Author Topic: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.  (Read 36117 times)

Offline moto400ex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
Re: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2008, 02:10:50 PM »
Anyone with flight simulator, try flying this approach with the listed weather.  Just did and it gives youa pretty good idea of what this pilot would have seen.  My flight simulator session did not go too well, with the weather conditions plugged in, I didnt break out but I decided to fly it straight down and came very close to planting the nose right into the ground just like he did while I was looking for the runway and looking at my instruments. 

Offline aviator_06

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • FSFlightSchool.com - Student Pilot Resources | Aviation Videos
Re: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.
« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2008, 11:22:56 PM »
Wow, that was hard to listen to.

Offline gfw123

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2008, 06:02:06 PM »
QUOTE: "I guess my point is to raise a discussion as to why in the USA Part 135 operators are restricted in their ability to commence an approach while Part 91 operators are not.  At the risk of stirring a hornet's nest I would have thought that, on average, a part 135 pilot would be better trained and more experienced that a part 91 pilot (I emphasise there 'on average' as I know there will be many exceptions) and, if it is a matter of public safety, the issues should be the same. "

Just a guess (I am no pilot and don't work for the airlines), but....

If the Part 135 pilots are the commercial airlines then they are probably carrying many more passengers compared to GA aircraft. Also, the pilots of air carriers owe their lively hood to airlines whose bottom line is money. That is not a good combination when it comes to decide if you try to make the airport or divert and lose your employer money.

For GA pilots, it isn't about making money (which is illegal, I believe, for those without a commercial license). So, perhaps they won't push it so hard for any reason outside of the cockpit and ego. Also, America has a long history of individualism and I think the pilot regulations for GA stem from that. When the FAA introduced the current system of regulations and airspace they did when they could to leave GA pilots alone. Heck, GA planes don't even need radios to fly legally (certain airspace's excluded of course). They don't even have to land at runways if they don't want to. They current regs were put in place to protect the safety of the commercial flights and keep those cowboy GA pilots separated from them (I use the term cowboy in a good way). Other then that they left GA pilots pretty much alone.

I like it this way.

Again, not a pilot or expert, just my 2 cents.

thanks for thoughtful discussion.

--greg.

[EDIT by me. I just saw my icon on the post which may make you think I am a pilot, :-) So, I will say that I did take lessons several years ago (pic is from first solo) but I never got my ticket before running out of money :-( ]

« Last Edit: February 20, 2008, 06:11:00 PM by gfw123 »

Offline moto400ex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
Re: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2008, 07:21:36 PM »
Just uploading the audio for someone.

Offline mk

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2008, 11:15:09 AM »
Even if he made it in, he would have some explaining to do.  It would be hard to explain how he saw the required flight vis with the weather reports and RVR values.  According to FAA Airman certificate search, he held a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating.

i totally disagree...no one would care...approach would be grateful that they wouldn't have to sequence him again...we controllers are not FAR cops.  Now if there were a bored FSDO fella at the airport and you happened to cruise onto the ramp with 600 rvr, questions may be asked.  But a controller is not gonna tattle-tell to the FAA about an approach below mins.

Offline Switch Monkey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2008, 02:34:52 AM »
My guess on the part 91 ops vs 135/121 question is. By the FAA forbidding the 121/135 crews from attempting  an approach if visibility is below minimums it keeps the pilots employers from forcing them to attempt an approach. ie. "what are you checking the weather for, you're still going!"

Offline Switch Monkey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2008, 02:50:09 AM »
The reworked audio is chilling, my thoughts and prayers are with the pilots family.

A few things to consider:

Take offs are optional, landings are mandatory.

Don't try to armchair quarterback what happened let the NTSB figure it out before you pass judgment.

Most fatal accidents that occur  while operating under IFR happen to pilots who have less than 100hrs of actual experience, so be careful.

 


Offline N646DW

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.
« Reply #32 on: June 24, 2008, 02:44:11 PM »
that was truly bone chilling to listen to.  Its never good to hear about any sort of aircraft crash and to hear the adiou seconds before is hard...
KRVS riverside Feeder...


"For once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always long to return..."

Offline Hamlet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.
« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2009, 07:18:39 PM »
I'm not going to speculate on this either, but I did take the liberty to enhance his audio msg by adding a little echo and looping it. To me, it sounds like:

"...alright,,,?hit Richard...you're gonna craaash!"


After listening to both clips a couple times, I interpret it to be a little different.  Here's my take on the situation:
Controller gave missed approach instructions after aircraft had already inpacted the ground.  It sounds like he may have been in pretty bad shape when he responded:
"I can't turn <expletive> you've gotta crash!"

Anyone else hearing it this way?

I hear it like that too