msmspilot
Well-Known Member
The P/CG states, as the definition of circling approach: “See CIRCLE-TO-LAND MANEUVER” FWIW.
Aircraft Down in San Diego (Dec 27)
- Thread starter Minuteman
- Start date
Roger Roger
I am le tired
I think 4100’ would be fine, a little on the short side.
Roger Roger
I am le tired
Yes. They are as one of our pilots calls it “the medevac road show”. In other words instead of working with one health care system out of a base they go on the road for 7-10 days at a time and charter to whoever can provide them with a med crew and a patient.
as you can imagine the schedule and equipment doesn’t exactly lend itself to a top-tier operation.
Roger Roger
I am le tired
Shaker and pusher
Dunno what mods they had but the one I trained in you circle at flaps 14 which gives you some fairly high speeds on the circle.
Last edited:
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
I talked to the CP about a part time job there about 10 days ago. Wasn't part time enough for me, though. Seemed like a good guy. Sad situation with this crash. They canceled to get out of the "no circling at night" note on the chart and it went downhill from there. They must have felt they knew the local terrain well enough to pull it off. 9L would have been a better option than 17 but there was probably a pretty good west wind at altitude even though surface winds were variable at 6. 17 just seems kinda short for a Lear (like I'd really know) and if they felt 9L wasn't going to work with a potential tailwind, then better off going somewhere else. Easy to speculate the next morning having my coffee sitting on the couch. Wonder what their duty day was like. Fatigue and the desire to go home can make you do stupid things sometimes. That's why minimums, company procedures, and a strong safety culture are important. For example, if it was a 121 operation, you might have a dispatcher decide this airport isn't going to work for this flight under these conditions.
roundout
VNAV monitor
My FOM says there is.
Roger Roger
I am le tired
Huh. I saw this ship come through Hillsboro when I was there a couple weeks ago.
I'd love to see that text as I'm genuinely curious on the delineation.
Roger Roger
I am le tired
The accident aircraft. They swapped with another one of their company that was broken.
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
I’m never to old to learn…
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
me as well. The only thing I can think of is maybe like a VOR-A vs ILS circle
roundout
VNAV monitor
So I went and I looked, and what we aren't authorized to do is circle with an MDA less than 1000' HAA. We can use a circle to land maneuver (it specifically says "circle to land maneuver") as long as we have 1000'/3 or the charted minimums, whichever is higher. I'm guessing therein lies the difference.
EIR
It's 5 o'clock somewhere
Very common. In 2015 I flew 1160hrs & 2016 I flew 990hrs.
This is very sad news. The medevac industry is small; I knew a lot of the folks from different companies, we often ended up at the same destinations (major hospitals).
RIP
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
121, we pretty much have RNPs for everything. Eh, river visual into DCA is now an RNP that does very well. We have company specific RNP approaches into places like PSP, RNO, and a bunch of airports in Alaska.
At night time, I wouldn’t be doing a circle to land in a hilly area by cancelling IFR to get around a “NA at night” note. Sorry, just wouldn’t. But I get it, this kinda thing is routine in non-121 environments.
inigo88
Composite-lover
From another Facebook group, but here’s the “Circling NA” note you speak of:
I just wanted to share for emphasis because FAA / Flightcheck / etc was smart enough to say “Gee maybe we shouldn’t let people turn at low altitude in inclement weather towards the 1000 ft mountain that’s half a mile from the end of the runway.”
I also want to re-emphasize that I don’t think what they did was a by the book circling approach, because 750 ft MSL there is 362 ft AGL at 130 knots, and they cancelled IFR to do it. I would call that a “carrier break” at that point, and even those are flown at 600 ft AGL over water. I’ve seen the exact accident aircraft from the ground doing interesting “aggressive” looking circling over the last few days and laughed about it (it genuinely looked like fun in VMC at pattern altitude), so I share your concern that fatigue/spatial disorientation helped inadvertently take their regular procedure down closer to the deck.
I’ve done a decent bit of flying at Gillespie and it’s my new home airport. I genuinely really enjoy it, the tower is awesome to work with, the runway configuration is interesting and the 1000 ft mountain (Rattlesnake Mountain) you either have to turn base behind or in front of for a very very short approach is a hoot. But I don’t think local San Diego pilots give Gillespie enough credit for how dangerous it is, as it is literally situated in a bowl surrounded on all sides by rising terrain and in a heavily populated area. (Edit: I think it should stay open and I love it, we just need to treat it with the respect it deserves and not get complacent.)
I completely agree that the tailwind for runway 9L was probably too high, and suspected that 17/35 was a little short for a Lear. I certainly get the “get-there-itis” argument where the company is probably pressuring you to put the jet back in their own hangar for the night, but good grief you’ve got Montgomery and the ILS 28R 5 minutes away. SAN, SDM, RNM or CRQ are all reasonable alternatives as well and we are lucky there’s no shortage of IFR airports in this little area.
Roger Roger
I am le tired
Minor point, but 130 is closer to normal ref flaps full. Circling ref with flaps 14 is probably closer to 150? Idk I have exactly one flight in the airplane and a half ass company ground school
inigo88
Composite-lover
Very good point, the 130 number stuck in my head from the Ads-B track log but I think that’s ground speed and I don’t know what the tolerance is.
averettpilot
Well-Known Member
Been a long time since I’ve flown a Lear and not for very long at that, but pulled out the tab data and depending on weight with a wet runway factor it could require as much as 4000 feet. As much as 2900 dry.