C.W.E. wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 5:19 pm
They had, or thought they had, the runway environment (lights) in sight at MDA. They continued the approach.
If they were continuing visual why did they fly into the ground so far short of the runway?
Because they didn't know they weren't on slope. They had some lights in sight, but the lights seen at minimums in that visibility weren't enough to provide adequate depth perception to allow them to realize they were too low until they did, at which point it was obviously too late.
That's what's in the report.
There's nothing in the CARs saying you need to have the PAPIs in sight to descend below MDA. (But maybe there should be if you don't have any other sort of vertical guidance.)
No, however you should have the runway or runway lights in sight clearly enough to fly the remainder of the approach safely at all times at and below MDA.
They obviously didn't.
That is just basic flying skills.
The fact there were two of them supposedly flying it makes it really difficult to excuse the accident in my opinion.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just laying out what the TSB report says.
In the CAP Gen there is a whole slew of things you need one of to continue below minimums. Most of them alone won't make for a pretty approach if you don't get something else in sight rather quickly.
If you are on slope, you have some approach lights in sight, so you continue "visually". If you continue on that slope you will eventually get more and more things in sight and (probably) have a successful landing.
They weren't on slope. They thought they were. They didn't get anything else in sight for them to realize this until it was too late.
Maybe if they had decided to go around at 0.7NM final instead of apparently having a discussion and agreeing that they were seeing the approach lights things would have gone differently.
Again, I am not trying to "spin" anything or defend anyone. I'm just rephrasing what the TSB report says.
Continuation bias is a real thing. When you've been successfully doing non-precision approaches on the same airplane, the same way, for years you expect to see a normal sight picture when you continue below minimums with a couple approach lights in sight.
I bet if they had done a step down, they would not have descended below MDA with only a light or two in sight - because they wouldn't have had confidence what they were seeing, or if they were high or low.
Pilots of aircraft on
instrument approaches are prohibited from continuing the descent below DH, or descending below
MDA, as applicable, unless the required visual reference is established and maintained in order
to complete a safe landing.
They then go on to say that "the approach lights" (and apparently on their own) is required visual reference. If you see one ODAL at a time until you see the runway threshold lights, that's enough to be "legal", apparently.
Like you say, what you "should" have is a different story. Especially when it's an approach without vertical guidance. But again, pilots have the expectation of getting more as they go, so they continue.
When do you go around? What do you need to see? Is it different for a non-precision approach than an ILS? Should it be?