Hawker Down near AKR

somewhereupthere said:
Last radar hit shows them 0.24NM northeast of AK-LOM at 2,900. Altitude over the AK-LOM as charted is 2,300. The chart for the LOC-25 says the G/P to TCH of 50' is 3.09°.

By my calculations, from that distance and altitude, to achieve 50' TCH, the descent angle would have to be 4.42°

The ground speed on the last radar position shows 127 kts. This would make for a rate of descent of -936 FPM, if my calculations are correct-ish.

3.7 miles from AK to the MAP, plus their 0.24 east of it, makes for a distance to travel of 3.94 NMs to the MAP.

If the weather was at the Cat C straight-in minimums, and if you were on the 3.09° GP from AK, you would break-out and see the runway 1.5 NMs out, at basically 500' above field elevation.

The address where they crashed is 1.74NMs from the end of the runway.

Weather was as follows:
22 minutes before the crash:
SPECI KAKR 101931Z AUTO 25008KT 1 1/2SM BR OVC005 11/09 A2995
RMK AO2 CIG 003V009 T01110094=

1 Minute after the crash:
METAR KAKR 101954Z AUTO 24007KT 1 1/2SM BR BKN004 OVC009
11/09 A2995 RMK AO2 SLP142 T01060094=

The weather was below minimums for the LOC-25 22 minutes before the crash and improved slightly, as in just enough, to make the approach possibly legal, (if ASOS was reporting).

Regardless, from the point of the last radar hit, to the point of impact is a distance of 2.11 NMs. That's 2.11 NMs to lose 1360', to reach MDA, from 2900'. With the ground speed of 127, you would cover that distance in 59 seconds. Let's call it one minute. So one minute to descend from 2900' to ground elevation at crash sight of 1097', that makes for a rate of descent of 1803' FPM.

Without any indicators of navigation equipment malfunction, or other mechanical troubles, I can't help but to come to a conclusion that this crew flew this airplane into the ground attempting an approach which was marginal at best, according to the available weather reports.

CAK is only 7.4NM from AKR and has 4 ILS approaches. The crew should have elected to go into CAK.

RIP to all.
Click to expand...


your such a NOOB!
 
somewhereupthere said:
Last radar hit shows them 0.24NM northeast of AK-LOM at 2,900. Altitude over the AK-LOM as charted is 2,300. The chart for the LOC-25 says the G/P to TCH of 50' is 3.09°.

By my calculations, from that distance and altitude, to achieve 50' TCH, the descent angle would have to be 4.42°

The ground speed on the last radar position shows 127 kts. This would make for a rate of descent of -936 FPM, if my calculations are correct-ish.

3.7 miles from AK to the MAP, plus their 0.24 east of it, makes for a distance to travel of 3.94 NMs to the MAP.

If the weather was at the Cat C straight-in minimums, and if you were on the 3.09° GP from AK, you would break-out and see the runway 1.5 NMs out, at basically 500' above field elevation.

The address where they crashed is 1.74NMs from the end of the runway.

Weather was as follows:
22 minutes before the crash:
SPECI KAKR 101931Z AUTO 25008KT 1 1/2SM BR OVC005 11/09 A2995
RMK AO2 CIG 003V009 T01110094=

1 Minute after the crash:
METAR KAKR 101954Z AUTO 24007KT 1 1/2SM BR BKN004 OVC009
11/09 A2995 RMK AO2 SLP142 T01060094=

The weather was below minimums for the LOC-25 22 minutes before the crash and improved slightly, as in just enough, to make the approach possibly legal, (if ASOS was reporting).

Regardless, from the point of the last radar hit, to the point of impact is a distance of 2.11 NMs. That's 2.11 NMs to lose 1360', to reach MDA, from 2900'. With the ground speed of 127, you would cover that distance in 59 seconds. Let's call it one minute. So one minute to descend from 2900' to ground elevation at crash sight of 1097', that makes for a rate of descent of 1803' FPM.

Without any indicators of navigation equipment malfunction, or other mechanical troubles, I can't help but to come to a conclusion that this crew flew this airplane into the ground attempting an approach which was marginal at best, according to the available weather reports.

CAK is only 7.4NM from AKR and has 4 ILS approaches. The crew should have elected to go into CAK.

RIP to all.
Click to expand...

Yea that's what I read on the NTSB too.... Sit down!
 
BobDDuck said:
I know you aren't trying to lynch the crew (or the operation) as some people are doing. And that's a good thing.

But you are making assumptions/guesses about technical aspects of the crash based on a snap chat video.
Click to expand...

......


Never mind. I'll not form opinions next time without consulting an expert.
 
mshunter said:
......

Never mind. I'll not form opinions next time without consulting an expert.
Click to expand...

The NTSB will want to see the video too. Any evidence, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, could turn out to be a good puzzle piece.
 
MikeD said:
The NTSB will want to see the video too. Any evidence, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, could turn out to be a good puzzle piece.
Click to expand...

Yeah. They won't have to go far either.

But this is getting ridiculous. When someone can't say "sounds like it's WFO" without someone else saying "shut up, you're no expert!"
 
somewhereupthere said:
Weather was as follows:
22 minutes before the crash:
SPECI KAKR 101931Z AUTO 25008KT 1 1/2SM BR OVC005 11/09 A2995
RMK AO2 CIG 003V009 T01110094=

1 Minute after the crash:
METAR KAKR 101954Z AUTO 24007KT 1 1/2SM BR BKN004 OVC009
11/09 A2995 RMK AO2 SLP142 T01060094=

The weather was below minimums for the LOC-25 22 minutes before the crash and improved slightly, as in just enough, to make the approach possibly legal, (if ASOS was reporting).
Click to expand...
What world do you fly in? The wx is clearly legal, and I'd shoot that approach with that weather all day. May or may not go missed since the ceiling is right there, but I'd(rightly) be without a job if I was uncomfortable with that.
 
A. Speculation is speculation.

B. Analysis of factual data is analysis of factual data when you have actual access to true factual data. None of us sitting here has a complete package so when we think we are "Step B's", we're technically "Step A's".

C. It's easy to look through the pinhole at what we can surmise from our keyboards and misinterpret that with actual investigation.

"Beware of the "A HA!" moment when you walk up to the smoking hole" said a person with vastly more professional accident experience than any of us have.

(Yeah it was at Riddle, shut up, I know big words)
 
z987k said:
When rounds go off without being in a chamber they don't go anywhere. Mythbusters even did this one. It's all Hollywood.
Click to expand...

Didn't they spend a whole hour of a show disproving the "airline on a treadmill" question which, with anyone with a junior high schools level of basic physics would be able to prove in 30 seconds? :)

(easy shot, I had to take it)
 
z987k said:
When rounds go off without being in a chamber they don't go anywhere. Mythbusters even did this one. It's all Hollywood.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even suppose that those were rounds cooking off, but something hit something close to the camera there towards the beginning. Or so it sounded to me.
 
Derg said:
"Beware of the "A HA!" moment when you walk up to the smoking hole" said a person with vastly more professional accident experience than any of us have.

(Yeah it was at Riddle, shut up, I know big words)
Click to expand...

Ahh, good ole "Blood and Guts" Waldock..

"Well GEE WHIZ"!!!
 
Toobdrvr said:
Ahh, good ole "Blood and Guts" Waldock..

"Well GEE WHIZ"!!!
Click to expand...


I had his class right before lunch.

"Lemme me get the Malibu Chicken… wait… Wasn't that a Malibu in that video? *MmMmrmrmrmph*"
 
z987k said:
What world do you fly in? The wx is clearly legal, and I'd shoot that approach with that weather all day. May or may not go missed since the ceiling is right there, but I'd(rightly) be without a job if I was uncomfortable with that.
Click to expand...

The one where just because it's legal doesn't mean it's advisably safe, with an alternative which would yield better results just around around the corner. I mistakenly wrote the weather at the time of the crash was legal. Clearly, it was not, with a 400' ceiling.

Either way, your profession as a pilot is to fly the aircraft safely, not push the limits, and if you're worried about keeping your job because you decided to place the odds in your favor by flying to an airport within 15 minutes driving distance, with ILS and ARFF facilities, perhaps you're working at the wrong shop.

Aeronautical Decision Making.. Either way.. guys with your mentality are usually self correcting..

Take into consideration this LOI:

Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division said:
March 21, 1991
Mr. Glenn Rizner
Technical Specialist, Membership Services Department
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Frederick, MD 21701-4798

Dear Mr. Rizner:

We recently received a letter from the Assistant Chief Counsel for the Eastern Region of the Federal Aviation Administration asking us to give a legal interpretation of a question you posed to them concerning Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). We apologize for the delay in answering your query.

The question was: Are both ceiling and visibility required in order for an FAR Part 135 air carrier pilot to initiate an instrument approach?

FAR 135.225(a) and 135.225(a)(2) forbid a Part 135 pilot from beginning an instrument approach unless reported weather conditions at the destination airport are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that airport. So, even though ceiling is not a criterion on the approach plates, it must be considered by the pilot in his decision to initiate the approach, and in deciding whether the reported ceiling is above or below the decision height or minimum descent altitude for the approach. Similarly, FAR 135.225(b) forbids initiation of a final approach segment unless reported conditions are at or above minimums. Again, the pilot must know the reported ceiling and visibility before deciding whether that approach segment can legally be initiated.

This interpretation has been coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of the Flight Standards Service. We hope that this satisfactorily answers your question.

Sincerely,

/s/

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

cc: AGC-220/AGC-200/AFS-230/AEA-7
mc: 200 91 0021
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top