Whenever there is an accident in aviation, those of us in the business start thinking of all the things that might have gone wrong. We try not to speculate (at least not in public) as we wait for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to conduct their investigation and let us know what happened.Most of the time the NTSB's findings are depressingly familiar. Sometimes they have a new twist on an old problem and occasionally they find something unique. Pilots and controllers read the results and discuss them, supporting an informal learning system in the aviation industry. It's easy to get our attention, especially if we feel some connection to the particular incident. It might involve the type airplane you fly or an instrument approach that you've flown before. For controllers it might be the airspace we work or an aircraft that is based at our facility.For instance, the NTSB recently released their report about the King Air 200 crash at Stuart, Va., on October 24, 2004. It piqued my interest because it happened at a facility I work with (GSO Approach at Greensboro, N.C.,) and it involved an aircraft we worked on a regular basis at Atlanta Center. The "probable cause" was all too familiar -- "controlled flight into terrain" -- but the circumstances leading up to it were interesting. For me, it fit into my belief that non-radar operations, full-approach procedures and an over-reliance on GPS spell trouble in today's world. I urge you to read the report and see what it says to you.For every accident the NTSB investigates there are hundreds of other incidents that came close to being an accident. While "close" is a subjective term, there is much we could all learn for the circumstances that led up to these incidents. If only we had a way to learn about them.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/say-again-62-too-close-for-comfort