Mooney 201 lands on high power lines in MD

[jaylw314]

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.

[Rusty Pilot]

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.

[rbp]

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.

[rbp]

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 

[Ibra]

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  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 December 5, 2022 by Ibra

[jaylw314]

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 December 5, 2022 by jaylw314

[rbp]

10 hours ago, Ibra said:

you can go bellow DA

yes, its a decision altitude not a minimum altitude

[1980Mooney]

34 minutes ago, rbp said:

yes, its a decision altitude not a minimum altitude

It is a decision if:

• You must always be able to make a descent to landing on the intended runway using normal maneuvers and a normal descent rate,
• The flight visibility (that you observe) must meet or exceed the minimums published for the approach, and
• You must be able to distinctly identify one of the approved visual references for the runway (often called the "runway environment")..i.e "runway environment in sight"

If you cannot satisfy all 3 then it is a minimum.  

[jetdriven]

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.  

[rbp]

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

 

[Schllc]

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

[jetdriven]

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? 

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

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? 

No, I add 50’ so my minimum alert annunciates BEFORE i hit the minimum. 
I’ve only had a handful of approaches where I was even close to minimums, and have never had to get below my additional 50’ threshold. 
Im pretty sure it has to do with how I plan. 
I would not say it’s what everyone should do, or that it’s better. 
It’s just my prerogative.  I don’t have to get anywhere bad enough to break my minimums. 
To each their own. 

[bradp]

16 hours ago, Rusty Pilot said:

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.

Having personal minimums is a good thing.  For purposes of training and proficiency, us instrument pilots should be able to hand fly a precision approach to minimums every day of the week and twice on Tuesday.  
 

The sequence here somewhat reminds me of aspects of this:

 

https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/online-learning/accident-case-studies/final-approach

 

 

[Ibra]

It's ok to go under DA duing missed if you have official & protected vertical guidance: ILS, LPV, L/VNAV...no need to add +50ft to DA 

It's not OK go under non-procesion MDA: LOC, LNAV, CTL...even with advisory +V vertical guidance or CDFA, so most poeple add +50ft to MDA

What one should not do is land after they decided to go missed near minimums: you often see runway during missed as the aircraft dips under "3D DA" and gets closed to threshold...not ideal for landing with bouncy doughnuts, you see the runway better on 2nd time 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Ibra

[Pinecone]

9 hours ago, jetdriven said:

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? 

Sims are great for this.

When I was in UPT we would do "solo" sim rides.  It meant two students without an instructor.  If the other student was flying and messed up the approach, but I could see the runway, I would try to land.  Did I do it every time?  NO.  But I found my limits to try it if the choice was land or eject.

[rbp]

9 hours ago, Schllc said:

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. 

its not an argument about legality, it was about leaving off the paragraph leading up to the three bullets, which are crucial to understanding.

[redbaron1982]

14 CFR § 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:

(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;

(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and

(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:

 

Busting a MDA without the three requirements is ilegal, I think that's quite clear.

Now, regarding DA/DH, I have my doubts also, the reg says: "...or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless..."

So, I can interpret that I can descend down to DH, at that point I must make the call wether to land or not. If the three requirements are not met I must chose not to land. So I abort the approach and go missed, at the DH. Again, I'm taking the decision and interrupting (i.e. no continuing) the approach at the DA/DH, not lower than that. But as I set the power, arrest the descend and start to climb I will go below DA/DH. Is that ilegal? From the reg perpsective, doesn't sound like it is.

Now, is it smart? Probably not.

Anyway, I think the guy that originated this thread (meaning not the OP but the guy that tangled his Mooney in the power lines) was not in this technicalities, but doing thing much worse than this.

If you will, the reg starts by saying:

(b) Authorized DA/DH or MDA. For the purpose of this section, when the approach procedure being used provides for and requires the use of a DA/DH or MDA, the authorized DA/DH or MDA is the highest of the following:

(1) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed by the approach procedure.

(2) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed for the pilot in command.

(3) The DA/DH or MDA appropriate for the aircraft equipment available and used during the approach.

I would argue that the pilot in command was proficient enough to even start the approach, as he was not familiar with the waypoints of the approach (get confused between BEGKA and BECKA), was not able to follow a heading, and sound to be far behind the airplane.

[rbp]

lets break it down

> no pilot may
> operate an aircraft ... below the authorized MDA
> OR 
> continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH

note it does NOT say "no pilot may operate an aircraft below the authorized ... DA/DH"

it DOES say "no pilot may .... continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH".  

a GO AROUND is not continuing an approach

[rbp]

also from TERPS 2-1-4. Sloping OCS:

"d. In the case of a missed approach procedure, the climbing flight path starts at the height of the minimum descent altitude (MDA) or decision altitude (DA) minus height loss. "

 

[rbp]

I hope this satisfies the doubters: 

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/190204PARCRNPAROCSTransHarmonRecs.pdf

 

[RobertGary1]

12 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

It is a decision if:

• You must always be able to make a descent to landing on the intended runway using normal maneuvers and a normal descent rate,
• The flight visibility (that you observe) must meet or exceed the minimums published for the approach, and
• You must be able to distinctly identify one of the approved visual references for the runway (often called the "runway environment")..i.e "runway environment in sight"

If you cannot satisfy all 3 then it is a minimum.  

I think that wasn’t the point. There is a functional difference between an mda and da. 

[Marauder]

So, where does all this TERPS discussion leave us with this mishap? Clearly, something didn’t go as planned.

In my thinking, there are still pieces of the puzzle to be fitted. Like, was he really receiving an LPV signal or was his GPS showing an LNAV for RWY14? Did he get an LPV indication for RWY14 but dove to the DA thinking he was dropping down to an MDA for a look see? Based on his ATC exchanges, how far in the back seat was he when he shot the approach?

Seeing that he was pretty expressive in post mishap conversations with the press, I’m sure the investigators will be able to piece together what type of neuron path he emitted during this event.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[1980Mooney]

59 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

I think that wasn’t the point. There is a functional difference between an mda and da. 

True. You are correct. 

[ilovecornfields]

2 hours ago, Marauder said:

how far in the back seat was he when he shot the approach?

Nice! Good summary of the problem.