Plane grounded at OC airport after erratic flight

[Mahesh]

Our tax dollars at work!

I read somewhere else that they thought he also violated the ADIZ when he was in fact vectored around it.

Times Herald-Record
Owner blames computer error

Montgomery — A private jet that landed at Orange County Airport late last night has been grounded until federal aviation officials can determine the reason for its erratic flight path from Dallas to Montgomery.

Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Jim Peters said the 19-seat Gulfstream II, which is owned by New York City construction tycoon and sometime Town of Crawford resident, Vincenzo Oppedisano, had rapidly dropped and risen in altitude during the flight. Such maneuvers are prohibited without prior authorization.

Around midnight this morning, state troopers and sheriff’s deputies converged on the county-owned airport and questioned the plane’s 23-year-old pilot, Steven Tursi of New Rochelle. They asked him to contact the FAA and ordered Oppedisano, who was among the passengers, to keep the plane at Orange County Airport.

“It’s just to keep it on the ground until we sort things out,” Peters said.

Recordonline.com was at Orange County Airport last night to capture exclusive video of the scene.

The plane had taken off at 8:17 p.m. from Dallas Executive Airport, not Dallas-Fort Worth, as FAA officials said earlier this morning. Responding officers originally thought the aircraft had violated protected air space around the nation’s capital.

In fact, the plane had been routed around Washington airspace, Peters said.

“It had nothing to do with the passengers who were on the aircraft,” Peters said. “It was not a security breach.”

FAA officials said the pilot had a clean record, with no recorded incidents, accidents or enforcement actions.

Oppensiano, who is in talks with Orange County officials about building a private hangar at the airport, recently told the Record he uses his jet to travel to Rome and a second home in Florida.

Reached on his cellphone this afternoon, Oppensiano, 44, blamed the incident on a computer error that showed his plane ascending – then descending – 35,000 feet in a span two minutes. A popular flight tracking Web site, flightaware.com, confirms his account.

“It’s ridiculous,” Oppensiano said. “If you drop 200 feet in and airplane, you feel that. Imagine dropping 39,000 to 5,500 feet.”

Violations such at those alleged can draw a range of penalities from the FAA. The agency can issue warnings and order pilots to get remedial training. In severe cases, a pilot’s license can be suspended or revoked.

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbc...20343/0/NEWS04

[TFaudree_ERAU]

23 flying a GII? Sign me up to replace him.

[surreal1221]

"Errors" like this are going to continue until the FAA spends. . . yes spends. . . money on upgrading the radar infrastructure.

[Tiger815]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

"Errors" like this are going to continue until the FAA spends. . . yes spends. . . money on upgrading the radar infrastructure.

The error is more than likely to be in the AC equipment. Altitude is reported from your encoding altimeter not standard ATC radar.

Looking at this guys track log on Flightaware, it certainly looks like one incongruous altitude report. The data for flight aware is likely taken from an FAA product known as Aircraft Situtation Display to Industry (ASDI), so it is an accurate representation of what the FAA saw.

The incident apparently occured very early in the flight during climb out. There are two observations with the same timestamp one at 4200' and climbing the other at 39000' and climbing. The next observation, one minute later, shows 5500 and climbing. You'd probably break an F16 trying to achive that flight profile. After the anomoly, the flight appears to progress normally climbing to altitude and descending only nearing the destination.

I do think the FAA is probably over reacting but I feel the incident does bear looking into to understand the cause.

[TFaudree_ERAU]

I know with the new STARS system, there is a problem with ghosting when receiving position returns from multiple radar sites. Thats mostly lateral position, not vertical, though. But I agree with a problem with the encoder. Although RVSM certified, it IS a GII.

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by Tiger815

The error is more than likely to be in the AC equipment. Altitude is reported from your encoding altimeter not standard ATC radar.

Looking at this guys track log on Flightaware, it certainly looks like one incongruous altitude report. The data for flight aware is likely taken from an FAA product known as Aircraft Situtation Display to Industry (ASDI), so it is an accurate representation of what the FAA saw.

The incident apparently occured very early in the flight during climb out. There are two observations with the same timestamp one at 4200' and climbing the other at 39000' and climbing. The next observation, one minute later, shows 5500 and climbing. You'd probably break an F16 trying to achive that flight profile. After the anomoly, the flight appears to progress normally climbing to altitude and descending only nearing the destination.

I do think the FAA is probably over reacting but I feel the incident does bear looking into to understand the cause.

Ok. Not saying you are wrong, as it's more likely a two issue problem. Just let be known that errors of this type have been found within the radar infrastructure of the NAS.

[amorris311]

the pilots from new rochelle thats where i live right now. maybe we can have a meet and greet?! i kid i kid.

[Tiger815]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Ok. Not saying you are wrong, as it's more likely a two issue problem. Just let be known that errors of this type have been found within the radar infrastructure of the NAS.

Agreed, there are issues with radar, but as others pointed out most issues are lateral and often stem from problems reconciling the AC's position as reported by multiple radars. Radar is excellent for determining distance, but a tad fuzzier at azimuth, so if you plot 3 hits on the same AC from 3 different radars, you'll get 3 slightly different postions. To network that picture across multiple facilites you have to have a routine to "pick" a position to display.

That's one of the advantages of ADS-B. How ever many ground stations recieve your position report, the position will be the exact same. That's much easier to network properly, so ATC has better overall SA. Most radars currently only feed one or two facilites. Mosaic pictures showing the overall radar situation have a lot of latency due to the filtering routines so it's more a picture of where everybody was several seconds (even minutes) ago.

[KLB]

Originally Posted by amorris311

the pilots from new rochelle thats where i live right now. maybe we can have a meet and greet?! i kid i kid.

I used to live in Mount Vernon. Small world

[Nick]

Originally Posted by KLB

Small world

Yeah, I know who the pilot is! Didn't recognize the name unti I read it a second time. I've met him but don't know him very well at all.