Page 2 of 2

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Sat May 18, 2019 9:13 am
by Iceman
The outcome could have been far worse.



Iceman 8)

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Sat May 18, 2019 9:18 am
by Katamarino
The good news is, he got his 6 approaches in, so all he needs is a hold and he's IFR current for another 6 months.

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Sat May 18, 2019 2:47 pm
by tomshep
I'm not licensed to get myself into that sort of mess but what would I do if I were?
I would know that I should be able to see the airport lights once low enough and that ATC had a better idea of where I was than I had. If they can call my height, confirm my heading and assure me that I am over the runway, why wouldn't I continue, placing my trust in those better able to help me than I could myself?
I could be certain that JFK has enough runway to get a 172 down with a mile or so margin of error. The shortest is a mile and a half.
Some credit to the pilot though. He maintained his composure and flew it right to the crash site.

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Sat May 18, 2019 3:11 pm
by Katamarino
tomshep wrote:I'm not licensed to get myself into that sort of mess but what would I do if I were?
I would know that I should be able to see the airport lights once low enough and that ATC had a better idea of where I was than I had. If they can call my height, confirm my heading and assure me that I am over the runway, why wouldn't I continue, placing my trust in those better able to help me than I could myself?
I could be certain that JFK has enough runway to get a 172 down with a mile or so margin of error. The shortest is a mile and a half.
Some credit to the pilot though. He maintained his composure and flew it right to the crash site.


He might have been better off just flying 30 minutes west to VFR conditions, of course! A bit of a numpty it seems from what we know so far.

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Mon May 20, 2019 10:59 pm
by Paul_Sengupta
PeteSpencer wrote:Keeping the needles centred should not be too much of a problem as he slipped below minima. As ice says better to splat on a wide expanse of flat tarmac than dangling from power cables in a residential area.


tomshep wrote:I would know that I should be able to see the airport lights once low enough and that ATC had a better idea of where I was than I had. If they can call my height, confirm my heading and assure me that I am over the runway, why wouldn't I continue, placing my trust in those better able to help me than I could myself? I could be certain that JFK has enough runway to get a 172 down with a mile or so margin of error.


It may have been that the pilot thought he might get prosecuted...don't know about the US, but this is happening in Jersey:

https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1694947#p1694947

https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/dangerous-flying-incident-under-police-investigation/#.XOMe_shKg2w

The alleged law breaches include:

Endangering safety of aircraft: A person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in the aircraft.

Endangering safety of any person or property: A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

Failing to comply with official directions

Conducting an approach and landing when the visibility or relevant runway visual range is less than that specified for a Category 1 operation (a precision approach and landing with a decision height not lower than 200 feet and with either a visibility not less than 800 metres or a runway visual range not less than 550 metres).

Descending from a height of 1,000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1,000 feet above the aerodrome if the reported visibility or relevant runway visual range at the aerodrome is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Mon May 20, 2019 11:02 pm
by derekf
I think if it was an emergency and you called Mayday you'd be OK - suspect Jersey was different....

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Mon May 20, 2019 11:14 pm
by Paul_Sengupta
But you don't know it's an emergency until that moment you run out of fuel.

Unless you have good gauges.

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Mon May 20, 2019 11:21 pm
by derekf
So at that stage you won’t be worrying about being prosecuted :roll: :wink:

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Mon May 20, 2019 11:41 pm
by Paul_Sengupta
Indeed. It's the run up to that stage which is what the question is about.

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Tue May 21, 2019 4:18 am
by AndyR
Just in case anyone is tempted...Please don’t follow an ILS below minima. The glide path can and does do all sorts of things.

Those aircraft certified to fly to CAT III minima have dual radalt and far more sophisticated mapping of the foreground than any GA aircraft will have. Once below 100’ the glide path won’t be used, albeit the localiser will.

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Tue May 21, 2019 6:14 am
by Flyin'Dutch'
Paul_Sengupta wrote:It may have been that the pilot thought he might get prosecuted...don't know about the US, but this is happening in Jersey


The US has a system whereby you can self declare a transgression which means you won't get prosecuted if you've screwed up and come clean.

But either way, anyone who thinks it is better to have an accident than potentially be prosecuted needs to rethink their priorities and quite possibly their involvement in aviation.

AndyR wrote:Just in case anyone is tempted...Please don’t follow an ILS below minima. The glide path can and does do all sorts of things.


Yeah, but Tiomthy says.......

:shock:

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Tue May 21, 2019 9:07 am
by mikeblyth
ye OK but what about SD

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Tue May 21, 2019 9:28 am
by johnm
It's an emergency when you are running out of options.

I fly IFR into Channel Islands a good deal, as does @derekf fog is a hazard at many times of the year and winds can be pretty drastic and things can change in minutes.

In Alderney there's only been a single narrow runway with an LPV approach for some while and I have had a few hairy moments, but I always go with enough fuel to come home if all else fails and all else is two or three goes into Alderney, then divert to one of Guernsey, Jersey, Cherbourg or Dinard.

Re: 172 crash Long Island

PostPosted:Tue May 21, 2019 10:08 am
by akg1486
johnm wrote:It's an emergency when you are running out of options.

I fly IFR into Channel Islands a good deal, as does @derekf fog is a hazard at many times of the year and winds can be pretty drastic and things can change in minutes.

In Alderney there's only been a single narrow runway with an LPV approach for some while and I have had a few hairy moments, but I always go with enough fuel to come home if all else fails and all else is two or three goes into Alderney, then divert to one of Guernsey, Jersey, Cherbourg or Dinard.

A good example on why the VFR 30 minutes fuel reserve is not always enough. It doesn't need to be bad weather: if the destination is the only airfield for many, many miles, you don't have a lot of options if there's been an accident just before your arrival.