft low, while flying on the radial for that runway, you'll hit the ground about 4 miles short of the runway.
"Sounds like stupidity 101 here."
Translation of this is that the pilot was probably a idiot for attempt an approach in conditions where visibility was near zero.
I think MindBender is probably correct, but I'm waiting to see a microburst or some windshear caused the crash (although it's pretty unlikely).
RE: "I got a few friends who laugh at these conditions...Try catching a 3 wire in the same kinda soup... "
Yeah, but the difference is your friends are being paid to risk their lives and the pilots of that Gulstream are being paid to NOT risk the lifes of the passengers.
Although I'm also predicting pilot error, everybody should keep in mind that airplane crashes are usually due to a whole bunch of things going wrong at the same time and not due to just one simple cause.
It might turn out that this crash was due to icing, plus a downdraft, plus the pilot flying a little to low, plus bad judgment for attempting an approach in poor visibility, etc, etc, etc...
Cool. I understand that. Just don't try to hide behind the 1st amendment anymore because it just won't wash, uninformed one. :-)
Have you bothered to read the 1st amendment yet? No? I thought so. :-)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So go marry a Clinton, ****head.
Cool! You read it!
Do you see anywhere in there about, "theDentist gets to say whatever he wants without rebuttal from others?"
I thought not. :-)
BTW, the fact that you read it and posted it is a left-handed apology and more than that.....an admission that you were wr.....wro.....wrong, huh?
I certainly hope that our little banter has taught you something about the Bill of Rights as it relates to the 1st amendment anyway, and what it really says instead of your believing what the left would have you believe it says! In other words, there is no such thing as free speech unless you are willing to tolerate the rebuttals. Even the MSM has had to learn that the "hard way."
You should read the rest of them, too. They are quite interesting. You may learn loads of stuff and just how forward-looking and intelligent our founding fathers were.
Have a nice day! :-)
Nope. I'm not wrong. I'll say whatever I please, pending the Moderators review of my postings.
You didn't like the joke? Tough beans. Deal with it and move on in life.
"This is an Okie outfit, like the one that blew up the house in Lakeway, Austin."
Actually, I think the house didn't fare so bad for having been hit by a plane. I think it was built out of a lot of stone. I saw the whole side was blackened and a little damaged, but still fixable.
Yep, there are risks in everything we do...And the outcome of a mistake is the same, regardless of if you are being paid to take the risk, or being paid to avoid the risk...
My commment was in reference to the conditions that were more of a challenge to actually flying, or in this case making an approach to landing in some very off nominal conditions...
Being paid to take a risk, or avert risk, is not a badge of courage...And in most cases, it is not that big a deal...
It does, in some cases, make for interesting discussion like it has in this forum...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20041208X01949&key=1
NTSB Identification: DCA05MA011
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, November 22, 2004 in Houston, TX
Aircraft: Gulfstream Aerospace G-III, registration: N85VT
Injuries: 3 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On November 22, 2004, about 0615 central standard time (CST), a Gulfstream G-1159A (G-III), N85VT, operated by Business Jet Services, crashed while on approach to Houston Hobby Airport (HOU), Houston, Texas. The airplane was on an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 4 when the airplane struck a light pole adjacent to a roadway and crashed into a field about 3 miles southwest of the runway. The airplane was operating on an instrument flight rules flight plan under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 from Dallas Love Field, Dallas, Texas to HOU. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and fire. The two pilots and one flight attendant on board were killed.
Reported weather conditions at the airport before the accident included fog, ceilings of 100 and 600 feet (broken), and surface visibilities of between about 1/3 to 1/2 mile. Interviews with air traffic control personnel and a review of air traffic control tapes and the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) indicate that a minimum safe altitude warning (MSAW) was issued to the flight seconds before the end of the CVR recording.
The light pole impacted by the airplane was located on the south side of the roadway; the light pole and associated lighting extended approximately 156 feet above the ground at that point. The majority of the airplane wreckage was found in a field on the north side of the roadway, with the first major portion being a large section of the right wing.
Investigative groups have been formed in the areas of Operations/Human Factors, Weather, Air Traffic Control (ATC), Structures, Systems, Powerplants, Maintenance Records, Survival Factors, Witnesses, Flight Data Recorder (FDR), and CVR.
Preliminary evaluation of the ATC communications and radar data indicates that the flight continued to converge on the localizer track for runway 4, eventually becoming aligned near the end of the last radar returns. The data further indicate that the flight's average descent rate was about 1000 feet per minute over the last minute of radar returns. The Federal Aviation Administration conducted a flight check of the ILS approach to runway 4 the day after the accident; no anomalies were noted.
The following are based on the ATC transcript of communications between the accident flight and ATC (reported times are approximate and in CST).
At 0610:42, with the airplane on a southeasterly heading and an altitude of about 3000 feet, the approach controller stated that the flight was "…eight miles from EISEN," (the final approach fix) "turn left heading zero seven zero, maintain two thousand or above til established localizer, cleared ILS runway 4 approach." The crew acknowledged.
At 0611:58, the crew made initial contact with HOU tower and said, "and Houston Hobby Tower, Gulfstream eight five victor tango is with you on the ILS." The tower responded, "…wind calm, runway four, cleared to land." The crew acknowledged.
At 0612:34, the crew asked, "Tower what's the RVR now for eight five victor tango." The tower responded, "…runway four RVR one thousand six hundred."
The crew acknowledged.
At 0614:44, the tower controller said, "Gulfstream eight five victor tango, check your altitude, altitude indicates four hundred feet." There was no response by the flight crew and there were no more communications with the flightcrew of N85VT.
Ongoing investigative efforts continue primarily in the areas of flight operations, examination of the MSAW and instrument landing systems at HOU, and documentation of the maintenance records and cockpit instrumentation.
This 'is' not very good news.......
...................................more 'problems'......to solve....
:-(
Yeah, it sounds like they got behind the airplane.
Thanks for posting the followup. Unfortunately, that report told me absolutely nothing.
NTSB just put the preliminary report up this morning. It's been 17 days since the accident. I'd say the investigators are still at a loss also.
Actually, it WAS reported soon after the crash, but the mods pulled the thread. Go figure.
I would agree that they got behind the airplane...of course with my currency.....the plane could crash and I wouldn't know it for about a hour....
LOL, that's the way I feel. Haven't touched controls in over ten years.
The only comment of interest in that report was the implication that they weren't centered on the localizer until the last minute. In zero wind conditions, it's hard to see how that could happen.
Jetdrvr, can't you fly an ILS approach on autopilot in one of these things? And if "yes", is it common to do so?
I used to fly them, hooked up, all the time. However, if it was going to be close at minimums, I'd unhook it and hand-fly just so I didn't have to transition close to landing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.