Who is excited about PQI?
11-11-2021, 06:25 PM
#13
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2021
Posts: 794
Originally Posted by jacburn
I didn't realize that the final report had been released. What is the link to the report? I can't seem to find it on the NTSB site.
11-11-2021, 06:26 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: It's a plane and it's a seat
Posts: 950
Originally Posted by jacburn
I didn't realize that the final report had been released. What is the link to the report? I can't seem to find it on the NTSB site.
Prelim report/factual data states ILS equipment was fully functional
11-11-2021, 06:33 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by jacburn
Good to know.
So what happens to the ILS signal when half the antenna is covered with deep snow for several days?
So what happens to the ILS signal when half the antenna is covered with deep snow for several days?
If the snow gets too high, the ILS has to be NOTAM’d OTS until it melts down enough or the snow has to be removed.
11-11-2021, 09:03 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 271
Originally Posted by prt135
There are snow height limits that are monitored by the FAA, often with the help of airport personnel since the FAA may not be on sight every day at smaller airports.
If the snow gets too high, the ILS has to be NOTAM’d OTS until it melts down enough or the snow has to be removed.
If the snow gets too high, the ILS has to be NOTAM’d OTS until it melts down enough or the snow has to be removed.
11-12-2021, 04:23 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 833
Originally Posted by dead meat
That was the problem with PQI. The FAA wasn't going up there to flight check the ILS and airport personnel were not paying attention to the snow piled up against the localizer antenna.
11-12-2021, 07:14 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: It's a plane and it's a seat
Posts: 950
Originally Posted by jacburn
I didn't realize that the final report had been released. What is the link to the report? I can't seem to find it on the NTSB site.
Why did this crew land in the snow/grass? If they were getting erroneous LOC signals why did they continue the approach? The CA’s background also comes into play(training failures, asked to leave different carriers)
I flew many approaches back in the day to remote airports in the Sierras in my 135 days. These airports had less service then PQI. You break out at minimums and if you don’t have the runway in sight go around. Once again, why didn’t they go around?
11-12-2021, 08:59 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 271
Originally Posted by KelvinHelmholtz
Is that an excuse for landing on the snow/grass adjacent to the runway and destroying a 145?
11-12-2021, 09:02 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 271
Originally Posted by flynd94
Also at that time was C5 authorized to do CAT1 approaches. Break out at 200ft, no runway and you go around.
Why did this crew land in the snow/grass? If they were getting erroneous LOC signals why did they continue the approach? The CA’s background also comes into play(training failures, asked to leave different carriers)
I flew many approaches back in the day to remote airports in the Sierras in my 135 days. These airports had less service then PQI. You break out at minimums and if you don’t have the runway in sight go around. Once again, why didn’t they go around?
Why did this crew land in the snow/grass? If they were getting erroneous LOC signals why did they continue the approach? The CA’s background also comes into play(training failures, asked to leave different carriers)
I flew many approaches back in the day to remote airports in the Sierras in my 135 days. These airports had less service then PQI. You break out at minimums and if you don’t have the runway in sight go around. Once again, why didn’t they go around?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
almadadavid
Flight Schools and Training
14
05-30-2009 06:11 AM
