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.
 
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.
 
CoffeeIcePapers said:
135 and 91 pilots for the most part don’t fly much.
Click to expand...

91, I mostly agree. But I've see a few mega corps beat the [feces] out of their crews.
135, might want to pump the brakes on that one. Except for New Jets and a few MEGA 135, most like to fly their pilots to the limit.

CoffeeIcePapers said:
They’re also looser on standardization and training standards.
Click to expand...

No they are not....
and if they are, it's a future bankrupt 134.5 operation.

CoffeeIcePapers said:
Now, take a foreign operator, and it’s much worse.
Click to expand...

I judge per country.
Yes, ALL have lower standards of certification and interpretation of standards, but the actual pilots of certain countries still impress me.
(granted, others horrify me)
But I'm not throwing the rest of the world out with the bathwater.
 
DropTank said:
91, I mostly agree. But I've see a few mega corps beat the [feces] out of their crews.
135, might want to pump the brakes on that one. Except for New Jets and a few MEGA 135, most like to fly their pilots to the limit.



No they are not....
and if they are, it's a future bankrupt 134.5 operation.



I judge per country.
Yes, ALL have lower standards of certification and interpretation of standards, but the actual pilots of certain countries still impress me.
(granted, others horrify me)
But I'm not throwing the rest of the world out with the bathwater.
Click to expand...
I’ve flown 91, 135, and 121, and have also worked at flight safety and CAE as both a right seat filler and instructor. I flew the airplane in this thread for 1200 hours and instructed in it for 5 years. I’ve seen how the sausage is made.
 
DropTank said:
Me too....

Now what?
Click to expand...

If the question is why were they below the glideslope?

Easy answer is pilot error. However, the complicated and detailed answer is:

Unsafe acts (PM didn’t call minimums)
Preconditions for unsafe acts (the habit of ducking below)
Unsafe supervision (failures of the Training department)
Organizational influences (External pressures to complete the mission)
 
CFI A&P said:
If the question is why were they below the glideslope?

Easy answer is pilot error. However, the complicated and detailed answer is:

Unsafe acts (PM didn’t call minimums)
Preconditions for unsafe acts (the habit of ducking below)
Unsafe supervision (failures of the Training department)
Organizational influences (External pressures to complete the mission)
Click to expand...

Agreed
I'm curious about the avionics.

Some aircraft avionics has the flight director only show a limited deviation to prevent the pilot from jerking the yoke
(not sure I'm describing it correctly)
This creates a scenario where a large deviation of the glide slope will only manifest as a small deviation on the FD.

I've seen people complain about it, but there is no setting to change the FD reactiveness. (responsiveness?)

If an airplane is well below glide slope, the FD only shows a command to climb, but only like 1cm above instead of pegging itself to the top of the ADI.
Some pilots who don't cross check all of their instruments and blindly "follow" the FD, can fly well below the GS and assume they are only "slightly below" and be full deflection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top