goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:29 pm
I've departed numerious times to an airport with crap weather. Sometimes the weather improved, other times I executed a missed approach then diverted to a suitable alternate. Rarely the weather reached the approach ban and I simply diverted before even starting the approach. However, I have NEVER crashed because the weather sucked. There are great tools available to pilots called missed approaches (VFR pilots will do a 180) and diversions that have so far prevented me and many many others from crashing due to bad weather.
The plane didn't crash cause the weather sucked. The plane crashed because of the inappropriate actions of the flight crew in response to the crap weather.
I can’t speak for this accident but the problem in the Arctic is that unpredictably, the weather at your destination and alternates can change really really quick and you might not always have enough fuel to go back.
Would your rather run out of fuel or bust that LNAV/VNAV or LPV DA by 100’ ? What’s safer at that point ?
Pelmet is right, being legal/following the rule doesn’t necessarily guarantees safety.
---------- ADS -----------
In twenty years time when your kids ask how you got into flying you want to be able to say "work and determination" not "I just kept taking money from your grandparents for type ratings until someone was stupid enough to give me a job"
daedalusx wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:15 pm
Would your rather run out of fuel or bust that LNAV/VNAV or LPV DA by 100’ ? What’s safer at that point ?
To be fair, neither option is legal.
daedalusx wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:15 pm
Pelmet is right, being legal/following the rule doesn’t necessarily guarantees safety.
True, but in pelmet's examples, there were legal and safe options available. The safer but illegal option was chosen because it was more convenient. There was a safe and legal, but inconvenient option available: returning and/or cancelling the flight.
---------- ADS -----------
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
daedalusx wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:15 pm
Would your rather run out of fuel or bust that LNAV/VNAV or LPV DA by 100’ ? What’s safer at that point ?
To be fair, neither option is legal.
daedalusx wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:15 pm
Pelmet is right, being legal/following the rule doesn’t necessarily guarantees safety.
True, but in pelmet's examples, there were legal and safe options available. The safer but illegal option was chosen because it was more convenient. There was a safe and legal, but inconvenient option available: returning and/or cancelling the flight.
You are correct that cancelling the flight is the safer legal option and one that should be considered.
While Pelmet sometimes likes to make things more complicated than they are, hi comment about the legal way not always being the best (or words to that end, I don't do quotes) are bang on.
Take this for what it's worth:
Legal is NOT always safe.
Safe is NOT always legal.
Cheers
Illya
daedalusx wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:15 pm
I can’t speak for this accident but the problem in the Arctic is that unpredictably, the weather at your destination and alternates can change really really quick and you might not always have enough fuel to go back.
Would your rather run out of fuel or bust that LNAV/VNAV or LPV DA by 100’ ? What’s safer at that point ?
Pelmet is right, being legal/following the rule doesn’t necessarily guarantees safety.
Aside from weather going down at your non-precision approach alternate, I was always worried that some aircraft might become disabled on the single runway airport. Then you have a real problem.
Note to pilots in such a situation. If you become disabled, ensure that the CARS guy gets the word out quickly to potential companies/aircraft that could end up subsequently arriving at their alternate with no other options.
As for the DC-3 accident, if he was determined to get in in an aircraft that doesn't handle ice well in significant icing conditions and they were in significant icing conditions....a straight-in option of some sort may have reduced the likelihood of a loss of control. Going to an alternate would be safer and recommended.
If you're gonna run out of gas, busting mins is legal. The PIC can do what they deem necessary in cases of emergency and that includes a fuel emergency. Just be prepared to answer some questions afterwards. I'd argue you could have a fuel emergency with lots of gas in the tanks if the weather at all the airports within your fuel range is below minimums and forecast/expected to stay that way.
I've had my alternate go below minimums while enroute, it's not a fun feeling. That's why if I'm expecting to miss my destination, I make sure I have enough gas to get somewhere with nice weather, more than just the legal alternate weather minimums.
However, I highly doubt this DC3 crew were running on fumes and NEEDED to land for fear of running out of fuel. I bet they had enough gas to get to YRL or YPL and still a bunch left over.
goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:58 pm
That's why if I'm expecting to miss my destination, I make sure I have enough gas to get somewhere with nice weather, more than just the legal alternate weather minimums.
Doesn't help much in the high arctic when you discover that an aircraft landed gear up at your alternate, or some indigenous protestors parked a tractor(and took the spark plugs out) in the middle of the runway. I wonder if that will happen soon. Then your extra fuel ain't taking you anywhere useful in many instances.
I'm sure our incompetent PM would politely ask for someone to think about moving the tractor at some point if you tried to call him while his minister will crucify you for breaking a reg. Going to an alternate can be putting your life in hope of a clear runway. Use it when you really need it.
What are you advocating for? Busting mins cause there's currently no tractor disabled on the runway?
Where I fly, if I miss, I've got 2 or 3 airports in mind and probably 5 within fuel range. Hopefully somebody (ATC) will tell me that there's a plane disabled on the runway before I get too far headed in that direction. I'm willing to accept the risk that in the 45 minute flight, that runway will likely still be open. Even if the runway does subsequently become closed, say, the plane before me forgets the gear, then we're having a very unlucky day. I've got likely an hour of gas still in the tanks so can hold while they move that disabled aircraft.
Any tractor with spark plugs will be pushed to the side pretty quick by a tractor that doesn't have spark plugs.
If I start flying around the arctic and there aren't as many places to divert, I'll probably reassess my plans.
I think the bottom line from what I have heard on the thread is that it may not be wise to circle a heavy turbine DC-3 in significant icing. Therefore, come up with an alternate plan. If a straight-in approach can't be safely done, divert to an alternate.
pelmet wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:59 pm
I think the bottom line from what I have heard on the thread is that it may not be wise to circle a heavy turbine DC-3 in significant icing. Therefore, come up with an alternate plan. If a straight-in approach can't be safely done, divert to an alternate.
Okay. I'll quote. The cielings were low. So we're the tops. I was in the area. Guys were missing. There was not "significant" icing. Might have picked a bit on the leading edge, but nowhere near enough to be a factor. Tired of ice being the catch all excuse. What we have here is a crew below the cieling, with no idea where the runway is, loosing visual, and continuing to "sniff around" for the runway. Saw the airplane two days later in the bush. It did not break up in flight.
Push, push, in the bush.
Cheers
Illya
pelmet wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:59 pm
I think the bottom line from what I have heard on the thread is that it may not be wise to circle a heavy turbine DC-3 in significant icing. Therefore, come up with an alternate plan. If a straight-in approach can't be safely done, divert to an alternate.
Okay. I'll quote. The cielings were low. So we're the tops. I was in the area. Guys were missing. There was not "significant" icing. Might have picked a bit on the leading edge, but nowhere near enough to be a factor. Tired of ice being the catch all excuse. What we have here is a crew below the cieling, with no idea where the runway is, loosing visual, and continuing to "sniff around" for the runway. Saw the airplane two days later in the bush.
If that is true, we would be looking at a possible CFIT as opposed to loss of control. But you are not inside info. Will wait for the report. The recommendation at the top of this post still stands.
valleyboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:38 am
My information is that it was lose of control, not cfit. Like I always say the DC-3 is a princes and the Basler DC-3T is her ugly sister, not nearly as stable and certainly less forgiving. It will be interesting to see the investigation results.
I’m pretty sure valleyboy means lost of control once on the ground.
Not before...
daedalusx wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:15 pm
I can’t speak for this accident but the problem in the Arctic is that unpredictably, the weather at your destination and alternates can change really really quick and you might not always have enough fuel to go back.
pelmet wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:23 pm
Doesn't help much in the high arctic when you discover that an aircraft landed gear up at your alternate, or some indigenous protestors parked a tractor(and took the spark plugs out) in the middle of the runway. I wonder if that will happen soon. Then your extra fuel ain't taking you anywhere useful in many instances.
What's all this business about the Arctic? It was Sachigo Lake. By comparison to the Arctic, there are a pile of viable runways within 100 miles. Sure, diverting just about anywhere in the north isn't fun, but neither is putting yourself into the rhubarb.
pelmet wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:59 pm
I think the bottom line from what I have heard on the thread is that it may not be wise to circle a heavy turbine DC-3 in significant icing. Therefore, come up with an alternate plan. If a straight-in approach can't be safely done, divert to an alternate.
Okay. I'll quote. The cielings were low. So we're the tops. I was in the area. Guys were missing. There was not "significant" icing. Might have picked a bit on the leading edge, but nowhere near enough to be a factor. Tired of ice being the catch all excuse. What we have here is a crew below the cieling, with no idea where the runway is, loosing visual, and continuing to "sniff around" for the runway. Saw the airplane two days later in the bush.
If that is true, we would be looking at a possible CFIT as opposed to loss of control. But you are not inside info. Will wait for the report. The recommendation at the top of this post still stands.
Simply basing it on position and condition of the airframe. No loss of control, unless loss of SA, is considered control now. Definitely a CFIT. Always taken exception to that term. I figure if you have control, you don’t hit the ground.
Cheers
Illya
If Keystone had a 705 oc.... What a train wreck, I hope this asshole found a different career. Best line was the "over time a culture of non-compliance went un detected by the managment team" Bull F@$!ing shit they knew exactly how their company was operating.
Is this the same Captain who shut down both engines by accident while taking off out of another reserve at night time? It’s obvious he came from buffalo. Was he featured on ice pilots?