Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf FlightAware.com zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer
Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer
Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..
The VASI has nothing to do with this incident. The pilot was aware of the Notam. The approach should have been de-commissioned at the same time the VASI was shut down.
I can assure you the approach was flown precisely as depicted on the approach plate.The PIC was aware that this was not a precision approach; however the advisory glide-slope should be used in your scan. The aircraft was on a stabilized approach. All crossing altitudes and minimums were adhered to. After going visual, no changes were made to the stabilized approach. This PIC has never flown the "Dive and Drive" profile. He has flown stabilized approaches his entire career; that is how he flew 56 years and 30,000 plus hours without ever putting a dent on an aircraft. It's hard to maneuver a plane through trees that penetrate the "Clear Fly Zone" by more than eighty feet, especially at night with moderate rain and one and a half mile visibility. The approach plate on the night of the incident clearly showed the shaded arrow between the VDP and TCH indicating the pilot was guaranteed a 34:1 obstacle clearance slope. The survey during the investigation showed a 9:1 would be required.
To give you a better perspective, the error of 946.5 feet from the eighteen year old survey would have equated to a TCH of 96.5 feet at the published TCH instead of 46 feet. Big difference.
The pilot made no error: the FAA took no action against the pilot, did not rule the incident pilot error, conducted a TERP's analysis, and de-commissioned the approach for eight months until the fifteen trees were eventually cut down.
The law enforcement officer did not even see the plane. He did not leave the FBO facilities. The crew was well aware of what had happened ( read the story) but had a letter of confidentiality with the owner and did not feel it was appropriate to tell anyone any more than they had to at that time of night. The FAA was notified the next morning and the investigation went forward.
J. Huddleston has sued no one. He was informed a settlement had been reached. He has had to bite his tongue for four years, wanting to write this article, because he is convinced there are more GPS approaches like this one. He has suffered more from this incident than anyone.
The crew landing on RW 23 may have known what we were told after the incident, "The trees are lower on RW23"; however Albany approach vectored us for GPS RW 5 which was appropriate arriving from the southwest. I regret any hardships Mr. Zilka may have endured during this period, but the tree matter had been known for years and ignored. Look at a copy of the approach plate for the date of the incident.