Hello all,

 

I have always found it fascinating to learn about aviation accidents. I don't want the ghoulish details, but the actual cause of a crash and what led up to it is interesting. We all hate when they happen, but they do happen and if we can learn from what happened to others, then...

 

Anyway, I was always a fan of the crash analysis that Jonathan Stern did for Computer Pilot magazine. I found my copy of CP from March, 2008 today and re-read about the crash of N400WX, a Columbia 400. This aircraft crashed while trying to land in lousy weather at KRMN, Stafford Regional. I decided to try to make the landing myself in similar weather conditions on FSX tonight.

 

I don't have a Columbia 400, so I just used the Flight 1 Cessna 172 for my flight. I set the weather conditions using ActiveSky Next as follows:

 

KRMN 042318Z 33006KT 1 1/4SM BR -RA OVC005 05/03 A2995. Basically, it was flying in the soup or darn close to it.

 

I used the FSX ATC for IFR guidance and they cut me loose on approach, telling me to switch to advisory. I decided to hand fly the whole approach and if this had been real life, there would have been a great deal of vomit flying around the interior. Yes, my hand flying trying to stay on the localizer path was bad...very bad. Needle chasing at its finest.

 

I did manage to see the runway just before reaching the DH, so I continued the approach and landed safely. I can safely say, however, had this been real life, I would have not fared well.

 

It was an interesting exercise and I plan to try some others from time to time. I wondered if any of you do the same kind of thing.

 

Ken

My interest was, and still is, in CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accidents.  That evolved from a 1977 CFIT, in which a United Airlines DC-8, four engine cargo jet flew into the mountain very close to home.  I'd read published accident investigations, to which I subscribed, before the internet became common place.  Later on, using GPS coordinates listed in accident reports, I'd use the location to set up flights with flight simulator. It's a way of seeing terrain, which the pilots and passengers usually didn't see.

 

When moving map aviation  GPS became available as a handheld device in 1993, I became fascinated with these products, and upgraded through the years, as they became color, and included extensive topography databases.  I flew (real life) in mostly mountainous areas. To me, it was certainly a better way to navigate, than prior methods.  Considering the drastic drop in CFITs over the last decade, it's proven true.   Until I quit flying three years ago, I'd often make the effort to check out accident sites, if they were close to any routes I'd be taking. Then I could check out the GPS for accuracy, and how it would give audio and flashing screen warnings far in advance of ever meeting the terrain at the same altitude.  They DO, work out very well. Especially with  synthetic vision, that uses the same databases that we do as flight simmers.

I don't, don't see the point.

 

 

I can safely say, however, had this been real life, I would have not fared well.

Why? "not fared well" - would you crash as well??

 

But yes, if someone is incapable of executing a missed approach he/she shouldn't be flying in IMC.

 

I don't think reenactment like this has any significant values apart from a simple element of curiosity - it is impossible to recreate true conditions of the flight, the available metar could be significantly off compared to what this pilot saw, also the psychological state of the pilot is important factor (which often is key to understand chain of events). If you are a GA pilot and you missed your first approach and this is your second approach - your chance of crashing goes through the roof. For reenactment of this accident it would have been much more educational to reenact how this pilot planned his trip, his weather briefing, what other airports/weather were in the vicinity. Therefore I prefer to read Peter Garrison's analysis of such accidents in his Aftermath section - you then get a fairly complete picture of choices pilot had and you learn a lot. AOPA also does a great job reenacting some of the accidents. This particular accident had its roots probably even before the pilot took off.