Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
President's Pilot Warned Before Crash  
User currently offlineTRACON From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 115 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 10 months 4 days ago) and read 11034 times:

Apparently the aircraft crashed in calm weather conditions on its way to pick up Bush for a business meeting.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/23/texas.crash.ap/index.html

Your thoughts on this matter?

-Tracon

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 10927 times:

Well, obviously he was low - he hit a 120 foot light pole, 3.25 miles from the runway! The question is why was he low? Mechanical problem? Pilot problem? Something else (pilot incapacitation, for example)? This statement sounds like the NTSB just giving out a sound bite to appease the media.

MxCtrlr  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.  Smokin cool



DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
User currently offlineTRACON From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 10890 times:

NTSB officials say the final report could take a YEAR or more !! But i do agree with you. There are things not being told.

User currently offlineStudentFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 688 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10592 times:

Although it's a sad thing to have happened, but it could be much worse if the president himself was on board. Gosh that would be scary! My thoughts, prayers and condolences to the crew on board, God be with them.

User currently offlineOkie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3045 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10531 times:

It sounds to me like a bad case of "get there itis"
Without other details IMO probably the fact that the plane was to pick up an important passenger (Bush Sr.) may have led to self imposed pressure to "get there".
You would assume that with Wx conditions bad that normally the pilots would have flown to an alternate and waited for the Wx to improve.
Just my .02

Okie


User currently offlineJtamu97 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 658 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10348 times:

There may have been a little pressure, but remember Bush was a former pilot and he of all people would understand if a plane could not land due to bad weather. I also doubt the schedule was so tight to get him to Ecuador that they could have not waited an hour or so. Either way, it will be interesting to see the final report when it comes out.


Propeller, we don't need no stinkin propeller
User currently offline7LBAC111 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 2566 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10295 times:

Erm...you all do realise that it wasn't in fact the current President, and was GWB Snr who was mean't to fly on it - dont you???  Confused


Debate is what you put on de hook when you want to catch de fish.
User currently offlineType-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10213 times:

Okie:

Exactly my thoughts on this.

Another factor that will come out is the age of the pilots. The Captain was 67 and the F/O 62. The retirement age for airline pilots is 60, and there is a great debate going on to push the limit up to 62 or so. This incident will add fuel to that fire. I think the media just hasn't picked up on this yet.
Needless to say, both pilots were very well experienced and were certified to fly that plane in all weather conditions.


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9977 times:

NTSB officials say the final report could take a YEAR or more !! But i do agree with you. There are things not being told.

Dude, the accident just happened. Sheesh. People here act like every single little thing is some sort of massive government coverup. The NTSB has no impetus for withholding info on this. It takes time to pick over the wreckage noting where each little piece is, it takes time to conduct interviews with those involved (ATC, maintenance, etc.), it takes time to get the recorders back to the lab and have them analyzed (this process alone can take months). Then you've got to piece everything together, which can take several more months.

The ATC tapes would be the first definitive piece of evidence they'd have, that's all. It was obviously not damaged in the crash and the controller himself would be the first interview conducted because a) he's easy to identify and locate, and b) he's close to the scene. It's no shock that this is the first piece of info released.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9931 times:

There is no such person as GWB Sr. There IS however, a GHWB Sr. George Herbert-Walker Bush... and then you have George W. Bush. (Walker)

User currently offline7LBAC111 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 2566 posts, RR: 35
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9843 times:

BR715-A1-30

Let's not split hairs!  Laugh out loud



Debate is what you put on de hook when you want to catch de fish.
User currently offlineStudentFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 688 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9827 times:

Erm...you all do realise that it wasn't in fact the current President, and was GWB Snr who was mean't to fly on it - dont you???

Yes I did. But it would still cause some reaction if he was in that aircraft.


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9828 times:

The reason it takes a YEAR or more is because there is a ton of evidence to sort through. This is made tougher because much of it is in very small pieces. The NTSB is very thourough and does a really good job when it comes to an accident investigation. While the pilots may have had get-there-itis the media always has "what went wrong itis". They wanted an answer as to why this happened five minutes before it actually happened. Kudos to the NTSB for doing their job properly and not speeding things up to please CNN.


DMI
User currently offlineC172heavy From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8928 times:

Anyone know what the weather was like at the time of the crash? The news article doesn't really say, other than conditions will be examined. And that, I presume, is routine for any investigation.


"How's that working out for ya?....Bein' clever?"
User currently offlineKYIPpilot From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8850 times:

I too think it was get-there-itis. I think the pilots may have felt pressured to not let Bush Sr. wait for an aircraft. Since it was foggy and low visibility, they may have decided to scud run in hopes of seeing the airport at a lower altitude so they would not have to go missed.


"It starts when you're always afraid; You step out of line, the man come and take you away" -Buffalo Springfield
User currently offlineTRACON From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8844 times:

News reports just say fog I believe.

TRACON


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8361 times:

Is 120' not on the tall side for a light-pole? (Obviously, I'm not blaming the crash on the placement of the light-pole.)

User currently offlineKindjordan From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8327 times:

Lets say the pilots were in a rush to get there?....does this explain why the plane was at 150ft and clipping light poles insead of @ 1000ft where it was supposed be on final?.....What about the GWPS system in this aircraft?....if the plane was at 150ft why wouldn't the PIC know this....or be backed up by his first officer. What did his ALT gauges say, what kinda assistance did he get from ATC. There are many many questions surrounding this incident...and IMHO, I think its a bit premature to even make judgments about what really happened.....only time and a through investigation will tell, god bless the crew and their family's....-J

User currently offlineClearedDirect From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8176 times:

An amazing fact was that these pilots were extremely experienced (Both having around 19,000hrs). I cant imagine both of them not noticing that the aircraft was 600ft below glideslope. Additionally Bush Sr. mentioned that he had flew with them many times before so they must have been checked out in every conceivable way. It will be interesting nonetheless to hear what the NTSB has to say when they are finished.

Condolences to the victims and their family.


User currently offlineTRACON From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7745 times:

A kind soul took the initiative to research and send me the wx report at the time of the crash:

KHOU 221227Z 00000KT 1/8SM FG BKN001 OVC006 22/21 A3001 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 1/2

google for a METAR converter if you cant read that.

Hopefully that is accurate and will clear some things up!

TRACON


User currently offlineKYIPpilot From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7634 times:

KHOU 221227Z 00000KT 1/8SM FG BKN001 OVC006 22/21 A3001 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 1/2

Basically it says; Houston Hobby visibility 1/8 statute mile, fog, clouds broken at 100 feet above ground, overcast at 600 feet AGL, temp 22C, dewpoint 21C.

does this explain why the plane was at 150ft and clipping light poles insead of @ 1000ft where it was supposed be on final?.....What about the GWPS system in this aircraft?....if the plane was at 150ft why wouldn't the PIC know this....or be backed up by his first officer.

I can almost guarentee that both of them knew, unless they were both incapacitated. Thats why I think that maybe they felt pressured to get there so they didn't make Bush Sr. wait, and were scud running. I am not saying this happened, but it sure makes sense to me. We will have to wait to see what the CVR and FDR say.



"It starts when you're always afraid; You step out of line, the man come and take you away" -Buffalo Springfield
User currently offlineKindjordan From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6699 times:

In the past I have heard of crashes that involved the Capitan or FO nudging the yoke and inadvertently disengaging the planes autopilot. In most of those crashes the crew didn't realize the mistake untill it was too late. Is there a possibility of this being the cause of the crash?....I was thinking not though, as I'm sure the aircraft was being hand flown in on the approach. Im assuming there's no "autoland" on this plane??

User currently offlineQwerty From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 386 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6645 times:

There IS however, a GHWB Sr.

Technically, I do not even think there is a Sr. or Jr. There's just two Georges.


User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6489 times:

Kindjordan
Im sure there is a audio alarm in the jet that if the auto pilot is accidentally disengaged it would alert the crew.



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineNonrvsmdmf From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6363 times:

I live about a mile from where this happened and was on my
way to the office when it crashed. The weather was nasty
and foggy.

Two minutes before it went down they were warned they were
too low. They should have been at 1200' min when they
hit the pole. From what I know of this aircraft it does not
have a GPWS.

I guess we will see what comes out of the investigation.



I did not forget...I just misplaced the thought...
25 Planespotting : What the hell is FG. Fog is listed in a METAR as "BR" (the mnemonic device is 'baby rain'')
26 Post contains links Goboeing : Planespotting What the hell is FG. Fog is listed in a METAR as "BR" (the mnemonic device is 'baby rain'') FG is fog. BR is mist. I have not seen FG on
27 Planespotting : ohhh shit. thats right. im stupid. thankyou for the correction. It's been awhile since all of my written tests...
28 Post contains images Flyinround731 : Is 120' not on the tall side for a light-pole? (Obviously, I'm not blaming the crash on the placement of the light-pole.) Here in Houston, many of our
29 Post contains images APP : 7LBAC111, Shouldn't that be "Let's not split heirs" APP.
30 MontanaFL : Qwerty - you are correct not a Sr nor a Jr - just two Georges. I seriously doubt it was get thereitis - if so, maybe the crew just wanted to be on the
31 OPNLguy : >>>What the hell is FG. Fog is listed in a METAR as "BR" (the mnemonic device is 'baby rain'') The threshold for reporting FG versus BR is at 1/2SM, a
32 Citjet : Hi all, I'm a new member and thought I'd contribute to the discussion. Does anyone remember the G-III crash in Aspen Colorado? I think that this recen
33 Qwerty : I'm a new member and thought I'd contribute to the discussion. Does anyone remember the G-III crash in Aspen Colorado?. That was pilot error with bad
34 Lxjtebga : I was sad hearing about this crash the other day.....especially once I found out that it was 85VT....myself and other people I work with specifically
35 Post contains images Fsuwxman : Well, while we are splitting hairs here, the VIS where BR will be FG is 5/8 SM. That's according to our Weather Observer Bible, the FAA Order 7900.5b.
36 MD88Captain : Just on the bare facts, it could be a case of scud running. An attempt to get low enough to get to the airport. There won't be an official finding for
37 Type-rated : I think it's called complacency.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
TU 154 Pilot Had 44 Seconds Warning Before Crash posted Thu Jul 4 2002 19:06:34 by LBA
Shooting Onboard Armenian Before Crash... posted Fri Oct 20 2006 07:47:55 by Kevin
Final Moments Before Crash On C.V.R's posted Sun Jul 24 2005 02:09:34 by COAMiG29
Pilot Injured In Crash During Aerobatic Display posted Mon May 30 2005 07:51:49 by UnitedRhapsody
Pilot Discusses Plane Crash On Lost posted Sat Feb 19 2005 06:10:47 by Zippyjet
Pilot Arrested Before Flying! posted Mon Aug 23 2004 21:53:59 by Alcregular
Passengers Previously On An Aircraft Before Crash posted Thu Nov 13 2003 07:07:59 by Thrust
CI 747's Violent Maneuvers Minutes Before Crash? posted Tue Jun 4 2002 14:06:05 by Bobcat
ATR Pilot In Suicide Crash posted Mon Oct 11 1999 13:38:23 by Kaitak
Pilot Fired Over DC-10 Crash posted Tue Sep 19 2006 13:15:03 by Airfoilsguy