Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By tomshep
#1694474
I'm not licensed to get myself into that sort of mess but what would I do if I were?
I would know that I should be able to see the airport lights once low enough and that ATC had a better idea of where I was than I had. If they can call my height, confirm my heading and assure me that I am over the runway, why wouldn't I continue, placing my trust in those better able to help me than I could myself?
I could be certain that JFK has enough runway to get a 172 down with a mile or so margin of error. The shortest is a mile and a half.
Some credit to the pilot though. He maintained his composure and flew it right to the crash site.
User avatar
By Katamarino
#1694475
tomshep wrote:I'm not licensed to get myself into that sort of mess but what would I do if I were?
I would know that I should be able to see the airport lights once low enough and that ATC had a better idea of where I was than I had. If they can call my height, confirm my heading and assure me that I am over the runway, why wouldn't I continue, placing my trust in those better able to help me than I could myself?
I could be certain that JFK has enough runway to get a 172 down with a mile or so margin of error. The shortest is a mile and a half.
Some credit to the pilot though. He maintained his composure and flew it right to the crash site.


He might have been better off just flying 30 minutes west to VFR conditions, of course! A bit of a numpty it seems from what we know so far.
Flyin'Dutch', Iceman liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1694952
PeteSpencer wrote:Keeping the needles centred should not be too much of a problem as he slipped below minima. As ice says better to splat on a wide expanse of flat tarmac than dangling from power cables in a residential area.


tomshep wrote:I would know that I should be able to see the airport lights once low enough and that ATC had a better idea of where I was than I had. If they can call my height, confirm my heading and assure me that I am over the runway, why wouldn't I continue, placing my trust in those better able to help me than I could myself? I could be certain that JFK has enough runway to get a 172 down with a mile or so margin of error.


It may have been that the pilot thought he might get prosecuted...don't know about the US, but this is happening in Jersey:

https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1694947#p1694947

https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/dangerous-flying-incident-under-police-investigation/#.XOMe_shKg2w

The alleged law breaches include:

Endangering safety of aircraft: A person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in the aircraft.

Endangering safety of any person or property: A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

Failing to comply with official directions

Conducting an approach and landing when the visibility or relevant runway visual range is less than that specified for a Category 1 operation (a precision approach and landing with a decision height not lower than 200 feet and with either a visibility not less than 800 metres or a runway visual range not less than 550 metres).

Descending from a height of 1,000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1,000 feet above the aerodrome if the reported visibility or relevant runway visual range at the aerodrome is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.
User avatar
By AndyR
#1694968
Just in case anyone is tempted...Please don’t follow an ILS below minima. The glide path can and does do all sorts of things.

Those aircraft certified to fly to CAT III minima have dual radalt and far more sophisticated mapping of the foreground than any GA aircraft will have. Once below 100’ the glide path won’t be used, albeit the localiser will.
Adrian, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1694969
Paul_Sengupta wrote:It may have been that the pilot thought he might get prosecuted...don't know about the US, but this is happening in Jersey


The US has a system whereby you can self declare a transgression which means you won't get prosecuted if you've screwed up and come clean.

But either way, anyone who thinks it is better to have an accident than potentially be prosecuted needs to rethink their priorities and quite possibly their involvement in aviation.

AndyR wrote:Just in case anyone is tempted...Please don’t follow an ILS below minima. The glide path can and does do all sorts of things.


Yeah, but Tiomthy says.......

:shock:
kanga liked this
By johnm
#1695010
It's an emergency when you are running out of options.

I fly IFR into Channel Islands a good deal, as does @derekf fog is a hazard at many times of the year and winds can be pretty drastic and things can change in minutes.

In Alderney there's only been a single narrow runway with an LPV approach for some while and I have had a few hairy moments, but I always go with enough fuel to come home if all else fails and all else is two or three goes into Alderney, then divert to one of Guernsey, Jersey, Cherbourg or Dinard.
User avatar
By akg1486
#1695025
johnm wrote:It's an emergency when you are running out of options.

I fly IFR into Channel Islands a good deal, as does @derekf fog is a hazard at many times of the year and winds can be pretty drastic and things can change in minutes.

In Alderney there's only been a single narrow runway with an LPV approach for some while and I have had a few hairy moments, but I always go with enough fuel to come home if all else fails and all else is two or three goes into Alderney, then divert to one of Guernsey, Jersey, Cherbourg or Dinard.

A good example on why the VFR 30 minutes fuel reserve is not always enough. It doesn't need to be bad weather: if the destination is the only airfield for many, many miles, you don't have a lot of options if there's been an accident just before your arrival.
johnm, derekf liked this