Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evan, add Passadero to your no-fly list

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Hmmm...it looks too narrow to be an ATR and the lousy alignment with the runway makes me want to think "no"...but it's all ass hat parlour talk...
    Yes, they are the ATR's tracks. What reference are you using to judge the width?
    More photos here:
    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      Is that the wheel track from the botched landing attempt on the left? If so, than definitely not visual on the runway. But then, no approach lighting at night, why should they be?
      Yes, they are. In a top-down view available at AvHerald (http://avherald.com/h?article=4921bc12&opt=0) it doesn't look as misaligned (wile still quite misaligned, just not as much as in the perspective view).

      But then, no approach lighting at night, why should they be?
      Approach lighting was invented specifically to help in the transition between IMC and VMC, day or night. They don't add a lot of safety for night VFR landings where you can clearly see the runway lights from at least 1000ft up and miles away.

      In any event, a visual slope aid (VASI or PAPI), which I think this airport lacks too, is much more important for a safe VFR landing, night or day but specially at night. Night or day will help with the correct approach gradient, since that is something not easy to judge accurately just by the look of the scene. In day, a too low approach gradient will hardly end in hitting an obstacle because you can see it anyway. Thus the added value at night.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        What reference are you using to judge the width?
        Above average familiarity with vehicle tracks in soybean fields. [Edit- I finally went to the link, where there are close ups, Indeed, judging the track width at a side angle from short final, is not always accurate.]

        My comment is that at first glance, the aerial shot looks like a pickup truck and too far off center for a "professional" flight crew... a 10-hour student, maybe. (I know, never say never.)

        That being said- when you look closer, the tracks appear to go through the fence AND then stop. (I am impressed with how quickly they start- it might suggest that they really plunked it down- possibly got low on altitude, speed and ideas and reaction times.)

        I also wonder if the "black hole effect" might have been involved.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          Approach lighting was invented specifically to help in the transition between IMC and VMC, day or night. They don't add a lot of safety for night VFR landings where you can clearly see the runway lights from at least 1000ft up and miles away.
          In light of what I'm seeing in this photo, I have to disagree with that. The METAR indicates broken fog. Even if they had the runway sighted at 1000ft or lower, it appears that they lost it down low. Even in a cowboy landing like this, approach lights would have been their last confirmation of being in the right place (no approach lights=no runway, no dropping below 50', go around).

          Of course, this assumes they've already violated the first rule of a visual approach and at that point they might just as soon discover the approach lights by flying into them...

          Comment


          • #35
            I wonder if the other tracks in that soybean field from previous Passedero flights...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              ...disagree....broken fog...runway sighted at 1000ft or lower...lost it down low...cowboy landing...approach lights...confirmation...approach lights...no dropping below...visual approach...approach lights...
              This is a favorite of mine: http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online...s/AAR06-01.pdf I think (memory's weak) that I rode once when the Captain was flying ("a boy named Kim"). ATrude777 knows that he rode the plane.

              The thing about my link (and that might just come into play with this ATR incident) is good old fashioned tiredness and insidiousness that we've made this landing/approach a zillion times before, but it's been a 14 (+?) -hour day, dog tired, the weather has in fact given you some nice big visual cues, but also given you some nasty sneaky mis-cues. (There is supposedly a black hole effect- and it may apply here- runway lights surrounded by nothing but blackness. Guys lose their vertical perspective.) In the ATR off-roading-did-the-beans-died? incident, they had just about nothing- no approach lights, no VASI. In my case, they HAD approach lights.

              I snipped up your comment and added this one as you and Gabe argue over whether approach lights make/made a difference. It's a no-win argument, you'd think they would help, but then again, there's plenty of times before (and will be plenty of times after) where guys still descend into the ground even with approach lights (or even on beautiful afternoons with light winds and clear skies).

              I'll re-repeat the long-duty deal...might very well have been part of the deal with the Colgan crash.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 3BS
                Did the soybean died?
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                I don't think so. The ground was quite muddy and soft, so rather than being squashed they likely were re-sown.

                I disagree with an expletive-laden flame post, look at the pictures, how stupid can you be?
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  In light of what I'm seeing in this photo, I have to disagree with that. The METAR indicates broken fog. Even if they had the runway sighted at 1000ft or lower, it appears that they lost it down low. Even in a cowboy landing like this, approach lights would have been their last confirmation of being in the right place (no approach lights=no runway, no dropping below 50', go around).

                  Of course, this assumes they've already violated the first rule of a visual approach and at that point they might just as soon discover the approach lights by flying into them...
                  Exactly, the instant you lose sight of the runway you are not VMC anymore and hence VFR operations are illegal. There is one and only one acceptable course of action. Revert to instrument flight and go around. So if your pint is that approach lights might help you get away with landing visually in IMC, yes, that's right. And irrelevant. I would never ever install approach lights in a runway to help pilots break the law, the rules, the procedures, the airmanship principles, the judgement, the common sense, the fence, the soy and the plane (and just by chance not the bodies in it too).

                  And lets recognize that the reason for these tracks was that they lost the visual with the runway, that didn't happen in the last 5 seconds before touchdown.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    ...There is one and only one acceptable course of action. Revert to instrument flight and go around...they lost the visual with the runway, that didn't happen in the last 5 seconds before touchdown...
                    Indeed.

                    Approach lights vs. none is parlour-talk and hair splitting.

                    But I doubt we'll ever know the cause of this total soybean disaster (including the failure to mechanically go around when things become IMC).

                    It's what were they seeing and what they were thinking.

                    Was there some excellent visual contact that would lure them (and a lot of other pilots) on downward? Was there some sleep cycle/duty hour effect that was clouding their judgment? A few seconds of inattention on something like vertical speed and alignment? A nasty cloud or fog bank that suddenly changed the view?
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      For the record, there is no data yet (other than circumstantial reasonable speculation based on the scenario) that this was a case of continued VFR into IMC. It could have been another thing, like both pilots troubleshooting an indication light (and nobody flying the plane) or a low level windshear. All of these three scenarios (and then some) happened before.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        For the record, there is no data yet (other than circumstantial reasonable speculation based on the scenario) that this was a case of continued VFR into IMC. It could have been another thing, like both pilots troubleshooting an indication light (and nobody flying the plane) or a low level windshear. All of these three scenarios (and then some) happened before and will happen again.
                        Fixed.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          So if your pint is that approach lights might help you get away with landing visually in IMC, yes, that's right. And irrelevant. I would never ever install approach lights in a runway to help pilots break the law, the rules, the procedures, the airmanship principles, the judgement, the common sense, the fence, the soy and the plane (and just by chance not the bodies in it too).
                          Well, no, my point is that cowboys find their way into cockpits and WILL bend the rules but maybe not the planes themselves. Anything we can do to mitigate this reality is a worthwhile endeavor. My point is simply that approach lighting would have been one more cue (due to the lack thereof) that this was not the time to pull the throttles back and flare. As in "Weell Tex, ahm fer damn certain the ol' runway'll be right tere ahead, sos as soon as we all see them appraoch light we can put'er down nice n easy like." Followed by "Wherra them dang lights? Well I'll be a pickled coon dog, ah, guess we ain't twere I was thunkin we were... Reckon we gone hafta go round then..."

                          You might have noticed by now that many, many things having to do with safety are there precisely for very bad violations of rules, logic and basic judgement. I glad for that.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            ...As in "Weell Tex, ahm fer damn certain the ol' runway'll be right tere ahead, sos as soon as we all see them appraoch light we can put'er down nice n easy like." Followed by "Wherra them dang lights? Well I'll be a pickled coon dog, ah, guess we ain't twere I was thunkin we were... Reckon we gone hafta go round then..."
                            Wrong.

                            In so many ways.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X