NTSB Final Report on Corporate Airlines 5966

[CA1900]

The FAA doesn't think so either; it's not legal [on a nonprecision approach].

Why do you say that? What in 91.175's language leads you to believe it's not legal for a nonprecision approach? (Why would it mention both DA and MDA otherwise?)

 

[Lequip]

The pilot, Kim Sasse, 48, and co-pilot, Jonathan Palmer, 29, ignored guidance about when and at what speed to descend the plane on its path to the runway, joking and cursing at one another while the plane's warning system alerted them of the rapidly approaching ground below, investigators said.
"I was extremely disappointed in what I heard" on the cockpit voice recorder, acting NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker said. "From the beginning to the end, it was unprofessional."

 

[onionluvr]

The FAA doesn't think so either; it's not legal.

Ummmmm........are we talking about the same thing? It is legal with both precision and nonprecision approaches.

 

[81Horse]

Why do you say that? What in 91.175's language leads you to believe it's not legal for a nonprecision approach? (Why would it mention both DA and MDA otherwise?)

(c) Operation below DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, where a DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft ... at any airport below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DH unless--
(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;
(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and
(3) ... at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.
... and so on.

What in the above makes you think you can descend from the MDA before you intercept a normal glidepath to a normal landing on the intended runway? Because, if you do leave the MDA outside your circling radius (visibility and speed) or before you're in a position to complete a normal landing -- well, you would have no guarantee whatsoever of terrain clearance.

 

[Andy Neill]

OK, so I have enough vis under a ragged cloud layer to see most of the approach lights 3 miles away. I will do a VERY shallow apporach to landing at the runway that I expect to soon see. Are you saying it is not legal to descend to 100 above touchdown in that case because I'm using a shallow approach angle instead of 3 degrees?

 

[Lequip]

Thanks....that's exactly what I was alluding to. I just didn't want to see any smart a** comments about them being stupid or making poor decisions.

The pilot, Kim Sasse, 48, and co-pilot, Jonathan Palmer, 29, ignored guidance about when and at what speed to descend the plane on its path to the runway, joking and cursing at one another while the plane's warning system alerted them of the rapidly approaching ground below, investigators said.
"I was extremely disappointed in what I heard" on the cockpit voice recorder, acting NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker said. "From the beginning to the end, it was unprofessional."

 

[81Horse]

OK, so I have enough vis under a ragged cloud layer to see most of the approach lights 3 miles away. I will do a VERY shallow apporach to landing at the runway that I expect to soon see. Are you saying it is not legal to descend to 100 above touchdown in that case because I'm using a shallow approach angle instead of 3 degrees?

That's what I'm saying. By the same logic, you're not supposed to duck under a VASI/PAPI or GS, if available.

Using your scenario, you have no assurance of obstacle and terrain clearance. You should continue (in your stated case, straight in) until you intercept a normal approach path (by published or calculated PDP, or VASI/PAPI/GS); if, at that point you have the runway environment in sight (by any of the allowable criteria), then you may descend as necessary to make a normal landing.

If you lose sight of the runway environment while circling (or after the straight-in missed approach point), you are supposed to commence a missed approach -- not duck under because you see the ALS.

 

[Rogue5]

Previous thread discussing the descent below MDA/DH topic, regarding this same accident:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=52598

 

[Andy Neill]

Understand your point now. I agree with you that continuing on until you get a normal angle is the safe thing to do. I do not agree that this approach is not legal. Consider a day (no hidden obstacles) where you see the lights, but not the runway yet. Thanks.

 

[masedogg19]

The pilot, Kim Sasse, 48, and co-pilot, Jonathan Palmer, 29, ignored guidance about when and at what speed to descend the plane on its path to the runway, joking and cursing at one another while the plane's warning system alerted them of the rapidly approaching ground below, investigators said.
"I was extremely disappointed in what I heard" on the cockpit voice recorder, acting NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker said. "From the beginning to the end, it was unprofessional."

OK....as I said before....I have the entire initial report...pictures and everything....I just read the transcript.....at NO time during the final approach phase were they joking or cursing at each other.....nor were they joking or cursing or ignoring the plane's warning system about approaching ground below.....the final report seems a little off.........

 

[81Horse]

I agree with you that continuing on until you get a normal angle is the safe thing to do. I do not agree that this approach is not legal.

But the safety (i.e., terrain/obstacle avoidance) is built into the regulation and TERPS criteria -- there's no legal wiggle room for a judgment call on how much or when you can duck under the MDA early (before the normal approach profile).

Not understanding this reg could easily get you a down on a checkride. Well, and then there's the whole Controlled Flight Into Terrain thing.

 

[pianoman]

This is why having a VDP planned and briefed is such an important part of any non-precision approach.

 

[81Horse]

Amen.

 

[Lequip]

OK....as I said before....I have the entire initial report...pictures and everything....I just read the transcript.....at NO time during the final approach phase were they joking or cursing at each other.....nor were they joking or cursing or ignoring the plane's warning system about approaching ground below.....the final report seems a little off.........

"I was extremely disappointed in what I heard" on the cockpit voice recorder, acting NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker said. "From the beginning to the end, it was unprofessional."



Moderator reviewed. Enough already, Lequip...your point has been made. To post more along this line is deliberate flamebaiting and won't be tolerated.

 

[apache]

PINC (Planned Intentional Non-Compliance)

Management has been doing this for years. Some managers even get bonuses for it.

 

[masedogg19]

"I was extremely disappointed in what I heard" on the cockpit voice recorder, acting NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker said. "From the beginning to the end, it was unprofessional."

Yes I'm quite capable of reading.....saw it the first time you posted it too.....but I disagree quite a bit with that statement.....

 

[apache]

OK....as I said before....I have the entire initial report...pictures and everything....I just read the transcript.....at NO time during the final approach phase were they joking or cursing at each other.....nor were they joking or cursing or ignoring the plane's warning system about approaching ground below.....the final report seems a little off.........

You, sir, are correct. This report is an abomination. You did not see the NTSB use phrases like "lack of professionalism" with regard to the AA crew in Little Rock. The board would never accuse Col. "management" Dickweed and his new-hire FO of lack of professionalism when they decided to land in a 55-knot crosswind and thunderstorm. These poor corpex guys have been dumped on because they were at the bottom of the food chain in respect in this industry. Others partially at fault have escaped blame, in my opinion.

 

[Lequip]

Yes I'm quite capable of reading.....saw it the first time you posted it too.....but I disagree quite a bit with that statement.....

Disagree all you want. He is the chairman of the NTSB and your a 1500 hour Willie FO. I think I know whose opinion I trust and it sure isn't yours!


"I was extremely disappointed in what I heard" on the cockpit voice recorder, acting NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker said. "From the beginning to the end, it was unprofessional."

Moderator reviewed...

 

[Lequip]

You, sir, are correct. This report is an abomination. You did not see the NTSB use phrases like "lack of professionalism" with regard to the AA crew in Little Rock. The board would never accuse Col. "management" Dickweed and his new-hire FO of lack of professionalism when they decided to land in a 55-knot crosswind and thunderstorm. These poor corpex guys have been dumped on because they were at the bottom of the food chain in respect in this industry. Others partially at fault have escaped blame, in my opinion.

Others partially at fault? Please explain. Who else is at fault here and don't play the fatigue card here. These pilots plain and simple screwd up big time. This one almost tops Pinnacles FL410 crash as one of the grossest examples of pilot incompetence and unprofessionalism. Just like playing the "race card" fatigue is nothing more than scapegoae in this case.

"I was extremely disappointed in what I heard" on the cockpit voice recorder, acting NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker said. "From the beginning to the end, it was unprofessional."

Moderator reviewed...

 

[masedogg19]

Wow....you're (not your) right...I'm wrong....the NTSB knows everything and always makes the correct proclamation and we should hold it on the same level as the Bible and the Constitution...............