Mooney 201 lands on high power lines in MD

[T. Peterson]

On 12/6/2022 at 9:01 AM, rbp said:

lets break it down

> no pilot may
> operate an aircraft ... below the authorized MDA
> OR 
> continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH

note it does NOT say "no pilot may operate an aircraft below the authorized ... DA/DH"

it DOES say "no pilot may .... continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH".  

a GO AROUND is not continuing an approach

 

You are absolutely correct. This is why at our airline we add 50 feet to the MDA of an Rnav approach but do not add it to a DA minimum. All of our approaches are constant descent. Therefore it is impossible to not descend slightly below the DA or MDA. Descending below the DA is not illegal, but descending below the MDA is illegal, therefore the 50 foot buffer. We never do dive and drive approaches.

[Fly Boomer]

21 hours ago, PT20J said:

Enroute from Merrill Field in Anchorage, AK to Kodiak. Upon hand off from Anchorage approach to Anchorage center got "cleared to cruise six thousand."

With that cruise clearance, are both the altitude and the specific approach Pilot Discretion?

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, Fly Boomer said:

With that cruise clearance, are both the altitude and the specific approach Pilot Discretion?

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook…

[Fly Boomer]

3 minutes ago, PT20J said:

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook…

What approach are you cleared for?

[PT20J]

13 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

What approach are you cleared for?

Any published approach - your choice.

[MikeOH]

41 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Any published approach - your choice.

I was under the impression a visual approach was also acceptable (assuming, of course, conditions are legal)

Do I have that wrong?

[MikeOH]

I've asked, and received, cruise clearances a couple of times in northern California.

Now, what I don't think you'll ever get is a 'through clearance!'. Well, maybe in the middle of Wyoming

[PT20J]

22 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I was under the impression a visual approach was also acceptable (assuming, of course, conditions are legal)

Do I have that wrong?

No, I believe you are correct. And, I don’t see why you couldn’t also do a contact approach if you had a mile visibility and were clear of clouds. 

The thing to remember is that you may descend at pilot’s discretion to the minimum IFR altitude defined in 91.177 at any point and it is up to you to determine what that altitude is.

Skip

[201er]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:11 AM, Seth said:

This is not good for GA image anywhere but especially not around GAI where 3-5 neighbors have started a movement to try to restrict/close the airport. Of 6000 noise complaints something like 97% were from 3 households.

We just had a meeting last week about it. They caused a study to be done which the county paid for, etc.

 

[aviatoreb]

48 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Looks like there is trend to close other GA airports in that greater DC area.  They are fighting economics and local sentiment.

We, as pilots and owners, sometimes forget that we are a tiny tiny minority that have broad rights, granted by the Federal Government, to independently fly just about anywhere we want any time we want.  If local governments as well as some states like Wyoming had control our airspace rights would be much more limited and restrictive re: time of day, elevation, route, right to overfly private property at all, etc.

https://www.flyingmag.com/hyde-field-closes-bringing-the-dc3-down-to-just-two/

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/november/30/washington-executive-airport-hyde-field-closes

Really Wyoming?  I always thought of Wyoming as the extreme end of individuals rights.  I would not have expected them to be called out as wanting to limit rights to fly independently.

[ilovecornfields]

Curious if the houses were there before the airport was. Some genius developer built $800k houses right off the departure end of my home airport. Can wait until those guys start complaining about how noisy and unsafe it is to have an airport right next to their house. Although the are taking about a transient landing fee now.

This is definitely a black eye for GA and something that didn’t need to happen and could have been avoided with better decision making. 

[MikeOH]

4 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

Curious if the houses were there before the airport was. Some genius developer built $800k houses right off the departure end of my home airport. Can wait until those guys start complaining about how noisy and unsafe it is to have an airport right next to their house. Although the are taking about a transient landing fee now.

This is definitely a black eye for GA and something that didn’t need to happen and could have been avoided with better decision making. 

Sadly, in what is one of the worst court decisions ever, Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Corp. 1972, your first point is unfortunately settled: The developer may well get to kick out the airport as a 'public nuisance' even though the airport pre-dated the homes.

To be honest, I'm getting pretty sick of the phrase 'black eye for GA'; why are we always apologizing for our existence?  Yes, we are a minority, so I'm getting pretty sick of hearing about how we need to be perfect or we will be persecuted out of existence!

Many here believe there is no such thing as an accident (unless they make a mistake that bends metal, which they never have and never will, of course).  In other words, all aircraft 'incidents' are avoidable with "better decision making".

That video had the reporter pointing out that way back in 2014 three innocents were killed by a plane.  Well, how about asking, in that same time period, how many innocents were killed in car accidents around that airport?  Freedom requires the acceptance of all kinds of risks from the actions of others.  I can't fathom that the risk to residents around that airport from plane crashes comes anywhere near the residents' risk of death from other causes.

Yeah, yeah, I know: Facts and logic don't apply anymore.  It's all about feelings and emotion.

[aviatoreb]

5 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Yes - some rancher/famer/landowners believe that Common Law in the extreme grants them Air Rights over their land.  This has become more of an issue of late due to drones and fights over "corner crossing" in order to enter federal or public land by crossing over private property.  

 

No kidding.  I wouldn't have guessed.

What's their opinion on satellites flying over their property and their owned space?

[aviatoreb]

58 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Sadly, in what is one of the worst court decisions ever, Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Corp. 1972, your first point is unfortunately settled: The developer may well get to kick out the airport as a 'public nuisance' even though the airport pre-dated the homes.

To be honest, I'm getting pretty sick of the phrase 'black eye for GA'; why are we always apologizing for our existence?  Yes, we are a minority, so I'm getting pretty sick of hearing about how we need to perfect or we will be persecuted out of existence!

Many here believe there is no such thing as an accident (unless they make a mistake that bends metal, which they never have and never will, of course).  In other words, all aircraft 'incidents' are avoidable with "better decision making".

That video had the reporter pointing out that way back in 2014 three innocents were killed by a plane.  Well, how about asking, in that same time period, how many innocents were killed in car accidents around that airport?  Freedom requires the acceptance of all kinds of risks from the actions of others.  I can't fathom that the risk to residents around that airport from plane crashes comes anywhere near the residents' risk of death from other causes.

Yeah, yeah, I know: Facts and logic don't apply anymore.  It's all about feelings and emotion.

I agree in large part.

Not that I don’t want to hurt ga - but let me say something selfish / I am mostly selfishly and highly motivated for selfish reasons to be a good pilot / I’m greatly motivated to not do stupid things in my plane lest I kill myself or my loved ones than I am motivated to not do stupid stuff for making ga look bad.

[ilovecornfields]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Sadly, in what is one of the worst court decisions ever, Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Corp. 1972, your first point is unfortunately settled: The developer may well get to kick out the airport as a 'public nuisance' even though the airport pre-dated the homes.

To be honest, I'm getting pretty sick of the phrase 'black eye for GA'; why are we always apologizing for our existence?  Yes, we are a minority, so I'm getting pretty sick of hearing about how we need to perfect or we will be persecuted out of existence!

Many here believe there is no such thing as an accident (unless they make a mistake that bends metal, which they never have and never will, of course).  In other words, all aircraft 'incidents' are avoidable with "better decision making".

That video had the reporter pointing out that way back in 2014 three innocents were killed by a plane.  Well, how about asking, in that same time period, how many innocents were killed in car accidents around that airport?  Freedom requires the acceptance of all kinds of risks from the actions of others.  I can't fathom that the risk to residents around that airport from plane crashes comes anywhere near the residents' risk of death from other causes.

Yeah, yeah, I know: Facts and logic don't apply anymore.  It's all about feelings and emotion.

I kind of agree with you. Unfortunately when perception and reality differ you still have to deal with the perceptions and to some people that is that GA aircraft are flown around by a bunch of unregulated bozos who could fall out of the sky and kill you and your family anytime. We both realize how ridiculous and statistically unlikely this is but the fact that every once in a while someone does exactly that doesn’t really help our case.

I agree with Prof. Pi @aviatoreb that my reasons for trying to make good choices have less to do with GA’s public image and more to do with not trying to injure myself or my passengers in a plane crash.

Unfortunately, all aircraft incidents are not avoidable and that’s the reality we have to deal with anytime we fly. That being said, I think this one was.

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I agree in large part.

Not that I don’t want to hurt ga - but let me say something selfish / I am mostly selfishly and highly motivated for selfish reasons to be a good pilot / I’m greatly motivated to not do stupid things in my plane lest I kill myself or my loved ones than I am motivated to not do stupid stuff for making ga look bad.

My question is if you think any pilot doesn't think the same way?  Do you really believe the instant pilot had a different attitude?  Absent some mental defect who goes into any risky activity without selfish self preservation in mind?  I don't believe this guy said to himself, "Gee, weather sucks so I don't see a problem with descending down to 100 AGL so I can see". He screwed up big time but I can't believe it was intentional.

Preventable 'accidents', it seems, are in the eye of the Monday morning QB.

I find that approach to 'accident' analysis both unfair and runs the risk of a false sense of security mindset as in, "I'd never do something that dumb".

Well, not intentionally you wouldn't

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

I kind of agree with you. Unfortunately when perception and reality differ you still have to deal with the perceptions and to some people that is that GA aircraft are flown around by a bunch of unregulated bozos who could fall out of the sky and kill you and your family anytime. We both realize how ridiculous and statistically unlikely this is but the fact that every once in a while someone does exactly that doesn’t really help our case.

I agree with Prof. Pi @aviatoreb that my reasons for trying to make good choices have less to do with GA’s public image and more to do with not trying to injure myself or my passengers in a plane crash.

Unfortunately, all aircraft incidents are not avoidable and that’s the reality we have to deal with anytime we fly. That being said, I think this one was.

Yes, the last line in my post acknowledges the reality vs. perception issue; clearly it annoys the hell out of me

While there are, no doubt, a few incidents that are not avoidable, I believe them to be very rare. We humans are really good at making mistakes, some of them fatal, unfortunately.

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

Actually facts and logic do apply - it seems that aircraft owners have forgotten them:

• Our economy is based upon free market economics and capitalism which seeks the most efficient use of assets and capital for the greatest return
• General Aviation airports are a terribly inefficient use of large blocks of land
• "Developers" are referred to here with derision as the evil enemy
•  "Free market" means without or with limited government involvement and intervention
• GA Pilot/Owners are a tiny, tiny minority whose rights to fly are only protected by Federal government involvement and intervention

Underutilized and undervalued land is just a temporary parking place for General Aviation Airports.  I have said it before, Bill Cutter (Cutter Aviation - the oldest independent FBO) started in Albuquerque building GA airports and FBO's.  As soon as "urban sprawl" moved in he sold the airport to Developers for use as a new residential subdivision and moved farther out to build and airport again on underutilized land.  He did it about 3 times in ABQ.  Houston has done the same thing over the past 20 years - Andrau, Old Westheimer and Weiser Air Park - all sold to developers for residential and mixed use.   Even the land under Mueller Commercial Airport, conveniently located in downtown Austin became too valuable and it was sold to developers around 2000.

The "feeling and emotion" on TV and in council meetings regarding noise and safety is just an irrelevant sideshow.  The real juice in "decision making" is driven by economics - whether it is a city or privately owned.

Let's face it - we as GA owners don't pay anything near enough in landing fees or hangar rent to be equivalent to what the land could earn if properly developed.  If it is a towered airport we are not paying for the Tower.  And let's not forget that we are sponging off of Commercial Aviation for the free ATC that we get (It is just a matter of time before the GA ATC User Fee issue comes back up - do you remember that debate 10 yrs ago?)

If you are "making good decisions" then you are planning for the day that your GA airport is sold and moved 10's of miles farther out or you are planning to get out of GA before it happens.  I predict that West Houston and DW Hooks, both privately owned, will be sold in the next 10 years. The land offers, driven by urban population growth and pressing demand, will be too lucrative for the family owners to turn down.

Well, that's about the most sad and depressing post I've read in awhile.  No one is calling you "Mr. Sunshine" that's for certain

[Pinecone]

Historically, in all areas, about 1% of mishaps are unavoidable.  So called Acts of God.  The rest are the result of unsafe conditions (about 15%) and unsafe actions by people (the rest).

The issue is, strangely, there are not enough GA mishaps.  If there were more of them, they would not be news, and no one would notice.

There are 6 MILLION auto mishaps per year in the US.  That is almost 16,500 PER DAY, or 11 per minute.  About 100 people die each day in the US in auto accidents, or about 1 every 15 minutes..  

How often are there news stories about auto mishaps?  Not one every 6 seconds.

[aviatoreb]

8 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

Actually facts and logic do apply - it seems that aircraft owners have forgotten them:

• Our economy is based upon free market economics and capitalism which seeks the most efficient use of assets and capital for the greatest return
• General Aviation airports are a terribly inefficient use of large blocks of land
• "Developers" are referred to here with derision as the evil enemy
•  "Free market" means without or with limited government involvement and intervention
• GA Pilot/Owners are a tiny, tiny minority whose rights to fly are only protected by Federal government involvement and intervention

Underutilized and undervalued land is just a temporary parking place for General Aviation Airports.  I have said it before, Bill Cutter (Cutter Aviation - the oldest independent FBO) started in Albuquerque building GA airports and FBO's.  As soon as "urban sprawl" moved in he sold the airport to Developers for use as a new residential subdivision and moved farther out to build another new airport again on underutilized land.  He did it about 3 times in ABQ.  Houston has done the same thing over the past 20 years - Andrau, Old Westheimer and Weiser Air Park - all Privately Owned - all sold to developers for residential and mixed use - all driven by economics.   Even the land under Mueller Commercial Airport, conveniently located in downtown Austin became too valuable and it was sold to developers around 2000.

The "feeling and emotion" on TV and in council meetings regarding noise and safety is just an irrelevant sideshow.  The real juice in "decision making" is driven by economics - whether it is a city or privately owned.

Let's face it - we as GA owners don't pay anything near enough in landing fees or hangar rent to be equivalent to what the land could earn if properly developed.  If it is a towered airport we are not paying for the Tower.  And let's not forget that we are sponging off of Commercial Aviation for the free ATC that we get (It is just a matter of time before the GA ATC User Fee issue comes back up - do you remember that debate 10 yrs ago?)

If you are "making good decisions" then you are planning for the day that your GA airport is sold and moved 10's of miles farther out or you are planning to get out of GA before it happens.  I predict that West Houston and DW Hooks, both privately owned, will be sold in the next 10 years. The land offers from those "evil Developers", driven by urban population growth and pressing demand, will be too lucrative for the family owners to turn down.

I agree - that is the standard dogma of those arguing to end airports.

I know the economic and social impact of the airport in my little and remote rural town in upstate NY - I used to be the village chairman of the airport committee.  We are 2.5 hrs drive North from the nearest US city which is Syracuse.  In a county 2,801 sq miles and 100,000 people in the county and 14,000 in my town Potsdam, with KPTD right here.  So why do we need an airport?  Its literally a major connection to important services. UPS comes every day with our fast delivery so its part of our connection to the economy.  There is a medical lift company posted on airport that flies a Pilatus PC12 ambulance plane which runs pretty much daily.  And yes rich people come and go to visit their rural woodsy properties and they spend a lot of money locally.  Hiring contractors and what not.  If a person here says I don't need an airport - I don't want to pay for an airport for a bunch of rich people - well they are shooting themselves in the foot.

One could make the same argument against roads.  Why should the feds or state pay for roads?  Why aren't all roads toll roads.  Stop and pay every 5 miles when driving across Atlanta, or Chicago, or St Lawrence County?  Clearly there would be fewer roads and the USA would be generally less connected.  And our economy and social connections would be weaker.  I assert that airports are part of that transportation infrastructure, and 3700ft of pavement in Potsdam, NY is much cheaper than building a proper highway from Syracuse up to here.  We get a fraction of the economic benefit as we would with a multi-billion dollar super highway to Syracuse or Burlington, VT (east 3 hrs), but we get a heck of a lot more impact than none at all.  So it is a price efficient bargain to throw us a bone and let us have an airport.

[aviatoreb]

8 hours ago, MikeOH said:

My question is if you think any pilot doesn't think the same way?  Do you really believe the instant pilot had a different attitude?  Absent some mental defect who goes into any risky activity without selfish self preservation in mind?  I don't believe this guy said to himself, "Gee, weather sucks so I don't see a problem with descending down to 100 AGL so I can see". He screwed up big time but I can't believe it was intentional.

Preventable 'accidents', it seems, are in the eye of the Monday morning QB.

I find that approach to 'accident' analysis both unfair and runs the risk of a false sense of security mindset as in, "I'd never do something that dumb".

Well, not intentionally you wouldn't

Of course I said what I said because I think many or likely most pilots are significantly more so motivated not to die for the self centered reasons of not wanting to be dead rather than for the magnanimous reasons of not wanting to make GA look bad.  But I said it in terms of my own motivations as a matter of not wanting to speak for other people, but I know for sure myself.  Unfortunately, some people dont seem to always make good decisions.  And looking in the mirror I know that sometimes I might become one of those people if I don't buck up and fly straight (said figuratively and not literally).

[Fly Boomer]

8 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Do you really believe the instant pilot had a different attitude?  Absent some mental defect who goes into any risky activity without selfish self preservation in mind?

Agree.  That's why they are called accidents, not "on-purposes".

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

How often are there news stories about auto mishaps?  Not one every 6 seconds.

"News" is just another word for "entertainment".

[MikeOH]

22 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Agree.  That's why they are called accidents, not "on-purposes".

Exactly my point!

I went on my rant because it seems many don’t agree with that logical view. Rather, after the fact, on their high comfortable BarcaLoungers, they righteously proclaim, “that wasn’t an accident. It could have been prevented if the pilot wasn’t an idiot!”

[FlyingDude]

9 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

• General Aviation airports are a terribly inefficient use of large blocks of land
• "Developers" are referred to here with derision as the evil enemy
•  "Free market" means without or with limited government involvement and intervention
• GA Pilot/Owners are a tiny, tiny minority whose rights to fly are only protected by Federal government involvement and intervention

How about schools?  With their ginormous sports facilities and playgrounds?  How many McMansions would you fit there?  How about golf courses?  Have you thought about the environmental impact of manicuring pristine lawn on vasts lands?  How about boat launches?  I guess you could build a waterfront property there.  Why haven't they built McMansions on old malls already?  I haven't bought anything at a mall over 8 years!  

If the property tax on the airport land is paid up, then local admins have no reason to bitch.  Of course, they may be vesseling the voices of their developer friends, and vouching for their donations come next election time.  But that's not about efficiency.  

When we were looking for a house, we avoided those near stadiums, golf courses, malls, hospitals apartment complexes.  Other people can do the same about airports.  

Btw, the exact same thing goes for race tracks and farms.  My colleague owns farm land and he was saying that his new neighbors bought the unused land and built their house and now are trying to shut down his farm due to "unpleasant smells."  People want noisy race tracks gone because it's seen as a rich guy's hobby, whereas most cars I've seen on track were Miatas...

As for the support...  all we can do is to promote aviation.  Take friends for a sightseeing flight, show them the enthusiasm and show that it's not only a rich guys' pastime.  That would mitigate the bad rep.  I believe, as long as GA keeps generating jobs and income, we'll have federal support.