Hawker Down near AKR

somewhereupthere said:
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:
Click to expand...
The Monday morning qb is strong with this one
 
obx said:
Sounds like you've solved it. Do you divert when the wx at your destination is above minimums, just to have an ILS? That's what you propose this crew should have done--to prevent this crash. I'm ignorant on 135, but in the 121 world, the visibility is controlling, not the ceiling. So both of those METARs would have made the LOC to 25 a perfectly legal approach.
Click to expand...

I point you to my other reply.

No I don't divert with the weather above minimums. I mistakenly said the weather in this case was above minimums 1 minute after the accident. I was wrong. The ceiling was 400', clearly the ceiling was reported below minimums. Anyhow, read the FAA's LOI on whether or not this would have been considered a legal approach.
 
I meant to add with the LOI, that yes visibility is controlling. But if the FAA can look at something and say you're being reckless, you're in violation, regardless of how you wish to cut it. That's all I'm saying... Legal doesn't directly equate to smart.
 
somewhereupthere said:
I meant to add with the LOI, that yes visibility is controlling. But if the FAA can look at something and say you're being reckless, you're in violation, regardless of how you wish to cut it. That's all I'm saying... Legal doesn't directly equate to smart.
Click to expand...

I'm not really following the debate that closely, but as one who has been to the "Big Brown Desk" at HQ where the FAA, the chief pilot, and your two ALPA reps are all quietly gathered around and you and your crew are sitting there with the "deer in the headlights group" and you're Googling "TruckMasters" on your iPhone, the FAA would pretty much tack-on "careless and reckless" onto eating a banana on the drive to the airport.

And it often sticks.

Sad but true.

(Yes, the crew survived the hearing. Quite well actually)
 
somewhereupthere said:
And yet clearly I'm not the one piled up in a smoking crater.
Click to expand...

May I suggest some light reading:

image.jpg
 
somewhereupthere said:
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:
Click to expand...
Are you even a pilot? Like seriously. Claiming a ceiling at those on the plate is illegal tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.
You go shoot the approach that has vis a half mile above mins. If you don't see anything, go missed to your alternate.
I don't know a professional pilot that has an issue shooting an approach to above mins or a missed.

We train to actual mins and I'd expect any pilot to be able to fly that as well. Try that at any certificated carrier. "Ya, airlineX ops, we're going to divert because the clouds are at MDA and the visibility is a half mile above mins and I think that's unsafe."
You won't get fired, but some re-training will be in order.

Also all that LOI that you posted says is that, yes you must in fact have the visibility to shoot the approach, and you should consider all the weather.
 
Last edited:
z987k said:
Are you even a pilot? Like seriously. Claiming a ceiling at those on the plate is illegal tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.
You go shoot the approach that has vis a half mile above mins. If you don't see anything, go missed to your alternate.
I don't know a professional pilot that has an issue shooting an approach to above mins or a missed.

We train to actual mins and I'd expect any pilot to be able to fly that as well. Try that at any certificated carrier. "Ya, airlineX ops, we're going to divert because the clouds are at MDA and the visibility is a half mile above mins and I think that's unsafe."
You won't get fired, but some re-training will be in order.

Also all that LOI that you posted says is that, yes you must in fact have the visibility to shoot the approach, and you should consider all the weather.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're not following what I have been posting. This carrier uses low time FOs. Add in weather that is marginal for the approach, pressure to get the passengers to their destination, etc etc etc.. you're putting the odds against you as PIC. And yes, I am a pilot, ~3100 hours, ATP, type ratings etc, of which ~2700 is turbine PIC. I have flown 135 and 91 corporate operations. I know the game, and know it well.

All I'm saying with my analysis is that I believe the crew found themselves with the chips stacked against them, made an unstable approach, and bought the goods and wares on sale at that price. And a hefty price it is indeed.

You can argue to me all day long about what is legal, and yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah. I'm going to tell you what is safe, as PIC, all circumstances considered. Of course I don't have ALL the facts, but I have enough information to glean a decent picture as to what took place.

For me, as PIC, I do my best not to find myself in a position such as this, and if my decision making bothers you, well, go forth Mr. White Knight, and get the job done.
 
mshunter said:
That's because most of the time, the feds are being unreasonable, and a good union rep can shut one down.
Click to expand...

It's a long story, but trust me, the person that needed the boot on the throat until he said "Banana…BANANA!" was actually one of the guys in the cockpit.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Whoever took that footage is braver than I am, judging by the snap about three seconds in.
Click to expand...
Hey, we should let the fire burn out before we start making claims about how dangerous that ammunition was. None of us here are ammunition experts. I kid!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top