User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 9:41:32 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was my impression. No, there is no possible way that is what happened. They performed a sloppy, and unapproved circle, overshot the final and pulled into a low altitude stall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 9:43:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe it was yet another instrument approach then circle to land casualty. They kill so many pilots in unforgiving fast aircraft. This. The Lear 35 was much safer/better than the predecessors but nothing to be fucked with. Circle to land approaches are sketchy as hell when you’re in a Cessna 172. A highest-of-the-high performance aircraft is an approach of last resort. Sucks for the crew. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 9:45:04 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure looks like he cranked the plane over to tighten the turn to get a line on the approach doesn't it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://i.imgur.com/V4Fixug.jpg] This shows that they were about to overshoot final…so perhaps an accelerated stall trying to intercept. This is one of the oldest “don’t do this” things in the flying book. Sure looks like he cranked the plane over to tighten the turn to get a line on the approach doesn't it. I feel like this is likely. Got into a turn then banked steeper and pulled to reef it in tighter and the physics of aerodynamics said, "no", and the plane departed hard and fast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 9:47:31 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. Not a pilot, and don’t even have that many hours on flight sim - but I was wondering the same. I would assume that things get busy in the cockpit on approach, but how does having two sets of eyes at such a critical time miss the conditions that led to the crash? Not trying to MMQB - legitimately just interested in SME feedback/ experience on how something like that happens. I’d think that having two pilots is providing some degree of redundancy, and there would be division of duties (again, no experience, just my thought process) of left side looking out side window, eyeing the runway, right side watching instruments and working control inputs. Sad event either way, RIP to those onboard, condolences to their families and all affected. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: When you suddenly realize you are at 300ft AGL, stalling and staring at a mountain. I can see how the pilot got fixated on watching the field, but how did the copilot not see this coming? This. Not a pilot, and don’t even have that many hours on flight sim - but I was wondering the same. I would assume that things get busy in the cockpit on approach, but how does having two sets of eyes at such a critical time miss the conditions that led to the crash? Not trying to MMQB - legitimately just interested in SME feedback/ experience on how something like that happens. I’d think that having two pilots is providing some degree of redundancy, and there would be division of duties (again, no experience, just my thought process) of left side looking out side window, eyeing the runway, right side watching instruments and working control inputs. Sad event either way, RIP to those onboard, condolences to their families and all affected. Circle to land at night in bad visibility and high terrain is a dangerous and difficult maneuver even if everything goes right. It obviously looked OK, until it didn't. Both pilots place a lot of trust in one another, and it may have been something they got away with many times before. Confirmation bias, complacency, expectation bias, fatigue. I struggle to find a analogy you can understand. Have you ever driven a car in dense fog or whiteout blizzard conditions? Remember how you had just enough data to stay on the road? You don’t dare look inside?, and you’re operating on instinct, hoping that instinct is correct? Well, picture that, except you’re maneuvering in 3 dimensions, and if your speed drops below 120 you die. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 9:48:41 PM EDT
[#5]
This may end up being another case of "get-there-itis kills."
If landing on runway 27R got him to his end point faster than taxiing back from runway 17, trying to save a few minutes led to the possible departure from controlled flight while turning final. How many people were on the plane? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 9:54:37 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This may end up being another case of "get-there-itis kills." If landing on runway 27R got him to his end point faster than taxiing back from runway 17, trying to save a few minutes led to the possible departure from controlled flight while turning final. How many people were on the plane? Two pilots, two medical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 9:55:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many people were on the plane? 4 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 9:55:46 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No it crashed... but what it didn't do is "explode" or "blow up" A bomb "explodes" A house filled with natural gas "explodes" An over pressured water heater "explodes" An aircraft hits the ground, fuel tanks rupture spraying fuel, which ignites into flames But it doesn't "explode" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Well it certainly didn't parachute to a soft landing now, did it ? No it crashed... but what it didn't do is "explode" or "blow up" A bomb "explodes" A house filled with natural gas "explodes" An over pressured water heater "explodes" An aircraft hits the ground, fuel tanks rupture spraying fuel, which ignites into flames But it doesn't "explode" Do you have Assburger Syndrome? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 9:56:09 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This may end up being another case of "get-there-itis kills." If landing on runway 27R got him to his end point faster than taxiing back from runway 17, trying to save a few minutes led to the possible departure from controlled flight while turning final. How many people were on the plane? Runway 17 would have gotten them to their hangar faster, it's already been discussed. It's thought that possibly they wanted 27R because it's a longer runway and conditions were wet. 2 pilots and 2 nurses were on board. They had flown a patient from Havasu to John Wayne Airport in Orange County earlier and were returning to their home base. It's an 18-20 minute flight from John Wayne to Gillespie field. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 9:58:42 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, there is no possible way that is what happened. They performed a sloppy, and unapproved circle, overshot the final and pulled into a low altitude stall. In addition, what's up with what appeared to sound like a full application of power for what seemed like a good while before the stall? How does that work against you or was his angle of attack/bank just too extreme regardless of power/speed? (and Gillespie Field is surrounded on three sides by mountains and hills. Same terrain that got Reba McEntire's crew out of Brown Field that night. Good friend was on that flight.  Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:07:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only thing missing in this typical stew of GD aviation basement Einsteins is mention of melting canopies. The most current one has checked in, but some others are still unaccounted for. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:12:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, there is no possible way that is what happened. They performed a sloppy, and unapproved circle, overshot the final and pulled into a low altitude stall. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That was my impression. No, there is no possible way that is what happened. They performed a sloppy, and unapproved circle, overshot the final and pulled into a low altitude stall. Thank you. For those of us that have zero knowlege of these things, what do you mean by unapproved circle? I thought they told him to make a circle around. Too small and banking too high? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:14:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In addition, what's up with what appeared to sound like a full application of power for what seemed like a good while before the stall? How does that work against you or was his angle of attack/bank just too extreme regardless of power/speed? (and Gillespie Field is surrounded on three sides by mountains and hills. Same terrain that got Reba McEntire's crew out of Brown Field that night. Good friend was on that flight. Thanks Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No, there is no possible way that is what happened. They performed a sloppy, and unapproved circle, overshot the final and pulled into a low altitude stall. In addition, what's up with what appeared to sound like a full application of power for what seemed like a good while before the stall? How does that work against you or was his angle of attack/bank just too extreme regardless of power/speed? (and Gillespie Field is surrounded on three sides by mountains and hills. Same terrain that got Reba McEntire's crew out of Brown Field that night. Good friend was on that flight. Thanks When you’re fully configured, low and slow, it takes a lot of power to hold altitude, or to descend at 7-800 fpm. That’s intentionally designed, because you need the engines spooled to have instant power available. Lears are loud anyway, and they were very low. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:19:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In order to see any of the instruments in the HUD, you need to be looking pretty much straight through the combiner. This guy was probably looking out the side window, so it probably wouldn’t have made any difference during the turn. HUD’s are awesome though. I just wish the airplanes I fly had enhanced vision tied into the HUD. I got to test fly the Dassault set up. Tits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:21:40 PM EDT
[#15]
Asking as a non-pilot, but what is it that makes a circle to land inherently dangerous? Is it because of altitude and/or aircraft configuration?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:22:12 PM EDT
[#16]
Apologies if I missed it - do we know more on the names of the passengers and pilot yet, and on the plane's home-base city yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:23:10 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Medical transport yes My buddy used to fly these jets as medical transport. You fly shit weather must go flights with very sick people. The planes were generally overworked under maintained. He finally gave it up after a string of close calls . Seemed like shit pay too. When I was doing this kind of work, we specifically had the medical crew exclude telling the flight crew the severity of the case onboard, as not to poison crew decisionmaking. The crew's job is to get the plane there safely, within the Federal Regulations and company SOPs. The crew's job is not to put the crew and aircraft at undue risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:26:25 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There’s a LOC approach. To 27R.  Check the gradient on arrival, and it only gets you to 1500' AGL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:28:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Apologies if I missed it - do we know more on the names of the passengers and pilot yet, and on the plane's home-base city yet? It was trying to land at its home base. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:33:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Asking as a non-pilot, but what is it that makes a circle to land inherently dangerous? Is it because of altitude and/or aircraft configuration? Low altitude, low energy state, transition from instrument to visual flight, often in a disorientating fashion (ground light reflection, banking, odd cloud banks, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:33:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Circle to land approaches are sketchy as hell when you're in a Cessna 172. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:37:37 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Low altitude, low energy state, transition from instrument to visual flight, often in a disorientating fashion (ground light reflection, banking, odd cloud banks, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Asking as a non-pilot, but what is it that makes a circle to land inherently dangerous? Is it because of altitude and/or aircraft configuration? Low altitude, low energy state, transition from instrument to visual flight, often in a disorientating fashion (ground light reflection, banking, odd cloud banks, etc. So should they have gained lots of height before circling and landed on the new runway straight approach from further? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:38:50 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was trying to land at its home base. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Apologies if I missed it - do we know more on the names of the passengers and pilot yet, and on the plane's home-base city yet? It was trying to land at its home base. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:46:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So should they have gained lots of height before circling and landed on the new runway straight approach from further? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:56:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Could the pilot might have been more confident because that was the home airport and they flew in and out of there every day?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 10:58:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Blancolirio
 San Diego Lear 35A Crash 27 Dec 2021 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:07:47 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryPaints a pretty grim picture |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:10:56 PM EDT
[#28]
At Gillespie Field, circling approaches are not authorized to Runway 27R or Runway 35 at night, most likely due to terrain or obstructions. By canceling his IFR flight plan, the pilot was now operating under VFR rules and can maneuver with more discretion, and not be bound by the restrictions published on the approach plates. At this point they aren't on an instrument approach any longer and simply enter the traffic pattern (in this case the controller instructed them to overfly the field and then enter left traffic).
It sounds like the cloud ceiling wasn't too low and VMC conditions were present so I'm unsure of why he had trouble with the lighting. I just feel like he got too low and was thinking Pepper Drive was RWY 27R or something and then suddenly realized it. This is sad. A lot of fatalities happen on final. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:12:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Circle to land at night in bad visibility and high terrain is a dangerous and difficult maneuver even if everything goes right. It obviously looked OK, until it didn't. Both pilots place a lot of trust in one another, and it may have been something they got away with many times before. Confirmation bias, complacency, expectation bias, fatigue. I struggle to find a analogy you can understand. Have you ever driven a car in dense fog or whiteout blizzard conditions? Remember how you had just enough data to stay on the road? You don’t dare look inside?, and you’re operating on instinct, hoping that instinct is correct? Well, picture that, except you’re maneuvering in 3 dimensions, and if your speed drops below 120 you die. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: When you suddenly realize you are at 300ft AGL, stalling and staring at a mountain. I can see how the pilot got fixated on watching the field, but how did the copilot not see this coming? This. Not a pilot, and don’t even have that many hours on flight sim - but I was wondering the same. I would assume that things get busy in the cockpit on approach, but how does having two sets of eyes at such a critical time miss the conditions that led to the crash? Not trying to MMQB - legitimately just interested in SME feedback/ experience on how something like that happens. I’d think that having two pilots is providing some degree of redundancy, and there would be division of duties (again, no experience, just my thought process) of left side looking out side window, eyeing the runway, right side watching instruments and working control inputs. Sad event either way, RIP to those onboard, condolences to their families and all affected. Circle to land at night in bad visibility and high terrain is a dangerous and difficult maneuver even if everything goes right. It obviously looked OK, until it didn't. Both pilots place a lot of trust in one another, and it may have been something they got away with many times before. Confirmation bias, complacency, expectation bias, fatigue. I struggle to find a analogy you can understand. Have you ever driven a car in dense fog or whiteout blizzard conditions? Remember how you had just enough data to stay on the road? You don’t dare look inside?, and you’re operating on instinct, hoping that instinct is correct? Well, picture that, except you’re maneuvering in 3 dimensions, and if your speed drops below 120 you die. @BillofRights Thank you very much - that helped immensely! Having grown up in New England, the white out condition driving makes perfect sense, so thank you very much for that. While my experience is more 2D, the part that escapes me is how someone else in the cockpit wouldn’t be aware of the same. Would I be mistaken in extrapolating the difference in a 3D/ multiple axis environment/ “confirmation bias” aspect to running a charter vessel, transiting a high traffic area at night, or having a blind view to aft while docking to a tight slip in high wind/ opposing tide and trusting crew to keep me from grounding/ hitting the pier or another vessel? Where that crew is confident in my ability and I in theirs, and everyone ends up, after multiple runs together, being somewhat complacent in calling out a hazardous condition, solely based on the other persons demonstrated history? I know it’s not the same (property damage vs loss of life) but I’m trying to understand and establish parallels without any direct experience. I appreciate what you and the other pilots and maintainers have posted and responded to so far, it’s been very educational and eye opening. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:13:21 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No shit. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Instructor at FSI flat out told me circling, at minimums, in a jet, is stupid. I agree. No shit. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I've been on a few commercial flights over the years that circled the airport before landing. Like 737 type aircraft. What is different about that vs a Learjet doing it? I mean, it's not uncommon for large commercial jets to sort of loiter before coming in on final, is it? Honestly just curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:17:45 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Thank you. For those of us that have zero knowlege of these things, what do you mean by unapproved circle? I thought they told him to make a circle around. Too small and banking too high? They shot an approach to one runway and instead of landing straight in they tried to game the system by flying a visual pattern to another runway. This is called a circle to land, circle for short.  Attached FileThis is the portion of the approach plate to 17 that specifically states circles to 27 are not authorized at night. To get around that the crew “cancelled IFR” (Instrument Flight Rules) and the tower approved the circle since they were now under “Visual Flight Rules” which makes the circle legalish. If I were the tower controller I’d be shitting bricks. Quoted: Asking as a non-pilot, but what is it that makes a circle to land inherently dangerous? Is it because of altitude and/or aircraft configuration? It’s something we generally only do in a sterile training environment once or twice a year. It’s easy to screw up if you’re not on your A-game. That said, if you do what you’re supposed to they’re not dangerous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:20:40 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On a circle to land the aircraft must remain within a specified distance (radius) from the runway being used, this distance is specified on the approach plate and based on the approach speed of the aircraft being flown. The aircraft must remain clear of the clouds (visual) and the pilot must not lose sight of the runway or a missed approach must be executed. As you can see, visibility is critical and this is where most pilots f*ck it up. While I didn’t ask the question you answered, this helped immensely for a non-initiated, thank you, |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:21:00 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Asking as a non-pilot, but what is it that makes a circle to land inherently dangerous? Is it because of altitude and/or aircraft configuration? One of the most significant issues -- among several -- with a circle at IFR mins is that you're performing a visual pattern much lower than the pilot is used to. A normal pattern for a large or fast aircraft is going to be at 1500' above the ground. A pilot develops over time a feel for how things should look at that altitude, especially in terms of lateral displacement from the runway when making a downwind or base leg of a landing pattern. Many instrument circling approaches take place at altitudes between 300' and 1000' above ground level -- and usually in poor visual conditions -- and there is a tendency at the lower altitudes for pilots to want to make their visual position look like what they're used to at the "normal" higher altitude. Making your downwind or base at 500' look like when you're up at 1500' means you are much too close to the landing runway than you need to be. This close proximity can lead to things like overshooting the final approach course because the turn radius of the aircraft is the same, but you're located closer to the runway than you think you are. And many pilots have made the mistake of pulling harder to "fix" an overshooting final...with the same fatal results through the history of aviation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:25:59 PM EDT
[#34]
...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:26:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One of the most significant issues -- among several -- with a circle at IFR mins is that you're performing a visual pattern much lower than the pilot is used to. A normal pattern for a large or fast aircraft is going to be at 1500' above the ground. A pilot develops over time a feel for how things should look at that altitude, especially in terms of lateral displacement from the runway when making a downwind or base leg of a landing pattern. Many instrument circling approaches take place at altitudes between 300' and 1000' above ground level -- and usually in poor visual conditions -- and there is a tendency at the lower altitudes for pilots to want to make their visual position look like what they're used to at the "normal" higher altitude. Making your downwind or base at 500' look like when you're up at 1500' means you are much too close to the landing runway than you need to be. This close proximity can lead to things like overshooting the final approach course because the turn radius of the aircraft is the same, but you're located closer to the runway than you think you are. And many pilots have made the mistake of pulling harder to "fix" an overshooting final...with the same fatal results through the history of aviation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Asking as a non-pilot, but what is it that makes a circle to land inherently dangerous? Is it because of altitude and/or aircraft configuration? One of the most significant issues -- among several -- with a circle at IFR mins is that you're performing a visual pattern much lower than the pilot is used to. A normal pattern for a large or fast aircraft is going to be at 1500' above the ground. A pilot develops over time a feel for how things should look at that altitude, especially in terms of lateral displacement from the runway when making a downwind or base leg of a landing pattern. Many instrument circling approaches take place at altitudes between 300' and 1000' above ground level -- and usually in poor visual conditions -- and there is a tendency at the lower altitudes for pilots to want to make their visual position look like what they're used to at the "normal" higher altitude. Making your downwind or base at 500' look like when you're up at 1500' means you are much too close to the landing runway than you need to be. This close proximity can lead to things like overshooting the final approach course because the turn radius of the aircraft is the same, but you're located closer to the runway than you think you are. And many pilots have made the mistake of pulling harder to "fix" an overshooting final...with the same fatal results through the history of aviation. FWIW: KSEE 280255Z VRB05KT 3SM BR BKN020 OVC026 10/08 A2998 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:27:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Low altitude, low energy state, transition from instrument to visual flight, often in a disorientating fashion (ground light reflection, banking, odd cloud banks, etc. Quoted: They shot an approach to one runway and instead of landing straight in they tried to game the system by flying a visual pattern to another runway. This is called a circle to land, circle for short. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/232306/3A76624B-55CC-4764-9738-BC5695D5E035_jpe-2220302.JPG This is the portion of the approach plate to 17 that specifically states circles to 27 are not authorized at night. To get around that the crew “cancelled IFR” (Instrument Flight Rules) and the tower approved the circle since they were now under “Visual Flight Rules” which makes the circle legalish. If I were the tower controller I’d be shitting bricks. It’s something we generally only do in a sterile training environment once or twice a year. It’s easy to screw up if you’re not on your A-game. That said, if you do what you’re supposed to they’re not dangerous. OK, thank you both. Now with that being said, why would a pilot ditch the initial landing and go for a different one, barring any mechanical difficulties. Obviously we can't know what he was thinking, but why would he do that? EDIT: @MudEagle answered it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:30:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s something we generally only do in a sterile training environment once or twice a year. It’s easy to screw up if you’re not on your A-game. That said, if you do what you’re supposed to they’re not dangerous. Sharp turn=crash and burn Always remember that phrase from training. He said to take those turns wide like I like my women. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:31:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They shot an approach to one runway and instead of landing straight in they tried to game the system by flying a visual pattern to another runway. This is called a circle to land, circle for short. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/232306/3A76624B-55CC-4764-9738-BC5695D5E035_jpe-2220302.JPG This is the portion of the approach plate to 17 that specifically states circles to 27 are not authorized at night. To get around that the crew “cancelled IFR” (Instrument Flight Rules) and the tower approved the circle since they were now under “Visual Flight Rules” which makes the circle legalish. If I were the tower controller I’d be shitting bricks. It’s something we generally only do in a sterile training environment once or twice a year. It’s easy to screw up if you’re not on your A-game. That said, if you do what you’re supposed to they’re not dangerous. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Thank you. For those of us that have zero knowlege of these things, what do you mean by unapproved circle? I thought they told him to make a circle around. Too small and banking too high? They shot an approach to one runway and instead of landing straight in they tried to game the system by flying a visual pattern to another runway. This is called a circle to land, circle for short. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/232306/3A76624B-55CC-4764-9738-BC5695D5E035_jpe-2220302.JPG This is the portion of the approach plate to 17 that specifically states circles to 27 are not authorized at night. To get around that the crew “cancelled IFR” (Instrument Flight Rules) and the tower approved the circle since they were now under “Visual Flight Rules” which makes the circle legalish. If I were the tower controller I’d be shitting bricks. Quoted: Asking as a non-pilot, but what is it that makes a circle to land inherently dangerous? Is it because of altitude and/or aircraft configuration? It’s something we generally only do in a sterile training environment once or twice a year. It’s easy to screw up if you’re not on your A-game. That said, if you do what you’re supposed to they’re not dangerous. Thanks, now it all makes sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:34:57 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've been on a few commercial flights over the years that circled the airport before landing. Like 737 type aircraft. What is different about that vs a Learjet doing it? I mean, it's not uncommon for large commercial jets to sort of loiter before coming in on final, is it? Honestly just curious. Circle to land is a very specific type of landing. Some others with more current experience have explained it pretty well in some other posts. A holding pattern (circling away from the airport before landing) is common with commercial flights, waiting for a slot for landing at busy airports. A little less common is a pattern to landing in which a commercial joins a a set parallel course to the runway (but opposite direction to landing) then makes a turn perpendicular to the runway, then another turn to final approach. This is more likely at smaller regional airports for commercial /commuter planes. Circle to land is not common at commercial hubs, where approach vectors aircraft straight into the active runways, or the standard approaches that are prescribed , do the same thing; as well at the commercial planes having lots of automation for low visibility landings. Some fully self-landing. Smaller business and general aviation aircraft don't usually have that kind of autopilot, and also fly into airports that don't have true precision approaches, so things like circle to land have to be used. Often based on starting at a known point then making turns and descents based on airspeed/time/descent rates. Circle to land is more common in commercial aviation in less developed nations with smaller or less equipped airports. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:36:35 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OK, thank you both. Now with that being said, why would a pilot ditch the initial landing and go for a different one, barring any mechanical difficulties. Obviously we can't know what he was thinking, but why would he do that? EDIT: @MudEagle answered it. Thanks. Any number of reasons from weather to he had to piss. The circle is designed to give you the best chance of finding a runway with the option of landing on a different runway with more favorable winds. For example, you would much rather shoot the approach to 17 and circle to 27 if the winds were 290 @18. That would mean the difference between landing with the full force of the wind on your right wing as opposed to being almost directly off your nose. Or, maybe the crew was at the tail end of a long day and just wanted a shorter taxi so they could get to home quicker. If Gillespie was their home field I’ll bet it was the latter since the winds were virtually non-existent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:37:41 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:38:02 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They shot an approach to one runway and instead of landing straight in they tried to game the system by flying a visual pattern to another runway. This is called a circle to land, circle for short. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/232306/3A76624B-55CC-4764-9738-BC5695D5E035_jpe-2220302.JPG This is the portion of the approach plate to 17 that specifically states circles to 27 are not authorized at night. To get around that the crew “cancelled IFR” (Instrument Flight Rules) and the tower approved the circle since they were now under “Visual Flight Rules” which makes the circle legalish. If I were the tower controller I’d be shitting bricks. It’s something we generally only do in a sterile training environment once or twice a year. It’s easy to screw up if you’re not on your A-game. That said, if you do what you’re supposed to they’re not dangerous. Wow. Yeah...that is pooch screwing. On multiple people. Pilots were probably complacent and overly comfortable with their home base. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:39:32 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If Gillespie was their home field I’ll bet it was the latter since the winds were virtually non-existent. It was windy that night.  Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:40:37 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any number of reasons from weather to he had to piss. The circle is designed to give you the best chance of finding a runway with the option of landing on a different runway with more favorable winds. For example, you would much rather shoot the approach to 17 and circle to 27 if the winds were 290 @18. That would mean the difference between landing with the full force of the wind on your right wing as opposed to being almost directly off your nose. Or, maybe the crew was at the tail end of a long day and just wanted a shorter taxi so they could get to home quicker. If Gillespie was their home field I’ll bet it was the latter since the winds were virtually non-existent. Not to speak ill of the dead, but complacency? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:43:20 PM EDT
[#45]
Not at the airport.  Attached FileQuoted: Not to speak ill of the dead, but complacency? My money is the hazardous attitude of “it can’t happen to me.” All of us are prone to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:48:56 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2021 11:52:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pedantic Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No it crashed... but what it didn't do is "explode" or "blow up" A bomb "explodes" A house filled with natural gas "explodes" An over pressured water heater "explodes" An aircraft hits the ground, fuel tanks rupture spraying fuel, which ignites into flames But it doesn't "explode" Pedantic Meh. Just a fire fighter flex. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2021 12:06:37 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @BillofRights Thank you very much - that helped immensely! Having grown up in New England, the white out condition driving makes perfect sense, so thank you very much for that. While my experience is more 2D, the part that escapes me is how someone else in the cockpit wouldn’t be aware of the same. Would I be mistaken in extrapolating the difference in a 3D/ multiple axis environment/ “confirmation bias” aspect to running a charter vessel, transiting a high traffic area at night, or having a blind view to aft while docking to a tight slip in high wind/ opposing tide and trusting crew to keep me from grounding/ hitting the pier or another vessel? Where that crew is confident in my ability and I in theirs, and everyone ends up, after multiple runs together, being somewhat complacent in calling out a hazardous condition, solely based on the other persons demonstrated history? I know it’s not the same (property damage vs loss of life) but I’m trying to understand and establish parallels without any direct experience. I appreciate what you and the other pilots and maintainers have posted and responded to so far, it’s been very educational and eye opening. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When you suddenly realize you are at 300ft AGL, stalling and staring at a mountain. I can see how the pilot got fixated on watching the field, but how did the copilot not see this coming? This. Not a pilot, and don’t even have that many hours on flight sim - but I was wondering the same. I would assume that things get busy in the cockpit on approach, but how does having two sets of eyes at such a critical time miss the conditions that led to the crash? Not trying to MMQB - legitimately just interested in SME feedback/ experience on how something like that happens. I’d think that having two pilots is providing some degree of redundancy, and there would be division of duties (again, no experience, just my thought process) of left side looking out side window, eyeing the runway, right side watching instruments and working control inputs. Sad event either way, RIP to those onboard, condolences to their families and all affected. Circle to land at night in bad visibility and high terrain is a dangerous and difficult maneuver even if everything goes right. It obviously looked OK, until it didn't. Both pilots place a lot of trust in one another, and it may have been something they got away with many times before. Confirmation bias, complacency, expectation bias, fatigue. I struggle to find a analogy you can understand. Have you ever driven a car in dense fog or whiteout blizzard conditions? Remember how you had just enough data to stay on the road? You don’t dare look inside?, and you’re operating on instinct, hoping that instinct is correct? Well, picture that, except you’re maneuvering in 3 dimensions, and if your speed drops below 120 you die. @BillofRights Thank you very much - that helped immensely! Having grown up in New England, the white out condition driving makes perfect sense, so thank you very much for that. While my experience is more 2D, the part that escapes me is how someone else in the cockpit wouldn’t be aware of the same. Would I be mistaken in extrapolating the difference in a 3D/ multiple axis environment/ “confirmation bias” aspect to running a charter vessel, transiting a high traffic area at night, or having a blind view to aft while docking to a tight slip in high wind/ opposing tide and trusting crew to keep me from grounding/ hitting the pier or another vessel? Where that crew is confident in my ability and I in theirs, and everyone ends up, after multiple runs together, being somewhat complacent in calling out a hazardous condition, solely based on the other persons demonstrated history? I know it’s not the same (property damage vs loss of life) but I’m trying to understand and establish parallels without any direct experience. I appreciate what you and the other pilots and maintainers have posted and responded to so far, it’s been very educational and eye opening. Sure, there is a very fine line between competency and complacency. Often, in dangerous occupations, that line is blurred, and there’s nobody and nothing to tell you when that line is crossed. In airlines, the flying is done under a microscope all the time. There are rules upon rules and each one is stringently followed. Deviations are automatically reported and relentlessly tracked and eliminated. All of that makes for a safer, if more stressful, operation. Other general aviation style flying, is not like that at all. It relies on good judgement, with almost no oversight, unless something goes wrong. Most guys are good, some less so, but even the good ones can have a bad day. Psychologically, going around at the last minute, is the most difficult thing to do. Your every thought is focused on correcting the continually changing parameters, instinctually making thousands of calculations and tiny adjustments. You get immersed in it. Time compression and adrenaline, a sort of natural high. We just aren’t designed to step back and acknowledge “oh, I fucked up, lemme embarrass myself and do it all over again….” It’s difficult to find an analogy. Maybe a hard MMA fight, where you already have the other guy beaten, then you quit and start over again because of a technicality in the rules? Additionally, a last minute go around is the most difficult technically challenging maneuver to do. Which way do you turn? And When? It’s a handful, even if you anticipated it and briefed it before hand. On top of that, the pilot boxed himself in when he cancelled IFR. Yes, he Could have and should have punched back into the clouds, but he would be reticent to commit a violation of the FARs. The tower set him up to fail, when he coached him into going VFR. He Should have said “Night IFR circle to land is prohibited”, but it’s not his job to give advice or babysit the pilots. His job is Only to separate traffic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2021 12:09:00 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh. Just a fire fighter flex. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No it crashed... but what it didn't do is "explode" or "blow up" A bomb "explodes" A house filled with natural gas "explodes" An over pressured water heater "explodes" An aircraft hits the ground, fuel tanks rupture spraying fuel, which ignites into flames But it doesn't "explode" Pedantic Meh. Just a fire fighter flex. Dude thinks he's a friggin astronaut because he steers the back of a tractor drawn aerial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2021 12:11:12 AM EDT
[#50]
Damn, it crashed two blocks from a house I own.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
