N27RA crash

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


OK - but the local fire dept is probably not a search and rescue organisation, or if it is then turning on hte lights would not actually activate the S&R functoin. And perhaps it isn't an actual aviation organisation either - they are filling in for a limited role.

Based on this 2 hours doesn't seem like a long time at all.
edit on 31-5-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Hmm.. interesting case...
What i would like to know is do they usually fly these flights with only 1 pilot or just this time...
I mean usually passenger planes "even" this size use flight crew of 2



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


No, the two hours sort of makes sense to me, with the time that they were landing. But the whole "we weren't expecting a flight" part of the accident report on the other hand suddenly doesn't make sense. Because obviously the fire department knew there was a plane coming in. I can understand the two hours, and live with that. Two hours as opposed to more than that is understandable. Not expecting a flight on the other hand doesn't anymore.

Yes, it's a tiny point, but it's the first thread to tug on. With these you're going to have to find and tug on some pretty small threads to get them to come apart if they're going to.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by zoomer72
 


At this particular time they were allowed to fly with one pilot. After this crash they changed it to requiring two pilots for all flights.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I have to agree with the other poster. Where the hell was the co-pilot in all this? That doesn't make sense to fly a jet with one pilot, especially with passengers on board. I'm gonna start digging into this a bit...



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
check out the notams today for tonopah. What do they have there? JSF???



M0106/13 - VFR OPERATORS USE CAUTION FOR INCREASED VOLUME OF HIGH
PERFORMANCE MILITARY FLIGHT OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT R4809A. 31 MAY 16:45 2013
UNTIL 31 MAY 21:45 2013. CREATED: 30 MAY 15:15 2013

M0072/13 - UNEVEN PAVEMENT EITHER SIDE OF NORTH (BAK-14) AND SOUTH (BAK-12)
BARRIERS COULD CAUSE INCREASE HOOK SKIP POTENTIAL, ESPECIALLY
OFF-CENTER ENGAGEMENTS. 16 APR 05:06 2013 UNTIL 14 JUN 23:59 2013. CREATED:
16 APR 05:08 2013

M0071/13 - TAXIWAY ALPHA VOR CHECKPOINT UNUSABLE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. 16 APR 05:05 2013
UNTIL 14 JUN 23:59 2013. CREATED: 16 APR 05:06 2013

M0070/13 - JET BLAST STAND-OFF DISTANCE: ANY FIGHTER WITH DOWNWARD THRUST IS
RESTRICTED FROM FULL POWER FOR THE FIRST 500 FEET FOR RUNWAY 14/32. 16 APR 05:02
2013 UNTIL 14 JUN 23:59 2013. CREATED: 16 APR 05:04 2013

Number of NOTAMs: 4 End of Report



High performance military flights? downward thrust? WTF????



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Anyone have the exact coordinates where it went down?



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Just got this in my email.


edit on 5/31/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Here's a senerio that pops into mind. We used to do this all the time for checkrides because it takes care of a pilots ILS and VFR requirement all in one approach. Sorry for the crappy paint job...





posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by boomer135
 


Just got this in my email.


edit on 5/31/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


Crap wrong way. Hang on a sec....lol



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
This way makes more sense actually with the mountains on the west side. Notice the altitude of the flyover of the base when making this approach (thanks Gariac with the use of your website!). The altitude is 7500MSL with the overhead of 2000 AGL. So this makes sense if they were using this type of ILS to VFR approach, depending on the wind. AND WHERE THE HELL IS THE CO-PILOT???





posted on May, 31 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


That would make sense, but he turned right after passing over the base. Seven miles seems a long way out to go for a small plane like that. I've watched C-5s do an overhead and not go seven miles out.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I don't have access to baseops.net like I used to so I asked my old supervisor if he could get me the TERPS for Tonopah and check out the approaches. Makes sense if he made a right had turn over the base before crashing. He either did a go-around or a tactical spiral landing, which a plane like that has no need to do that approach, especially at a base with no threats of manpads and stuff. But the missed approach/go around makes sense. And perhaps he went out to seven miles because of traffic in the pattern doing an ILS to runway 14 or something.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


From what I heard from my source, he was on a go around. From reading all the accident reports, he was on his first approach and had just overflown the base on initial. So that's another point that's causing some confusion.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Personally I find it odd that a sudden, fatal coronary event could be conclusively blamed in a crash serious enough to kill all onboard. One would expect that the necessary evidence would be destroyed or at least seriously mangled in such an impact. If indeed the findings were not completely conclusive, then there may be sufficient wiggle room to start considering strokes or cerebral hemorrhaging, both of which can cause erratic behaviour without being apparent to the victim, or those around. If a sudden coronary event causing death can be proven and the evidence produced, then the conversation entire debate may be rendered moot.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


That's something that was brought up by someone I was talking to about this. It's kind of amazing that the plane hit, broke apart, exploded and burned, but there was enough of the pilot left to examine the lungs, pull blood samples, and do all the tests, and have them be conclusive enough to say sudden cardiac death.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Darkpr0
 

It's kind of amazing that the plane hit, broke apart, exploded and burned...


The one reason I may yet be convinced that the evidence was indeed garnered that would indicate sudden pilot death is that the plane was on landing. That being the case one would expect relatively little fuel on board and, thus, relatively little burning. Burning and smoke damage IMO would constitute the greatest risk to the evidence survival and its absence would probably leave a treasure trove of information for tin kickers to find. That said, if the aircraft was still under power then it is also likely that significant damage would be incurred from the initial impact and some from burning of what fuel was left.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I can understand the two hours, and live with that. Two hours as opposed to more than that is understandable. Not expecting a flight on the other hand doesn't anymore.


Having a guy called out to turn on the lights because the radio clicker isn't working properly is not the same as expecting a flight. Lacking any extra information IMO the fire dept was not "expecting a flight" - they had a duty officer called to turn on a switch, which they may or may not have known was for a flight expected immediately (for an unknown value of immediately), and which flight also had to stooge around while the fire dept got to the switch (an unknown amount of time).

The fire dept is not an ATC service, or even an aerodrome information service - they are apparently not on the same frequency as the a/c so have no way of knowing if the a/c has decided to remain in the area or divert somewhere else.

Given that the 2 hours and "a/c wasn't expected" were actually linked in your OP - one being the reason for the other - I do not think you can reasonably separate them into separate pieces of evidence for "something".
edit on 31-5-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


Well according to the accident report, the aircraft broke up and burst into flame so intense that even if anyone had survived there was no way they could have gotten past the fire to get out of the plane.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Well the fire departments that I've dealt with, if you asked them to turn the lights on would know that meant that a plane was landing. They would know enough to know that landing lights aren't needed when there is nothing in the area, as they're there for a landing aircraft to use. They might not have been expecting a flight, but they would have known at least that one was in the area.

Especially considering that the tower that called almost definitely would have told them that there was a plane in the area that couldn't turn the runway lights on, and was trying to land there.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join