Aircraft Down in San Diego (Dec 27)

[SFCC/UND]

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.

Having flight instructed in SEE I don't recall ever seeing anyone go in front of the Rattle. So much safer going around. But I've lost how many times I've almost got reamed over the twin peaks from traffic turning base to final on the left side.

 

[Wardogg]

I have a question. Taking out this specific case, with the terrain involved, at night, with some weather I don't believe this was smart move, and especially for someone like me being unfamiliar with the field. The fact they were based there I am sure played a part in their choices made. But I digress.

Also removing the Big Iron from the discussion, I am fascinated with the almost vitriol take on circling approaches. Would the same people, that are so opposed to these approaches, be opposed to a downwind entry to a normal traffic pattern approach? Meaning, not driving out 10 miles to line up on final?

I distinctly remember my 121 training to include a visual approach downwind entry procedure that kept you in close. I don't have access to the FOM anymore so I could be mistaken, but Im almost positive we were to keep the regional jet inside of a mile(or so). To me the procedures are the same. Essentially this crew was to overfly the field and enter the downwind to the landing runway.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

i assumed they couldn’t see it because the hill was between them and the airport.

visibility typically nil through cumulogranite

 

[zmiller4]

Would the same people, that are so opposed to these approaches, be opposed to a downwind entry to a normal traffic pattern approach? Meaning, not driving out 10 miles to line up on final?

I distinctly remember my 121 training to include a visual approach downwind entry procedure that kept you in close. I don't have access to the FOM anymore so I could be mistaken, but Im almost positive we were to keep the regional jet inside of a mile(or so). To me the procedures are the same. Essentially this crew was to overfly the field and enter the downwind to the landing runway.

Entering a visual approach on a downwind is incredibly common in the 121 world.

But it’s not done at 500’ agl, which is what true circling approaches frequently call for.

 

[mikecweb]

I have a question. Taking out this specific case, with the terrain involved, at night, with some weather I don't believe this was smart move, and especially for someone like me being unfamiliar with the field. The fact they were based there I am sure played a part in their choices made. But I digress.

Also removing the Big Iron from the discussion, I am fascinated with the almost vitriol take on circling approaches. Would the same people, that are so opposed to these approaches, be opposed to a downwind entry to a normal traffic pattern approach? Meaning, not driving out 10 miles to line up on final?

I distinctly remember my 121 training to include a visual approach downwind entry procedure that kept you in close. I don't have access to the FOM anymore so I could be mistaken, but Im almost positive we were to keep the regional jet inside of a mile(or so). To me the procedures are the same. Essentially this crew was to overfly the field and enter the downwind to the landing runway.

None of this stuff is "hard" and most have done it before in one operation or another. The x-factor is alot of us look at our ops tempo and typical day now where flying SID to STAR to 40 mile straight in ILS is fatiguing enough with all the extraneous BS we are encountering. Doing all that and having to do a circle at night in mountaneous terrain, a big fat nope.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

visibility typically nil through cumulogranite

The most cited recording was time-compressed. Profanity was actually 1:40 after asking for lights up.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

They get a bad name because pilots screw them up, most often from lack of currency in doing them. They’re really not that difficult of a procedure, even in a vaunted jet (which is an airplane like any other), however the risk does go up when pilots do things like descend below circling MDA early prior to being in the proper pattern position to do so; or try to keep the same runway visual offset reference they would have for normal pattern altitudes when they are at circling MDA and end up far too tight to the field which causes the overshooting final that they try to salvage and do the common final turn stall; or they stray outside protected circling distance for their category and impact things attached to the ground. Or, they circle against any printed circling restrictions, to either a non-authorized runway or in a non-authorized direction. Or any host of things. Circling does require some pre-planning, otherwise the risk goes up if doing it on the fly. With the above common risks, it is pilots who increase the risk on these TERPs out procedures. There is no boogeyman in circling procedures, however they are more risk than a straight in because they are more work to accomplish and keep the gotcha’s in the forefront of the mind.

In this case though, this doesn’t appear to be a formal circling approach. It appears to be nothing more than a night visual traffic pattern at pattern altitude based on the Wx, vice an actual circle that’s restricted down to a circling MDA at Wx mins and lower than a normal traffic pattern. This should have been an arrive over the field and enter a left downwind, and complete a landing, keeping it looking like a normal traffic patten at normal pattern altitude. For some reason or another, it didn’t end up as that.

Easy in theory. Practice? IMO can get dicey. Approach and landing is the most challenging part in a landing. Throw in a circle, something crews don’t do much, potentially constant angle bank turn towards the runway, looking out the window for the runway, potentially missing airspeed, AOA, and bank angle picture. Then you get the potential overshoot and tightened bank turn and kiss the ass goodbye scenarios.

How many business jet circle approaches have ended in crashes? IMO far too many.

I don’t have a reason to. Every airport runway we go to, there’s at least a RNAV available. If there isn’t, we probably don’t land on that runway. We have AS-specific RNP approaches for places like PSP and RNO.

 

[Minuteman]

One of the flight nurses was the wife of a recently-retired local fire chief.

 

[MikeD]

Easy in theory. Practice? IMO can get dicey. Approach and landing is the most challenging part in a landing. Throw in a circle, something crews don’t do much,

yes, they take some practice, but are not anything unsafe, ususual, or dangerous.

potentially constant angle bank turn towards the runway, looking out the window for the runway, potentially missing airspeed, AOA, and bank angle picture.

thats called maintaining a crosscheck and not target fixating outside. Again, nothing that’s impossible or dangerous.

Then you get the potential overshoot and tightened bank turn and kiss the ass goodbye scenarios.

that’s called trying to salvage an overshoot and not understanding the aerodynamic implications of doing so, especially in a swept wing jet. Accept the overshoot and make another circle circuit back around; so long as you can stay within your protected distance for your category, stay at MDA or higher, and remain in the areas you’re allowed to circle in, then it’s perfectly legit. If not, execute a missed.

How many business jet circle approaches have ended in crashes? IMO far too many.

Just because pilots have made the above mistakes, or aren’t comfortable doing a certain maneuver, doesn’t equal it being an unsafe or dangerous maneuver. They take practice to have the SA to notice, and not fall into, the common traps.

I don’t have a reason to. Every airport runway we go to, there’s at least a RNAV available. If there isn’t, we probably don’t land on that runway. We have AS-specific RNP approaches for places like PSP and RNO.

That’s good. Others have a reason to perform a perfectly safe iteration that takes some practice, skill, and SA. And these are performed often, you just don’t hear about the successful ones. They don’t make the 10 o’clock news.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

yes, they take some practice, but are not anything unsafe, ususual, or dangerous.



thats called maintaining a crosscheck and not target fixating outside. Again, nothing that’s impossible or dangerous.



that’s called trying to salvage an overshoot and not understanding the aerodynamic implications of doing so, especially in a swept wing jet. Accept the overshoot and make another circle circuit back around; so long as you can stay within your protected distance for your category, stay at MDA or higher, and remain in the areas you’re allowed to circle in, then it’s perfectly legit. If not, execute a missed.



Just because pilots have made the above mistakes, or aren’t comfortable doing a certain maneuver, doesn’t equal it being an unsafe or dangerous maneuver. They take practice to have the SA to notice, and not fall into, the common traps.



That’s good. Others have a reason to perform a perfectly safe iteration that takes some practice, skill, and SA. And these are performed often, you just don’t hear about the successful ones. They don’t make the 10 o’clock news.

I just think it’s an added risk factor that just doesn’t need to be there for 121. Gillespie, Tahoe, Teterboro are big recent examples. The whole low altitude, crankin and bankin, we’re visual but kinda aren’t, shouldn’t be with grandma in the back. Just request the approach to [intended runway]. Yeah enter traffic pattern and land in some cases but again, I’d rather not do 737 flying like C152 flying. I’m fine with STARS and IAPs.

There are times you’re downwind and cleared for the visual. That’s fine. You often have an approach loaded anyway and make two turns and are lined up with final. Easy enough. But most of 121 flying is STARs to vectors for an instrument approach. Easy flying.

IHMO it’s stuff like this why 121 is still amongst the safest when compared to 135 or 91.

Another example: contact approaches. Prohibited at my shop. How many corporate operators out there allow that? It’s legal, it can work out fine, and I’m sure it does for many. But it’s another huge layer of risk amd one day, for some, it doesn’t work out.


JFK 13, LGA Expressway Visual, DCA River, are about as much “circle” to land 121 that I do.


Even a place like SAN if we are coming in at night regardless of weather, when they ask us for what approach, we just tell the we’ll talk our Alaska RNP starting at KLOMN and have always gotten as requested. Easy and much reduced risk.

 

[MikeD]

I just think it’s an added risk factor that just doesn’t need to be there for 121. Gillespie, Tahoe, Teterboro are big recent examples. The whole low altitude, crankin and bankin, we’re visual but kinda aren’t, shouldn’t be with grandma in the back. Just request the approach to [intended runway]. Yeah enter traffic pattern and land in some cases but again, I’d rather not do 737 flying like C152 flying. I’m fine with STARS and IAPs.

Again, I don’t see that at all as “C-152 flying”. it’s AIRPLANE flying. A plane is a plane. There are times a circle is needed, if X straight-in procedures aren’t available or in operation, or a particular runways is closed or unsuitable. These aren’t rocket science procedures or operations. In the same way that I teach my students about emergency procedures maneuvers: circling maneuvers are only as dangerous as the pilot flying them makes them. The pilot who doesn’t pre-plan a bit, who ham-fists the airplane and flies it sloppy and overcontolled in turns and descents on a circle, who doesn’t set up correctly, who tries to salvage an overshoot…..it’s the pilots who make these things far more dangerous than they are or need to be, Of course, if a straight in procedure is available, then it would be the better and easier option and why not take that? Definitely.

There are times you’re downwind and cleared for the visual. That’s fine. You often have an approach loaded anyway and make two turns and are lined up with final. Easy enough. But most of 121 flying is STARs to vectors for an instrument approach. Easy flying.

Precisely. A traffic pattern is a traffic pattern. Whether in a 152 or a 747.

IHMO it’s stuff like this why 121 is still amongst the safest when compared to 135 or 91.

How much of 121 operates in the same variety of places that 91/135 do, small or smaller airfields, limited facilities or approach options? They’re kind of hard to compare because alot (not all, but most) of 121 operates in very controlled large environments most often, and things other than that are the exception. Which is fine and good, there’s no overriding need to do otherwise. 91/135 operates with more variety of airports and areas that might not have all the redundancy and choices of easy stuff to have, that airports and fields that 121 operators go in and out of, have the option of. And that’s fine too. They’re different operations. That doesn’t make 91 or 135 unsafe as an operation, not in the least. They’re just different and 91/135 require some differing skill sets than would normally be seen in 121. Which is merely the nature of the beast. It’s neither here nor there.

Another example: contact approaches. Prohibited at my shop. How many corporate operators out there allow that? It’s legal, it can work out fine, and I’m sure it does for many. But it’s another huge layer of risk amd one day, for some, it doesn’t work out.

The difference for contact approaches is the whole concept of having to maintain visual contact with the ground. A large aircraft simply doesn’t have the ability to do this as well as a smaller aircraft could. We’re not talking keeping visual eyesight with the ground 4-5 miles in front of the aircraft, we’re talking things likely much closer, which don’t lend themselves well to big planes. I can see why they would be prohibited as a stand-alone procedure, because of the inherent limitations of the equipment being flown.

Even a place like SAN if we are coming in at night regardless of weather, when they ask us for what approach, we just tell the we’ll talk our Alaska RNP starting at KLOMN and have always gotten as requested. Easy and much reduced risk.

Of course. If it’s available and they clear you for it, why not fly it? No need for anything else unless there’s some reason to have to. I’m sure this Lear would’ve taken an ILS to 27R had there been one available.

 

[inigo88]

Post from reddit r/flying that I think is an important read. I didn't even know them like the OP did but this one stings for me too. By all accounts they were really great pilots and like he says, this crash cements that this can happen to any of us.

I woke up 20 minutes ago to a text I never thought I'd read. A link to this post and a realization that one of my closest and dearest friends had his final seconds recorded and published to the internet for all to hear and criticize.

We sat around the firepit not too long ago answering a question from my wife about the Challenger crash at Truckee. What followed was a long diatribe about the perils of circling in poor conditions or at night. He used a clever analogy comparing his flying style to that of driving a boat. No squared turns, never rushing, and always choosing the safest route to the runway instead of the quickest.

Yet he didn't choose the localizer. He did what him and I are probably guilty of calling others "idiots" for. I want to know what happened. He texted me before he left, we had plans in the near future. If I texted asking about his flight last night, would I jokingly refer to his boat analogy and make sure he was planning to load up that LOC-D? I don't know. It's driving me • nuts. It's impossible to describe the feeling I have right now. I had a busy week of flying ahead of me. Those flights are now scrubbed.

This absolute gem of a human being was a gift to this world. He was a great pilot. Perhaps in the days that follow, we will learn of something that challenges this statement. Perhaps we will hear more from the users here about how stupid he was and how they'll never make the same mistake. Maybe Dan Gryder will bless us with his safety analysis while capitalizing on the death of my friend.

Know that he was an active user on this subreddit. Do not ask me his username or RL name.

If there is any one crash that really cements that this type of tragedy can happen to any of us, it's this one for me.

Be safe out there guys. And for the love of god, show some • respect.

 

[MikeD]

Post from reddit r/flying that I think is an important read. I didn't even know them like the OP did but this one stings for me too. By all accounts they were really great pilots and like he says, this crash cements that this can happen to any of us.

The interesting thing written here, is that the LOC-D into SEE has even more circling restrictions than the RNAV 17 does, and it has the same night circling restrictions. At best, if the crew really wanted to land 27R, the LOC-D would’ve set them up for an overhead pattern to a downwind, with a same south (left) side traffic pattern, due to the below text. Not sure it would have bought the crew anything more than the choice they did make. They’re about the same, with regards to maneuvering to land from a traffic pattern:

RWY 27R TPA 1588 (1200) RIGHT TFC SR-SS; TPA 1388 (1000) LEFT TFC SS-SR DUE TO 893 FT AGL MOUNTAIN 2.1 NM ENE OF ARPT. RWY 27L 1388 (1000) LEFT TFC SR-SS.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Again, I don’t see that at all as “C-152 flying”. it’s AIRPLANE flying. A plane is a plane. There are times a circle is needed, if X straight-in procedures aren’t available or in operation, or a particular runways is closed or unsuitable. These aren’t rocket science procedures or operations. In the same way that I teach my students about emergency procedures maneuvers: circling maneuvers are only as dangerous as the pilot flying them makes them. The pilot who doesn’t pre-plan a bit, who ham-fists the airplane and flies it sloppy and overcontolled in turns and descents on a circle, who doesn’t set up correctly, who tries to salvage an overshoot…..it’s the pilots who make these things far more dangerous than they are or need to be, Of course, if a straight in procedure is available, then it would be the better and easier option and why not take that? Definitely.

You’ve met pilots, right?

We publish unstable approach data. I study that to learn from it. And I plan accordingly if going those airports.

Precisely. A traffic pattern is a traffic pattern. Whether in a 152 or a 747.

Flown a CRJ, A320, and 737. Don’t ever recall entering/being at jet TPA of 1,500 agl entering downwind of the runway. We’ve always been vectored or flown the full procedure. Full disclaimer, I’ve only flown 121 for commercial ops.

How much of 121 operates in the same variety of places that 91/135 do, small or smaller airfields, limited facilities or approach options? They’re kind of hard to compare because alot (not all, but most) of 121 operates in very controlled large environments most often, and things other than that are the exception. Which is fine and good, there’s no overriding need to do otherwise. 91/135 operates with more variety of airports and areas that might not have all the redundancy and choices of easy stuff to have, that airports and fields that 121 operators go in and out of, have the option of. And that’s fine too. They’re different operations. That doesn’t make 91 or 135 unsafe as an operation, not in the least. They’re just different and 91/135 require some differing skill sets than would normally be seen in 121. Which is merely the nature of the beast. It’s neither here nor there.

Fair point, and you are right about airports for 121 vs 91 or 135. But those additional challenges (re: circle approaches) adds another layer of risk to those operations. To your point, if managed properly, not a big deal. But it also presents more opportunity to mess up and result in an ustable state. Also, how many Lear 35s have FOQA? If those 91 or 135s mess up routinely in a certain approach, does anyone really know? Or care? All our planes have FOQA recorders. If we screw up it makes a log and de-identified data is used to identify patterns. In a case like this, they could say “hey, at our home base we see too many planes turning at 400ft AGL in the circle. Let’s do this instead…”

The difference for contact approaches is the whole concept of having to maintain visual contact with the ground. A large aircraft simply doesn’t have the ability to do this as well as a smaller aircraft could. We’re not talking keeping visual eyesight with the ground 4-5 miles in front of the aircraft, we’re talking things likely much closer, which don’t lend themselves well to big planes. I can see why they would be prohibited as a stand-alone procedure, because of the inherent limitations of the equipment being flown.

Agreed. I just apply this same principle to a broader picture for 121 approaches as well
I’m much faster than the 152, smaller visibility in terms of looking out window, and treat it like grandma in the back.


Don’t forget many pilots have “circle to land restricted to VMC only” for their ATP certificate (mine doesn’t). And all my 121 jet types have the circle VMC only for the jet type ratings (CL65, A320, 737).

Circle VMC only? I’m not convinced they were at Gillespie. That door bell camera view doesn’t paint a good picture.


We just don’t do circle approaches on a day to day basis in our 121 ops, no reason to. I have a feeling your shop does more smaller airports and a lot more opportunities for circling because of approaches available, aircraft capability, and terrain.

 

[inigo88]

The interesting thing written here, is that the LOC-D into SEE has even more circling restrictions than the RNAV 17 does, and it has the same night circling restrictions. At best, if the crew really wanted to land 27R, the LOC-D would’ve set them up for an overhead pattern to a downwind, with a same south (left) side traffic pattern, due to this. Not sure it would have bought the crew anything more than the choice they did make. They’re about the same, with regards to maneuvering to land from a traffic pattern:

RWY 27R TPA 1588 (1200) RIGHT TFC SR-SS; TPA 1388 (1000) LEFT TFC SS-SR DUE TO 893 FT AGL MOUNTAIN 2.1 NM ENE OF ARPT. RWY 27L 1388 (1000) LEFT TFC SR-SS.

I'm glad you clarified that and I completely agree. While the LOC-D appears to be straight in, it actually takes you to the Category C circling minimums of 1940 ft - 3 SM visibility over the top of the field and forces you into the exact same left traffic circling approach as they attempted. And when you read the fine print "Circling Rwy 27R, 35 NA at night."

With the higher MDA combined with the fact that it takes you almost 20 nm east of the field over 5000 ft terrain in Cleveland National Forest, we didn't even attempt it during my instrument training in a piston single.

 

[ppragman]

Just to add to this, I wonder how long the crew was on duty.

 

[BobDDuck]

Flown a CRJ, A320, and 737. Don’t ever recall entering/being at jet TPA of 1,500 agl entering downwind of the runway. We’ve always been vectored or flown the full procedure. Full disclaimer, I’ve only flown 121 for commercial ops.

How did you get through your time at 9E without shooting non vectored visual approaches?

I kind of get you not shooting field in site 30 miles away visuals at VX because of the airports you went to, but I'd guess the Eskimo goes in to plenty of small enough places to call the field and join the pattern.

Most fun I've had in a plane recently was sharing a visual pattern from the downwind with a flight of A10s going into Osan a few months ago.

 

[MikeD]

Flown a CRJ, A320, and 737. Don’t ever recall entering/being at jet TPA of 1,500 agl entering downwind of the runway. We’ve always been vectored or flown the full procedure. Full disclaimer, I’ve only flown 121 for commercial ops.

and it’s just a matter of different ops at different 121 carriers, or even different ops between most 121 and 91/135. We go to lots of fields that have no radar vectoring or no TRACON, and regularly have to enter a traffic pattern like any other aircraft, often mixed with all kinds of other aircraft. So, we train to it, to where it’s nothing unusual or out of the ordinary.

Heck, mil big jets like KC-135, KC-10, C-5, C-141…they do touch and goes and traffic patterns all day during transition training, often combined with practice circling approach termination. A lot of airline guys can’t fathom a touch and go in a big jet, because that’s never normally done….other than back in the day when I used to watch America West beat up the pattern at night doing aircraft training in a 737. It’s merely a matter of training the deconfiguring/reconfiguring just after the touch part, and before the go part, to where it’s completely second nature. Then, it’s just like doing touch and goes in any other aircraft, just with a few more steps.

Fair point, and you are right about airports for 121 vs 91 or 135. But those additional challenges (re: circle approaches) adds another layer of risk to those operations. To your point, if managed properly, not a big deal. But it also presents more opportunity to mess up and result in an ustable state. Also, how many Lear 35s have FOQA? If those 91 or 135s mess up routinely in a certain approach, does anyone really know? Or care? All our planes have FOQA recorders. If we screw up it makes a log and de-identified data is used to identify patterns. In a case like this, they could say “hey, at our home base we see too many planes turning at 400ft AGL in the circle. Let’s do this instead…”

training, experience, and currency….along with preplanning, SA, and smooth aircraft control, and not doing any of the gotchas from the previous post of mine, and you are able to manage the risk pretty well with these. As far as FOQA, that would be a nice to have, but with many small flight departments of a few aircraft and people, it may not be practical and the onus rests on the crews to talk amongst one another and share information and experiences, and recommendations.

Don’t forget many pilots have “circle to land restricted to VMC only” for their ATP certificate (mine doesn’t). And all my 121 jet types have the circle VMC only for the jet type ratings (CL65, A320, 737).

Circle VMC only? I’m not convinced they were at Gillespie. That door bell camera view doesn’t paint a good picture.

mine are unrestricted, but that doesn’t change anything with how I do a circle, as in I don’t take more risks or such due to no restriction. But on a night circle, it’s easy for things to look fine and no notice a thin layer of Wx or so in a certain quadrant of the airport that wasn’t on the METAR and is only seen when the landing lights begin to reflect, or if it happens to be illuminated by the glow of ground lights, depending on how much illumination surrounds the airfield. So long as the field can be kept in sight without and ducking below MDA or and harsh maneuvering, then there’s no reason to react in and major way to it, just drive through and continue. If unable, then one must have the good judgement to go missed.

We just don’t do circle approaches on a day to day basis in our 121 ops, no reason to. I have a feeling your shop does more smaller airports and a lot more opportunities for circling because of approaches available, aircraft capability, and terrain.

Agreed. For what your shop does, the places you go, and your general ops, circling approaches are an exception, not a norm. That’s doesn’t necessarily make them unsafe if you’re faced with one. But it does make for early knowledge of knowing you’re going to have one coming up, and early planning for it. And the risk can be managed, if there’s no other better option. If there is a better, lower risk option that’s easier, you’d obviously take it.

 

[MikeD]

Most fun I've had in a plane recently was sharing a visual pattern from the downwind with a flight of A10s going into Osan a few months ago.

the best was being in full IMC at night in the A-10, on the TACAN 27 at KSO with a partial electrical failure, and on the intermediate segment, am descending slowly when I notice a dim glow over my left rear shoulder. Turn around and look to see the dim glow slowly and eerily turn into a pair of ROKAF RF-4 Phantoms in close formation, descending with landing gear and flaps down, very slowly emerging momentarily from the clouds that their landing lights are illuminating, cross nearly over the top of me by maybe a few hundred feet and instantly disappear back into the night muck and clouds/rain off my right front, while they were coming down ASR dogleg final to 33L at KSW. That’s one that will really wake you up from any back side of clock fatigue.

 

[dasleben]

Unbelievably tragic. I agree with what was said above about not doing circling ops in the 121 world. Yes, most of us could do them, and I've certainly done a lot of that sort of flying in my Cape Air days (the ILS 15R/circle 4L Cape Air video in this thread made me smile). But, no thanks. It's simply a lot of risk when you consider the sheer number of flight hours the typical 121 carrier does per year.

We're lucky in that in the 747-400/-8, controllers know not to give us visuals. Everything is a vector to an ILS.