Avanti down at KGTU (12/18/2017) - no injuries or fatalities

[BigBadLou]

I forgot to post this one yesterday: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/12/piaggio-p180-avanti-incident-occurred.html

Avanti 180 had a rwy excursion on landing.
Weather yesterday morning (around 0745L) was low, 1/4SM and OVC003 with barely any winds and DZ (stagnant warm front sitting over us). No icing.
KGTU has only RNAV approaches that don't go as low as ILS and their visibility sure does not allow 1/4SM.

Witnesses reported that the Piaggio came in high, dropped in, was too fast, landed long, brakes locked up and plane skidded off the rwy, taking out numerous rwy edge lights with it.

Nobody hurt so that's a relief. Though I smell a 709 ride in near future.
Weather improved slightly over the next hour or two, went up to 1 1/2 SM and that would have probably helped them start their final descent from MDA at VDP if they had just waited a little.

(Fecesbook is full of comments, mostly snarky - as per the attached screenshot - not mine)

 

[Ted]

If it's part 91, you're allowed to shoot the approach anyway and see if you can determine that you have the legal required visibility. I've seen it go both ways - sometimes automated weather gives you reports that are optimistic, and sometimes pessimistic. So if they were 91 they were legal to shoot the approach. Looks like the LPV on RNAV 18 goes down to 250 AGL which is pretty good. Keep in mind that an LPV approach flies like an ILS (lateral and vertical guidance) assuming the aircraft was so equipped.

Not knowing the equipment on the plane, it sounds like they either were shooting an LNAV only and then dove for the runway, or shot an LPV and then leveled off at 250 AGL (instead of going missed - it's a MAP so you should go missed) and then dove when they saw the runway. Or else they may have started a missed approach, saw the runway, and then tried to put it down.

If they were Part 91 there's nothing illegal about shooting the approach, you're just supposed to go missed when you hit the MAP or realize you don't have the appropriate minimums/visibility. But this is also a good example of why you're not allowed to shoot approaches under 135 unless you have legal minimums.

 

[James331]

METAR/SPECI from KGTU, Georgetown Automatic Weather Observing / Reporting System (United States).

SA 18/12/2017 15:56->
METAR KGTU 181556Z 09003KT 1/2SM FG OVC003 10/10 A3022 RMK
AO2 SLP234 T01000100=

SP 18/12/2017 15:45->
SPECI KGTU 181545Z 06005KT 1/2SM FG OVC003 10/10 A3021 RMK
AO2=

SA 18/12/2017 14:56->
METAR KGTU 181456Z 08004KT 1/4SM FG OVC003 10/09 A3021 RMK
AO2 SLP234 T01000094 53015=

SP 18/12/2017 14:42->
SPECI KGTU 181442Z 09004KT 1/4SM FG OVC003 10/09 A3021 RMK
AO2=

SP 18/12/2017 14:30->
SPECI KGTU 181430Z 08004KT 1/2SM FG OVC003 09/09 A3020 RMK
AO2=

SP 18/12/2017 14:08->
SPECI KGTU 181408Z 09003KT 3/4SM BR OVC003 09/09 A3020 RMK
AO2=

SA 18/12/2017 13:56->
METAR KGTU 181356Z 10004KT 1/4SM FG OVC003 09/09 A3019 RMK
AO2 SLP226 T00940094=

SP 18/12/2017 13:54->
SPECI KGTU 181354Z 10004KT 1/4SM FG OVC003 09/09 A3018 RMK
AO2=

SP 18/12/2017 13:25->
SPECI KGTU 181325Z 08003KT 1/2SM FG OVC003 09/09 A3018 RMK
AO2=

SP 18/12/2017 13:06->
SPECI KGTU 181306Z 05003KT 1SM BR OVC003 09/09 A3017 RMK
AO2=

Flying part 91 for a law firm or fast food something?

Interesting.

 

[AggieMike88]

Aha! No PT turn if coming from the south and vectored to LUKVE

(See! I'm learning from my Joplin adventure!!)

 

[BigBadLou]

Ted, agreed, nothing illegal with "peeking" down the approach path. You just might get lucky. I only posted the witness accounts on their behalf, I was not there, I didn't see this excursion, I only heard what others said. Glad nobody got hurt (well, the pilot will likely get butt-hurt by the FAA). Sucks that they had to break a perfectly good airplane.
I have flown that approach numerous times, nothing wrong with it. No big obstacles around (hence the nicely low MDA). But if I was at MDA when I saw the rwy at 1/2SM away, it would not be easy to come down in time to land safely, even in my "little" SEL airplane.
As for 91 vs 135, I have no idea. Again, I don't know any more details, I am sure the NTSB will fill those in. Awaiting the report soon since there is no guess work involved (pilots are alive and talking).

Again, glad it was just some bent metal and egos hurt, not people. As the common phrase goes: it could have been worse.
Now go fly and sin no more.

 

[txflyer]

I'm not qualified to comment ... but that never stopped anyone did it ...

Wet pavement probably didn't help.

 

[Lowflynjack]

I believe there are two Piaggos at GTU. I can hear it from inside the house and know exactly what it is. It has a very unique sound and it's fun to watch it fly over.

 

[Zeldman]

I see the problem. They were flying backwards.....

 

[BigBadLou]

Yup, they have two in the Longhorn Jet Center hangar. Well, maybe they're down to 1 now, not sure what the insurance adjusters will do with it.
And we were just recently discussing availability of parts and mechanics for these awesome airplanes. I hope it doesn't take years to put this one back in the sky.