teetee
New Member
In August of 2000, my cousin who had recently went through a nasty divorce, decided he wanted to continue his passion for flight. He had several hundred hours when he decided to attend a school in California to get his Multi-engine rating.
On October 6, 2000, his plane crashed into the side of the mountain. He was flying with a CFI. Both died in the crash. I have often thought about this crash, even more after I married a pilot. My in-laws had looked up the information and we had discussed it some but not really in-depth. My brother in law had told me that it was ruled as my cousin's fault. I thought that was interesting because of a lawsuit and battle my aunt and uncle had fought to have his name cleared. I had never read the reports but I had the knowledge of what was told to me by his parents and then also what my in-laws had read and discussed with me.
Tonight I was sitting and thinking and I decided that maybe I could finally handle reading what was in the NTSB report. It wasn't easy reading, reading what the plane condition was and that my cousin was in that plane made me sick at times. As I read everything in the report, I had a hard time understanding some of the information with the ATC. My husband is in the process of being hired as an ATC (he is a tentative offer letter). Feeling for both sides (ATC because my husband is going to be one and Pilot because my husband and lots of family are), I really would like to understand what really happened. I would like some input from pilots and ATC if they would on what they think happened, or rather how they would interpret the report.
First, a lot of the lingo is hard to understand. Although I may be married to a pilot and hear pilot talk on a daily basis, I have never received formal training. I have NO clue how to read weather readings and such. I do know that part of this crash was weather related but I couldn't understand it all.
Please tell me if I am understanding this correctly. My cousin was the PIC I believe, but if could have been his CFI, not sure. While flying he was talking to So Cal Tracon (enroute) and then was transfered to POC (tower) when he got to a certain point. He was disoriented from how I read it. A few times he says he has the airport in site then he says he doesn't. Even though he was IFR, the ATC asked if he wanted to move to VFR because of conditions. From what the ATC said he moved to VFR, but when I read I the transcript it sounded like he wanted to stay IFR. Did I get that right?
Where does the the Radar person fall into all of this? From how I understand it there was 3 ATC, the radar, enroute and tower. Is that right? Did the radar stop the warning about airplane elevation from reaching the other ATC's?
My aunt and uncle held a strong conviction that the crash and death was not their son's fault. I think part of it was that they had to hear it wasn't his fault to get closure. They fought the findings that the crash was his fault. About 2 years ago, my aunt was estatic when she got news that the NTSB had changed their findings and blamed the ATC for the crash and not my cousin.
At the end of the report, it stated: "According to 14 CFR Part 91.3, the pilot is responsible for the safety of the flight. This included deciding whether or not to continue the approach or conduct the missed approach procedure when the airplane had reached the missed approach point (MAP). The MAP for the VOR-A approach was the VORTAC. The airplane was approximately 2 1/2 miles north of the VORTAC and the airport.
The IIC released the wreckage to the owner's representative."
From my understanding, the NTSB still places the blame on the pilot. Why would the lawyer and others tell my aunt and uncle that it had been ruled that it was ATC fault and yet the report still reads pilot? Would that finding of it being the ATC fault be in another location?
Here is the full report.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X22177&ntsbno=LAX01FA004&akey=1
Here is the summary one:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX01FA004&rpt=fi
Thanks for enduring the long post!
On October 6, 2000, his plane crashed into the side of the mountain. He was flying with a CFI. Both died in the crash. I have often thought about this crash, even more after I married a pilot. My in-laws had looked up the information and we had discussed it some but not really in-depth. My brother in law had told me that it was ruled as my cousin's fault. I thought that was interesting because of a lawsuit and battle my aunt and uncle had fought to have his name cleared. I had never read the reports but I had the knowledge of what was told to me by his parents and then also what my in-laws had read and discussed with me.
Tonight I was sitting and thinking and I decided that maybe I could finally handle reading what was in the NTSB report. It wasn't easy reading, reading what the plane condition was and that my cousin was in that plane made me sick at times. As I read everything in the report, I had a hard time understanding some of the information with the ATC. My husband is in the process of being hired as an ATC (he is a tentative offer letter). Feeling for both sides (ATC because my husband is going to be one and Pilot because my husband and lots of family are), I really would like to understand what really happened. I would like some input from pilots and ATC if they would on what they think happened, or rather how they would interpret the report.
First, a lot of the lingo is hard to understand. Although I may be married to a pilot and hear pilot talk on a daily basis, I have never received formal training. I have NO clue how to read weather readings and such. I do know that part of this crash was weather related but I couldn't understand it all.
Please tell me if I am understanding this correctly. My cousin was the PIC I believe, but if could have been his CFI, not sure. While flying he was talking to So Cal Tracon (enroute) and then was transfered to POC (tower) when he got to a certain point. He was disoriented from how I read it. A few times he says he has the airport in site then he says he doesn't. Even though he was IFR, the ATC asked if he wanted to move to VFR because of conditions. From what the ATC said he moved to VFR, but when I read I the transcript it sounded like he wanted to stay IFR. Did I get that right?
Where does the the Radar person fall into all of this? From how I understand it there was 3 ATC, the radar, enroute and tower. Is that right? Did the radar stop the warning about airplane elevation from reaching the other ATC's?
My aunt and uncle held a strong conviction that the crash and death was not their son's fault. I think part of it was that they had to hear it wasn't his fault to get closure. They fought the findings that the crash was his fault. About 2 years ago, my aunt was estatic when she got news that the NTSB had changed their findings and blamed the ATC for the crash and not my cousin.
At the end of the report, it stated: "According to 14 CFR Part 91.3, the pilot is responsible for the safety of the flight. This included deciding whether or not to continue the approach or conduct the missed approach procedure when the airplane had reached the missed approach point (MAP). The MAP for the VOR-A approach was the VORTAC. The airplane was approximately 2 1/2 miles north of the VORTAC and the airport.
The IIC released the wreckage to the owner's representative."
From my understanding, the NTSB still places the blame on the pilot. Why would the lawyer and others tell my aunt and uncle that it had been ruled that it was ATC fault and yet the report still reads pilot? Would that finding of it being the ATC fault be in another location?
Here is the full report.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X22177&ntsbno=LAX01FA004&akey=1
Here is the summary one:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX01FA004&rpt=fi
Thanks for enduring the long post!