NTSB Factual - Quest Diagnostics crash at KTEB

Boris Badenov said:
Just a random point of order, or whatever, but Quest flies under 91 since everything they carry is Comat. This is why they can "go take a look" when a 135 guy would get violated.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i dont think the legalities of what part 91 was able to do is what caused this. Theres no problem with taking a look. Theres nothing dangerous about it. I really dont see how people see that as a bad thing. Like we discussed before, i think it might be a training issue. I dont buy culture issues. People know when they have to deal with things that they shouldnt have to deal with.
 
cmill said:
Yeah, i dont think the legalities of what part 91 was able to do is what caused this. Theres no problem with taking a look. Theres nothing dangerous about it. I really dont see how people see that as a bad thing. Like we discussed before, i think it might be a training issue. I dont buy culture issues. People know when they have to deal with things that they shouldnt have to deal with.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that "going to take a look" shouldn't be a problem. IMHO, everyone should be able to do it, whatever part of the FARs under which they operate. It's like the PPL standards changing from stalls to "stall avoidance". For a competent, capable crew, an approach to minimums with a missed approach should be a stroll in the park. And, again, IMHO, when it's something that only happens in the sim under very controlled conditions, what actually happens is no one knows how to do it since it never happens, which is actually MORE dangerous than being used to how it works.

That said, I posted only so that there were no misconceptions about Quest "breaking the law" when it's not in evidence that they did. Which, btw, isn't to say they didn't. I don't know.

I would disagree with you about the "culture" of a place. I've never worked for one, but I've heard enough stories from others who have *cough*Pacifi*cough*ings* to feel fairly confident that there are companies that more or less scoff at the rules and will fire you if you don't. It remains to be seen whether Quest is one of those places. Again, I very much hope not.
 
cmill said:
Yeah, i dont think the legalities of what part 91 was able to do is what caused this. Theres no problem with taking a look. Theres nothing dangerous about it. I really dont see how people see that as a bad thing. Like we discussed before, i think it might be a training issue. I dont buy culture issues. People know when they have to deal with things that they shouldnt have to deal with.
Click to expand...

Boy I do. I've certainly seen the feed back effect of "bad airmanship culture" in action before.
 
Boris Badenov said:
I agree with you that "going to take a look" shouldn't be a problem. IMHO, everyone should be able to do it, whatever part of the FARs under which they operate.For a competent, capable crew, an approach to minimums with a missed approach should be a stroll in the park.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with you and cmill. There is not a safety issue with an approach and a missed. The problem is weaker pilots being tempted to land below minimums or take chances that wouldn't be considered otherwise.

People who have only seen bad cultures, tend to think of what they have seen as "the norm." Those that have seen good cultures see glaring differences.
 
NJA_Capt said:
I have to disagree with you and cmill. There is not a safety issue with an approach and a missed. The problem is weaker pilots being tempted to land below minimums or take chances that wouldn't be considered otherwise.

People who have only seen bad cultures, tend to think of what they have seen as "the norm." Those that have seen good cultures see glaring differences.
Click to expand...

Flight Discipline.
 
I tend to agree, pragman. If I am going to be holding for 30-45 minutes I'd rather just shoot 2 or 3 approaches. It accomplishes the same thing (wait for things to get better) but I have the slim odds of actually seeing the runway one of those times. I plan on living to a ripe old age, so I do not get even a little below the minimums.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
I tend to agree, pragman. If I am going to be holding for 30-45 minutes I'd rather just shoot 2 or 3 approaches. It accomplishes the same thing (wait for things to get better) but I have the slim odds of actually seeing the runway one of those times. I plan on living to a ripe old age, so I do not get even a little below the minimums.
Click to expand...

You burn less fuel holding and waiting for the wx to improve than if you were to shoot a couple of approaches..Just a thought.
 
murphfly said:
You burn less fuel holding and waiting for the wx to improve than if you were to shoot a couple of approaches..Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Very true, and you're less likely to get yourself into trouble trying to make the runway in marginal conditions. I always figured out my bingo fuel + my personal safety margin (which was pretty high) for hopefully a VFR airport. Then I would hold until the tower gave the appropriate weather to shoot the approach, or I hit my fuel number. At that point I was out of there even if the tower called the right number 2 seconds into my trip to the alternate. There shouldn't be different standards for px carriers and cargo carriers. You die in a crash no matter what you're carrying in the back.
 
I have to admit, it does sound disconcerting. What got me the most was the last sentence in the report. It said, "When asked why he ignored the manufacturer's guidance to ground the airplane immediately, the DOL said:

"I told one guy who was already on the ground that he was done, and I diverted the other guy to Lawrenceville. It was an extra two hours to Lawrenceville, but I thought it was an acceptable risk. I thought worst case the affected engine blows up, and he can make it on the good engine."
 
Are you suggesting that you would be tempted to bust mins if given too many chances? If not you, why do you suppose so of others? Being willing to bust mins to "get her done" is entirely a matter of personal, intentional choice, not of how many chances you're afforded. We reach minimums and don't see the required items, we go around, that's it, no argument, no discussion. Do you not run your aircraft in the same manner?
 
cmill said:
Yeah, i dont think the legalities of what part 91 was able to do is what caused this. Theres no problem with taking a look. Theres nothing dangerous about it. I really dont see how people see that as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with taking a look either. Especially with automated weather, which can be wildly inaccurate. Just last week I had an ASOS reporting 600 overcast with a 780 MDA, broke out at about 1000.

Just curious, a question for the 121/135 folks. If I the part 91 guy report wildly different ceilings/visibility, do you go by that, or the ASOS/ATIS? 'Cause I take pireps with a grain of salt. As Charlie says, Everybody Lies...
 
Boris Badenov said:
Are you suggesting that you would be tempted to bust mins if given too many chances? If not you, why do you suppose so of others? Being willing to bust mins to "get her done" is entirely a matter of personal, intentional choice, not of how many chances you're afforded. We reach minimums and don't see the required items, we go around, that's it, no argument, no discussion. Do you not run your aircraft in the same manner?
Click to expand...

I know how I operate, quick glance outside, if I get it then I got it, otherwise I throw the coals to it and head for high ground. I also know how other people operate. I've met guys who don't operate in such a way.

drunkenbeagle said:
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with taking a look either. Especially with automated weather, which can be wildly inaccurate. Just last week I had an ASOS reporting 600 overcast with a 780 MDA, broke out at about 1000.

Just curious, a question for the 121/135 folks. If I the part 91 guy report wildly different ceilings/visibility, do you go by that, or the ASOS/ATIS? 'Cause I take pireps with a grain of salt. As Charlie says, Everybody Lies...
Click to expand...

Visibility in part 135 is controlling.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I guess my question, for purposes of being able to attempt an approach, visibility reported by who?
Click to expand...

135.225: "...a weather reporting facility operated by the U.S. national Weather Service, a source approved by U.S. National Weather Service, or a source approved by the Administrator..."

A pilot on a 135 flight may not begin an instrument approach unless the weather reported by the authorized source (above) indicates weather conditions are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that airport. The dude who flew the approach last is not an approved source of weather, as I understand it.

The only exception is for "eligible on-demand operators" who have an Opspec authorizing approaches to airports without WX reporting, but with a current local altimeter setting.
 
AV8RBOY said:
135.225: "...a weather reporting facility operated by the U.S. national Weather Service, a source approved by U.S. National Weather Service, or a source approved by the Administrator..."

A pilot on a 135 flight may not begin an instrument approach unless the weather reported by the authorized source (above) indicates weather conditions are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that airport. The dude who flew the approach last is not an approved source of weather, as I understand it.
Click to expand...

Sounds like that has got to be one of the most broken regs in aviation then. I assume that the tower controller trumps automated weather then, yes?
 
AV8RBOY said:
135.225: "...a weather reporting facility operated by the U.S. national Weather Service, a source approved by U.S. National Weather Service, or a source approved by the Administrator..."

A pilot on a 135 flight may not begin an instrument approach unless the weather reported by the authorized source (above) indicates weather conditions are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that airport. The dude who flew the approach last is not an approved source of weather, as I understand it.

The only exception is for "eligible on-demand operators" who have an Opspec authorizing approaches to airports without WX reporting, but with a current local altimeter setting.
Click to expand...

Well, i thought wrong, thats what i get for posting from the bar. :)
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Sounds like that has got to be one of the most broken regs in aviation then. I assume that the tower controller trumps automated weather then, yes?
Click to expand...

IDK about that, but i do know that sometimes the tower will change the wx based on pireps.
 
I owe Quest Diagnostics money. GP sent me to them for a blood test and I still haven't sent them a check. So should I jump on that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top