CRASH SHORT OF KSEE (NOT A MOONEY)

[ZuluZulu]

1 minute ago, DCarlton said:

Thanks I didn't look it up.  Recall there is a LOC; assumed by now there would be a GPS too.  

There can't be due to the hills E-NE of the airport.

SEE only has:

• LOC-D (circling 35, 27R NA @ night; circling NA northeast of 27R-17),
• RNAV (GPS) 17 (same CTL restrictions),
• RNAV (GPS) 9L (circling 17, 27L, 27R, 35 NA @ night; circling NA northeast of 27R-17),
• and that's it.

And no I don't know why circling 27L is only NA for the 9L approach when it's unlit and closed at night.  If you're dumb enough to attempt circling for 27L from the other approaches I guess the FAA doesn't want to stand in your way.  Then again maybe this is a Jeppesen thing, as the same indication doesn't appear on the FAA chart.

 

[DCarlton]

49 minutes ago, ZuluZulu said:

There can't be due to the hills E-NE of the airport.

SEE only has:

• LOC-D (circling 35, 27R NA @ night; circling NA northeast of 27R-17),
• RNAV (GPS) 17 (same CTL restrictions),
• RNAV (GPS) 9L (circling 17, 27L, 27R, 35 NA @ night; circling NA northeast of 27R-17),
• and that's it.

And no I don't know why circling 27L is only NA for the 9L approach when it's unlit and closed at night.  If you're dumb enough to attempt circling for 27L from the other approaches I guess the FAA doesn't want to stand in your way.  Then again maybe this is a Jeppesen thing, as the same indication doesn't appear on the FAA chart.

 

Why not fly the LOC-D to 27R if at night in marginal weather instead of the GPS to 17 if ....  if 17 is too short?  Curious, when you cross mid field and circle to land on 27R, do aircraft typically circle behind the hills to the East or closer to the airport to the West?  

[ZuluZulu]

52 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

Why not fly the LOC-D to 27R if at night in marginal weather instead of the GPS to 17 if ....  if 17 is too short?  Curious, when you cross mid field and circle to land on 27R, do aircraft typically circle behind the hills to the East or closer to the airport to the West?  

You’ll get much better answers from some of the other IFR SEE pilots — I can’t really speak to this given my lack of training and not being a CFI or AGI.  I think LOC-D is really not useful for 27R in anything other than VFR conditions, but that’s just “private pilot thoughts only.” ($1, @carusoam). SEE’s advantage lies not in its approaches but in the fact that, generally speaking, it tends to remain VFR for longer than other local airports. It’s often, in my own personal observations, the first to clear, and the last to go under. Many times I have been able to land at a clear SEE when MYF was marginal or worse. But when the entire region is MVFR or worse, at night, your aircraft either needs to take 17 or 9L (the latter likely with a tailwind). Need 27R for distance, winds, or both? You’re probably going elsewhere. 

If you’re asking about my VFR experiences, crossing midfield from the north and joining a left downwind for 27R requires a left eastward turn and will not put you to the west unless you turn the wrong way. Possibly I’m misunderstanding what you’re asking, but you also would not circle “behind” the hills unless you blow through centerline during the base to final turn. However, if you make right traffic to 27R, aka the north downwind, you do go “around” the hills when flying the normal pattern. 

[ilovecornfields]

55 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

Why not fly the LOC-D to 27R if at night in marginal weather instead of the GPS to 17 if ....  if 17 is too short?  Curious, when you cross mid field and circle to land on 27R, do aircraft typically circle behind the hills to the East or closer to the airport to the West?  

There’s no straight-in to 27R. The LOC-D is CTL and has a 6.88 Degree slope. I can do it as a “straight-in” if I drop the gear, deploy the speedbrakes and dive for the deck but it’s not really “stabilized” and seems like it would be a non-starter in a Learjet (then maybe it isn’t- I’ve never flown a jet).

It seems like this is an unfortunate example of how getting away with something in the past makes you more likely to do it in the future.

I’ve been reading aviation accident reports for over 30 years. It used to baffle me how “high time” pilots would crash and I would wonder how I had any chance of surviving if these people with thousands of hours more than me couldn’t. Now that I have more time I’ve realized that “experience” isn’t always a good thing. It’s the quality of that experience and the lessons learned, not necessarily the quantity.

As @ZuluZulu mentioned, in a nice VFR night this is easy to do (I did it several times in November and lived to tell the tale). With marginal weather in a high-performance plane I don’t thing their “experience” helped them. Just the opposite. Someone like @ZuluZulu would have diverted to Ramona, rented a car and driven home mildly inconvenienced. This more “experienced” crew probably convinced themselves that because they got away with it the past they could do it again (perhaps under less favorable conditions) and didn’t make it.

“A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill.”

[DCarlton]

17 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

There’s no straight-in to 27R. The LOC-D is CTL and has a 6.88 Degree slope. I can do it as a “straight-in” if I drop the gear, deploy the speedbrakes and dive for the deck but it’s not really “stabilized” and seems like it would be a non-starter in a Learjet (then maybe it isn’t- I’ve never flown a jet).

It seems like this is an unfortunate example of how getting away with something in the past makes you more likely to do it in the future.

I’ve been reading aviation accident reports for over 30 years. It used to baffle me how “high time” pilots would crash and I would wonder how I had any chance of surviving if these people with thousands of hours more than me couldn’t. Now that I have more time I’ve realized that “experience” isn’t always a good thing. It’s the quality of that experience and the lessons learned, not necessarily the quantity.

As @ZuluZulu mentioned, in a nice VFR night this is easy to do (I did it several times in November and lived to tell the tale). With marginal weather in a high-performance plane I don’t thing their “experience” helped them. Just the opposite. Someone like @ZuluZulu would have diverted to Ramona, rented a car and driven home mildly inconvenienced. This more “experienced” crew probably convinced themselves that because they got away with it the past they could do it again (perhaps under less favorable conditions) and didn’t make it.

“A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill.”

Ok I need help.  I either have a fundamental knowledge gap or a terminology issue.  The LOC-D couldn't be more straight in to 27R.  The heading is 269.  What am I missing?  The procedure turn?  Yes it's a dive and I've never liked it but it should be manageable shouldn't it?  Better than flying circles behind hills down low in the dark. 

Edited January 4, 2022 by DCarlton

[Ragsf15e]

47 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

Ok I need help.  I either have a fundamental knowledge gap or a terminology issue.  The LOC-D couldn't be more straight in to 27R.  The heading is 269.  What am I missing?  The procedure turn?  Yes it's a dive and I've never liked it but it should be manageable shouldn't it?  Better than flying circles behind hills down low in the dark. 

It’s the descent from the step down fix at 2700’, 3.1nm before the threshold.  That’s why it’s a circle approach and there’s no chance that you try that in a Lear.  Terribly unstabilized approach at 6.8 degrees.  While it looks straight in, it’s really bringing you “up initial” and then you’ll have to turn crosswind, downwind, base, final on a normal pattern just to lose all the extra altitude.

[DCarlton]

34 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

It’s the descent from the step down fix at 2700’, 3.1nm before the threshold.  That’s why it’s a circle approach and there’s no chance that you try that in a Lear.  Terribly unstabilized approach at 6.8 degrees.  While it looks straight in, it’s really bringing you “up initial” and then you’ll have to turn crosswind, downwind, base, final on a normal pattern just to lose all the extra altitude.

I suppose that could explain some of the decisions on this flight.  Hopefully we can learn something from it.  I'm going to fly the LOC-D and the 17 GPS approach when I have a chance. 

[Ragsf15e]

7 hours ago, DCarlton said:

I suppose that could explain some of the decisions on this flight.  Hopefully we can learn something from it.  I'm going to fly the LOC-D and the 17 GPS approach when I have a chance. 

While it might be possible to land straight in on the loc D in your Mooney, I think it will take gear, full flaps, idle and possibly a slip from the step down fix on 3 mile final.  And remember, you could still be in the weather there.  The mins are another 1200’ lower at 1500’.  It just wouldn’t be wise to use that as a straight in approach.

I think you’ll see that no matter what approach they chose, they’d be flying a full vfr pattern at night in marginal weather.  I think their mistake was made before they were choosing which approach to use.  It was choosing to go there at night in marginal weather in the first place.

[kortopates]

While it might be possible to land straight in on the loc D in your Mooney, I think it will take gear, full flaps, idle and possibly a slip from the step down fix on 3 mile final.  And remember, you could still be in the weather there.  The mins are another 1200’ lower at 1500’.  It just wouldn’t be wise to use that as a straight in approach.
I think you’ll see that no matter what approach they chose, they’d be flying a full vfr pattern at night in marginal weather.  I think their mistake was made before they were choosing which approach to use.  It was choosing to go there at night in marginal weather in the first place.

The localizer Delta has no straight in minimum because it much too steep of a descent rate at over twice the allowable rate for a straight in at 6.88 degrees. IFR it has to done as a circle south to 27. But in VFR conditions it’s routinely done straight in, but you need to start descending for the runway before DEBEY. But even if you have the runway in sight, i’d never try this at night because you likely won’t have the terrain in sight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ragsf15e]

13 minutes ago, kortopates said:

The localizer Delta has no straight in minimum because it much too steep of a descent rate at over twice the allowable rate for a straight in at 6.88 degrees. IFR it has to done as a circle south to 27. But in VFR conditions it’s routinely done straight in, but you need to start descending for the runway before DEBEY. But even if you have the runway in sight, i’d never try this at night because you likely won’t have the terrain in sight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, I was trying to explain to the above folks why the lear crew wouldn’t use it as a straight in… because as we both said, it’s much too steep (if you don’t start descending to the runway before the step down).

[201er]

19 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Ok I need help.  I either have a fundamental knowledge gap or a terminology issue.  The LOC-D couldn't be more straight in to 27R.  The heading is 269.  What am I missing?  The procedure turn?  Yes it's a dive and I've never liked it but it should be manageable shouldn't it?  Better than flying circles behind hills down low in the dark. 

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2113/pdf/05402R17.PDF

 

A. You can't do LOC-D to 27R at night period. "Circling Rwy 27R, 35 NA at night."

B. It's circling minimums only

C. For Class C/D aircraft the minimums may have been below conditions even if it were allowed 1940-3

[Ragsf15e]

49 minutes ago, 201er said:

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2113/pdf/05402R17.PDF

 

A. You can't do LOC-D to 27R at night period. "Circling Rwy 27R, 35 NA at night."

B. It's circling minimums only

C. For Class C/D aircraft the minimums may have been below conditions even if it were allowed 1940-3

I think this lear crew could have used it following their admittedly flawed logic… they shot the approach not to circle (which is an ifr procedure and not allowed to 27 at night on the approaches as you said), but they used the approach to get below the weather to cancel ifr and fly a vfr pattern to 27 at night.  Seems like trying to get around a restriction put there to save people, but possibly it’s also legal…

[201er]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

I think this lear crew could have used it following their admittedly flawed logic… they shot the approach not to circle (which is an ifr procedure and not allowed to 27 at night on the approaches as you said), but they used the approach to get below the weather to cancel ifr and fly a vfr pattern to 27 at night.  Seems like trying to get around a restriction put there to save people, but possibly it’s also legal…

The Circling Minimums for LOC-D approach are higher than the circling minimums for GPS17. They would have had to level off at 1940ft which likely would not have been 500 below clouds to be legal VFR to cancel. Had they flown the LOC-D, they would have had to circle to 9L, 17, or go missed.

Doing the GPS17 was more clever as it has lower minimums and would have either been a straight in or a VFR pattern 27R. Only it didn’t work out… Maybe they should have requested SPECIAL VFR!

[cliffy]

Night, weather, and low vis make C to L very challenging in a jet

Used to have to do them in the sim for check rides at 1000&3   in a 757 at IND for one particular FAA designee. He was a real A** Nobody liked him. 

Ideally you cross over at 90 degrees to the runway and go straight ahead for the radius of the Circle (at 150 kts that's about 3/4 mile)

Then you start  your standard rate turn for 270 degrees so you end up on the runway center line. 

You also need to go downwind far enough past the end of the runway so you are far enough out to make a controlled rate of decent  (stabilized approach. 300' per mile)to make the landing. So if you are 900' above the runway you need to be almost 3 miles out to start your decent (maybe 1 full minute in this case?) You might cheat by starting lower at the last 90 degrees of turn toward center line if the airport is well in sight. 

Right at visibility distance limit AND with 3 miles vis that doesn't mean that the airport will be CLEARLY in sight.  Its probably out of sight in reality.   And the runway lighting was not ALSF by any means so finding it in low vis and rain among all the other lights is a B^&*(%.  Hence asking for the runway lights. 

Its a very precise maneuver in a jet We did it in practice in 20 and 30 Lears decades ago. All timed and under the hood. It works out if done correctly and with practice. Ad hoc? It ain't gonna work out to well  In the 757 you draw a line out from the runway centerline on the FMC and see were you were in relation to it even if the airport wasn't too visible. 

Airspeed control in a jet  is vital as is evident. Bank angles have to be maintained perfectly at low speed circling.  

Stall/spin turning to final happens all the time even in our small airplanes. 

[201er]