Mexico Navy King Air 350 crash KGLS

MikeD

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
On instrument approach to KGLS, crashed into the bay. Was on a mission transporting child burn patients to the Shriners hospital there. 2 survivors out of 8 onboard so far, preliminary. Four Mexico Navy crew, four civilians. Unknown who the survivors are yet, pax or crew.

Link below

TAF AMD KGLS 222100Z 2221/2318 11007KT 1/2SM FG BKN003
FM230300 13008KT 1/4SM FG OVC002 FM231600 12008KT 3SM BR OVC007=


 
ahw01 said:
Why are all these accidents in Low IFR. What's the mission requirement to fly in that clag?
Click to expand...
<puts cigarette out in dip cup> Well see, there were kids' lives at stake!

Arguably, the statement that the flight was a "mission" might have something to do with the mindset? Transporting burn victims and kids can... well alter people's ability to make decisions.

But honestly, they might have had the weather to shoot the approach, so why not try? I don't know I didn't try to get a metar or whatever. Looking at airnav, the mins are 200 and 1/2 for the ILS 14? I was too lazy to look at the notams, either, though.
 
ahw01 said:
Why are all these accidents in Low IFR. What's the mission requirement to fly in that clag?
Click to expand...

"LOW IFR" is normal flight.
It's the standards you're tested to on an ATP checkride.

So the crew managed to get below the glide slope.

Does anyone have any information on the avionics?
 
DropTank said:
"LOW IFR" is normal flight.
It's the standards you're tested to on an ATP checkride.

So the crew managed to get below the glide slope.

Does anyone have any information on the avionics?
Click to expand...
But why does it keep happening. Pilot Error? Both can’t be true.
 
ahw01 said:
But why does it keep happening. Pilot Error? Both can’t be true.
Click to expand...

So, even if you're really really good, and an excellent bush rat / freight dawg who's doesn't sweat at 200 & 1/2 because you're going into that (and sometimes *cough* lower *cough*), sometimes you have a bad day. That's why they are minima, so that the crappiest guy on his crappiest day stands a chance. I mean, maybe something mechanical happened, or maybe something else, but yeah, even if you're good, if you're pushing it sometimes the luck runs out. And these sorts of high stakes patient transfers (i.e. kids) tend to make guys push it if they're not actively telling themselves not to. Everybody wants to be a hero. It's funny because you push it way less in medevac than you do in freight or the bush lol because they tell you this specifically - from the sounds of it these guys were mil guys not medevac guys, no?

Also, how current were these guys how often were they playing "cowboy up" in the airplane. If you're proficiently being a pirate maniac, every day 20 times a day, you're probably going to be fine going into really low weather. But you "used" to be a billy badass freight dawg and you decide to flop it out again on a 1200RVR day because there are a bunch of kids in the back and the last time you "made it in" was 10 years ago? You stand a good chance of doing something very very dumb simply because you're probably not as good as you think you are.

I know guys who've flown literally every winter constantly doing VFR through IMC, building their own approaches, "making it in" in basically zero zero when tower is lying to keep it open (so they have a place to go), and doing it every day for YEARS without anything happening at all because they were doing it day in and day out and had their own little ways to keep any of the minor screwups from costing them their lives.

But then, sometimes a guy is just unlucky and zigs when he should have zagged and a bunch of people die in a lagoon or whatever, which is why you shouldn't "accept increase risk by accepting lower than published landing minima."
 
ahw01 said:
But why does it keep happening. Pilot Error? Both can’t be true.
Click to expand...

Frankly, mostly pilot error.

Not proficient would be the primary, then secondary problems arise.

As stated in another thread, the crew needs to be MASTERS of the plane, its systems, and avionics.
Not "good enough"
It's the pilot's responsibility to maintain ATP standards year around.

It's difficult to maintain proficiency in many cases.
Some pilots fly only 50 hours a year due to circumstances/
Some fly mostly day VFR or light IFR day due to mission requirements.

Now the pilot and his department must assure proficiency by alternate means.
If that means to budget an extra sim session, then do it.
The company does not save ANY money if you auger the [fornicating] airplane into a crater.

Then there are personal limitation. The pilot NEEDS to know them, accept them, and mitigate them.

If you can't, then you're not a professional pilot, you're a liability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top