Side-note - that bottom pic is at an old, no longer extant STOL strip at Avon (Vail). We think SBS is bad, that one had an 8° glidepath, in the pre-RNAV days, no less.
This could lead into a discussion about when it’s okay to bracket off final course guidance.
what’s to discuss? You’re visual, you line up on the runway and follow visual guidance.
I tend to avoid circling-only approaches, 'cuz I don't like circling... It's possible that they didn't study the approaches enough prior to takeoff to realize what sort of trouble they were setting themselves up for.
Not really. It's far better equipped than a WWII fighter, and far easier to fly due to modern aerodynamics. It's fast, but hardly faster than a TBM 900-series.
You'd better be on your game bringing any plane into that airfield in those conditions at night!
Oh, I'm quite sure it had terrain warnings... But they get disabled when you're on an instrument approach. I didn't know that before this accident tho, and I'm a geek, so I'd say it's not common knowledge (or wasn't).
Doubtful. It's just really easy to fly the +V part of the approach, even below MDA, which in this case takes you right where this Epic ended up.
How do they know there's a mountain? It's not like they're doing anything like surveying things. They're just taking the FAA's approaches and adding a standard 3 degree path to them. It's up to the pilots not to abuse them, though I guess today we can't expect people not to be over-reliant on automation.
There's some really interesting stuff about the Avon STOLport here. 4000 foot runway at 7538 MSL; Rocky Mountain's Dash 7s would approach at 77 KIAS (!) and 1000-1400 fpm. I'm surprised they could even fly that slow! I doubt such a thing would even be approved by the FAA today.
From the plate it appears that you
At night in the mountains there is no “approved course” to 32 on this approach.
Look at a map. Run a simulation.
Copy that. Still, lots of assuming by several participants, including the PIC. I'm kind of curious how this will all sort out. I hope the FAA and Garmin do thing differently, maybe look at approaches differently. And maybe pilots will as well.
Descending at the FAF isn’t a problem. Descending below MDA can be. And Garmin is, I’m sure, well aware that an approach without a published glide slope or glide path isn’t designed for a glide slope or glide path.
Pilots tend to assume a lot simply because they don’t learn their avionics or instrument procedures.
Interestingly, if there’s a mountain between you and the airport, you won’t see the airport, and therefore shouldn’t leave MDA anyway.
It is only risky if you don't follow the chart and violate regulations and use +V below the MDA. All approaches are risky if you ignore the chart and violate regulations.
What might those be? It would be helpful in understanding this situation and the comments.
I disagree with equivalizing all approaches as having the same risk level because of the fact that any approach has risk. Agree that deviating from any chart has consequences. The questions are how likely is a deviation given the tasks required in the approach environment, and what is the level of consequences.
That's true. But some approaches are more tolerant of error than others.
Actually, all three I mentioned in that post. Just on this page, we have yours.
You don't fly into a mountain descending at the FAF. You descend into a mountain when you improperly descend from the MDA without any of the required runway visual references (IR 101), especially on a straight-ion approach that is not authorized.
Cool - what might that be in your opinion?
We agree it's risky, but the question becomes, who is responsible for managing that risk? Autopilots are GIGO. They are stupid. They just do what you tell them to.
We will have to disagree on the level of knowledge and skill required to know that the runway environment has to continuously be in sight in order to continue descent from the MDA to the runway. I though that part is trained ad nauseum, with instructors and Examiners even requiring memorization of a whole bunch of details that come down to nothing more than runway environment in sight." (Never mind knowing what "NA" means on an approach plate.)
No, we don’t disagree on that. But it’s one tree for the rest of the forest of my post. Why even start to call this a “straight in” if it really isn’t? I’m talking about streamlining the big picture - it starts with acknowledging that the approach isn’t technically useable as advertised without a lot of caveats.
Why do you lose sight of it if you’re flying a straight path towards it?
The PIC
No, PIC has to have final control, just as with any navigation the AP is doing. But I am saying an AP shouldn't take the plane below the MDA without at least alerting the pilot. If an approach has an MDA, should it not stop there until approved by pilot to continue decent? With a DA, the GTN 650xi has the "Fly missed" option. Why not add a MDA alert?
Maybe, I guess that removing straight-in minimums might alert one to the fact that the approach should not even be attempted straight in (although nothing prevents the pilot from trying). But in terms of "designed for," I think we have to look at the approach outside the context of this accident where it appears it was not flown as designed.
And how is it “advertised” that’s not usable?
You can see the far end of the runway almost the entire time on a CDFA, until around and beyond WDCHK. The mountain obscures only the approach end until then due to the offset azimuth and the parallax of the close-in mountain. Not easily discernible at that distance, especially to the uninitiated.
It’s advertised as a straight in and not useable within a normal straight-in descent angle. I’ve mentioned this several times.
Right, and at that point, it’s really not within what’s considered straight-in criteria. I posted the resultant angles far earlier in the thread.
So you don’t “lose sight of “ the runway, you simply see only a part of the runway, which indicates that there’s something between you and the other part.
Apparently your definition of “straight -in” doesn’t match the FAA’s. And I don’t think you’ll get them to change theirs to match yours.
The discussion has moved on to challenging the usability of the approach even in the daytime and, to some degree, how much pilots should be protected from making mistakes.
No, that’s all correct. It was a violation to continue below MDA at that point. It was likely they intended to fly a CDFA straight-in. However we don’t know that for sure - the intent could have been to continue on the straight in, then break off and circle to 14. But either way, mistakes were made when sight of the runway was lost.
He killed himself.
That’s a training issue, not an approach design issue. And it’s not a problem for flatlanders who regularly flew that avenue in the flatlands.
It’s not, but you do you.