http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Music_Died
Civil Aeronautics Board crash review
http://www.fiftiesweb.com/cab.htm
Was practice teaching today for my CFII at the flight school about aeromedical factors, spatial disorientation and aeronautical decision making. Used this accident as an example.
The pilot made the poor decision to takeoff into instrument conditions at night, possibly in icing conditions, without an instrument rating. Pressure from passengers to complete the flight, the "mission mindset" and bad weather are never a good combination.
Crashes like these are so totally preventable if you just exercise good judgement.
I've heard that this crash is the reason that commercial rated pilots are required to be instrument rated when carrying passengers for hire at night.
The Day the Music Died
Re: The Day the Music Died
I didn't remember reading this in your post the first time and was just about to mention the same. For GA in general I think it's great that people can earn their pilot licenses (private, recreational, sport pilot etc.) and go fly an airplane VFR, but any professional pilot in today's airspace pretty much has to be instrument rated. It just doesn't make sense to earn a commercial ticket without an instrument rating. IFR is easy, while VFR is in so many ways much more challenging if you ask me! I'd never want to see the weekend warriors and GA die or be forced to earn ratings they may never use, need or be able to keep current, but for any serious aviator - having an instrument rating is not only a very smart investment, it may also save you from one of the biggest dangers of all - YOURSELF!Ray wrote:I've heard that this crash is the reason that commercial rated pilots are required to be instrument rated when carrying passengers for hire at night.
My advice to anyone reluctant to earn an instrument rating because a false perception that it's difficult to file IFR or operate in IMC would be to go cloudbusters (with the rating in hand) and avoid the real "hard stuff" - Terra Firma!
IFR is easy and lets you do some pretty neat things, in weather conditions you wouldn't even consider driving your car in...
I remember instructing (in Florida) and teching 91.175, thinking "if you don't see the runway by 100', continuing with only CL, VASI or any of the other markings and/or lights likely ain't happening". Boy was I wrong! That reg is smartly crafted, because we constantly continue to absolutle mins and land (or continue below DA) with only one or two of the prescribed lights/markings... At night... Going 150 mph... In dense fog...
They don't call it "minimums" for nothing!
Thank God for adrenaline, because when your RA reads 50' and you're descending at 800 fpm (normal RoD on a 3-degree slope), it only takes another 4 seconds to impact when you typically hear the PM call: "Runway in sight" (i.e. an identifiable centerline marking, light or any one of the other items listed in 91.175), and let me tell you it can be spooky. Like Beaker said, seeing less (than anticipated) is exactly what happens - (even though that wasn't what Beaker meant by that in his post).
I'm off on a tangent here, but I have more respect for 91.175, and how well crafted it is, now more than I ever had teaching it as a CFII - because we actually have to use it... A LOT! A few high intensity lights, speed blurred and appearing "dim" with halo's never looked so good at night, especially when you barely saw them before the mains touched down and you remember taking what feels like your first breath for a few long seconds.
They don't call it "minimums" for nothing!
Thank God for adrenaline, because when your RA reads 50' and you're descending at 800 fpm (normal RoD on a 3-degree slope), it only takes another 4 seconds to impact when you typically hear the PM call: "Runway in sight" (i.e. an identifiable centerline marking, light or any one of the other items listed in 91.175), and let me tell you it can be spooky. Like Beaker said, seeing less (than anticipated) is exactly what happens - (even though that wasn't what Beaker meant by that in his post). I'm off on a tangent here, but I have more respect for 91.175, and how well crafted it is, now more than I ever had teaching it as a CFII - because we actually have to use it... A LOT! A few high intensity lights, speed blurred and appearing "dim" with halo's never looked so good at night, especially when you barely saw them before the mains touched down and you remember taking what feels like your first breath for a few long seconds.
Sounds like a rush! I have yet to fly one to minimums, looking forward to that experience.
I know you for Part 91 you can't descend lower than 100' AGL above the touchdown zone elevation, unless the red terminating or siderow bars are visible. Those are only on ALSF I, II and SALS/SALSF I, II.
(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.
(ii) The threshold.
(iii) The threshold markings.
(iv) The threshold lights.
(v) The runway end identifier lights.
(vi) The visual approach slope indicator.
(vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.
(viii) The touchdown zone lights.
(ix) The runway or runway markings.
(x) The runway lights.
I learned a few days ago from a post on JetCareers.com that "the visual approach slope indicator" doesn't mean just any visual approach path indicator, like a PAPI or tri color, etc. but only a VASI - isn't that crazy?
So if you see an approach path indicator other than a VASI you're not legal to descend below 100 ft above TDZE.
I doubt anyone would actually adhere to that and go missed if they saw a PAPI instead of a VASI, since a PAPI is usually more accurate than a VASI. The FAA's interpretation just doesn't make any sense at all.
http://forums.jetcareers.com/general-to ... post924610
I know you for Part 91 you can't descend lower than 100' AGL above the touchdown zone elevation, unless the red terminating or siderow bars are visible. Those are only on ALSF I, II and SALS/SALSF I, II.
(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.
(ii) The threshold.
(iii) The threshold markings.
(iv) The threshold lights.
(v) The runway end identifier lights.
(vi) The visual approach slope indicator.
(vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.
(viii) The touchdown zone lights.
(ix) The runway or runway markings.
(x) The runway lights.
I learned a few days ago from a post on JetCareers.com that "the visual approach slope indicator" doesn't mean just any visual approach path indicator, like a PAPI or tri color, etc. but only a VASI - isn't that crazy?
So if you see an approach path indicator other than a VASI you're not legal to descend below 100 ft above TDZE.
I doubt anyone would actually adhere to that and go missed if they saw a PAPI instead of a VASI, since a PAPI is usually more accurate than a VASI. The FAA's interpretation just doesn't make any sense at all.
http://forums.jetcareers.com/general-to ... post924610
Like someone said at JetCareers.com, our Op Specs take precedence over parts of the regs that may give conflicting information.
Sounds to me like it's mainly a legal interpretation thing the way it is literally worded. Who knows if that's the original intent, but as far as any lawyer would be concerned you'd need a VASI specifically.
Someone posting at JetCareers.com said it best:
VASI, but not PAPI... ? Legally, let the lawyers go crazy debating it! In reality, and in a split-second judgement call - either you see it or you don't, and either you land or you go missed!
Sounds to me like it's mainly a legal interpretation thing the way it is literally worded. Who knows if that's the original intent, but as far as any lawyer would be concerned you'd need a VASI specifically.
Someone posting at JetCareers.com said it best:
Kind of the same with ATC when outside the marker they ask: "What do you need?" -"1800". ATC: "Delta 1753, RVR 1800, Runway 36C, cleared to land". - Then, once inside the FAF RVR reports oddly enough drop to lower numbers for TD/Mid/Rollout. Once inside the FAF, "legal to start, legal to finish". There's one correct legal answer and there's always a corresponding correct answer that works practically.The bottom line is that you get to minimums, and at that point you have the runway environment picked out and are in a safe position to land, or you aren't and you're going missed. It's a great academic discussion for FAA lawyers, but this all happens so fast it's really a judgment call.
VASI, but not PAPI... ? Legally, let the lawyers go crazy debating it! In reality, and in a split-second judgement call - either you see it or you don't, and either you land or you go missed!
LD - Not exactly what I was saying, but generally... less. 
Lowest I've broken out was ~400 feet at Fargo... And even that's a rush for a low-time private pilot! We didn't usually get a lot of flyable IMC up in ND because of the temperatures aloft. It really is a rush though when you're doing it right, I really enjoy the precision aspect and how heavy the workload is when you're doing single-engine SRM with a lot of operational "profile" stuff.
Cobra - You guys have a great HUD in that 330 don't you? I can't believe you've never had a foggy CAT 3 day flying into Tokyo... not the kind of approach I'd ever WANT to do personally, haha. I don't care if the FAA trusts it, I don't want my airplane landing itself.
Ray -
Lowest I've broken out was ~400 feet at Fargo... And even that's a rush for a low-time private pilot! We didn't usually get a lot of flyable IMC up in ND because of the temperatures aloft. It really is a rush though when you're doing it right, I really enjoy the precision aspect and how heavy the workload is when you're doing single-engine SRM with a lot of operational "profile" stuff. "Flight vis was there... I swear!"you have the runway environment picked out and are in a safe position to land
Cobra - You guys have a great HUD in that 330 don't you? I can't believe you've never had a foggy CAT 3 day flying into Tokyo... not the kind of approach I'd ever WANT to do personally, haha. I don't care if the FAA trusts it, I don't want my airplane landing itself.
Ray -
I've heard from a few profs up at school that you can interpret "The visual approach slope indicator" to mean any sort of optical landing aid... otherwise they would have capitalized it. If you see the VASI you almost always see the ALS anyway. (Probably the Rabbit)So if you see an approach path indicator other than a VASI you're not legal to descend below 100 ft above TDZE.
Yea that's what I thought, apparently the FAA doesn't agree and responded to that guys request for interpretation of the reg. Like LD said, it's just one of those lawyer things.Beaker wrote:Ray -
I've heard from a few profs up at school that you can interpret "The visual approach slope indicator" to mean any sort of optical landing aid... otherwise they would have capitalized it. If you see the VASI you almost always see the ALS anyway. (Probably the Rabbit)So if you see an approach path indicator other than a VASI you're not legal to descend below 100 ft above TDZE.
I think it's interesting though to see the FAA interpret one of their regs, I wish they could interpret their regulation 91.119 about what constitutes a congested area, lol.
"U.S. Department
Of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Northwest Mountain Region
Colorado, Idaho, Montana
Oregon, Utah, Washington
Wyoming
1601 Lind Avenue, SW
Renton, WA 98055-4099
Tel: (425) 227-2007
Fax: (425) 227-1007
Office of the Regional Counsel
May 30, 2006
Re: Request for Interpretation of 14 CFR Section 91.175(c)(3)(vi)
Dear Mr. Ison:
We are in receipt of your letter, dated May 8, 2006, addressed to the Regional Counsel. In it, you asked whether 14 CFR 91.175(c)(3)(vi) is restricted specifically to the visual approach slope indicator, as mentioned, or whether it includes all visual guide slope indicators.
The Regional Counsel assigned the matter to me. I, in turn, referred your request to Flight Standards because I perceived your question to be more technical than legal in nature. David Miller, an operations regional specialist in the Flight Standards Regional Office, located here in Renton, was kind enough to review your letter and he responded as follows (paraphrased):
"A pilot may not substitute any other visual glide slope indicator, such as the precision approach path indicator (PAPI), for the visual approach slope indicator (VASI). This is because the rule is very specific about what visual reverences may be used by the pilot to descend below decision height (DH) or minimum descent altitude (MDA). The rule provides for ten specific visual reference options but does not incorporate language permitting substitutions."
I will only add that I reviewed the regulation, and Mr. Miller's analysis is consistent with general principles of legal interpretation, specifically, that, absent some reason to do otherwise, language statutes and regulations are given their ordinary meaning. I concur with Mr. Miller's reading of the rule.
I hope this answers your inquiry satisfactorily. If you have any further questions on this issue, please feel free to contact me further at the number below, or you may contact Mr. Miller at (425 7-2263.
SRI
David F. Shayne FAA Attorney (425) 227-2165"
Just because someone works for the FAA doesn't mean they're necessarily right! One of our POI's firmly believes that no pilot can ever fly more than 8 hours in a day, while the rest of them agree you can if it's beyond unforeseeable circumstances causing a delay en route or throughout your scheduled day. So, you see... it depends on whom you ask for an interpretation (even within the FAA)!
Just be "smart" about it in the real world, where the real stuff matters, and the hard stuff is actually hard!
Just be "smart" about it in the real world, where the real stuff matters, and the hard stuff is actually hard!
Just to clarify, you can still descend below 100' AGL TDZE using any of the other items listed in 91.175, but not using the approach lighting system unless it has red terminating or siderow bars identifiable and visible. For example, we routinely continue below DA using MALSR lighting systems, but we will need to see the runway, markings, TDZ, VASI etc. to continue below 100'. Simply seeing the approach lights, but nothing of the threshold or beyond won't do. (With ALSF II's we could continue below 100' AGL TDZE in the same scenario).Ray wrote:I know you for Part 91 you can't descend lower than 100' AGL above the touchdown zone elevation, unless the red terminating or siderow bars are visible. Those are only on ALSF I, II and SALS/SALSF I, II.
I looked this up today in our Op Specs and it reads:Ray wrote:The visual approach slope indicator.
Visual Approach Path Guidance (such as VASI, PAPI etc.)
The rest of the Op Specs for that part is almost a direct copy and paste of 91.175.
