Approach lights were not working.

You can hear the pilot keying the mic to turn up the lights, but the lights were not working, nor the weather alert system (NTSB Prelim).

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Approach lights were not working.

You can hear the pilot keying the mic to turn up the lights, but the lights were not working, nor the weather alert system (NTSB Prelim).

The controller told him the lights were out.
And the autopilot approach system.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Part 91 he can start the approach even if ceiling is below mins, correct? As long as the latest official report was visibility at or above minimums, continuing an approach is legal.

Correct. 91 can start the approach. Re visibility, I would need to double check this, but I believe that the criterion for continuing the approach is flight visibility from the cockpit.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Correct. 91 can start the approach. Re visibility, I would need to double check this, but I believe that the criterion for continuing the approach is flight visibility from the cockpit.

Flight visibility is what we used for the decision to continue from 100 HAT to landing. At high speeds it was a very split second decision. From clicking off the autopilot at 100 until touchdown it was a very short time.

From my quick view of Blancolirio, it looks like ADSB data shows him below at least one crossing restriction. Idk what he had onboard, but we had a lot of concerns with the computer derived glide path from FAF to DH, where under some circumstances it could put one below intermediate step down restrictions.

Or perhaps this pilot was doing a bit of "Dive and Drive" non-precision technique and went below a crossing restriction. We used to do the Dive and Drive non-precision approach in the old days before FMS, LNAV/VNAV, LNP etc derived by the FMS. Especially when viz was at or near minimums. Get down and start looking for lights. But you still have to honor all the crossing restrictions.

The accident aircraft had been flying all night long, which brings up questions about pilot fatigue on top of very challenging approach conditions.

Why didn't he divert to San Diego International??? It's just a few minutes away.

There is only 1 runway, but the equipment and people there and such are available.

Seems a no-brainer to me.

Maybe a case of "Get-There-Home-Itis-ASAP" bit them in their ass?
.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
I like his channel, but sometimes he is woefully wrong on his information with corporate jets. The c550 has an approach speed of 110 knots, which puts it clearly in the cat b category meaning he was legal to shoot that approach. Some of the pilots other decisions were questionable, but Juan is clearly wrong with that information.

Juan agrees...

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

Idk what he had onboard, but we had a lot of concerns with the computer derived glide path from FAF to DH, where under some circumstances it could put one below intermediate step down restrictions.

It's hard for me to believe that this airplane did not have two ILS receivers, along with the ability to make an autopilot coupled approach. I'm guessing that this was the approach procedure that he used:

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
Why didn't he divert to San Diego International??? It's just a few minutes away.

There is only 1 runway, but the equipment and people there and such are available.

Seems a no-brainer to me.

Maybe a case of "Get-There-Home-Itis-ASAP" bit them in their ass?
.

The short answer is he wanted to "go and see". Sometimes when the weather station is not reporting, pilots are tempted to question the actual weather conditions. "Is it really still 200/ 1/2 mile or has it improved?" Under part 91, there is no requirement to stop you from going and taking a look, if you see the runway you land, if not go to your alternate.
Commercial operators, under 91k,135,and 121 are not allowed to ever start the approach unless we can determine the weather will allow a successful approach. Sometimes the reported weather is better than what you actually see out the window and you have to go around, but you have to at least been confident the weather was above minimums before starting. Under part 91, you can start an approach, knowing that the weather is below minimums. Sometimes rationalizing, "once we get to minimums, I'll just duck a little under the glideslope and see if we see anything". Usually the only thing they find is the ground.

I would also like to add, that update from Blancolerio indicated this pilot was operating as a single pilot operation. That jet is certified for operations with one pilot. When you are flying by yourself, especially fatigued after flying all night long, you have no one to bounce ideas off, someone to say this seems like a bad idea, maybe we should talk about it. Two pilot operations act as a checks and balances against this type of echo chamber thinking. One guy says lets go see and the other says Maybe not, lets go to San Diego or brown field. I don't know if the pilot caught the notams about the glideslope being inop or the runway alignment lights being inop, but the chances of TWO pilots missing that information and continuing this approach is almost zero.
I will never fly in a plane for hire with less than 2 pilots, and all this pressure from the airlines to reduce to 1 pilot scares the crap out of me. I hope it does you as well.

I’ve lived there (on Minuteman to be exact) and might need to explain what 0/0 weather (fog) in this scenario means for the non aviation types here.

In the past life, ive walked the streets where the aircraft hit the wires and impacted the ground at the same time of day with same type weather.

Most of the homes are triplexes and, When walking it that weather and standing at one driveway residence, you cannot see the next driveway clearly. The fog on the mesa is that dense.

When sailors leave for work in that weather, we would drive slow (3-5 mph) and some of us with windows down to hopefully hear approaching vehicles (can’t see headlights until about 25 yds away.

Drive to Aero Dr. and drop down to the I-15 where visibility clears up.

Without being in the sky that morning, i am hard pressed to believe the pilot would have been able to see any runway lights from the distance where the power lines were hit. That would have been 15-30 seconds from touchdown.

Point being, even if the lights worked, auto weather reporting was working, and ILS was working and linked, pilot likely would not have a visual on runway until 7-10 seconds to touchdown

Pilot error through ignorance and arrogance

He had a distraction on the flightdeck.
That drummer, who is a private pilot.
And no confirmation if Shapiro was the pilot of his own plane.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:

Under part 91, you can start an approach, knowing that the weather is below minimums. Sometimes rationalizing, "once we get to minimums, I'll just duck a little under the glideslope and see if we see anything". Usually the only thing they find is the ground.

I knew a guy who, when the viz was right at minimums, would fly an ILS a half dot above glide slope. His theory was that at DH he would be closer to the TDZ and thus see the lights he hoped to see, while still being legal. And safe since he was above glide slope. That was way back in his GA days where everything was hand flown at 90 kts or less. I don't think he got away with that flying Boeings.

I always hated being in the sim when they'd set the weather right at mins, because dammit I already hit TOGA by the time the non-flying pilot said "Runway In Sight"! It encouraged delaying going missed for a few seconds.

Single pilot really ups the complexity of flying the procedure accurately and simultaneously making decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I'm guessing that this was the approach procedure that he used:

Juan Browne indicated it was the RNAV (GPS) 28R. I haven't done more than watch his first video to know any more than that. By the time we were flying those types of approaches, we had the full suite of FMS and had a derived glide slope, so I don't know how the accident pilot may have managed vertical navigation if he was LNAV only.

All the computer wizardry is great when the pilot is on top of it, but when things start going wrong it gets FUBAR'd really fast.

We may never know what error they made.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

Juan Browne indicated it was the RNAV (GPS) 28R.

If the GPS provides LPV, it essentially duplicates the ILS.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

Juan Browne indicated it was the RNAV (GPS) 28R.

If the GPS provides LPV, it essentially duplicates the ILS.

All this newfangled stuff!

I grew up on ground based raw data approaches, so when we transitioned to all FMS it was a completely new world of the FMS being the primary navigation source. We used the lowest published minimums for an approach, considering any NOTAMs, which usually meant flying a theoretically safe glide path to a DH. But on an LNAV only approach it is an MDA not a DH, which means one could fly it dive and drive like an old fashioned VOR or NDB approach. Idk if anyone does that or not?

For every approach, the FMS computed a glide path down to TDZ but it was imperfect at assuring making every crossing restriction inside the FAF. On LNAV approaches (or any non-precision approach) we had a 50ft higher MDA than published so that we didn't sag below MDA during a missed approach. If an approach exactly overlaid an ILS, the calculated glide path in theory followed the electronic glideslope, which I always kept displayed too.

Managing all of that single-pilot in a dynamic changing environment is daunting.

I didn’t look at all the details, Notams, and weather. On top of that up all night, single pilot. As I understand it, the weather was at, or maybe even below requirements for the approach, with any Notams applied.

With the weather forecasting, they should have stayed overnight at the fuel stop, KS or somewhere near there. At that time, even while flying towards that fuel stop, they could see the forecast weather for the San Diego area in accurate detail.

Of course you have all the options as you get to the San Diego area. I just got back today from Michigan, short night then early 6 hour drive home. I can muddle around the house ok, but do I want to run a chainsaw, drive a motorcycle, or fly an airplane? No. I doubt the pilot had great rest before leaving NJ close to midnight.

Much with safety deals with percentages. How much daylight does one want along the edges of the operating envelope?

^^^^^^^ I'd guess the weather looked fine from KS. I don't know if coastal fog is different somehow, but I've seen fog up in these parts settle in in a matter of seconds.

Not making excuses for him.

KATL 261602Z 2616/2718 08004KT P6SM BKN015 BKN200
FM261800 24008KT P6SM SCT015 BKN200
FM262000 26005KT P6SM BKN050
FM270300 08007KT P6SM -SHRA SCT008 BKN015
PROB30 2703/2708 5SM -TSRA BR BKN010CB
FM270800 09010KT 6SM -SHRA OVC004
FM271500 10008KT 6SM BR OVC008

I’m not talking about a regular weather forecast, ‘partly cloudy with a 30% chance of rain’. I’m talking about a detailed, aviation weather forecast. The above is Atlanta, as rain is moving in. Nothing will be 100% accurate, adjustments are made as the forecast period transpires. This would be one of the main tools used to evaluate the flight.

Besides the destination, one gets a feel by looking at surrounding airport forecast, plus you’d want an alternate.

quote:

Originally posted by sourdough44:
I’m not talking about a regular weather forecast, ‘partly cloudy with a 30% chance of rain’. I’m talking about a detailed, aviation weather forecast.

I know.

Here's Juan Browne's take on the just released prelim:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ywmR1bBr4Q