The other one was surface contamination picked up before takeoff.
That was never confirmed, NTSB came up with that because they could not explain it. No proof of contamination was found. I still believe there was another cause.
The Basler conversion has some ugly characteristics. It will carry a shit load of ice but even clean does not have great handling characteristics for circling loaded. It is very easy to end up with an aft C of G when carrying groceries and general freight. Thus adds to handing issues. Add a little ice and the issues just keep getting worse. If anything comes out of this, a lesson to all, CIRCLING is bad and likely the most dangerous maneuver commercial aircraft ever do. It's outdated with the introduction of GPS and no need to circle in IMC A VFR circuit is not the same.
Of course it was never confirmed by NTSB. They would have t get there before the surface melted.....or was cleaned off. Pretty likely though considering the conditions were perfect for it.....and the results were textbook. I’ll stick with it as a cause. Had it happen myself. Made it down safely.....but I was empty. As for your comments on circling in IMC. Yup. 100% with you on that one. If you can’t see enough to work with doing a straight in RNAV approach, take the whole thing home and try tmrw.
Illya
Sachigo has LPV to both ends of the runway. Why the hell would they be circling? The charts for Sachigo as of December 5th also no longer list circling minimums.
...but you have to actually follow the charts, otherwise all bets are off.
goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:40 pm
Sachigo has LPV to both ends of the runway. Why the hell would they be circling?
Easy, you hit minima and the ground is in sight but the airport is not. By the time you realize you were looking in the wrong place and do get the runway visual you’re too high to just slam it in so you figure you can make a quick, low circuit and be hopping out of the plane in five minutes. I’m not saying it’s safe and I’m not saying it’s unsafe, there’s a time and a place and a right way to do it... if that’s even what happened here.
I wonder, if Sachigo no longer permits circling but you pop out of cloud into conditions that you deem VFR, can you freely maneuver around the airport as required before landing?
goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:40 pm
Sachigo has LPV to both ends of the runway. Why the hell would they be circling?
Easy, you hit minima and the ground is in sight but the airport is not. By the time you realize you were looking in the wrong place and do get the runway visual you’re too high to just slam it in so you figure you can make a quick, low circuit and be hopping out of the plane in five minutes. I’m not saying it’s safe and I’m not saying it’s unsafe, there’s a time and a place and a right way to do it... if that’s even what happened here.
When would be the time and the place, or the right way to continue an LPV approach beyond minima with only the ground in sight and not the airport/runway?
---------- ADS -----------
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:40 pm
Sachigo has LPV to both ends of the runway. Why the hell would they be circling?
Easy, you hit minima and the ground is in sight but the airport is not. By the time you realize you were looking in the wrong place and do get the runway visual you’re too high to just slam it in so you figure you can make a quick, low circuit and be hopping out of the plane in five minutes. I’m not saying it’s safe and I’m not saying it’s unsafe, there’s a time and a place and a right way to do it... if that’s even what happened here.
I wonder, if Sachigo no longer permits circling but you pop out of cloud into conditions that you deem VFR, can you freely maneuver around the airport as required before landing?
You're right it is easy. If the runway isn't in sight, you follow the missed approach procedure. If you aren't willing to say it's unsafe, then I will. Circling manouvers are unsafe, that's why they're being removed. The time and place to make a quick circuit is when the weather is 1000' and 3 miles or better.
This is ridiculous, It's absolutely unsafe to circle because you have ground contact only (I knew a guy who used to say shit like that but he's dead now). If you don't have any of the required visual references then go missed, or be a tool and hero a Basler into the rhubarb.
I’m not saying it’s safe but Tc has approved these operators for Vfr at 300 feet and 1 mile. You could get down to minimums get ground contact but not the runway and continue vfr.
dogfood wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:02 am
I’m not saying it’s safe but Tc has approved these operators for Vfr at 300 feet and 1 mile. You could get down to minimums get ground contact but not the runway and continue vfr.
Are you sure the 705 side of the operations has this special authorization? Or is the basler run as 703. Last I checked 705 can't to this special authorization, you also can't fly night vfr.
C-FKAL, a Douglas DC-3C-BT67 operated by North Star Air Ltd, was conducting a cargo flight
from Red Lake (CYRL), ON to Sachigo Lake (CZPB), ON, with 2 flight crew members on board.
While on approach to CZPB, the aircraft collided with terrain approximately 500 metres southwest
of the threshold of Runway 10. The 2 flight crew members received no injuries. The aircraft
sustained substantial damage. The TSB is investigating.
The LPV is going to put you high by it’s design because the glide path is aimed for 1000’ down the runway. Any variations or deviation on the approach will make it worse. I’m guessing the approach was less than stellar, then broke it off to circle/maneuver (whatever you feel like calling it) to the runway with what they thought was sufficient references and ended up in the bush perhaps overshooting runway 28 vs short of Rwy 10.
Perhaps lots of poor decision making but was it illegal? There’s been no certificate action yet.....
After AC in YHZ and then SFOx2 I done guessing how perfectly good airplanes get bent up like this...
dogfood wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:02 am
I’m not saying it’s safe but Tc has approved these operators for Vfr at 300 feet and 1 mile. You could get down to minimums get ground contact but not the runway and continue vfr.
That's not really how it works, or the intent of the ops spec.
No certificate action because there's nothing to prove what the crews did...in any of their three crashes. Can't pull an AOC based on rumours and hearsay.
If you're good at doctoring the books, you can crash airplanes all day long. TC will be really confused cause the paperwork looks good. That's the difference between the paperwork world and the real world. It's also the reason SMS will never work for sketchy operators.
