CBreezy

This exactly. He was low enough and in a dense enough area to contact any of the towers within 30 miles by cell.

To the guy who said it was too dangerous to go to a towered airport: As a radio equipped airplane without a functioning radio, you are an emergency aircraft. You do at a class d the same as you would at untowered. Observe traffic, enter the pattern and land. You can talk it over with tower once you are alive on the ground.

JohnBurke

Nobody said it was too dangerous. Read.

MrBojangles

You have to believe fatigue was a big factor in this decision making. 2am after a lonnnng flight. It’s sad. I really hate seeing people die in avoidable situations

CBreezy

You did. You said they chose to try and land at a field without any lights over going to a towered airport because they can't be seen. You are insinuating that it was the more dangerous choice.

" If they didn't have enough battery left to que up the runway lights with radio transmissions, they probably lacked position lights, too, which would have meant that they couldn't even have garnered a light gun signal at a towered airport, as no one would see them. In that case, it would strictly have been see and avoid, and they may have ended up where they did because they didn't want to be in that situation"

JohnBurke

Speak for yourself. I'll speak for myself. Do NOT put words in my mouth.

Had I intended to say it was dangerous, or "the more dangerous choice," I would have done so. I speak VERY well for myself, thanks, and need no help from you.

To be clear; the only person here who has published that sentiment is YOU.

CBreezy

Clearly you are confused with your own writing. When you come up with a hypothetical situation and then imply it was because of being unlit at night, having to see and avoid and unable to get a landing clearance, terms that are primarily associated with risk, then only to say they chose not to put themselves in that situation, you imply it was dangerous. In ADM and Risk Management, if you identify risks and then mitigate them by doing something incredibly risky, in your hypothetical situation, you propose that they didn't go to a towered airport because they were avoiding the risk of a collision. YOUR example makes landing at an unlit field using only a home flashlight as guidance the less risky (consults thesaurus) or dangerous choice. Your implication, not mine.

JohnBurke

No. I'm not confused at all. After all, I wrote it, bright spark.

You have a reading comprehension problem. Apparently a significant one. You won't leave it alone, and now the thread is about you, so lets...

You have a language problem too, and some affection for the run-on sentence.

Implied nothing. Again, had I intended to say something, I would have. If you think you are remotely capable, attempt to speak for yourself, not for me. If you think it's dangerous, then say so, attribute the words to you, and be done. Do not attempt to tell me what I said; I didn't say it.

Again, I speak extremely well on my own behalf, without any need of your half-baked effort to the contrary.

The fact is that the crash happened at night. The fact is that the crash happened at an uncontrolled field. Controlled fields were available. Lighted airfields were available. The deceased did not avail themselves of those options. They lacked sufficient battery to use the radio to key the lights, and almost certainly lacked insufficient battery to illuminate position lights.

On that basis they may have elected not to attempt to visit an airfield where radio transmissions were required, or a busier field.

Not a damn thing about risk or dangerous in there. If you find it dangerous, or if you think that this is a reason they elected not to go to another field, then speak for your own self, own your own words, and stop trying to stuff your god damn words into my mouth. Do you think you can do that?

No, again, bright spark, I did not say that.

YOU JUST SAID THAT.

I didn't say a damn thing about a collision. READ.

If you wish to make a post and say something, then do it. Stop beating around the bush, speak for yourself, make your own statements, and move on.

I implied nothing. You have difficulty reading and comprehending, perhaps even walking and chewing gum, but there's no implication: you've repeatedly told me what I said, attempted to prove it by quoting it, and have been equally wrong on both counts. Now, if you think yourself capable, speak for yourself.

Again, you have some real difficulty with perception and comprehension.

Try to wrap your head around this if you can: the deceased made the decision to land at an uncontrolled field, with a flashlight for a reference. They paid for this decision with their lives. This fact is sealed in blood.

I did not determine it to be more or less risk. They made their choice. We don't know their rationale, as I have said. READ. They're dead. We have no way to know.

They MAY have decided not to use the controlled field for lack of a radio. We don't know. I have said this. READ. They're dead. We have no way to know.

We do know what they did decide to do, because it killed them. They're dead. This much we know.

At no point have I cited risk; this is your decision, and something which you can't admit.

So far as the mishap goes, the issue of whether they should have chosen a lighted controlled field or an unlighted uncontrolled field is largely irrelevant, save for their death. Had they stopped and waited to continue in the daylight, instead of pursuing cross country flight in a single engine piston powered airplane, this would be an academic question that would never have been asked.

Proper airmanship would have been to wait for daylight. In a single engine airplane with one generator and one vacuum source, one engine, and no way to see to make a forced landing, good airmanship dictates waiting for daylight.

I just said that. Pick it apart if you wish, but try it in your own words, and don't add any to mine.

CBreezy

Grammar burn. Haha. Unlike you, I don't have delusions of being a writer or grammar expert. I also am typing on a phone and is a lot more difficult to make lengthy statements in a reasonable amount of time.

To your point, it isn't my fault you aren't smart enough to understand what you are writing. Perhaps you should take a few seconds to think about the implications of what you are saying before you hit submit. I am not the one who injected a hypothetical scenario about going to a towered field. You did. Those were your words. You then tried to come up with a reason why they hypothetically chose not to go there. You did. Not me. You tried to reason why someone might not go to a towered field by addressing inherent risks of entering a traffic pattern at night without comms or lights. I know this might be hard for you to understand, but just because you didn't say the word risk doesn't mean that isn't what you were describing. If I say, "he got into a flying machine with wings, a propeller and tricycle landing gear," I would look like a fool if I lost my mind because someone said I was describing an airplane. If you can't stand by your own statement, then go edit it.

JohnBurke

The noise to signal ratio is drastically improved.

Blackhawk

If you have a cell phone and reception, don't call your girlfriend. Call 911 and they will patch you through to ATC. Get vectored for a towered airport and cleared into the airspace to land.
Landing at night without cockpit lights? Yeah, shouldn't be a big deal. Landing without runway lights? Mmm... depending on the illumination (I have not checked on the night of the crash), can be difficult and probably warrants a "Pan Pan" emergency. I've flown in some places such as the Southwest US where, on moonless nights, you meet the FAA definition of IMC even if it's CAVU.
Finally, NVG flying and night unaided are two different animals.