[JYO] Leesburg Airport Safety - An Electronic Glide Slope is Overdue?
- From: FlyboyEd@xxxxxxx
- To: jyo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:07:20 EST
Here are some public comments made to the Loudoun Times Mirror by two
Leesburg Pilots.
Ed
- - -
Leesburg Airport Safety - An Electronic Glide Slope is Overdue
The recent airplane crash in Leesburg could probably have been prevented, but
not by "closing the airport, during periods of fog", as suggested by Leesburg
Mayor Kristen Umstattd. This is a practical impossibility. Landing minima
already exist, and pilots are not supposed to crash in the middle of town. A
law passed by the Town Council would not have prevented this accident.
However, a relatively simple radio transmitter and antenna located at the
airport that projects an electronic glide slope into the sky along the
approach path to the runway would have given the pilot and the aircraft's
autopilot precise information that might have avoided this tragedy.
I developed and managed the Leesburg Airport for over twelve years in the
1980s and early 1990s. I secured the contract for the Flight Service
Station, extended the runway and taxiways, upgraded the lighting, installed
the automatic weather station, which was reporting the ceiling and visibility
to the pilot on the afternoon of the accident. I also installed the
localizer, which is the part of the instrument approach, which lines the
aircraft up on the centerline of the runway during a landing approach. All
of these were very important safety improvements. Unfortunately, I was never
able to persuade the FAA, the Virginia Department of Aviation, or the Town of
Leesburg to install the glide slope component of the instrument approach.
This would create what is known as a "precision approach". The approach that
exists today at Leesburg is termed a "non-precision instrument approach".
In the last 22 years there have been 2 fatal accidents involving aircraft
landing at the Leesburg Airport. (The accident that occurred in July was not
an accident involving the airport.) Both of these fatal landing accidents
involved pilots and aircraft making a non-precision approach.
I have heard all the excuses as to why a glide slope cannot be installed.
Some involve funding, but the most common is that structures prevent
obtaining the normally much lower landing minima of ceiling and visibility of
a precision approach. If that is the case, why not leave the landing minima
for a precision approach at Leesburg the same as they are for a non-precision
approach today - a 300-foot ceiling and one-mile visibility? If you do not
see the runway one mile from the airport and at 300 feet above the ground,
you do not land.
Sometime in the next 12 months the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) will issue a "finding of probable cause" for this accident. I have no
doubt it will be, "failure to maintain adequate flying speed". The NTSB will
try to determine why this failure occurred. No one will ever be sure, but I
am confident that the pressure of a second instrument approach in marginal
weather, and very limited experience by both pilots in this aircraft will be
contributing causes. Both of these factors would have most likely been
mitigated by an autopilot-coupled approach, coupled to both the localizer and
the glide slope. Of course the later would have been impossible as there is
no glide slope at the Leesburg Airport.
There is no reason to wait for the NTSB report to rectify this problem
Jim Haynes
Leesburg, VA
Jim Haynes has been a pilot for 45 years, served 5 years as a Navy jet
carrier pilot and Landing Signal Officer, has over 5,000 hours of flight
time, and has been flying instrument approaches into the Leesburg since
1981.
- - - -
Pilot urges ILS for airport
By Johnny Rocca, Leesburg
03/18/2003
Having read Jim Haynes' column (Times-Mirror March 12), I must agree that he
has hit the nail on the head. Having flown in and out of Leesburg Airport,
and Godfrey Field, for most of those 22 years, and having made literally
hundreds of instrument approaches in marginal weather, in heavy twin
aircraft, the addition of the Instrument Landing System, or actually the
completion of the system, would solve many of these concerns.
Pilots are generally very disciplined people and fly by strict rules. With an
ILS system, a missed approached would require us to go to our alternate after
the miss, generally Dulles, as they have lower minimums and better approach
lighting. We cannot close the airport because, as a practical matter, as
weather changes constantly and in most cases what is below minimums one
minute is at or above the next. So we are "compelled to take a look." It is
reasonable to do this and of course it is executed by our ability, our
training and our experience. Perhaps the extra bucks would be well spent. The
Leesburg Airport contributes mightily to the economic base for the town.
Other related posts:
- » [JYO] Leesburg Airport Safety - An Electronic Glide Slope is Overdue?
