I had not planned to comment again on this issue. But today, I received an AOPA e-mail that included a link to NTSB accident report Number: DEN04FA043 concerning a FATAL accident involving a Cessna 206 on a flight from Jeffco (KBJC) to just beyond the Medicine Bow VOR, where it crashed into a mountain. I quote from this report: NTSB FINAL NARRATIVE (6120.4)
'The 339 hour private instrument rated pilot departed on a VFR clearance, but changed to an IFR clearance as weather deteriorated. Approximately 14 minutes before the accident, he reported his position incorrectly to ATC (he reported that he was on the 320 degree radial when he was on the 140 degree radial).' This pilot was "inbound" to the Medicine Bow VOR on R-140. Quoting from NTSB PRELIMINARY NARRATIVE (6120.19) 'Approximately one minute later (1104:22), ARTCC requested the pilot's radial and DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) off the Medicine Bow VOR. He replied with "Stationair 192, we are 320 [degrees], 9 miles DME off Medicine Bow." ARTCC radar data indicates that the airplane was actually on the 140 degree radial at 9 miles DME off Medicine Bow.' This is exactly the situation that John Denker maintained was an exception to the rule "report position as the radial from the station and DME distance." This pilot agreed with John. This mistake and confused position report was the beginning of a series of mistakes in knowing/reporting the position of his AC that 14 minutes later caused him to fly into a mountain. He was killed. On 01/04/07 John Denker wrote: > On 01/04/2007 04:28 AM, Torsten Dreyer wrote: > > > Well - at least on the eastern side of the atlantic, where I do > instrument > > flights in real world, the 090 radial is always EAST of the station, > the 270 > > radial is WEST of the station. > > A controller advice "proceed on radial 090" or "intercept radial > 090" always > > means you shall fly exactly east (magnetic) of the station and fly > away from > > it. > > If you are requested to fly on radial 090 *inbound*, you are > expected to be > > east of the station and fly *to* it on a track of 270. > > This is the sort of thing that gives pedantry a bad name. John, you disdain friendly correction from two instrument rated experienced pilots and still argue an incorrect point. As has been pointed out, what you put forward is inherently contradictory and as this accident report points out down right dangerous if applied. > > If you are west of the station, > -- a controller could (in pedantic theory land) instruct you to > intercept the "090 course line that passes overhead the XYZ VOR"; > -- or I suppose another circumlocution might be "intercept the > reciprocal of the XYZ 270 radial"; > ++ but it is rather more concise to call it the "XYZ 090 radial", > which is the terminology that US controllers use (and are required > to use). ++ is clearly not true. The FAA documents you cited in a previous note only establish that the FAA uses "inbound radial" in communications, not that there is a different meaning for inbound radial. I don't know if you are instrument rated. If you have access to a set of approach plates, you will see many many examples of written clearances where the inbound radial is written as R-100 (for example) when the pilot will be flying with a heading of 280. These are the STARs and DPs (approach and departure procedures). If you choose to decline a DP, the controller will read the written DP as it appears in the Terminal Procedures as part of your clearance. I will include one DP as an example. There are 5 others on page 51 in the U.S. TERMINAL PROCEDURES SW VOL 1. MEDICINE BOW TRANSITION (YELLO3.MBW): From over DEN VOR/DME via DEN R-331 and MBW R-133 to MBW VOR/DME. Note that even though your inbound heading to MBW will be nearly 313, the clearance is in terms of MBW R-133. The final and fatal mistake the pilot made in this accident report was not following correction from two sources; the ARTCC controller who asked him to "turn 20 deg right and rejoin V6" as well as the comment from the right seat passenger who was monitoring the flight on a sectional that "they were passing over I80 and V6 was well north of I80". In the first case, the pilot acknowledged the controller but did not alter his course. In the second case, he just ignored the passengers comment. Fortunately the passenger survived the crash. John, I don't want you or any other reader of this list to be injured. So please retract your confusing and dangerous assertion that you report your position differently when on an "inbound radial". Regards, -- Dave Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
