Warbird Information Exchange

Here it is:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i ... 0494&key=1

Sad that a man like that was taken in a manner in which he was.

just goes to show, that if the controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. there was another case on Aero-news about a P337 where the controller did not reply or update a pilot on weather, the pilot died there as well.

But can you really blame the entire thing on the controller?

Yeager even said that Crossfield got himself into things that he should not have before and it caught up to him.

I think it takes a series of mistakes from the controller and the pilot that causes accidents.

I've had a controller help me to avoid possible treacherous weather several times in the past. We as pilots have to use all the resources available to us, including asking for WX updates if we feel it is necessary, either IFR or VFR. For those of you who don't do so, ask for flight following if you are VFR so the guys and gals at Center can assist if need be.

Scott

The controller isn't called the Pilot In Command, either.

You're right that the controller isn't solely responsible, but there were 3 fatal accidents in a short span where the controller failed to follow their own regulations requiring them to point out Level 3 and above radar returns to aircraft if traffic load permits. In all 3 cases, the traffic load was not sufficient to justify the controller's failure to alert the pilot of the issue. As well, ATC should not make assumptions about equipment on board the aircraft to make the pilot aware of the weather situation (which in one case in recent past ATC assumed the airplane had radar because he'd seen another similar aircraft so equipped he thought all were equipped) and must err on the side of safety. Yeah, Mr. Crossfield got in over his head, but at the same time he also tried to get out of it when he realized how bad it was getting, but had he been told by ATC of the high returns ahead, he could have reacted sooner and maybe been able to get out alive.

Some may not like what I am going to say, but on the first day of flight training, DAY 1, our instructor said stay the hell away from thunderstorms. Sorry you can't pin that on the ATC. Should he have given him a weather update? Sure, but Crossfield had no business being there when the METAR and TAF's read what they did. I am both ATC and a pilot, so I am trying to see it from both sides.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Yeager was talking out of the wrong hole when he said that.

One should also remember that Yeager had his own fair share of instances where he got into bad situations because he was too arrogant to listen to advice. His NF-104 crash is a prime example. He had no idea follow to follow a proper zoom profile because he refused to listen to advice from fellow pilots on how to execute the manuever. Instead, he let his own arrogance do the piloting that day. But don't ask me...ask Robert Smith, the chief test pilot on that program (or visit his website at www.nf104.com for the full story). The sad thing about that this sorry episode (which led to the cancellation of that program) is that The Right Stuff used it to make Yeager look like an heroic rebel.

The truth is, Yeager couldn't resist one parting shot at Crossfield in order to try to make his own sorry ego just a tad bit bigger. Sadly, people are willing to believe Yeager because he's more famous than any other test pilot. They dismiss his crass behavior as him just "saying what's on his mind." It's really pathetic how the most famous test pilot feels the need to make himself look better than his rival on the day that his rival died.

I agree with this sentiment. It's really all just sad. I have spent time with Yeager, and I too have my own experiences with him. Needless to say they were not positive at all. I would rather not recount that here in a public forum. At the time, I was in the Air Force, and he was permanently "banned" from ever making an appearance again where I was stationed at, strictly due to his behavior. He went from being my favorite aviator "hero" to least favorite in about 5 minutes.

...and the reason he was flying a 210 into severe weather was? No commercial flights to get him where he needed to go? No "renta" cars? He really had to be at his destination that badly?

I'm sorry, but in time, everyone crosses the line. With his experience he had two choices, IMHO, use that experience to say "I'm not flying into that poo poo." or use that experience to say, "Awe, that ain't poo poo. I can fly in that."

What could possibly be so important to risk one's life with a small aircraft in violent weather? Experience breeds complacency. I have seen it in race car drivers and we all have seen it in pilots.

I'm still sad to lose him but I am also sad to lose Steve and not know what happened to him. It is a dangerous skill we follow and gravity always wins...

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

It would be helpful to know more about why the controller did not give out the weather info. Most controllers are not pilots, may not have honestly much idea of what the pilot is facing or doing especially in bad weather. Or maybe he just didn't care. I've certainly encountered some controllers that were openly hostile toward private pilots of smaller airplanes. For instance the lady? at Pueblo on Sunday. It would also be instructive to know exactly the weather Scott got or knew before takeoff. An IFR flight plan doesn't take away the risk of severe weather, but it may make it harder to see the storms.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

I don't think anyone disputes that Crossfiled sealed his own fate to a certain degree with the decisions he made that day. Everyone makes mistakes. The question is, more or less, what kind of info did Crossfield receive before making his flight and what kind of info did he receive while in the air? And was that info sufficient for him to make the correct decisions in executing his flight? The NTSB did not say Crossfield was blameless, but it is clear from the report that they feel he was not given all of the information he may have needed to make proper decisions while en route.

While the pilot bears ultimate responsibility for the messes he/she gets themselves into, one must also be willing to admit that weather can worsen while the pilot is en route and that he/she may not be aware of current conditions without proper weather updates.

I agree that conditions can get worse, but with the weather conditions being what they were when he took off, and what was forecast, should have been enough to keep him on the ground that day. There has to be a point where you say, "Enough is enough I am staying in the hangar."

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Air traffic controllers overall do a good job when it comes to weather information. Normally when there is weather in the area they are considerably busier than normal. Aircraft requesting to deviate, providing vectors, reroutes, pireps, etc. keeps them busy. Your on board weather radar is better than the controllers in most cases. We often experience pilots requesting a vector or deviation around little or nothing depicted on radar. Then you add a VFR aircraft; he does not require separation in most cases but advisories and weather info. In a nice way it can be somewhat of last priority at times. I would like to think that no controller is not just doing his job when working VFR aircraft but I know it happens. There have been a couple of NTSB reports released recently that are similar Crossfields.

_________________
http://silverplate1945.smugmug.com/AVIATION