Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (
-   Safety (
-   -   Good day for GPWS (

ZeroTT 01-20-2018 05:44 PM

Good day for GPWS
Incident: Skywest CRJ9 at Medford on Dec 24th 2017, GPWS alert on approach

Flogger 01-21-2018 07:55 AM

This goes back to the pre-TEM days of swiss cheese layers.

They punched thru 3 layers of cheese and they just missed the hole in the 4th layer. Good thing the GPWS was there as a 4th layer.

The 5th unintended cheese layer of 7800 feet may have saved them by a few hundred feet, but maybe not at at 6 degrees celsius?

Big fat Awe-Crap on ATC for a LET THE LAWYERS SORT IT OUT clearance. I'm not a controller, so I will defer judgement.

Aw-crap on the crew for taking the ambiguous ATC clearance bait.

Big fat Atta-boy to the crew for following the GPWS. Many FOQUA events reflect crews disregarding GPWS or being dangerously slow to react.

rickair7777 01-21-2018 08:24 AM


Originally Posted by Mercyful Fate (Post 2507845)
Is the GPWS something that is always required to be operational for a 121 operated flight?

No, but IIRC it's a 1 or 3 day MEL.

NeverHome 01-21-2018 08:35 AM

Not that I have a dog in this particular fight, but I am seeing a trend with ATC here. I have been getting cleared for approaches into nontowered airports where they “allow” me to descend below a published segment. I say allow because those clearances are extremely misleading. A simple, cleared at or above “fix minimums” cleared “approach “ would suffice. Not clear us for anything lower than the segment altitude.

Just my .02

rickair7777 01-21-2018 08:45 AM

In US domestic ops, RJ drivers get used to quickly dancing to arbitrary and constantly changing ATC instructions in large terminal areas. If you fail to respond instantly, you'll likely create a conflict.

This leads to the mindset of comply now, think about it later. In this case the crew should have at least double checked what they were doing after they initiated the descent.

But these guys have been trained by the system to react quickly... foreign aircraft are handled with kid gloves, and the locals are assumed to be familiar with the area, experienced, with a good command of english so they get used and abused when ATC needs buffers and adjustments.

They are also very accustomed to getting vectored in below published altitudes... even on complex non-precision approaches in the mountains. Most of them are probably not aware that a "cross at or above" clearance could legally be issued with an altitude below safe altitudes on the approach. Most would tell you (based on common practice) that you can immediately descend to the at or above altitude.

What the controller did may or may not have been legal, but it sure wasn't consistent with what his buddies do in practice

SonicFlyer 01-22-2018 09:51 AM

SKW CRJ has near CFIT:
Incident: Skywest CRJ9 at Medford on Dec 24th 2017, GPWS alert on approach

peepz 01-22-2018 09:53 AM


Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 2508597)


aaatwood 01-22-2018 06:28 PM

GPWS saves the day
A Skywest CRJ9 was cleared to "at or above 7800'" on an approach that specified an altitude of 10000'. Down they went to 7800, but the GPWS prevented collision with the mountains.

Any thoughts on the appropriateness of the ATC clearance?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:28 PM.

User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands