San Diego Citation Crash

[Just a civilian pilot]

Nothing wrong with trying an approach ( provided the weather is legal to attempt the approach ) if the weather is at minimums , or even a second approach, provided you obviously don’t descend below minimums unless you have the required visual reference to continue with the landing.

I have tried two approaches and got in on the third , but I was close the first time ( ragged ceiling ) and felt it was best to try another approach.

Had I missed off the second approach I would have diverted ( passengers don’t like airline pilots trying a third approach ).

As long as you have enough fuel and don’t descend below minimums until you have the required visual reference, it’s perfectly safe to try another approach.

I did an ILS into Fort Lauderdale last summer at night and ended up doing a go around from 40 feet ( last Auto callout I heard ) due to torrential rain making it impossible to see well enough to safely flare ( wipers could not keep up ) and land even though I had adequate visual reference at 200 feet minimums initially. We got in on the second approach but switched ( arrival ATC initiated ) to the other parallel runway because a thunderstorm cell was getting close to the runway we missed from.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Nothing wrong with trying an approach ( provided the weather is legal to attempt the approach ) if the weather is at minimums , or even a second approach, provided you obviously don’t descend below minimums unless you have the required visual reference to continue with the landing.

I have tried two approaches and got in on the third , but I was close the first time ( ragged ceiling ) and felt it was best to try another approach.

Had I missed off the second approach I would have diverted ( passengers don’t like airline pilots trying a third approach ).

As long as you have enough fuel and don’t descend below minimums until you have the required visual reference, it’s perfectly safe to try another approach.

I did an ILS into Fort Lauderdale last summer at night and ended up doing a go around from 40 feet ( last Auto callout I heard ) due to torrential rain making it impossible to see well enough to safely flare ( wipers could not keep up ) and land even though I had adequate visual reference at 200 feet minimums initially. We got in on the second approach but switched ( arrival ATC initiated ) to the other parallel runway because a thunderstorm cell was getting close to the runway we missed from.

Correction second paragraph…..landed following the second approach. We did just two approaches.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

In the example below we need to have both, the charted visibility AND ceiling, before we can attempt an approach.

Most approach’s only require the visibility to be at or above the charted minimums.

We would need 2.8 KM vis ( 1 3/4 SM ) and clouds no lower than 700 above ground to do the approach.

The brown colour indicates high terrain.

Perfectly safe trying an approach down to the published minimums as long as you are legal to attempt it.

 

[Exhaustgases]

Funny how some desire to fly blind like the old days, when the technology exists now to be close to 100% safe when landing in a zero visibility fog bank. How good do those charts work in say a condition like Tenerife, and yes they were on the ground, but could not SEE.

Lets not forget the cases of being cleared to land with a plane holding on the runway at night. Wasn't that LAX? Flir would have saved lives there.

An altimeter is a very untrustworthy instrument. It depends on air pressure and takes little change to make huge height differences.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Funny how some desire to fly blind like the old days, when the technology exists now to be close to 100% safe when landing in a zero visibility fog bank. How good do those charts work in say a condition like Tenerife, and yes they were on the ground, but could not SEE.

Lets not forget the cases of being cleared to land with a plane holding on the runway at night. Wasn't that LAX? Flir would have saved lives there.

An altimeter is a very untrustworthy instrument. It depends on air pressure and takes little change to make huge height differences.

What’s even more funny is listening to a guy who doesn’t have a pilots licence think they know more than everyone else about how to make flying safer.

Are you aware of the airplane crossing the runway ( was told to hold short ) in daylight in Midway, Chicago a few months ago? It took low tech pilot eyeballs in the B737 to do a go around to avoid a collision. Pilot error caused that near collision, not the plane plane lacking high tech gadgets.

I can already land zero zero ( if I had to ) without any Flir at most airports.

If you are able to pass and get a pilots licence, you will lean that you can’t even taxi a plane unless the visibility is above a certain limit ( never zero visibility ) and airports have ground radar that operate in low ( not zero ) visibility or the minimum taxi visibility required is a lot higher.

Sorry, flying for 40 years, never had any unreliability issues with altimeters.

Let me know when you get your pilots licence.

Tenerife has ground radar today, no need for Flir.

https://simpleflying.com/tenerife-disaster-45-years-legacy/

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Flir limitations:

https://www.flir.ca/discover/rd-science/can-thermal-imaging-see-through-fog-and-rain/

 

[Exhaustgases]

What’s even more funny is listening to a guy who doesn’t have a pilots licence

Since about 1974, how long have you had yours?

Oh remember I said flir is one of the other systems to have, radar takes over where flir can't handle it.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Since about 1974, how long have you had yours?

Oh remember I said flir is one of the other systems to have, radar takes over where flir can't handle it.

“since about” 1983 for me.

I would expect a pilot to have more common sense but next you will tell me you have an ATPL which will make even less sense.

l can’t remember all the crazy stuff you have mentioned.

Using reversed alien technology makes more sense to me.

 

[Exhaustgases]

“since about” 1983 for me.

I would expect a pilot to have more common sense but next you will tell me you have an ATPL which will make even less sense.

l can’t remember all the crazy stuff you have mentioned.

Using reversed alien technology makes more sense to me.

Just SEL nothing more. Did more training but life got in the way.
Plenty of common sense, and thinking out of the box.
Many top inventors etc have been called worse.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Just SEL nothing more. Did more training but life got in the way.
Plenty of common sense, and thinking out of the box.
Many top inventors etc have been called worse.

Social media is the perfect place to prove how much we know and how much common sense we have.

Those top inventors actually invented stuff as opposed to all the others who never came up with good/practical ideas.

Even some pilots don’t have enough common sense or sound judgement and that’s why they don’t make it Captain.

Pilots upgrading to Captain have to “ think outside the box” at times to safely complete the flight as part of certain command scenarios but it has to make sense.

I will let others judge ( required to keep my job ) how much common sense I have or whether or not my opinions make sense or not regarding aviation on BITOG.

I suggest you let others decide that for you also.

 

[97prizm]

I own and fly a plane. It's not anywhere near the safety level of Professional, US based airlines. Quite simply, we as a nation got that part right. The equipment, the training, the personnel.

Life is very different in both large and small GA planes. Where the #1 cause of crashes involves some form of poor decision making on the part of the pilot. The good news is that GA pilots can, if they choose, make great choices. Don't go fly when..... (you fill in the blank here)

Mechanical issues are a 5% factor. The rest is pilot.

Today, I had to wait out some serious weather. Yet I made a few new friends during the delay, and waited long enough to have a great flight home. Risk level, low. Plenty of fuel, good weather, alternate airports galore, healthy airplane, gobs of altitude.

View attachment 281278View attachment 281280

Alot of pilots have something in the aviation world as "get home itis" or trying to get their aircraft home when weather, mechanical or human issues are present. This likely causes alot of fatalities.

 

[Exhaustgases]

Social media is the perfect place to prove how much we know and how much common sense we have.

Those top inventors actually invented stuff as opposed to all the others who never came up with good/practical ideas.

Even some pilots don’t have enough common sense or sound judgement and that’s why they don’t make it Captain.

Pilots upgrading to Captain have to “ think outside the box” at times to safely complete the flight as part of certain command scenarios but it has to make sense.

I will let others judge ( required to keep my job ) how much common sense I have or whether or not my opinions make sense or not regarding aviation on BITOG.

I suggest you let others decide that for you also.

An eloquent insult, thank you.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

An eloquent insult, thank you.

I admire your passion and good sense of humour.

I have passed along all your ideas to my flight ops department and Transport Canada and will keep an eye out for any new technology that improves flight safety that says …” patented by Exhaustgases”.

Part of the enjoyment of social media is humour.

Pilot error is still the biggest cause of preventable crashes like we saw with the helicopter pilots wearing fancy high tech night vision goggles ( which apparently makes it harder to see when flying around bright ambient lighting around a city ) and the collision with the CRJ , plus been slightly higher than they should have been.

 

[Exhaustgases]

I admire your passion and good sense of humour.

I have passed along all your ideas to my flight ops department and Transport Canada and will keep an eye out for any new technology that improves flight safety that says …” patented by Exhaustgases”.

Part of the enjoyment of social media is humour.

Pilot error is still the biggest cause of preventable crashes like we saw with the helicopter pilots wearing fancy high tech night vision goggles ( which apparently makes it harder to see when flying around bright ambient lighting around a city ) and the collision with the CRJ , plus been slightly higher than they should have been.

Guess your right. TCAS was a total failure in that case.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Guess your right. TCAS was a total failure in that case.

Sorry if I was a bit critical of you. Obviously, you post whatever you want even though we won’t always agree.

Because I fly for a living, I am a little touchy at times when I hear stuff that doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Exhaustgases]

Sorry if I was a bit critical of you. Obviously, you post whatever you want even though we won’t always agree.

Because I fly for a living, I am a little touchy at times when I hear stuff that doesn’t make sense to me.

Your an okay person. Many here on this site are very helpful intelligent folks. Most may not think so but I respect you all. Discussions are fun and interesting at times.
Your more up todate on anything about flying, its been many years past for me. May not even pass a medical.

 

[4WD]

I admire your passion and good sense of humour.

I have passed along all your ideas to my flight ops department and Transport Canada and will keep an eye out for any new technology that improves flight safety that says …” patented by Exhaustgases”.

Part of the enjoyment of social media is humour.

Pilot error is still the biggest cause of preventable crashes like we saw with the helicopter pilots wearing fancy high tech night vision goggles ( which apparently makes it harder to see when flying around bright ambient lighting around a city ) and the collision with the CRJ , plus been slightly higher than they should have been.

Or even when Cougar tried to turn around and fly back after a loss of oil from the MGB - rather than an immediate water landing …
I never consider the result of lawsuits proof of anything …
Dumbed up jurors are the thing these days …

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Preliminary NTSB report is out:

You can’t fly an LNAV/VNAV approach unless you have the local altimeter setting. Not sure what approach he was flying though.