Jump to content

Mooney 201 lands on high power lines in MD


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rbp said:

Can you please explain this in terms of the approach plate? 

Sorry, I was using Jepps plates (these are produced for 121/135 criteria) with minima for Cat A & C aircraft (90kts & 120kias) both traffic were on remote altimeter setting which would beefed up visibility requirements and decision altitudes (FAA/Jepps plates ask for it)

ATC gave Baltimore Altimeter to both aircraft, I have no clue what kind of operation (91/121/135) or equipments (BARO or WAAS) these aircraft have? what they were flying as minima (LPV, L/VNAV or LNAV)? what technique (3deg CDFA with autopilot or Dive & Drive to threshold by hand?)? but in all cases, 200ft overcast & 1 1/4 visibility will be a long shot

Part91 with AP+LPV, why one would not give it a try in M20J and go missed at 350ft DH? I have no clue what minima those Cheyennes are operated on? the fact they have gone missed is a useful advisory information to adjust expectations but not the sole criteria out there start an approach, if I have enough fuel and LPV, I will personally give this one go down to DA and missed as well (or land if runway in sight)

LNAV with no glideslope: dive-drive or circling, no thanks: it will be “run for my life” ! 
 

9F70C7A2-3CF1-4D6B-A87F-C2392662FF0F.jpeg.9425874a2cfe62843e05a1deec38580b.jpeg2E9AC2A8-A4B8-4000-AF29-062394926868.jpeg.f5b5e72ffbfb6d976a8b4c75ebe0f55d.jpeg

 

Edited by Ibra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ibra said:

Why the Cheyenne crew went for it? the ceiling was definetly bellow their plates DA, the visbility was likely illegal at 120kias in their aircraft with paying passengers !!

Likely they had few gadgets LPV, WAAS, AP, SV, HUD and maybe 2nd engine & pilot which is why they did it?

What matters at the end of the day: they went missed as they did not like what they saw at DA !

What’s the legal visibility for a category B or C airplane for the LPV 14?  
maybe they didn’t see anything at DA and that’s why they went missed.  Also. Ceiling isn’t controlling for minimums. Visibility is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

What’s the legal visibility for a category B or C airplane for the LPV 14?  

1 1/4 for LPV (we don’t know minima for airplane with paying passengers, they are likely higher than system minima)

in any case on same equipment & pilot, irrespective of airport plates & weather conditions and operational rules:

* Cheyenne has visibility to approche => M20J has visibility to approche 

* M20J can’t see runway at DA => Cheyenne can’t see runway at DA

* Cheyenne gone missed at DA => M20J can still land from DA 

I don’t see anything wrong in the above statements? As I said, I disagree that “M20J can’t approche behind Cheyenne, if the latter has gone missed”, I would just go and see myself 

Edited by Ibra
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ibra said:

1 1/4 for LPV (we don’t know minima for Cat C airplane with paying passengers but they are likely higher)

in any case on same equipment & pilot, irrespective of plates & weather conditions:

* Cheyenne has visibility to approche => M20J has visibility to approche 

* M20J can’t see runway at DA => Cheyenne can’t see runway at DA

* Cheyenne gone missed at DA => M20J can still land from DA 

I don’t see anything wrong in the above statements 

What’s wrong with the above statements is that you’re missing the forest for the trees. He couldn’t hold a heading, follow a vector or even load the approach correctly and follow it. You think he had a chance of safely getting to DA and landing?!

Doesn’t matter what category he’s in or the technical minutia. He did not demonstrate the ability to safely fly the approach and clearly lacked the insight into his deficiencies until after he’d crashed. I care about what’s safe much more than what’s technically legal. There are a lot of ways to legally get killed in an airplane.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you're suggesting that he picked the LNAV over the LPV, on a low IFR day given that he had WAAS?

the barometer affects all category minima equally (+80 +1/4)

"Baro-VNAV NA when using Washington Dulles Intl altimeter setting. For uncompensated
Baro-VNAV systems, LNAV/VNAV NA below -16°C or above 36°C. When local altimeter setting not received, use Washington Dulles Intl altimeter setting and increase all DA/MDAs 80 feet and all visibilities 1/4 mile."

image.png.25c105221b81a7920584fbd851a985b3.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Ibra said:

1 1/4 for LPV (we don’t know minima for airplane with paying passengers, they are likely higher than system minima)

in any case on same equipment & pilot, irrespective of airport plates & weather conditions and operational rules:

* Cheyenne has visibility to approche => M20J has visibility to approche 

* M20J can’t see runway at DA => Cheyenne can’t see runway at DA

* Cheyenne gone missed at DA => M20J can still land from DA 

I don’t see anything wrong in the above statements? As I said, I disagree that “M20J can’t approche behind Cheyenne, if the latter has gone missed”, I would just go and see myself 

Why would the minima be higher for a 135 airplane?  And how do you know N108UC is a 135 airplane? You’re trying to make a distinction that doesn’t exist. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the same minima.  1-1/4.   You are claiming it’s higher.  I think you’re wrong. 

Also. It’s an LPV. It’s not dive and drive.  In fact you can’t even do that as it has no circling minima.  You could use LNAV minima but it’s way higher. And they have equipment for lower mins, so it’s nonsensical. Also the 1280 ft mandatory restriction 1.4 to threshold. 
the Cheyenne has a KFC-300 autopilot and it’s coupled to the glideslope. The Mooney has a century IIB and a stand-alone altitude hold.  It won’t follow a gradient path. . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can find, Vs0 in the Cheyanne is 89, so 1.3 *89 = 105, which is Category B

https://code7700.com/approach_categories.htm

 

"In 1972 the FAA implemented the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). The TERPS rule changed the way the FAA defined aircraft approach categories from one based on the number of engines to new criteria based on stall speed in landing configuration or aircraft weight. Specifically "aircraft approach category" was defined as a "grouping of aircraft based on a speed of 1.3 VSO (at maximum certificated landing weight) or on maximum certificated landing weight." See 32 Fed. Reg. 13909,13911-12 (Oct 6, 1967); 32 Fed. Reg. 6938, 6939 (May 5, 1967). Section 97.3 was amended later to remove the option for basing aircraft approach categories strictly on maximum certificated landing weight. See 44 Fed. Reg. 15659 (Mar. 15, 1979). The only remaining way to make this determination was "1.3 VSO (at maximum certificated landing weight)." Id."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the same minima.  1-1/4.   You are claiming it’s higher.  I think you’re wrong. 

Also. It’s an LPV. It’s not dive and drive.  In fact you can’t even do that as it has no circling minima.  You could use LNAV minima but it’s way higher. And they have equipment for lower mins, so it’s nonsensical. Also the 1280 ft mandatory restriction 1.4 to threshold. 
the Cheyenne has a KFC-300 autopilot and it’s coupled to the glideslope. The Mooney has a century IIB and a stand-alone altitude hold.  It won’t follow a gradient path. . 

I agree, if they were both on the LPV, then I think they both had the same minimums (which I think are 1SM unless the GAI altimeter was unavailable for some reason). LPV mins on this approach are the same for all categories.

Good info on the Glide Path coupled for the Cheyenne and no GP coupling for the Mooney. That’s one more link in the chain if the AP wasn’t capable of coupling to the GP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

I care about what’s safe much more than what’s technically legal. There are a lot of ways to legally get killed in an airplane.

The accident pilot certainly had plenty of hints collectively suggesting that it wasn’t a good plan to go to GAI just then.  
While he was still dangling from the transmission lines the front passed and the weather cleared up significantly.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2022 at 9:07 AM, bradp said:

I’m having some difficulty but looking at this 

again, it appeared as though the pilot is diving and driving on an LPV mins approach. 

Pilot seemed to be behind the airplane and with approach possibly not loaded correctly in 430W as well as HSI possibly misaligned. IFR flight requires buttonology to be nailed down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing where to draw your personal mins is tough.  And even when you have them, they’re “made up” by you and can be “adjusted” by you.  Yes, I know, hard and fast.  Never deviate.  It’s a slippery slope.

Its scary because 3 times in the last month, I’ve used the rule about “seeing approach lights” at DH and continuing down to  100’ before seeing the runway or termination bars.  Now I fly for a living which doesn’t mean I’m better at this flying thing than anyone else, but I’m very current, experienced, and the airplane is well equipped.  So am I a bad person?  Am I misleading myself and putting my passengers and my life in danger?  I want to think not.  I follow the rules.  I want to think I really would have gone around if I hadn’t seen the runway at 100’.  In each case, I had a divert plan and fuel available.  In each case, the rvr was slightly Below mins, but I saw the lights at or slightly above DH.  These were big airports with strobes and very bright lighting.  Ever see the little note that allows rvr reduction if using a coupled approach, hud or FD to mins?  What about an ILS and LPV to the same runway, same mins, but the lpv has that note for the lower rvr (KHIO ILS13 vs RNAV 13). It’s 600’ less rvr.  25% less vis required.  I’m not saying most people should have personal mins this low, but someone does.  If person, equipment, etc is right it can be safe.  It’s hard to figure out when you think you’re 100% and maybe you’re not.
 

-135 ops can definitely have different mins.  Depends on their opsspec.  Might depend on the PICs time and currency too.  To me that would be good information to know he went missed but not a show stopper.

Now do I want to do this in my Mooney with an stec30A?  No.  Have I shot approaches to mins in the Mooney?  Yes, a couple of times in 3/4nm vis in smoke (daytime). Would I do it again? It depends.  Things like turbulence, night, precip, airport lighting, currency, workday, etc all add up.  Do you take every possible factor into account with your personal mins every time?  It’s hard.

Clearly the personal mins applied here (if any) were not appropriate since the results speak for themselves.  There were obvious cues.  We wouldn’t all make the same choices even with all those same cues.  Trying to load the approach on your gns430w in bad weather at night probably isn’t a good time to consider your personal mins or the decisions you might make.  It has to be before the flight and you have to be honest with yourself when you need to do something different.  It’s hard though.  Remember that.  This guy didn’t takeoff thinking he would end up shutting down power to 500k people while dangling 200’ up.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2022 at 4:31 PM, rbp said:

As far as I can find, Vs0 in the Cheyanne is 89, so 1.3 *89 = 105, which is Category B

Am I understanding correctly that , even if you're a Category A aircraft, if you fly your approaches > 90 knots you still have to use Category B minimums anyway?  I've always used Cat B for my minimums since I usually shoot for 100 knots.

On 12/3/2022 at 4:18 PM, Ibra said:

Cheyenne (91 or 135) can’t have lower minima than M20J on Part91 on that airport, they can only have higher ones ! 

The argument that the Cheyenne going missed didn't make it illegal for the M20J to attempt the approach is a straw man argument.  The M20J never could have done anything illegal because it never landed.

The point here is that the Cheyenne going missed made it less smart to attempt the approach.  And while that might not be a good enough reason on its own, that is also a straw man argument.  The known facts are that the weather was below minimums, at night, in an unfamiliar aircraft without autopilot approach aids to an airport with no approach lights, so it was never the only reason.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 1:10 PM, Becca said:

The plane is based at my home airport. It’s a pretty active partnership. The plane is (was) pretty regularly flown by many or all of the partners.  I think there may be 1-2 new partners so sucks for them if this is their first experience in airplane ownership.  I find it hard to believe anyone who flies IFR regularly into GAI, let alone is based at GAI would be unfamiliar or unable to spell the BEGKA waypoint. I am curious how this will all play out with liability.  

i was not impressed with the pilot’s post accident interviews.  In one he said to the reporter “well I’m trained to fly in that weather as long as it isn’t icy or a thunderstorm” (along those lines) which conveys he likely didn’t have any sense of personal minimums.  One things you might not be hearing in the compressed versions of the LiveATC floating here is there was a Cheyenne on the approach to GAI in front of him who went missed, never saw the runway, and diverted to FDK.  The accident pilot was aware (heard, discussed with ATC) of that and continued pressing.  I was at GAI about an hour before the accident and the fog was so thick the ducks were walking, if anything the weather may have been slightly worse than the ASOS history reported in the thread.

Becca great point about pilot not referencing his personnel minimums.  I am a new instrument pilot and have my personnel minimums set high for comfort and safety.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Am I understanding correctly that , even if you're a Category A aircraft, if you fly your approaches > 90 knots you still have to use Category B minimums anyway?  I've always used Cat B for my minimums since I usually shoot for 100 knots.

the categories are based on Vref and/or 1.3 * Vs0. Higher minima for faster speeds is determined to meet obstacle clearances based on the the larger turning radius for the missed approach. A straight-out missed means no difference in minima.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

Ever see the little note that allows rvr reduction if using a coupled approach, hud or FD to mins?  What about an ILS and LPV to the same runway, same mins, but the lpv has that note for the lower rvr (KHIO ILS13 vs RNAV 13). It’s 600’ less rvr.  25% less vis required.  I’m not saying most people should have personal mins this low, but someone does.  If person, equipment, etc is right it can be safe.

single pilot IFR to minimums, I am flying a coupled approach TYVM. there no way I want to be lookup up and down and up and down, waiting to find the runway. if the AP is inop, I am going somewhere with better odds -- better weather and an ILS or LPV, or I don't take off in the first place 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rbp said:

A straight-out missed means no difference in minima.

You are right, I just checked TERPS there are no differences in straight-out (3D) DA from Vref Category only turns or circling (2D) MDA, only difference in visibility requirement which account for the time one needs to acquire visual clues at DA, this also depends if you have AP, FD, HUD, EVS…

In the other hand, I do recall some “extra design” requirements by FAA on speeds,

-  I recall FAA required +10% x ROD to MDA when calculating (derived) DDA for LNAV MDA flown on CDFA? this was done such aircraft never goes bellow MDA when executing missed…in ILS or APV(LPV or L/VNAV), you can go bellow DA as you go in missed even with -1000fpm as you stay above the protected glidepath, in LNAV or LOC, you should not dip under MDA 

- PDG climb gradient: a higher PDG require higher straight in DA during the missed, at higher climb speeds you get lower % gradient bracket with higher DA bracket, although this is for missed segment not final segment 

PANS-OPS have higher OCH/DH for higher Vref even in straight-in, so my comments likely come from another planet :lol: the physics are rather intuitive though: you see those runway lights better in slower aircraft, maybe better with AP coupled ILS or LPV with SV display and RHS looking outside with Cat-I/II xmas lights…

Edited by Ibra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rbp said:

the categories are based on Vref and/or 1.3 * Vs0. Higher minima for faster speeds is determined to meet obstacle clearances based on the the larger turning radius for the missed approach. A straight-out missed means no difference in minima.

Interesting! Although I was just asking about in general, not this specific approach

Edited by jaylw314
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s always a decision. Land or continue.  And remember you WILL go below DA. Remember also that with  approach lights in sight you can continue to 100 HAT. Then decide there if you have legal and sufficient reference to land. But still.
also GAI has no approach light system.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

incorrect.

here's the beginning of the regulation:

91.175(c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. Except as provided in § 91.176 of this chapter, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless -

imagine a 200,000# aircraft on final at 170 knots and descending at 1500FPM. It reaches 200' and is still in the soup, so the pilot decides to go around, shoves the throttles forward and pressed the TOGA button. you bet that plane is dipping below DA before the engines can arrest the descent and begin a climb. 

this is perfectly legal

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rbp said:

incorrect.

here's the beginning of the regulation:

91.175(c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. Except as provided in § 91.176 of this chapter, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless -

imagine a 200,000# aircraft on final at 170 knots and descending at 1500FPM. It reaches 200' and is still in the soup, so the pilot decides to go around, shoves the throttles forward and pressed the TOGA button. you bet that plane is dipping below DA before the engines can arrest the descent and begin a climb. 

this is perfectly legal

 

I don’t want to wade into the argument of the legality, I just try to stay so far on the legal side that there isn’t a debate. 
I think for the average Mooney pilot, the better question is how far should the issue be pushed, and will obviously vary based on experience, proficiency and equipment.


The subject of personal minimums and risk/reward should be factored in to these situations.  When I am loading my approach and inputting the minimums on my g1000, I always add 50’ to the minimum DA to keep me from getting below. 
My personal reason is simple, if the edge of clearances is what they predicate the minimums on, I don’t want to be that close. I consider it a little bit of insurance. 
Just the amount we know for sure in this incident, reads like so many accident reports. 
It’s seldom one large foolish mistake. It’s a series of small decisions that stack and accumulate. 
Remember that thing we were all taught in the beginning, if you don’t know what your going to do next, you are already behind. 
I am very thankful they survived with minor injuries, and hope we can all learn from their mistakes. W

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You add 50’ to an MDA when using vertical guidance on a approach without a DA. But adding 50’ to an MDA is limiting you artificially to somewhat early go around from an otherwise normal approach. 
there’s a common misconception that descent below DA is somehow wrong or unsafe.      I’ve only done it in the simulator but it’s also in the book. A 747 going missed from a 50’ RA will skip off the runway. Unsafe? Dangerous?  Or designed in? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.