Posted on 09/17/2007 2:47:44 AM PDT by billorites
A. Scott Crossfield was flying through thick clouds 10,000 feet above rugged Georgia wilderness when turbulence began to batter his single-engine plane.
The legendary test pilot, who, for a moment in history, was the fastest man alive, had cheated death many times. But not this time. An hour into a flight home from Alabama to Manassas Regional Airport, the Herndon resident plowed straight into an intense thunderstorm. He banked and tried to turn around. But it was too late.
A. Scott Crossfield in 1953, the year he flew at twice the speed of sound, or Mach 2. The legendary test pilot died last year at 84 after flying into a storm. "Atlanta," Crossfield calmly radioed to controllers, "this is Seven Nine X-ray. I'd like to deviate south. Weather." Those were his last known words.
-snip-
However, avoiding weather is considered primarily the pilot's responsibility. And safety experts say Crossfield could have taken simple steps to avoid the crash -- postponed his trip for a day or requested regular weather updates from controllers.
Regular inquiries about the weather "may have sensitized the controller" to Crossfield's predicament, said Bruce Landsberg, executive director of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association's Air Safety Foundation. "It is a shared responsibility between pilot and controller. . . . You have to make sure a message is sent and a message is received."
By 11:10 a.m., one minute after his final radio call about deviating away from the storm, Crossfield was dead.
A few months after the crash, the NTSB returned some of the wreckage to his family. A door, a twisted propeller and pieces of aluminum lean against a fence next to the house in Herndon, a constant reminder.
Alice Crossfield says she can't let it go. "That is him out there, you know," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
To quote the famous saying..
“There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old
bold pilots”
well there is Chuck Yeager...and he fits both categories("Hey Ridley, got any Beemans?".)
Maybe I’m becoming jaded in my old age, but reading this article made me want to barf. I have a feeling that Scott would have had the same feeling.
This appears to have had nothing to do with being "bold pilot". This appears to have had everything to do with a "bad controller". Please don't confuse the two. I, along with virtually every other pilot that posts here, could spend hours telling you tales of misdirection we've received by FAA Controllers.
Here's a prime example: I took a friend of a friend on a sightseeing flight a year or so ago. I toured the general area around Chattanooga airspace, showing them the sights including waterfalls, various mountains, etc. I generally monitor Chattanooga approach when I do flights like this so I can keep up with what traffic is in the area. During this one, 45 minute flight, I heard a female controller at Chattanooga clear two airplanes to land on the same runway at the same time, one being a small, single engined Cessna 182, one notch down from what Crossfield was flying, the other an Air National Guard C-130. I also heard this same controller issue the same transponder code to two different aircraft. Discreet transponder codes are assigned to specific aircraft by controllers to help the controller identify the aircraft, track it's path on radar and keep it at a safe distance from other aircraft, weather, etc. Two aircraft with the same transponder code is a real no-no. Lastly, I listened in amazement as this controller completely ignored a Northwest Airlink commuter that had departed Chattanooga for Nashville. The commuter must receive a "hand off" to the next controlling agency along their route, normally before they go out of radio range. They cannot change their communication frequency until this hand off is received. I heard this guy call at least a dozen times over 15 minutes or so as his signal got weaker and weaker. Finally, the controller woke up and issued the hand off. As far as controlled fields go, Chattanooga isn't considered "busy" at all.
This is just one incident of one 45 minute local flight on a crystal clear day. I've experienced similar confusion dozens of times from controllers in my 30+ years as a pilot. Imagine how much more dire the circumstances are when you have convective weather that as a pilot you can't see, but are relying on the controller to keep you out of harm's way. All too often pilots find themselves taking their flights much more seriously than the controller on the other end. And to think there are a significant number of people in this country that want the same gubmint telling you what doctor you can use........
GOT DAYS OFF WITH PAY !!!
You don't need to tell me. I have owned three planes, a 172
followed by 2 Bonanzas.
Yes, I remember a few lazy controllers but it was not so often.
If this pilot was on IFR then the controller did a bad job.
I can't imagine a pilot of Crossfield's caliber flying at night in convective weather and not filing IFR.....
I wouldn't say there was no way he could communicate with Center under those circumstances. I wasn't there. For all we know he could have been right on top of a Center repeater station and had 5 by 5 comm. It does beg the question, though. When is the FAA going to finally abandon the "antique modulation" radios in favor of FM? I'm a HAM operator, as well as a pilot. My 2 meter rig in my truck not only has better range than a typical aircraft radio, but also isn't subjected to the noise from atmospheric phenomenon that we all endure in the aircraft band.....
Well, it was not at night.. It says 11 AM, but we can assume he was IFR if he is asking center if he can deviate,
and it says he is in thick clouds, i.e no visibility to see
the cell in front of him.
Keep in mind this story is from the MSM, WAPO at that, so who knows how accurate it is. As for AM/FM, it is hard to imagine making such a change when you consider it would have to be all at once and international, not to mention the cost. Static on VHF is not that much of a problem. By the way, I am W4EX, licensed in 1958.
You're right, switching to FM would be expensive, but how many people have died because of poor communications with ATC? What is the price of that?
One thing is for sure, it sure is noisy around here, especially in the summer when it's hot. I suppose that is because the radio's are hotter and noisier. I hear the AM squeal from other radios frequently in the summertime. It's crowded, too. The current AM system is a spectrum hog and it's beginning to really show. VHF AM isn't terribly energy efficient, either. Energy efficiency is probably more of a concern to me since I'm primarily flying an experimental these days with a fairly limited amount of power available.
An example of what I mean by spectrum inefficiency is related to what I experienced on a recent XC to Kentucky to a fly-in. The destination field unicom freq was 122.8 Mhz. There must have been at least another half dozen airports within earshot that also used 122.8 and it was a beautiful Saturday, so lots of folks were out flying. It was tough to get a break to call the pattern, check for the active, etc. The situation was made worse by folks with poor radio skills. At least the adaptation of FM would allow for much more efficient use of the spectrum, IOW, more channels. The range would be significantly better for the same ERP, too. I've frequently talked air to air (hang glider) on my 2 meter handheld, set to .5 watts, to another hand held in another hang glider over 100 nm away, both using a full wave loop antennas. We always had crytal clear com, better than telephone quality. Try doing that with VHF.....
Airplanes and radios ping
Good enough place to bump this thread.
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.