Aircraft Down in San Diego (Dec 27)

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, at that point, you’re just turning a circling maneuver into a visual traffic pattern. With the ceiling/viz being advertised at that time, there was nothing forcing the crew to be right down at circling MDA in order to stay VMC…..they had sufficient buffer from the undercast above ; It appears they could’ve remained at TPA and entered a normal downwind, thus being 400’ above circling MDA (assuming a 1500’ jet TPA). Why they were appearing to remain at a lower maneuvering altitude, I’m not sure. Unless Wx was possibly lower than observed at that moment in that part of the area, or scud or something.
 
inigo88 said:
From another Facebook group, but here’s the “Circling NA” note you speak of:
View attachment 62558

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.
Click to expand...

Circling NA is a big deal - once while flying medevac to an airport I’d never been to and never had any real briefing on I circled without realizing it was NA at about 3am. I was basically still asleep and entered the downwind like normal and landed.

After a nap in the back of the airplane while waiting for the medics I woke up shortly after sunrise. Looked outside and saw thought about how I’d circled.

“Wow, why is circling permitted at night?!…oh wait it’s not.”

I didn’t hit anything, and never got a terrain alert or anything, I had kept it tight using the TAWS to stay away from the red and yellow, but theoretically if I had strayed slightly outside the circling radius I’d have hit something.

Funny thing was, I knew there was terrain there, I was just insanely tired, on the back side of the clock, and didn’t read the plate as accurate as I should have.

There but for the “Grace of God go I” or whatever. Either circling into a mountain or loss of control on the circle is totally possible… what a bummer.
 
Minuteman said:
At this time, I don't think we know if circle-to-land was a factor in the accident. They could have hit a bird or a crew member had a medical emergency, or there was a mechanical failure, etc.
Click to expand...

absolutely. All that is known is that they didn’t complete maneuvering to landing, for whatever reason. The concept of circling maneuvers is just an interesting side discussion.
 
MikeD said:
Again, at that point, you’re just turning a circling maneuver into a visual traffic pattern. With the ceiling/viz being advertised at that time, there was nothing forcing the crew to be right down at circling MDA in order to stay VMC…..they had sufficient buffer from the undercast above ; It appears they could’ve remained at TPA and entered a normal downwind, thus being 400’ above circling MDA (assuming a 1500’ jet TPA). Why they were appearing to remain at a lower maneuvering altitude, I’m not sure. Unless Wx was possibly lower than observed at that moment in that part of the area, or scud or something.
Click to expand...

I saw elsewhere that in addition to the 2000' AGL ceiling, there was a transient layer around 1000-1200 AGL that solidified in the hour following the crash. Could easily have caught a piece of that even at the NA circling minimums.

KSEE 280447Z 24006KT 3SM BR BKN012 OVC025 11/09 A2995
KSEE 280355Z VRB05KT 3SM BR SCT011 BKN020 11/09 A2996
KSEE 280255Z VRB05KT 3SM BR BKN020 OVC026 10/08 A2998
 
ILS37R said:
I saw elsewhere that in addition to the 2000' AGL ceiling, there was a transient layer around 1000-1200 AGL that solidified in the hour following the crash. Could easily have caught a piece of that even at the NA circling minimums.

KSEE 280447Z 24006KT 3SM BR BKN012 OVC025 11/09 A2995
KSEE 280355Z VRB05KT 3SM BR SCT011 BKN020 11/09 A2996
KSEE 280255Z VRB05KT 3SM BR BKN020 OVC026 10/08 A2998
Click to expand...

Looking at the doorbell cam video it almost looks like you can see the light beams from the landing lights projecting forward so perhaps they did encounter a small layer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
azmedic said:
Looking at the doorbell cam video it almost looks like you can see the light beams from the landing lights projecting forward so perhaps they did encounter a small layer
Click to expand...

I noticed that too, and it started dumping rain not long after (which doesn’t appear to be captured in the METAR history).
 
ILS37R said:
I saw elsewhere that in addition to the 2000' AGL ceiling, there was a transient layer around 1000-1200 AGL that solidified in the hour following the crash. Could easily have caught a piece of that even at the NA circling minimums.

KSEE 280447Z 24006KT 3SM BR BKN012 OVC025 11/09 A2995
KSEE 280355Z VRB05KT 3SM BR SCT011 BKN020 11/09 A2996
KSEE 280255Z VRB05KT 3SM BR BKN020 OVC026 10/08 A2998
Click to expand...

Agreed. Which if it was something they were seeing possibly in the glow of the ground lights, potentially could have been at lower altitude or possibly maneuvering, or both, to avoid; depending on how much actual sky that may have been covering, and where in relation to the field. All are potential factors..
 
Pilot Fighter said:
Listening to the audio, when he asked that the lights be turned up, I audibly said, "shiit". They had just overflown the field, were ~1.3NM out, and were struggling with maintaining visibility of the field? That doesn't sound very VFRish to me.
Click to expand...

i assumed they couldn’t see it because the hill was between them and the airport.
 
inigo88 said:
From another Facebook group, but here’s the “Circling NA” note you speak of:
View attachment 62558

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.
Click to expand...

All valid and intelligent points, although if runway length is a consideration and their policy or minimum number is 5k or better - the options in greater San Diego are reduced. You’re down to SAN, SEE, and SDM. CRQ is less than 5k, and RNM is right at 5k. Of those three with adequate length, now you’ll have to look at legal weather for 135 and approaches plus runway lengths with safety margins. Next up is the possibility of company pressure with something as simple as fees and fuel prices. Believe it or not, but people still avoid diverting due to fuel prices or facility fees - CAA fuel pricing is enough to influence the decision making process.
 
MikeD said:
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.
Click to expand...


.... Stellar analogy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top