Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 11, 2016, 06:55:14 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: No coverage in your area? If you are near your local airport contact us to learn about becoming a volunteer


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Lancair crash at KPDX. One dead.  (Read 35329 times)
Jayhawk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« on: February 16, 2008, 04:15:37 PM »

http://www.katu.com/news/local/15699987.html

Can anybody dig up the clip?

Logged
moto400ex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2008, 10:22:03 PM »

Listening to PDX approach 1600z-1630z.  Seems to be N621ER.  Theres a few transmisisons at the beggining but unintelligable. 

Heres the flightaware data.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N621ER

Deffinetly weather related. 

KPDX 161732Z 07004KT 1/8SM R10R/0700V1400FT FG OVC002 02/02 A3037 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 1/4 $
KPDX 161719Z 06003KT 1/4SM R10R/1000V2000FT FG VV002 02/02 A3036 RMK AO2
KPDX 161715Z COR 07003KT 1/4SM R10R/1000V2000FT FG VV002 02/02 A3036 RMK AO2
KPDX 161653Z 00000KT 1/4SM R10R/0800V1400FT FG BKN001 OVC009 02/02 A3037 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP282 T00170017
KPDX 161553Z 24003KT 1/8SM R10R/0600V0700FT FG BKN001 OVC009 01/01 A3035 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 SLP278 T00110011

Sounds like he crashed on his second attempt.  First attempt tower controller reports RVR's 700 and he goes missed a few minutes later. On his second attempt is when he crashes.  I looked at the KPDX ILS runway 10L approach plate, looks like a min flight vis requirment for him would have been 2400 RVR.  Highly unlikley him or his airplane were CAT IIIa certified since if I  remeber correctly CAT II and CAT III approaches require a flight crew of a pilot and copilot. 

I tryed recording some of the action but its just so broken and unclear.  Maybe someone else wants to try.


« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 11:25:20 PM by moto400ex » Logged
Fryy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 459



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2008, 11:26:33 PM »

Found most of the initial accident. Again, another chilling audio clip.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 03:47:59 AM by Fryy » Logged

Jayhawk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2008, 06:06:49 AM »

That was hard listening too.
Logged
KASWspotter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2008, 10:13:48 AM »

Man oh man. Thats tough to gut.
Logged
Panop
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2008, 12:26:50 PM »

Airport chart available at: http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/PDX/APD/AIRPORT+DIAGRAM/pdf

If I hear it correct the pilot (Dr. Richard E. Otoski from news reports) was cleared to land on 10R with an RVR of 600 feet and then later was instructed to maintain 2000 feet on what was obviously another missed approach.  I presume there is a section of recording missing on the clip as there are no comms in the clip that leads up to the instruction to maintain 2000 feet - presumably there was either a call from the pilot to advise that he was going around or an instruction or advice from the Tower that led to the go around.  Either way it was tragically all too late by then.

On another forum at http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=44861 there is discussion that the wreckage was on a service road as if the pilot possibly mistook the road for the runway in the low vis.

There is news footage at http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_021608ORB_plane_crash_KS.ca736fa3.html which shows the wreckage on a partially fenced long straight road approximately parallel to and approaching, but offset from, what I take to be 10R threshold though I am not at all familiar with KPDX so maybe I am wrong.  The road has broad line markings not at all dissimilar to runway centreline markings and in low visibility the road could easily be mistaken for a runway.  There is damage to the fence next to the wreckage which suggests the aircraft clipped it either in a landing attempt or a 'too low' missed approach. 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/lsg/rvr/
states: 
RVR is a critical component in determining what the ILS minimums will be for each landing Category. The lowest authorized ILS minimums, with all required ground and airborne systems components operative, are: (a) Category I Decision Height (DH) 200 feet and Runway Visual Range (RVR) 2,400 feet (with touchdown zone and centerline lighting, RVR 1,800 feet); (b) Category II DH 100 feet and RVR 1,200 feet; (c) Category IIIa No DH or DH below 100 feet and RVR not less than 700 feet; (d) Category IIIb No DH or DH below 50 feet and RVR less than 700 feet but not less than 150 feet; (e) Category IIIc No DH and no RVR limitation.

My utmost sympathies go to all concerned but, as general questions, I cannot avoid asking myself why someone would attempt to land in such poor conditions in non cat III aircraft and why US ATC is not, apparently, allowed to prevent 'below minima' approaches in these situations. 

My understanding is that in some other countries, an approach would not be permitted by ATC unless RVR met prescribed limits.  These rules have been introduced after unnecessary loss of life in other accidents.

(I would appreciate any correction or clarification of this situation from any 'insiders'.)

According to news reports the pilot was very experienced.
See http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPLzpPeI3GtJRsgYBGq-rRHx6PVgD8URT87O0
and http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/120322050791860.xml&coll=7

The join between the air and the ground is very unforgiving.  Treat it with care.

There is an old and very true saying: There are old pilots and there are bold pilots.  There are no old, bold pilots. 

Please let others learn from this tragedy so that it is not repeated.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2008, 02:12:17 PM »

My utmost sympathies go to all concerned but, as general questions, I cannot avoid asking myself why someone would attempt to land in such poor conditions in non cat III aircraft and why US ATC is not, apparently, allowed to prevent 'below minima' approaches in these situations. 

The US FAA regulations DO restrict part 121 (scheduled service) and part 135 (air taxi, cargo, etc) aircraft from beginning an approach if weather is below minimums. 
However, Part 91 (general aviation) is free to begin an approach when weather is below minimums, as part 91 is also permitted to take off in zero/zero conditions.  Is this always safe to do so?  ATC acting like an aviation cop in these cases is not the answer.  Only the pilot can truly answer this question, since there are many variables (remaining fuel, a pilot's proficiency, etc) involved that can only be interpreted from the yoke side of the mike.

As an active IFR GA pilot, I can attest to the extreme variability of weather minimums.  Literally one minute the visibility and ceilings can be below minimums, the next minute above.  It happens all the time that the first approach could end in a miss and the next ends in a successful landing.  Are there cases where no amount of approaches would be successful?  Definitely.  As a pilot, do I want the freedom to make my own decision on how to proceed or leave it up to an ATC aviation cop (note that this is a HYPOTHETICAL label here)?  I'll take the freedom to decide myself, which is still one of the dwindling freedoms we have as GA pilots here in the US. 

 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 02:13:59 PM by KSYR-pjr » Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
moto400ex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2008, 02:28:37 PM »

Even if he made it in, he would have some explaining to do.  It would be hard to explain how he saw the required flight vis with the weather reports and RVR values.  According to FAA Airman certificate search, he held a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2008, 02:52:56 PM »

It would be hard to explain how he saw the required flight vis with the weather reports and RVR values.

I disagree.  Right there in your posted weather observations above are two facts:  1)  They were not taken minute by minute so how can you or anyone actually state with certainty that there wasn't a moment where the visibility improved slightly?   2)  The RVRs being reported were varying, so the weather WAS fluctuating.

As with any accident, what seems obvious to the people on the outside may not, in fact, be the cause of the crash.  For all you know the poor pilot could have been stricken with a heart attach on approach.  I would wait to definitely offer a cause until the NTSB completes its investigation.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
KASWspotter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2008, 03:12:29 PM »

I have to agree with KSYR-pjr. We probably wont know for awhile what the exact cause is as he was the only person onboard. Weather may or may not have been a factor. He went around once with no issues and obviously had no problem making the decision to go around. As I have commented in several of the other accident threads, there is not 1 thing the makes an aircraft crash. Its a chain of events that can be broken if recognized granted it is sometimes unavoidable in some instances. Maybe he called missed and got distracted by something in the cockpit and kept descending. Maybe he added power and didnt have it. Fuel exhaustion??? A definate maybe. The weather may or may not be a factor in what caused this crash. Because weather was present, it definately needs to be looked at as factor. This is a good discussion guys. The more we talk about things like this, the more it makes us learn for ourselves.
Logged
moto400ex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2008, 03:38:50 PM »

It would be hard to explain how he saw the required flight vis with the weather reports and RVR values.

I disagree.  Right there in your posted weather observations above are two facts:  1)  They were not taken minute by minute so how can you or anyone actually state with certainty that there wasn't a moment where the visibility improved slightly?   2)  The RVRs being reported were varying, so the weather WAS fluctuating.

As with any accident, what seems obvious to the people on the outside may not, in fact, be the cause of the crash.  For all you know the poor pilot could have been stricken with a heart attach on approach.  I would wait to definitely offer a cause until the NTSB completes its investigation.

Haha ok, never flown around the Portland area and dont know too much of the weather patterns there but its highly unlikely the weather would change so rapidly that he could prove he had the required vis to land because before and after the accident RVR values were still not near what was required.    While listening to the archive, there was a plane that landed and couldnt even see a taxiway to exit.  Never flown or seen this type of situation but if you cant see a taxiway while your on the runway, sounds pretty bad.

Your right, I shouldnt call this a solely weather realated accident as it could have been a number of other things.  With my limited Actual IFR experience ( Just under 10 hours) I just felt like it had to be because of the extreme concentration level you must have during a precision approach and any distractions or frustration can cause you to lose it. (At least for me)   Could have been looking outside too much for the runway and not on his instruments when he crashed.  Thats just what I was thinking.
Logged
baronb55
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2008, 03:44:25 PM »

not likely a fuel problem, huge fire post crash. I live in Portland and that was one foggy morning, very sad, his timing was about a half hour off as far as low ceiling. He flies out of lmt, high desert, much more predictable weather there. just some thoughts.
Logged
KASWspotter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2008, 04:26:08 PM »

Hadnt heard about the huge fire so it might rule out fuel. I can relate a little about weather. Rode shotgun in a KingAir into MSP a few years ago. We went around once and never saw the runway. Was a slow part of the day so it didnt take too long to get back. Maybe 10 minutes at the most, and we got to where we had gone around the first time and we both picked up the runway fairly easily. It was a rather foggy afternoon. The wind had picked up since our first approach and we followed a 737 the second time in. Was kinda neat because it seemed like we were flying through a tunnel shaped like a 737. You see some pretty cool stuff when you fly.
Logged
Hollis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2008, 05:56:08 PM »

I'm not going to speculate on this either, but I did take the liberty to enhance his audio msg by adding a little echo and looping it. To me, it sounds like:

"...alright,,,?hit Richard...you're gonna craaash!"

Obviously he knew he was in serious trouble, for whatever reason.

* ER msg.mp3 (906.25 KB - downloaded 2292 times.)
Logged
moto400ex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2008, 08:06:53 PM »

I'm not going to speculate on this either, but I did take the liberty to enhance his audio msg by adding a little echo and looping it. To me, it sounds like:

"...alright,,,?hit Richard...you're gonna craaash!"

Obviously he knew he was in serious trouble, for whatever reason.

Wow!!! MAkes it even more chilling to listen to it.  Im going to have nightmares shocked
Logged
Hollis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2008, 08:40:12 PM »

I had deleted the expletive after 'Richard'.. in my transcription, but if no one is offended, he says..
...'Goddammit'...
That pretty well sums it up.

But on a personal note, I have heard worse. Not pleasant.
Logged
Panop
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2008, 10:42:34 PM »

I hope it didn't look like I was preempting the investigation as, of course, there could be other factors involved and I am sure the FAA investigators will do their usual thorough job.

I do understand the issues involving RVRs going up and down, being a tad unreliable, visibility changing by the minute and varying from one part of the runway to another (especially in shallow or patchy fog) but it would have taken a very big and sudden improvement to get from 600 feet to something more reasonable.  I am not a pilot but would not like the idea of descending towards a runway I have little chance of seeing.  Without wanting to be specific about this accident, that is what holding fuel and alternates are for.

I also can see the arguments about personal freedom of GA pilots but I am not sure I agree with them in conditions which do not seem even marginal.  If the runway was temporarily blocked by an object such as an aircraft or a vehicle then Tower would not give landing clearance.  If the runway is effectively blocked by an opaque fluid such as fog that is not even close to minima then I believe that as a matter of public safety (not just the pilot's), the Tower, as a responsible authority should have the same power as they do in some other countries to ban approaches below minima.

A hold or diversion may be inconvenient or expensive but compared to the alternative that is nothing.  There are plenty of restrictions on 'personal freedom' when flying - one more in the name of safety may be a small price to pay.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2008, 11:28:43 PM »

Haha ok, never flown around the Portland area and dont know too much of the weather patterns there but its highly unlikely the weather would change so rapidly that he could prove he had the required vis to land because before and after the accident RVR values were still not near what was required.    While listening to the archive, there was a plane that landed and couldnt even see a taxiway to exit.  Never flown or seen this type of situation but if you cant see a taxiway while your on the runway, sounds pretty bad.

How did the airplane that successfully landed get in?  Was it CAT II or CAT III equipped?  Or was it CAT I and the visibility improved momentarily?  I didn't listen to the archive so I don't know.

Regarding your comment about the weather changing rapidly, in my experience it is not so much of a rapid change but rather a gentle fluctuation in visibility and ceiling that could make or break the approach.  Consider this:

On my first flight down to White Plains, NY, two Tuesdays ago the weather at HPN was technically below minimums due to fog and low ceilings, but aircraft were getting in when I was vectored to the ILS.   How can that be, you ask?  Recall that on the ILS if a pilot spots the approach lights right at minimums s/he is allowed another 100 feet descent and that is what was happening on this day.  It should be noted that the aircraft getting in were two-pilot, multi-engine aircraft with excellent autopilots, no doubt.

On my first attempt I was hand flying the Bonanza down the ILS and managed to track both glideslope and localizer pretty much right on for the first part of the approach.  However, as I got to within 500 feet above the DH, I started to drift a bit high.  This was most likely caused by my distraction of now splitting my time between the gauges and looking out the window.  The winds were also a stiff right crosswind so the aircraft was in a 15 degree crab, meaning that the runway would not be straight out the windshield but rather off to the left.  When I hit the DH I could not see either the approach lights or the runway so I executed a missed.

My alternate airport, a 20 minute flight south of HPN, was reporting a 1,000 foot ceiling and 3 mile vis, so getting in on their ILS would not be an issue.  Remaining fuel was 2.5 hours with another hour of reserve.   Considering that I was a tad high on my first approach and distracted by the constant swap between inside gauges and looking for the runway I realized it was not the perfectly flown ILS needed for the conditions.  Taking into account the PIREPS of the last two aircraft that got in by first spotting the approach lights right at minimums, I opted to try one more approach.  If this attempt were not successful it would be off to the alternate.

To stack the deck in my favor on this second attempt I let the autopilot fly the approach while I spent more time monitoring the altimeter and looking outside for the approach lights.  Of course the AP flew a perfect ILS and this time, within 50 feet of the DH I spotted the approach lights.  At that point I disengaged the AP and hand flew the descent another 80 or so feet down when the runway came into view.  Landing at that point was assured.

The point of this anecdote is to demonstrate that a number of variables goes into the decision of making a second approach attempt and that the pilot is really the only one able to make that decision.  I will certainly concede that the weather in this story was not as low as the weather of the METARS posted here, but if a pilot is proficient and fuel plentiful an ILS to a missed should be a non-event assuming the approach is flown as charted.



Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Panop
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2008, 11:52:06 PM »

I just want to correct an earlier observation I made.   

On looking more closely at the original news report, the road that the crash occurred on was almost parallel to but offset from the threshold of runway 03, not 10R that the aircraft was on approach to. 

That location is a good way adrift from the centreline of 10R that one would expect the aircraft to be following (unless some turn instructions had been given that are not in the original clip).
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2008, 11:57:44 PM »

I do understand the issues involving RVRs going up and down, being a tad unreliable, visibility changing by the minute and varying from one part of the runway to another (especially in shallow or patchy fog) but it would have taken a very big and sudden improvement to get from 600 feet to something more reasonable.

In the METARs posted above you can clearly see an improvement in RVR from 800 to 2000 inside of 20 minutes.  I have personally flown in weather that went from an RVR of 1000 to an RVR of 3000 inside of three minutes (and visa versa - I once was taxiing to the runway at my airport as fog formed in a five minute time frame to 1/4 mile visibility) so FWIW I can attest to this phenomenon.

I am not a pilot but would not like the idea of descending towards a runway I have little chance of seeing.  Without wanting to be specific about this accident, that is what holding fuel and alternates are for.

Not at all meaning to be a slam, but might I suggest that therein is the difference between our points of view.  Not being a pilot means not knowing what is really involved in flying on instruments in IMC to a runway that you have little/some/any chance of seeing.   All pilots are taught to fly to minimums and many times to a missed totally on instruments throughout their IFR training, so reaching the MAP/DH and having to go missed should not be an issue.  It is a lack of proficiency or dipping below minimums that gets pilots into trouble.

If the runway is effectively blocked by an opaque fluid such as fog that is not even close to minima then I believe that as a matter of public safety (not just the pilot's), the Tower, as a responsible authority should have the same power as they do in some other countries to ban approaches below minima.

I disagree and fortunately I fly in a country that does not legislate every single action and decision I make as a pilot.  The same argument you are making about restricting approaches to below minimums could be made about driving an automobile in poor weather.  Do you think there should be a law preventing people from driving an automobile if visibility is below some set value?



Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
moto400ex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2008, 12:11:25 AM »

Its hard to argue about weather.  But if im still very convinced that by the way the pilot impacted the ground, he was trying to divide his attention between the inside and outside. 

On a side note, what kind of Bonanza do you have, love those planes.  Got to ride in one when Beechcraft gave a demo at my school.
Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2008, 04:04:49 AM »

I'm not going to speculate on this either, but I did take the liberty to enhance his audio msg by adding a little echo and looping it. To me, it sounds like:

"...alright,,,?hit Richard...you're gonna craaash!"


After listening to both clips a couple times, I interpret it to be a little different.  Here's my take on the situation:
Controller gave missed approach instructions after aircraft had already inpacted the ground.  It sounds like he may have been in pretty bad shape when he responded:
"I can't turn <expletive> you've gotta crash!"

Anyone else hearing it this way?
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2008, 07:31:29 AM »

I have to agree with Peter on this one, he's pretty much bang on in his description of instrument flying and the variables involved.

If the runway is effectively blocked by an opaque fluid such as fog that is not even close to minima then I believe that as a matter of public safety (not just the pilot's), the Tower, as a responsible authority should have the same power as they do in some other countries to ban approaches below minima.

Part 135 operators (and I think part 121 as well) are not permitted to initiate the approach if weather is below minimums at the airport the aircraft is destined to.  If the weather changes and goes below minimums while the aircraft is inside the FAF, they can still continue the approach.  Part 91 operators are not restricted by these regs, however.  I think a pilot or flight crew of any operation (part 91/135/121) should be competent enough to complete the approach if weather is at or very close to minimums.  One of the fundamentals behind instrument flying is sound aeronautical decision making, and the go/no-go decision is one of the most important calls a pilot can make.  That pilot or flight crew should have the experience and knowledge to make a well founded decision he/she will not regret.  Granted there are a lot of variables involved, but look at how many IFR aircraft in the system are equipped with good avionics and well trained pilots that successfully conquer these approaches day in and day out.  The FlightSafety motto is one of my all time favorites: "The best safety device in any aircraft is a well trained pilot" and it's really true.

You do bring up an interesting point about the regulations regarding the initiation of IAPs with respect to weather in other countries.

« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 07:36:32 AM by Jason » Logged
moto400ex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2008, 10:13:40 AM »

I agree with what peter is talking about in regards to the weather changing from the first approach to the time you do the second.  The point I have been trying to make is that while you are inbound on the approach and RVR values are reported way below mins, that would be hard to argue.   Im not sure of the exact time frame this clip was recorded in and how much was cut out but assuming he was inbound and established on the glideslope for for about three minutes, highly unlikley weather would improve that much in that period of time.  Then again although we forecast and try to predict weather, it still very unpredictable.   
Logged
Panop
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2008, 10:51:11 AM »

In the METARs posted above you can clearly see an improvement in RVR from 800 to 2000 inside of 20 minutes.  I have personally flown in weather that went from an RVR of 1000 to an RVR of 3000 inside of three minutes (and visa versa - I once was taxiing to the runway at my airport as fog formed in a five minute time frame to 1/4 mile visibility) so FWIW I can attest to this phenomenon.
Sure, point taken. I lived many years in London. Fog can do that!

Not at all meaning to be a slam, but might I suggest that therein is the difference between our points of view.  Not being a pilot means not knowing what is really involved in flying on instruments in IMC to a runway that you have little/some/any chance of seeing.   All pilots are taught to fly to minimums and many times to a missed totally on instruments throughout their IFR training, so reaching the MAP/DH and having to go missed should not be an issue.  It is a lack of proficiency or dipping below minimums that gets pilots into trouble.
No slam taken and I agree on the different viewpoint.  I also agree totally that a properly executed instrument approach and go around at DH is no more or less safe than any other piece of flying and, in theory, should be quite acceptable.  The trouble lies in the fact that humans can sometimes let their enthusiasm or optimism get the better of their judgment and, when already right on the limits there is no room for error.  My point was whether that is a good position to put oneself in and whether, given the frailties of us humans we should be allowed to do that.  The answer is probably as much philosophical as aeronautical I suppose and I hope no pilots took my post as a criticism of their usually very sound judgment in such matters.

I disagree and fortunately I fly in a country that does not legislate every single action and decision I make as a pilot.  The same argument you are making about restricting approaches to below minimums could be made about driving an automobile in poor weather.  Do you think there should be a law preventing people from driving an automobile if visibility is below some set value?

Part 135 operators (and I think part 121 as well) are not permitted to initiate the approach if weather is below minimums at the airport the aircraft is destined to.  If the weather changes and goes below minimums while the aircraft is inside the FAF, they can still continue the approach.  Part 91 operators are not restricted by these regs, however.  I think a pilot or flight crew of any operation (part 91/135/121) should be competent enough to complete the approach if weather is at or very close to minimums. 

I guess my point is to raise a discussion as to why in the USA Part 135 operators are restricted in their ability to commence an approach while Part 91 operators are not.  At the risk of stirring a hornet's nest I would have thought that, on average, a part 135 pilot would be better trained and more experienced that a part 91 pilot (I emphasise there 'on average' as I know there will be many exceptions) and, if it is a matter of public safety, the issues should be the same.

From the posts above I guess the response will be that the part 135s should be allowed the same freedom as the part 91s and again I suppose that is a philosophical position (and one I respect even if I don't necessarily agree with it).

If ALL pilots were equally well trained, always level headed and under no pressure (direct,  implied or self induced) to 'get in' then I would have no argument.  I just don't  think that we are in that position and the consequences of a bad decision can be very bad indeed.

I certainly mean no offence to all the excellent pros (and amateurs) out there who make excellent calls and keep it safe for everyone.  Long may you do so!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!