Ok. .. I'll try to answer this set of questions. You missed the threshold of the runway by almost 1/4 mile.
On board, you have a PIC and a Co-Pilot.. both have an ATP rating with recurrent training [required] in the type aircraft being operated. You have radar, Instrument Landing System, Glide Slope, and Visual Glide slope [that descending series of light poles you see at each end of a runway]. Also, you have contact with the Tower, with clearance to land and a current runway condition from them which gives visibility and known runway current condition. Other instruments give you rate of decent, heading, and altitude. You are working from what is called and "approach plate" which is a required document that gives all radio frequencies and navigation frequencies.. typically, the Co-Pilot is assigned the duty to have that in hand. Even if you are on an instrument approach and can not yet see the field, you have all these instruments to give you the physical location of the airplane relative to the airport. [Instrument flying is very challenging because of all you have to watch, on a complex aircraft [airliner size] you use "cockpit resource management" to assign tasks to other crew [ie Co-Pilot]. You watch everything at once and never forget to fly the airplane as the same time. Yet... you make contact with the ground 1/4 mile short... Ooooops.... Even with an instrument approach, you must have "runway in sight" to land. The approach plate will state the minimum altitude you must report "runway in sight" or you must "go around" or depart to alternate... Someone failed to meet that minimum.. and before that.. used less than perfect judgement to continue the approach.. at the established decent rate. Exactly why.. or who.. I would not know... bring the wreckage a little closer to the computer so I can see it... [joke intended].. I have a friend here who is a FAA Investigator.. several someones like him will be on the scene creating the wreck in reverse to find the cause(s), of that I am sure. "We are from the FAA, and we are not happy until you are not happy".... Grant... On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Randy Bennell <rbenn...@bennell.ca> wrote: > But what does it say if you land the plane 1100 feet too soon? > Don't they follow some radio beam down? > No one has said anything about a sudden drop in altitude just before they > hit the power line so I doubt that happened. > Do you get wind shear situations in snow storms? > > One would think with 2 pilots working on the situation,(and yes I know > only one of them would be landing it but I assume the other person is > paying attention and ready to take over - and would voice an opinion if > they did not like what was happening) they should have done better despite > the weather conditions. > > RB > > On 30/03/2015 1:36 PM, G Mann wrote: > >> I join Wilton in calling it pilot error. Regardless of the weather, or >> equipment failure, it is pilots responsibility to land or choose to land >> an >> an alternate. It is a requirement for all commercial flight planning to >> have alternate airports as part of the flight plan. >> >> Tower personnel also always give runway condition advisories for any >> condition which might influence landing conditions. The days of "flying >> blind" are long gone. If runway conditions were below minimums for >> visibility for landing.. a divert to alternate is required.. if Ice is on >> runway and minimum traction requirements are not met.. divert to >> alternate >> is required [ground crews now have machinery that physically test runway >> conditions and report it to tower] >> >> Several bad choices were made to continue the approach and landing, it >> appears. >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, WILTON <wilt...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> >> Pilot error, either way. >>> >>> Wilton >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Bennell" <rbenn...@bennell.ca> >>> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" <mercedes@okiebenz.com> >>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 12:51 PM >>> Subject: Re: [MBZ] Bad week for A-320 >>> >>> >>> On 29/03/2015 4:59 PM, Peter Frederick wrote: >>> >>>> Or the plane slid on an icy runway and either overran the end or exited >>>>> off the side (which is what the title implies). Bad things happen when >>>>> the >>>>> landing gear sink into mud! >>>>> >>>>> My guess is that the landing was fairly normal except perhaps for a >>>>> variable cross-wind, and they got in trouble on the ground, just like >>>>> the >>>>> Delta did in Boston or JFK a couple weeks ago. A slick runway without >>>>> warning can get scary fast, especially if it's only slick on one side. >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> News this morning says they landed 1100 feet short of the runway, and >>>>> >>>> took out a power line and an antenna array on the way in, then slid on >>>> the >>>> belly onto the runway after losing the landing gear and one of the >>>> engines. >>>> >>>> Pilot error? Or computer error? >>>> Lousy weather at the time. Snowing hard and after midnight so lousy >>>> visibilty. >>>> >>>> RB >>>> >>>> _______________________________________ >>>> >>>> > > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
