 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jbutler ★2017
Date: 2006-04-22 15:16
My heart goes out the the families of these young people. Tragic, very tragic indeed.
jbutler
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Al
Date: 2006-04-22 18:53
I am so shocked and sorry to hear about this tragedy! My heart also goes out to freinds and family of these five.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rc_clarinetlady
Date: 2006-04-23 04:38
My heart breaks for the families and friends of those students but also for the whole music dept. at Ind. U. If it's anything like the music dept. where I went to school it's like a family and they are close. God be with them all. My prayers are with them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2006-04-23 08:21
From WFIU headding:
'Tuesday evening at 10:12 p.m., the Cantabile program slot will offer the Metropolitan Opera National Council’s Grand Finals Concert. WFIU dedicates this broadcast to the memory of our friends and colleagues."
http://www.indiana.edu/~wfiu/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: corks&pads
Date: 2006-04-24 17:10
Do college students now go to gigs in their own airplanes?
Aviation has been alive and well in the midwest for several decades. I used to fly out of the airport at Bowling Green, OH, and there were several students who had licenses there--including one who crashed while I was there, killing himself and some friends.
What struck me as more unusual about this is that there were 5 students in a single-engine Cessna. There are a couple of models of single-engine Cessnas that seat 6, but they aren't cheap to own and they aren't often available as rentals.
It makes me wonder if they tried to over-fill a more commonly available 172 model. Also, there's the weather factor...it was apparently foggy, and I wonder what ratings the pilot had.
Sorry to take this tack on a tragedy, but I can't help but wonder about those things.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph G
Date: 2006-04-24 18:27
Someone on Airliners.net posted the tail number (not sure how they got that; haven't even seen any stories ID'ing it beyond a single-engine Cessna). If correct, the N-number databases put it as a Stationair, which carries 6.
________________
Artistic talent is a gift from God and whoever discovers it in himself has a certain obligation: to know that he cannot waste this talent, but must develop it.
- Pope John Paul II
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2006-04-24 21:29
I believe I read one news article that said it was a 6 pass plane. The pilot G. Joshi was reported to be an experienced pilot despite her age.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick Williams
Date: 2006-04-25 22:33
I'm a pilot (ME, Instrument) and the plane was a Cessna 206, which is a 6 passenger, fixed gear constant speed prop airplane. It reportedly was privately owned. One report said it was owned out of South Bend and another said it was based in Bloomington.
That night was foggy and at that time of evening the airport is not manned which means that they were attempting a non-precision approach, either VOR/DME or GPS. I understand that the crash occured around 2 miles South of the airport which would put them towards the end of the descent phase for RWY 35.
To explain, what happens is you fly to a specific point off the end of the runway at a specified altitude. Once you turn inbound towards the runway and you cross another point you descend to a lower altitude and hold there until you make visual contact with the runway, then you can descend to land. If you don't see the runway, you fly along until you reach a point which places you over the runway and then you execute a missed approach.
It has been reported that the pilot had activated the runway lights which you typically do when you turn inbound for the runway.
Best
Rick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2006-04-26 00:55
Hi Everyone,
I am a former FAR 141 Chief Flight Instructor and still hold CFII and CFIME as well as an ATP ratings (with CE-500 type). I have given over 2,000 hours of IFR instruction and have several hours in a C-206.
There are two things that strike me about this accident. The first is that one does not usually get checked out in a C206 unless experienced. It would seem that the pilot was not a low-time person. Insurance usually dictates some heavy requirements and a high performance checkout would be required per the FARs. Currency is another matter though.
The other thing is that the C206 has bladder tanks and a fuel system than can accumlate water under some conditions. I would not be surprised if the NTSB finds that there is water in the fuel lines. With the bladder tanks, there is a possibility that even with a good fuel pre-flight, a trace of water can accummulate under certain conditions and not be adequately drained.
A turn to final approach course inbound on an instrument procedure after changing tanks could have caused un-detected water to enter the fuel line. I had a very close friend that crashed in a C206 about 25 years ago with a simillar situation. He was seriously injured but survived.
However, the NTSB will only determine a probable cause for this crash.
HRL
PS An update from my friend in the crash mentioned above. He said the water was in a small sump located under the seat that did not have a way to be checked. I have no more details.
Post Edited (2006-04-28 03:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2006-04-27 15:18
Hi,
Here is the link to the preliminary NTSB report on the accdent.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060425X00483&key=1
From that report "At 2340, the recorded weather at BMG was: Wind 230 degrees at 5 knots; visibility 1 statute mile; present weather mist; sky condition overcast 100 feet; temperature 17 degrees C; dew point 16 degrees C; altimeter 29.94 inches of mercury"
I have reviewed the ILS 35 Approach procedure for the airport (BMG). From the CLAYE LOM, the Final Approach fix, the inbound pilot should be commencing a descent on the Glide Slope from 2500 feet ASL to the Decision Height (DH) of 1045 feet ASL which is 200 feet above the Touchdown Zone of Runway 35. At the DH, if the runway or the runway environment is not in sight, the pilot should commence a missed approach. Since at the time of the accident, the ceiling at BMG was 100 feet and the visibility at one miles, the pilot may have improperly gone below the DH looking for the runway and flown into the ground at 1/2 mile from the end of the runway (very close to where the approach lights are located).
Sadly, if this is what happened, it could be a classic case of pilot error in the form of the "duck under to find the runway' maneuver possibily coupled with get-home-itis.
HRL
ATP (C500) & CFII-ME
Post Edited (2006-04-27 20:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cuisleannach
Date: 2006-04-27 20:37
I would like to clarify for the non-pilots among us as to why the stuff from Mr. Lehrer is so important....we are not trying to be morbid or find fault....
It is the responsibility of any pilot to get their charges home safely. People who ride with a pilot, whether it's a newly minted private pilot (closer to what I am) or a master airline pilot with tens of thousands of hours to his or her credit, expect that pilot to be in command of the necessary skills and judgement to get them from "chock to chock" in perfect health. When you tell someone you can fly and offer to take them up, it is vital that your ego doesn't write a check your abilities can't cash. It is also incumbent on the pilot to stack the odds as much as humanly possible to ensure a safe arrival. Ignorance of these rules causes a majority of general aviation accidents (we all do (or at least should, read accident reports to figure out what we can learn from them). Equipment failures beyond the pilot's control are a relatively rare causes of accidents.
In my decision-making process for a go-no go decision (if I were instrument rated, which I'm not) in this case, I'd probably factor the mucky weather conditions in with the short distance of the flight and the fact that I would be carrying passnegers and concluded that in this case I'd be better off driving.
Forgive me for getting off the topic of clarinets.....just thought you'd like to know why we're interested
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2006-04-27 21:47
Hi,
That's very fine information in the previous post; very accurate and insightful.
One other consideration in this tragedy is that if the forecast for the destination airport was below certain weather and visibility minimums (BMG wx at this would have required an alternate), an alternate airport with clearly defined weather shall be filed.
The orignal IFR flight plan would also have required this alternate to be named. Then if a missed approach at the original airport is required, a safe alternate ariport as well as another course of action is available. The original flight plan also required that sufficient fuel + specific reserves shall be carried. One thing I always stressed with my IFR students was "know where there is good weather and how to get there without anything but your compass and the altimeter."
All of these things will be factors that the NTSB will review in the investigation.
HRL
ATP (C500) & CFII-ME
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph G
Date: 2006-04-27 22:07
Hank,
I used to read that naval aviators had to be aware of getting "false needles" on carrier approaches -- hence the landing signal officers sometimes giving them alignment adjustments and telling them to disregard the needles and watch the meatball. Are false ILS needles a concern in general aviation? Seems like "ducking under" would be more likely with a stepped approach rather than a straight-in ILS.
/not a pilot, just an enthusiast
________________
Artistic talent is a gift from God and whoever discovers it in himself has a certain obligation: to know that he cannot waste this talent, but must develop it.
- Pope John Paul II
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-04-27 23:09
Ralph G wrote:
> Hank,
>
> I used to read that naval aviators had to be aware of getting
> "false needles" on carrier approaches -- hence the landing
> signal officers sometimes giving them alignment adjustments and
> telling them to disregard the needles and watch the meatball.
I'm not Hank, but I've worked a carrier deck (catapaults) ... the LSO knows what the ship is doing and can anticipate where the deck will be when the plane crashes the deck (planes don't actually land on a carrier, not if you get to watch up close). The deck is pitching often 15 feet or more, and I've watched the results of planes splashing into the fantail (what we called a plane crash into the aft of the ship) while running plane guard on destroyers behind the Enterprise & Midway.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2006-04-28 13:36
Mark,
By mentioning the Midway and the Enterprise, you are showing your age:-). And you are absolutely correct about the deck pitch and the arrival of planes. The LSO really knows "what's up or down."
I did answer Ralph off-line as I felt our discussion was not really appropriate for BB posting.
HRL
PS I have many friends that are retired Naval Aviators. I've heard the stories of how many "traps" they have and how hard it is to do!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Beck
Date: 2006-04-28 13:44
Hank, you make several good points. Another thing, and it applies to many endeavors, including music, is to always be mentally prepared to go to Plan B. There are many instances where all the alternates, reserves and back up systems were there, but the pilot continued to operate as usual until bad things happened. When I was working at an FBO, we lost our 210 due to continued VFR into bad weather. That aircraft had a full three axis autopilot coupled into the nav system, but the pilot never turned it on.
Incidents like this ought to make us all pause for thought.
I hope the above discussions are off base and the Stationair pilot was as talented in the air as on stage. It is a great loss and my heart goes out to them and their survivors.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Beck
Date: 2006-04-28 13:53
The false needles are above the real glideslope, none are below. Unless you come into the approach way high you won't see them over land. A carrier deck can drop enough in rough seas to show you higher multiples of the glideslope beam.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cuisleannach
Date: 2006-04-28 15:46
For those iof us who are wondering, continued VFR into IMC stands for continued visual flight rules under instrument meteorological conditions, which means you flew into low visibility without the proper training and/or clearance.......probably the #1 cause of accidents and generally due to a pilot's desire to get to his/her destination overcoming his good judgement....known as "get-there-itis".....it was the most likely cause of JFK Jr.'s fatal accident
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph G
Date: 2006-04-28 17:05
Let me emphasize something that no doubt all people posting above know but hasn't been made clear -- no cause for this accident has yet been determined, nor will it likely be determined for several more months. The above posts are educated guesses by experienced pilots but are by no means the gospel of what happened that evening. So let's be clear that nobody's branding this as pilot error, mechanical failure, weather-induced, or any other cause. It's just not known yet.
________________
Artistic talent is a gift from God and whoever discovers it in himself has a certain obligation: to know that he cannot waste this talent, but must develop it.
- Pope John Paul II
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: corks&pads
Date: 2006-04-28 17:18
From the CLAYE LOM, the Final Approach fix, the inbound pilot should be commencing a descent on the Glide Slope from 2500 feet ASL to the Decision Height (DH) of 1045 feet ASL which is 200 feet above the Touchdown Zone of Runway 35. At the DH, if the runway or the runway environment is not in sight, the pilot should commence a missed approach. Since at the time of the accident, the ceiling at BMG was 100 feet and the visibility at one miles, the pilot may have improperly gone below the DH looking for the runway and flown into the ground at 1/2 mile from the end of the runway (very close to where the approach lights are located).
I defer to Hank's authentic expertise, but here's another possibility. Based upon the preliminary NTSB report, it sounds like the engine penetrated the ground more than might be typical for a relatively flat impact caused by flying into the ground while descending below DH. The distraction of looking for the runway at near midnight in IMC, perhaps coupled with other distractions from passengers, could have caused the pilot to lose track of airspeed, stall the plane, and impact while entering a spin. It sounds like this one hit the ground pretty much in a nose-down attitude.
I wonder how much instrument time in type the pilot had? That's a pretty expensive aircraft to operate on the average college student's budget.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2006-04-28 18:27
Hi Everyone,
I have one correction that I would like to make to my summary. I should have said "gone below the glideslope..." rather than "gone below the DH..."
The DH on the ILS 35 approach at BMG is at 1,045 feet ASL and that point, on glideslope occurs just before the runway threshold. If controlled flight was continued on the glideslope to a lower altitude than the DH, the glideslope would most likely end several hundred feet down the runway from the threshold abeam of the glideslope antenna. These type of approaches are done to 100 foot or runway surface at the largest airports by airline pilots everyday. These crews have special equipment, training, and recency of experience.
Here is a link to a site that has some additional information if you are interested.
http://www.avionicswest.com/articles/glideslope_101.htm
One point that I think needs to be stressed is that the NTSB will only determine a probable cause not the cause. The investigation may take up to a year.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cuisleannach
Date: 2006-04-28 20:11
And almost invariably, even if you are sitting on the runway and a meteor falls on you from the sky, the NTSB will find pilot error as a contributing cause (you shouldn't have parked the airplane there......)
-Randy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-12-31 13:51
Hi Everyone,
This is the NTSB final decision on the probable cause for this crash:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows. The pilot's continued descent below decision height and not maintaining adequate altitude/clearance from the trees while on approach. Factors were the the night lighting conditions, and the mist.
A direct link to the full report is http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA117&rpt=fa
and the probable cause is listed at: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA117&rpt=fi
It appears that my suggestion about pilot error and the duck under syndrome is supported. However, there is a sad twist to the story. In today's Toledo Blade, I read that Yatish Joshi of S. Bend, IN who is the father of Georgina Joshi, the pilot of the C-206 involved in the Bloomington crash, is the pilot of a C-310 light twin that crashed last week in Traverse City, MI. Killed in the crash was his wife.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
