RAH Q400 in BTV

If I remember correctly there is some terrain out there. Would not recommend a visual into there at night unless you knew the place. Coming from the opposite direction...over Lake Champlain is a different story. Provided you don't extend your final over the Adirondacks.
 
amorris311 said:
@flyinggreasemnky you have anything to add?
Click to expand...

I was told by ASAP committee guy that it was a night visual into BTV runway 33 at night on the Q and they got a terrain warning. He didn't go any further into it. A memo came out the next day stating that the Q's are no longer allowed to perform night visuals into BTV. He did say that a breakdown of it will likely be in the FOQA/ASAP newsletter they put out.
 
flyinggreasemnky said:
I was told by ASAP committee guy that it was a night visual into BTV runway 33 at night on the Q and they got a terrain warning. He didn't go any further into it. A memo came out the next day stating that the Q's are no longer allowed to perform night visuals into BTV. He did say that a breakdown of it will likely be in the FOQA/ASAP newsletter they put out.
Click to expand...
Would be neat if there was an industry wide newsletter published
 
I will say that the Q's ground prox can be a little hyper-active sometimes. If you fly the published ODP as it is written out of EAT, you'll get an alert every single time.
 
pete2800 said:
I will say that the Q's ground prox can be a little hyper-active sometimes. If you fly the published ODP as it is written out of EAT, you'll get an alert every single time.
Click to expand...
The Saab used to be the same way in and out of MVY if we were landing to the NE.
 
I think a left base for 33 would put you on top of some terrain. 15 was over the lake and clear. IIRC
 
pete2800 said:
I will say that the Q's ground prox can be a little hyper-active sometimes. If you fly the published ODP as it is written out of EAT, you'll get an alert every single time.
Click to expand...
On the Q200 we would have to inhibit the terrain for the approach into Eagle and Aspen as the descent rates on each step down were so large (~1500-2500fpm) that it would set off the GPWS.
 
It's legit, I talked to a friend of mine from FSI, and NO night visuals at BTV until they come up with some procedures to prevent a similar event in the future...17' on the RADALT according to CDS download of flight data. I've done that approach in the Q, and I can see how it could happen if you aren't aware of the terrain and DON'T BRIEF IT. Staying within 2 miles of the airport also helps considerably. I wasn't there, but wondering why they needed so much room to get down, configure and land...
 
So..I take it there isn't a requirement to be established on an IAP during a night visual into a specifically recognized Terrain or Special Authorization airport at RAH eh?
 
BE19Pilot said:
17' on the RADALT according to CDS download of flight data...
Click to expand...
Seggy said:
17' WOW! Why didn't they respond to the EGPWS call outs earlier?
Click to expand...

In all fairness though, the RA on the Q400 is PA-THETIC, I've had it show anywhere from 0-2500ft at cruise. We've had issues with it causing "Pusher System Fail" cautions on landings because it scrolls through the #'s so fast on approach. Not saying the crew didn't get that close, but just an observation of the system.
 
SurferLucas said:
In all fairness though, the RA on the Q400 is PA-THETIC, I've had it show anywhere from 0-2500ft at cruise. We've had issues with it causing "Pusher System Fail" cautions on landings because it scrolls through the #'s so fast on approach. Not saying the crew didn't get that close, but just an observation of the system.
Click to expand...

Very true, but if that happened on an approach, we would be going around. If we suspected it was a GPWS fault, the plane would be grounded once we landed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top