Gesamt
← Back to Squawk list
“Fly The Plate and You Won’t Get Hurt”
A pilot flying a GPS approaches to Runways 5 at Saratoga Springs Airport with a VDP on the published approach plate is assured a margin of obstacle clearance. The subsequent tree survey showed the tree [that the aircraft struck] extended well into the 20:1 glideslope far in excess of the 34:1 required by this type of approach. The VDP feature of this type of approach assures the pilot that a 34:1 slope from the VDP to the runway threshold is free of obstructions. (www.ainonline.com) Mehr...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I am not a frequent user of 5B2 but have flown the GPS 5 with twilight snow squalls during the mid-2000s in a SEL. That same weekend, I departed runway 23 during a heavy snow storm. Whoa! Thanks for this account.
Generally speaking, I sense there's a lot of "inertia" in the dense northeast working against keeping approach paths clear (and even closing down too many airports). I now enjoy flying around NC and the SE US where runways are being lengthened and approach paths are generally kept clear.
But I'll be lot more suspicious of all those lovely LPV approaches and thankful I'm not flying anything fast or heavy.
Generally speaking, I sense there's a lot of "inertia" in the dense northeast working against keeping approach paths clear (and even closing down too many airports). I now enjoy flying around NC and the SE US where runways are being lengthened and approach paths are generally kept clear.
But I'll be lot more suspicious of all those lovely LPV approaches and thankful I'm not flying anything fast or heavy.
Glad that it all worked out safely and the root cause was addressed. Did you end up getting a little mud on the tires?
By 2007, it had become common knowledge for the pilots frequenting 5B2(Saratoga County Airport) to not land RWY 5 at night. The trees were a problem during the day, and a hazard night. Immediately after this incident, the trees in question were taken down and very large clear zones were established on the end of RWY's 5 and 23. So, the question becomes this, if the trees weren't a problem on July 12th 2008, why did they start coming down so quickly afterward? I guess we'll have to wait for the court to decide.
Richard, according to the link below to the local paer, they did not start coming down immediatly. I don't know the start date but but the paper was dated in July of 2010, almost 2 years later. Nothing but NOTAMS for about 7-8 months
Hey Jim...great reply. I've flown many trips in years past with Jim when he was my Chief Pilot for a Learjet operator in Nashville. Jim is as good of a Learjet pilot as anyone I know. Jim's DECADES of experience in the Lear is something to marvel at. His 56 years and 30,000 hours of flying is not an exaggeration. He's as good as they come.
Sam Swift
Sam Swift
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.