Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site felix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!oliveb!felix!daver
From: daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Out to dry on the glideslope
Message-ID: <913@felix.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Feb-86 18:28:22 EST
Article-I.D.: felix.913
Posted: Thu Feb 27 18:28:22 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Mar-86 17:55:18 EST
References: <2473@pixar.pixar> <474@gcc-milo.ARPA> <3321@hplabsb.UUCP>
Reply-To: daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 20

> In article <2473@pixar.pixar> good@pixar (Never tell your copilot "Cheer up" during the takeoff roll.) writes:
> >	Directional radio, such as localizers, glideslopes, etc, have false
> >"lobes" on either side of the real beam.  There can be several such lobes.
> >Evidently the 152 in question, while on an night IFR training flight, was
> >flying one of the lobes underneath the GS on approach.  Thus they could have
> >had the needle nailed to the bullseye and still tangled with the power line.

First of all it was a 172 (no bigee).  I don't care what the given "reason"
was for the accident, there is no excuse other than pilot error.  They hit
the power line at 85' AGL which doesn't sound too bad, but they were 2 miles
from the runway!  If the pilot was not instrument rated and they were making
an ILS approach, then the instructor certainly must bear the blame.  (as far
as I know, conditions were VFR)  I would say this guy's CFI rating should 
be suspended for a time while he undergoes re-testing.  Just because no one
was hurt this time doesn't mean they won't be killed next time. (not to 
mention the bad opinion of general aviation this type of thing promotes)

That's my opinion.

Dave Richards