Beech 1900 down, let this be a lesson to you all.

[flyingcheesehead]

The Flightaware tracking data opens some more questions. How factual is the data portrayed? There are timing issues between their clock times and as times reported by NTSB. It also indicates that the flight was still at 6000 at the time the trace ceased.

Look at the Track Log, and ignore anything that says "FlightAware Estimated" in the Facility column. This is a TERRIBLE feature, IMO - I had some family members get concerned that I'd crashed at one point when in reality, I had just cancelled IFR. (FA showed me flying off in a different direction.) It also makes analyzing accidents quite difficult.

 

[roncachamp]

But, what I gave you is a hypothetical. The hypothetical is what it is. Are you perhaps dodging the question?

I'm declining to play games.

 

[spiderweb]

Again, this is far simpler than some of you are making it out to be. Had either the pilots looked at the plate, or the controller keep his head in the game, this wouldn't have happened.

Whether or not the number, 2,000, is technically correct, I doubt the controller slept well that night. And the pilots, not having maintained SA, are asleep forever.

 

[vintage cessna]

If not a flagrant mistake why is there a smoking hole?

Do you know if the aircraft impacted terrain while enroute to the IAF or impacted after entering hold?

 

[Inverted]

Why would any aircraft have 3 530s? I could see 2 MAX, usually people do a 430/530 stack.

 

[MachFly]

Here are two pics of the 1900Cs that that company flies, looks like both have radar altimeters.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Alaska-Central-Express/Beech-1900C-1/0351113/L/&sid=bad68a89ecc751cf05f4b54bb89cc9c3

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=81446&nseq=9

One of them even has two 530s (I assume with a terrain database) and a KMD-550.

 

[John Collins]

*Track of flights angle of arrival at ZEDAG required flight to make at least entry into holding pattern (procedure turn not authorized)

*Minimum depicted altitude for flight in the holding pattern is 4300

I agree that your analysis is very plausible. The only comment I have is the parenthetical note (procedure turn not authorized) should be in agreement with your preceding text as the procedure turn is required. If the controller had cleared the aircraft for straight in, the angle at ZEDAG exceeded guidance maximum of 90 degrees as it would have been closer to 110 degrees.

 

[aterpster]

I'm declining to play games.

Point well taken. You do have a track record of playing games on these forums and it is commendable you have decided to clean up your act.

However, a Hypothetical about air traffic procedures is a question, not a game. Or, perhaps you don't know the answer.

You've criticized me in the past when I haven't respond to your TERPs questions, so I corrected my response in those cases. It's too bad you don't see that as a two-way street.

 

[roncachamp]

Point well taken. You do have a track record of playing games on these forums and it is commendable you have decided to clean up your act.

Please provide examples of what you believe to be me "playing games."

However, a Hypothetical about air traffic procedures is a question, not a game. Or, perhaps you don't know the answer.

You've criticized me in the past when I haven't respond to your TERPs questions, so I corrected my response in those cases. It's too bad you don't see that as a two-way street.

Please identify the threads in which you've done this. Once I've reviewed them I'll happily answer your question.

 

[aterpster]

Anchorage Center's PADL area MIA's on the RNAV 19 chart:

 

[TMetzinger]

Anchorage Center's PADL area MIA's on the RNAV 19 chart:

If I understand all this correctly, if the airplane was to the southeast (in the 2000' area), then 2000 would be an ok altitude to assign IF you had planned to issue a climb to 5000+ before the plane got to ZEDAG?

 

[alfadog]

Anchorage Center's PADL area MIA's on the RNAV 19 chart:

Thanks. That answers my earlier question as to where the 2000' came from. ATC definitely screwed up (in addition to the pilots) as the minimum altitude for the IAF is 5000'.

"The ARTCC specialist on duty subsequently granted the request by issuing the clearance, with instructions to proceed direct to the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) to begin the approach, and to maintain an altitude of 2,000 feet or above."

 

[Everskyward]

Thanks. That answers my earlier question as to where the 2000' came from. ATC definitely screwed up (in addition to the pilots) as the minimum altitude for the IAF is 5000'.

"The ARTCC specialist on duty subsequently granted the request by issuing the clearance, with instructions to proceed direct to the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) to begin the approach, and to maintain an altitude of 2,000 feet or above."

I wonder if the ARTCC specialist was new or at least new to this position. It would be interesting to see if he or she had a habit of clearing airplanes to "2,000 or above" when they were coming from the southeast and shooting the approach.

 

[aterpster]

If I understand all this correctly, if the airplane was to the southeast (in the 2000' area), then 2000 would be an ok altitude to assign IF you had planned to issue a climb to 5000+ before the plane got to ZEDAG?

Direct ZEDAG intering the 4,000 foot MIA at not less than 4,000, and entring the 5,000 at not less than 5,000.

Or have him at 5,400 (or above) before entering the 5400 TAA area.

 

[vintage cessna]

Direct ZEDAG intering the 4,000 foot MIA at not less than 4,000, and entring the 5,000 at not less than 5,000.

Or have him at 5,400 (or above) before entering the 5400 TAA area.

If that depiction is correct, clnc should have been maintain 050 until established.
No MSAW alerts?

 

[aterpster]

If that depiction is correct, clnc should have been maintain 050 until established.
No MSAW alerts?

The depiction is correct.

The EMSAW alerts likely occurred after they went off frequency to confer with the FSS about runway conditions.