Michigan recruit in second plane crash

wsuffa said:
I've done a contact approach - once. Tyler, Texas was sitting under a giant hole in the clouds & the approach in use would have taken me 10+miles out into the cloud deck to set up for a straight-in. Was able to safely use a contact approach to decend in the hole and land at the field.

It's a tool in the toolbox. Pilot judgement required.
Click to expand...
I've flown a contact approach many times. Usually it's just to eliminate a slam dunk visual when the vis is 2-3 miles and ATC's MVA is a couple thousand AGL or higher. I've also requested a contact once to avoid a PT when there was a big hole at the IAF similar to your situation. On rare occasions I've used one to scud run into the airport when I was very familiar with the area and could easily tell where I was by reference to the features on the ground near me. It's kind of a multipurpose tool.
 
gismo said:
I've flown a contact approach many times. Usually it's just to eliminate a slam dunk visual when the vis is 2-3 miles and ATC's MVA is a couple thousand AGL or higher. I've also requested a contact once to avoid a PT when there was a big hole at the IAF similar to your situation. On rare occasions I've used one to scud run into the airport when I was very familiar with the area and could easily tell where I was by reference to the features on the ground near me. It's kind of a multipurpose tool.
Click to expand...

I'd use it again when the right opportunity presents. Haven't had the opportunity....
 
Henning said:
Besides, it's not a "Circle to Land" approach, it's a "Contact Approach". All legal and on the up and up as long as I don't lose visual contact with the runway environment.
Click to expand...

As stated - Not really. And you have to be cleared for a contact approach - He was cleared for the RNAV 27. Since he was on the RNAV 27, and did not execute the published missed approach, I think it's fairly safe to say he was doing a circle-to-land maneuver. Unfortunately, it sounds like he was well below circling minimums. I'm betting the final report will put the cause as improper IFR procedure - He should have gone missed.

Henning said:
Conditions can be reporting below required minimums which in some situation would make it illegal to land out of the approach, yet the pilot can meet the visual criteria of being able to get in so at the bottom of the approach he declares"contact" with the runway and can proceed legally.
Click to expand...

Nope - You've gotta be cleared for a contact approach, not just "declare 'contact'".

Doggtyred said:
It's legalized scud running into a field where you otherwise couldn't legally land.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I could have used it once on a day that was fairly nice (at the destination, anyway). I had been cleared direct to the field, but there was a nice big cloud between me and the field. I was already at the controller's MVA, and I'd have had to either fly 15 miles past the field or backtrack to fly a published approach. Since I couldn't see the field I couldn't take a visual approach, and I wasn't sure I'd be able to maintain VFR so I couldn't cancel. However, I could see a highway that I knew ran right past the field, and it looked like I could safely get right below and/or between the clouds - A contact approach would have been perfect. In fact, that flight is what prompted me to really go and learn more about contact approaches, as I hadn't really understood the distinction between contact and visual before that (the descriptions in the in the FAA's publications are worded almost identically).

To me, a contact approach is something that works best when the weather is marginal. If the weather is super-low, you generally need a published approach. If the weather is beautiful, you can get the visual or just cancel. It's those in-between situations where the weather is doing something unpredictable that the contact approach is a handy tool to have in the box.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
As stated - Not really. And you have to be cleared for a contact approach - He was cleared for the RNAV 27. Since he was on the RNAV 27, and did not execute the published missed approach, I think it's fairly safe to say he was doing a circle-to-land maneuver. Unfortunately, it sounds like he was well below circling minimums. I'm betting the final report will put the cause as improper IFR procedure - He should have gone missed.
Click to expand...
Not only was he below circling minimums, he was also apparently past the MAP since he was headed back onto the right downwind for the runway he was flying an approach to. I have zero experience flying these in actual, but I was taught that once you're at the MAP, if you don't have the required environment to land, you are (or should be) committed to the missed. "Oh, I think that's the airport, I'll just duck under these clouds and circle to land" is something I hope I'm never tempted into trying.
 
azure said:
I have zero experience flying these in actual, but I was taught that once you're at the MAP, if you don't have the required environment to land, you are (or should be) committed to the missed. "Oh, I think that's the airport, I'll just duck under these clouds and circle to land" is something I hope I'm never tempted into trying.
Click to expand...

You're right on. And that's the attitude that will keep you alive.
 
azure said:
Not only was he below circling minimums, he was also apparently past the MAP since he was headed back onto the right downwind for the runway he was flying an approach to. I have zero experience flying these in actual, but I was taught that once you're at the MAP, if you don't have the required environment to land, you are (or should be) committed to the missed. "Oh, I think that's the airport, I'll just duck under these clouds and circle to land" is something I hope I'm never tempted into trying.
Click to expand...

Do everything in your power to get that experience before you finish your training. I would look at the TAFs every day for low sustained ceilings and I'd call Jesse to see if he could go. One of the last flights before my checkride was on a Sunday where the ceiling had been 500-800 all morning with 2 miles visibility. Even with 4 hours of actual and 30 hours of hood time in the previous three months, I got the leans so bad that I thought I was tumbling out of my seat. I had experienced the leans at times during my training, but nothing like that. I'm so glad that I was able to experience in that environment as opposed to the day I got my ticket wet.
 
jason said:
Do everything in your power to get that experience before you finish your training. I would look at the TAFs every day for low sustained ceilings and I'd call Jesse to see if he could go. One of the last flights before my checkride was on a Sunday where the ceiling had been 500-800 all morning with 2 miles visibility. Even with 4 hours of actual and 30 hours of hood time in the previous three months, I got the leans so bad that I thought I was tumbling out of my seat. I had experienced the leans at times during my training, but nothing like that. I'm so glad that I was able to experience in that environment as opposed to the day I got my ticket wet.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you just had to pray that his boss would let him play hookey so you could get your airplane fix! LOL!
 
azure said:
Not only was he below circling minimums, he was also apparently past the MAP since he was headed back onto the right downwind for the runway he was flying an approach to. I have zero experience flying these in actual, but I was taught that once you're at the MAP, if you don't have the required environment to land, you are (or should be) committed to the missed. "Oh, I think that's the airport, I'll just duck under these clouds and circle to land" is something I hope I'm never tempted into trying.
Click to expand...

AFaIK, it's legal to continue beyond the MAP and circle provided that you have the airport in sight, are at or above the CTL mins, and have the specificed min visibility. Lacking any one of those three you are required to execute the missed approach procedure at or before the MAP.

I have completed an approach where I was above a low broken to scattered cloud deck at the MAP but could see part of the runway and a clear path to land in the opposite direction without losing sight of the runway. I would agree that there's additional risk in this and wouldn't attempt it unless you are very familiar with the area surrounding the airport and know it to be free of significant obstacles.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
To me, a contact approach is something that works best when the weather is marginal. If the weather is super-low, you generally need a published approach. If the weather is beautiful, you can get the visual or just cancel. It's those in-between situations where the weather is doing something unpredictable that the contact approach is a handy tool to have in the box.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the way I look at it. It is conceivable that one might encounter a situation where a contact approach would let you land but none of the available approaches would work but I think that situation would be pretty rare. The only one I can think of would be a scattered to broken cloud deck with bases below the approach mins where there's a big enough hole to get under the clouds. Assuming the approach mins were less than 1000 AGL you'd have to be in an "uncongested" area and remain 500 ft from every person, vehicle, and structure until it was necessary to descend further than the cloud bases for the landing.

The intended purpose of a Contact Approach is to expedite the landing by eliminating the need to fly a full approach, it's not intended as a means to make a landing that couldn't be completed with a published approach. It also wouldn't surprise me if the FAA considered it "careless and reckless" to fly a contact approach that required you to descend below the lowest (or maybe even circling) minimums for the published approaches to that airport.
 
gismo said:
AFaIK, it's legal to continue beyond the MAP and circle provided that you have the airport in sight, are at or above the CTL mins, and have the specificed min visibility. Lacking any one of those three you are required to execute the missed approach procedure at or before the MAP.
Click to expand...
I understand that it's legal to not fly the missed immediately IF you have the required elements for landing. That's not the situation I was talking about though. Maybe I'm presuming too much in thinking that since he was headed back, he must not have sighted the runway until he was past the MAP. It could have happened as in the case you relate... except that he didn't make it. Personally I can't imagine doing something like that, not unless I was out of fuel or on fire. Maybe I'll feel differently after 500 hours logged in actual and a lot more experience and skill than I have now. :dunno:
 
I had cause to use a Contact Approach (for the first time in my experience) last week; being vectored for the LOC 26 approach at Pensacola (KPNS), got *just* under the clouds, over the bay. Could not see the field (at least, not well enough to declare "field in sight" and get the visual), but the flighty vis to my right and back (where the field was in relation to me) was good.

On the other hand, I was about 30 seconds from flying into a freakin' wall of water, huge rain.

I called App, told them I could accept a Contact Approach, and they instantaneously cleared me for the Contact Approach and handed me over to the Tower. I racked it on around, and landed without controversy. With all the planes trying to get in (lotsa Navy trainers), I saved time and workload, and was a heckuva lot more comfortable with my choice.
 
Henning said:
The "Contact Approach" is a piece of rope the FAA leaves dangling for us for when we need it.
Click to expand...
More like left dangling for us to hang ourselves.
There isn't always a "good option" so we gotta use whatever option we can. You gotta "man up" to use it though because at that point, it's all on you. Basically what it says is that "Once you have the runway environment in sight, you can do what you gotta do to get it on the runway and we'll keep other planes out of your airspace."
Click to expand...
That's not what a contact approach is. A contact approach is a clearance given in lieu of a SIAP which allows you to make your own way to the airport when you have the ground (not necessarily the runway environment -- I could start a contact approach here at KSBY with, say, the Purdue feed plant or Shorebirds stadium in sight), there is weather reporting with 1 mile vis or better, and I can remain clear of clouds with 1 mile flight vis all the ways to the runway. The bad news is that once you start a contact approach, you have no "outs" -- there is no missed approach procedure, and if you fly into a cloud or just lose sight of the ground, you, like Zack Mayo, "got nowhere else to go."

And as has been pointed out, the biggest problem with a contact approach is getting to where you can see the ground so you have a starting point. I've done maybe four of them in my life, and probably three of them were bad ideas. The only good one was a case where as I flew over the airport to start an out-and-back VOR approach, I could clearly see the airport and its environs from 2000 AGL through a SCT-BKN deck. Requested and received contact approach, circled down, and landed.

Further, on a circle-to-land maneuver off a SIAP, you are not authorized to leave the circling MDA unless "The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers," and circling at 10 feet AGL ain't no "normal maneuver" -- not even at 100-200 feet.

BTW, I don't think you'll find any circling MDA's much below 400 AGL. In this case, it appears from the available data that the pilot pressed well below published mins before he broke out, and then finding himself in a position from which he could not land straight in, commenced a CTL maneuver well below the circling mins. If you're going to take anything away from this event, it would be that CTL is a lot riskier maneuver than a lot of folks understand, and should not be attempted without significant preplanning and area study, and definitely not on the spur of the moment when you break out and find you can't safely complete a straight-in landing.
 
Last edited:
Gary F said:
I feel at least a little bit vindicated. I don't see how you could be cleared for the GPS 27 approach, fly a user defined missed approach and then start flying a contact approach without an additional clearance.
Click to expand...
You're right -- you can't do that legally.
 
Ron Levy said:
More like left dangling for us to hang ourselves.
That's not what a contact approach is. A contact approach is a clearance given in lieu of a SIAP which allows you to make your own way to the airport when you have the ground (not necessarily the runway environment -- I could start a contact approach here at KSBY with, say, the Purdue feed plant or Shorebirds stadium in sight), there is weather reporting with 1 mile vis or better, and I can remain clear of clouds with 1 mile flight vis all the ways to the runway. The bad news is that once you start a contact approach, you have no "outs" -- there is no missed approach procedure, and if you fly into a cloud or just lose sight of the ground, you, like Zack Mayo, "got nowhere else to go."

And as has been pointed out, the biggest problem with a contact approach is getting to where you can see the ground so you have a starting point. I've done maybe four of them in my life, and probably three of them were bad ideas. The only good one was a case where as I flew over the airport to start an out-and-back VOR approach, I could clearly see the airport and its environs from 2000 AGL through a SCT-BKN deck. Requested and received contact approach, circled down, and landed.

Further, on a circle-to-land maneuver off a SIAP, you are not authorized to leave the circling MDA unless "The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers," and circling at 10 feet AGL ain't no "normal maneuver" -- not even at 100-200 feet.

BTW, I don't think you'll find any circling MDA's much below 400 AGL. In this case, it appears from the available data that the pilot pressed well below published mins before he broke out, and then finding himself in a position from which he could not land straight in, commenced a CTL maneuver well below the circling mins. If you're going to take anything away from this event, it would be that CTL is a lot riskier maneuver than a lot of folks understand, and should not be attempted without significant preplanning and area study, and definitely not on the spur of the moment when you break out and find you can't safely complete a straight-in landing.
Click to expand...

I thought about this and want to know more about the other 3 and why they were a bad idea.
 
It is nice to have Ron back. I would be very surprised if another person on this board was so so knowledgeable that they too knew Mayo had a first name and that it was Zack.
 
Ron Levy said:
More like left dangling for us to hang ourselves.
That's not what a contact approach is. A contact approach is a clearance given in lieu of a SIAP which allows you to make your own way to the airport when you have the ground (not necessarily the runway environment -- I could start a contact approach here at KSBY with, say, the Purdue feed plant or Shorebirds stadium in sight), there is weather reporting with 1 mile vis or better, and I can remain clear of clouds with 1 mile flight vis all the ways to the runway. The bad news is that once you start a contact approach, you have no "outs" -- there is no missed approach procedure, and if you fly into a cloud or just lose sight of the ground, you, like Zack Mayo, "got nowhere else to go."

And as has been pointed out, the biggest problem with a contact approach is getting to where you can see the ground so you have a starting point. I've done maybe four of them in my life, and probably three of them were bad ideas. The only good one was a case where as I flew over the airport to start an out-and-back VOR approach, I could clearly see the airport and its environs from 2000 AGL through a SCT-BKN deck. Requested and received contact approach, circled down, and landed.
Click to expand...
I think I've mentioned this here before but my favorite use of a contact approach is when the MVA is high, the vis is poor (but better than 1mile, in fact it's generally been 3-5 miles), and the cloud bases are higher than the MVA. This is a fairly common occurrence in rural midwest. The clearance for a contact approach allows me to drop to pattern altitude without the ear popping descent which would be needed if I waited for the "airport in sight" call needed to get a visual approach clearance prior to starting down from a few thousand AGL. Like you I've vary rarely used the contact approach to avoid flying a published approach when it wasn't obvious that a "visual" landing wasn't assured but I have used it in the circumstances I just described many times.

Further, on a circle-to-land maneuver off a SIAP, you are not authorized to leave the circling MDA unless "The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers," and circling at 10 feet AGL ain't no "normal maneuver" -- not even at 100-200 feet.

BTW, I don't think you'll find any circling MDA's much below 400 AGL. In this case, it appears from the available data that the pilot pressed well below published mins before he broke out, and then finding himself in a position from which he could not land straight in, commenced a CTL maneuver well below the circling mins. If you're going to take anything away from this event, it would be that CTL is a lot riskier maneuver than a lot of folks understand, and should not be attempted without significant preplanning and area study, and definitely not on the spur of the moment when you break out and find you can't safely complete a straight-in landing.
Click to expand...
The lowest CTL mins allowed by TERPS is 350 AGL or 300 above the highest obstacle in the protected area so with a single FAA "50ft tree" nearby the CTL mins will indeed be at least 400 at most airports.

I have a very savvy and experienced friend who maintains that when the vis is low (but higher than CTL mins) circling can actually be safer than making a straight in (in daytime) because it provides the opportunity to view the airport and runways before leaving the safety of the MDA. I'm not totally convinced this is true but I'm considering it. He also contends that making a safe CTL requires prior practice making low level turns and learning what the runway is supposed to look like from 400 AGL on a sufficiently wide downwind, something I'm very much in agreement with.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
He also contends that making a safe CTL requires prior practice making low level turns and learning what the runway is supposed to look like from 400 AGL on a sufficiently wide downwind, something I'm very much in agreement with.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! When I start covering CTL's during instrument training, the trainee almost invariably stays too close to the runway on downwind, and then can't make the turn to final without racking it up into a really steep bank -- not something to do at 400 AGL with the horizon obscured by low vis. The problem is that if you use angles to pick your downwind displacement (e.g., runway halfway up the strut in a 172), the fact that you're now only half as high means you're also only half as far. It takes a bit to learn the different sight picture at 400 AGL to stay the same 3/4 mile or so abeam.
 
Not to be a kill joy....but he says'nobody can relate" I have a friend who lost his Mom, Dad and a Sister in a car crash. Five years later his younger brother committed suicide, and 3 yrs after that his only other brother was a fireman killed in 911....should try to get them in touch.
 
These rich guys continually push their limitations, family on board no less. If I was a medical professional of the 'make it rain' variety, with limited amount of time to go beat up the pattern, I wouldn't be loading up the family and venturing into LIFR in high performance equipment. I'd send them charter and go get my pilot jollies off solo. A man of mediocre hands could probably pull an ad hoc circle in the shmag in a forgiving category A C172 and probably live to tell about it. But these guys are flying zippy stuff out there and pretending you can swing it around like a C-150. At the risk of starting another class warfare skirmish out here, more money than talent is all I got to say about this one.

I feel for this kid. Having to rationalize that your father killed your family TWICE and pretend it had nothing to do with the old man's arrogance, never mind how it reflects upon you in the eyes of others. The guy just couldn't accept that in spite of the recognition he outearned the collective majority of pilots (face it, pro pilots are paid chump change as a collective and most couldn't hack "anesthesiology school" even if they had the interest in it) he still sucked at something others get paid much less to do better than him. To die for that is arrogance. To kill others for that is selfishness. More money than talent. Sad. Catch-22 is we have to allow these types to continue to kill their families in order for the rest of us not to be regulated out of living our passion for flying. There's no bumper bowling in flying Im afraid....
 
Perhaps a bit too broad of a brush. As counter-point, read the thread on the AF 447. All kinds of pilots make stupid mistakes, even the professional ones. Not just the rich ones. I don't dispute the errors of this particular pilot, though.
 
Last edited:
I intended nothing but to say that I am glad the young man is getting better. I wish him well in his recovery he has had a very hard road.
 
I should have clarified. . . . My last post was in response to Hindsight's.
 
hindsight2020 said:
These rich guys continually push their limitations, family on board no less. If I was a medical professional of the 'make it rain' variety, with limited amount of time to go beat up the pattern, I wouldn't be loading up the family and venturing into LIFR in high performance equipment. I'd send them charter and go get my pilot jollies off solo. A man of mediocre hands could probably pull an ad hoc circle in the shmag in a forgiving category A C172 and probably live to tell about it. But these guys are flying zippy stuff out there and pretending you can swing it around like a C-150. At the risk of starting another class warfare skirmish out here, more money than talent is all I got to say about this one.

I feel for this kid. Having to rationalize that your father killed your family TWICE and pretend it had nothing to do with the old man's arrogance, never mind how it reflects upon you in the eyes of others. The guy just couldn't accept that in spite of the recognition he outearned the collective majority of pilots (face it, pro pilots are paid chump change as a collective and most couldn't hack "anesthesiology school" even if they had the interest in it) he still sucked at something others get paid much less to do better than him. To die for that is arrogance. To kill others for that is selfishness. More money than talent. Sad. Catch-22 is we have to allow these types to continue to kill their families in order for the rest of us not to be regulated out of living our passion for flying. There's no bumper bowling in flying Im afraid....
Click to expand...

While what you say is largely true, circling below mininums is stupid in any brand of bird, and there are plenty of examples of low-altitude maneuvering stall-spin accidents in Cessnas as well. In addition, it has nothing to do with being "rich" or being a doctor - There are bad pilots of all income levels and occupations, and I know plenty of rich doctors who are good pilots, too.
 
RichardSATX said:
Amen to that! I still have yet to see if I can do it again, and then decide if I should be!

BTW, if I'm in a second crash, you won't be able to get me off the ground even if you put a bomb under my butt! :yikes:
Click to expand...

I would start putting more fuel in the plane!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top