Hawkerdriver1

The minimum visibility criteria, for category “”C” & “D” aircraft, needs to be increased.. The speeds these aircraft are operating at, in marginal visibilities, are compelling pilot deviations from SOP’s: ( Bank angles being exceeded.)

In San Diego. A Lear 35A killing 4. (Fog)
In Truckee. A Challenger 605 killing 6. (Smoke)
In Chicago (PDK) A Lear 35 killing 2 (Clouds)
In Truckee. A Lear 35A killing 2 (Clouds)

It doesn’t help that the older Lears are not the most forgiving aircraft either. I flew all the models myself from the 23, 24,25, 35A, 36, 40, 45 & 55. The 30 series alone has “7” different wings. The Challenger was once a Lear design purchased by Bombardier too.

Someone, in a different forum, mentioned how the industry is getting these people killed. That, since there is not enough of a speed margin, above a stall, the solution is simply to increase the margin an additional 10 knots. Ridiculous, in my humble opinion. Imposing a “band aid” solution since pilots can’t help themselves from deviating from SOP’s when conditions warrant it. Really?



HD

rickair7777

The industry is experiencing a crisis of pilot experience, and perhaps even quality. You cannot deny that 91/135 pilots have unprecedented opportunities in 121 right now.

Airlines see it too, and all have made a variety of systemic adaptions in training and line ops in recent years. 121 as a whole and most individual airlines have a large enough data set (which they actually collect and analyze routinely) to spot trends and react.

Most 91/135 operators are too small to benefit much from a data-driven approach at the level of individual operators... the three near-misses that occurred prior to the smoking hole happened at other operators so the accident operator had little visibility other than waiting for the NTSB. IIRC alphabet groups like NBAA do share some data, but maybe the FAA does need to weigh in... the system has changed and it's not reverting to how it used to be for many years, so it's reasonable that some adjustment needs to happen.

Hawkerdriver1

Well said 👍

JohnBurke

Because stupid pilots did stupid things, we should increase the circling radii?

Minimums are just that; the bare minimum. They are predicated on obstacle clearance. Want to go lower? The circling minimums will only allow so low before compromised by obstacles; expand those circles and the minimums are higher.

If you circle, nothing precludes you from using higher minima. If you're a category airplane, you're not prohibited from acting more conservatively and flying with a Category D or E minimum. You can't go as low, which means you may not get into your destination, but you also have more room...the amount of room you have is tied to the approach category, and the circling approach category is determined not by the aircraft you are flying, but by the speed at which you circle.

So, we need to increase the circling minimums, as in make the higher, or increase the circling radii and give more room to turn? That radius already exists: just use a higher category. We need to increase those values why? Because someone else overbanks and crashes? Brilliant logic: next time the barn burns down, let's de-horn all the cows. Non-sequitur, irrelevant, and dare I say freaking idiotic, but because someone exceeds their aircraft limitations, acts stupidly and kills people then we need to alter the TERPS standard criteria? We're altering it to permit people to be more stupid? Where's the logic in that?

The minimum visibility needs to be increased? Isn't the point of flying an approach that we are flying to a location that may or may not have reduced visibility? The procedure is there for those who are willing to fly into that location. Nothing mandates that a person fly to that location; no one is forced to use that procedure or land there. Nothing says that person must fly to minimums, and frankly, among the cases you cited, not all involved people who remained above minimums. The Lear in San Diego most recently, for example, was flying that approach in conditions below minimums (we've had a detailed discussion about that here already). If the visibility minimums are increased, thus making the procedure less accessible in low weather, will the lear pilot that went below mins and crashed suddenly find religion and begin observing the legality of the procedure? No. This is proveable. He's dead and took his crew with him; the outcome is beyond contestation.

Nothing says we have to continue an approach to minimums. We can use higher personal minimums. If we're going to fly to minimums and circle, then the expectation is that we're competent, proficient, and capable. You can't regulate or legislate away stupidity, incompetence, unwillingness, inability, or refusal.

How about simply adding big red letters that say "don't overbank or stall your airplane?" No? Sort of goes without saying, doesn't it?

What on earth does any of that have to do with the price of tea in china? The lears, including the older ones, aren't exactly challenging, nor are they "unforgiving." They're just airplanes. They have slightly swept leading edges but straight wings. While there are some variations in fences and boundary layer energizers and so on, they fly like an airplane, and exhibit no surprise behavior. They circle like anything else. It doesn't really matter if there are variations; this has nothing to do with flying a circling approach. It doesn't matter if Bombardier or Ralph Lauren built them: why bring it up? Muddy the water? They're airplanes, period. Fly them. End of story.

Somebody, in a different forum? Really? There is it, a grand jury indictment. Let's change the world based on what somebody in another forum said.

Let's set that record straight. The industry is not killing "these people," whomever "these people" are. "The industry" is not killing anyone. If someone flies a learjet or a piper cub or a 767 beyond their capability, then that's on the person flying it there. Learn to fly. Use proper airmanship. Learn to say no. Add some speed.

And there it is. Yes, you can add speed. Yes, it's appropriate. Yes, you can use a higher category and there's your increased circling radius, increased visibility, increased minima. Go figure.

You find adding speed to be ridiculous? We add speed to approaches for wind and gusting conditions. We have increased speed due to configuration or equipment limitations. It may be a wise choice in certain icing conditions in certain airplanes. It may be worth holding on to your speed when circling, too.

The regulation is full of minimums. Minimum experience for a given level of pilot certification. Minimum altitudes over the surface. Minimum visibilities and altitudes, and minimum amounts of recency of experience such as landings in the last 90 days. Nothing forces you, or anyone else to operate to the bare minimum. It's okay to hold yourself to a higher standard.

Certainly truckee is an airport. Certainly it exists. Certainly it has an approach procedure, but the mountain on which it is located is as real as the airport itself, as are nearby alternates, and there is no law that prevents one from using good judgement to land at Reno and pick up a rental car.

Just because one can, doesn't mean one must, or even that one should.

It also doesn't mean that the approach criteria need to be re-written based on bad judgement, illegal acts, or glaring stupidity.