Fly the plate and you won't get hurt

[Cessnaflyer 56]

An amazing story about what happens when things aren't done to fix problems.

 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2012-08-01/fly-plate-and-you-wont-get-hurt

[William J.S.S 173]

Holy cow.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Airbus Commander 563]

SWEET BABY *******!!!!!!! :Shocked: :Shocked: :Shocked:

 

How could something like that happen??? That you'd actually fly straight into terrain if you flew the published procedure, or that if you lost an engine you'd be a goner??? That defies belief, I mean if we can't trust plates what can we trust??? Again, SWEET BABY *******!!!! This was something that was known about for almost 10 years, yet nothing was done about a procedure that literally lined pilots up for a head on collision with trees??? What were the FAA thinking? Heads should roll over something this. That's one of the scariest things in aviation I've read in the past year for crying out loud! Shame on those involved in delaying the NOTAM for so many years. Many many people could have been killed by that. :Shame On You: :Bring It On:

 

Ró.

[Cessnaflyer 56]

We had an RNAV approaches at the airport I used to fly at that took you right into television towers. Pilots were calling after every landing wondering if the points were correct. A day later after they opened the approach they shut it down and a Learjet was flying all the checks. They changed the altitudes and fixes after a month of flying around trying to survey the area. I never heard why they were so out of place in this case.

[RedSpinnaker 35]

Wow.

 

While the presence of the obstacles doesn't surprise me at all, what infuriates me is that it was a known issue, for years, and nothing was done. I seriously hope someone lost their job over this.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

You see this a lot in FSX with some of the 3rd party developers placing autogen trees in the glideslope but this is the first I've heard in real world...

 

Amazing how a split second decision can save your life in their decision to not go around. Also good to see something positive out of the insurance company with their external investigation. They do act in the interest of laying blame to receive compensation, and when you are not at fault they can be a positive reinforcement at times for you.

 

Cheers

[nrcrate 40]

An amazing story about what happens when things aren't done to fix problems.

 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2012-08-01/fly-plate-and-you-wont-get-hurt

Excellent article- I really enjoyed that. Thanks for posting it.

[ZachLW 37]

It's disheartening to be reminded that it takes deaths or near deaths to whistle blow up the so-called "s*** hill*, yet 709 rides are given out like candy without much investigation.

[Airbus Commander 563]

You see this a lot in FSX with some of the 3rd party developers placing autogen trees in the glideslope but this is the first I've heard in real world...

 

All the time lol, there's one ILS out there that should be 6 degrees IRL, but in FS it's in as a 3 degree slope. Every time you go smack into the side of a mountain. Can't remember which airport it was though...

 

Ró

[N6330V 0]

Absolutely great read! Thanks for that article OP. I always try to fly a point high on the g/s if the a/c and airport allow for it. Altitude is our friend :)

[Cessnaflyer 56]

Absolutely great read! Thanks for that article OP. I always try to fly a point high on the g/s if the a/c and airport allow for it. Altitude is our friend :)

 

Problem is that probably wouldn't have helped in this case. Here is a photo of the area before and after so you can see how close to the runway the trees were.

 

Before:

 

 

After:

 

[Airbus Commander 563]

I always try to fly a point high on the g/s if the a/c and airport allow for it. Altitude is our friend :)

They wouldn't have been able to do this as they would have been following company SOP, and a dot high on the approach would have meant they were out of the stable approach criteria and would have been going around once they hit 1,000' AGL.

 

Problem is that probably wouldn't have helped in this case. Here is a photo of the area before and after so you can see how close to the runway the trees were.

 

Before:

 

 

After:

 

Were those the tree's involved in the incident? I'm thinking they're fairly close to the runway to be the trees involved , if they were at MDA at that point, the MDA for that particular approach must have been very very low. At a guess I'd say if you were following a 3 degree slope (or something close) you'd probably be at about 80' - 100' QFE when they were above the trees mentioned, so I'd hazard a guess that the tree's involved in the incident were further back along the extended center line. Unless of course you got that info from a reputable source....

 

Ró.

[Cessnaflyer 56]

Were those the tree's involved in the incident? I'm thinking they're fairly close to the runway to be the trees involved , if they were at MDA at that point, the MDA for that particular approach must have been very very low. At a guess I'd say if you were following a 3 degree slope (or something close) you'd probably be at about 80' - 100' QFE when they were above the trees mentioned, so I'd hazard a guess that the tree's involved in the incident were further back along the extended center line. Unless of course you got that info from a reputable source....

 

Ró.

 

It is flat terrain under the extended centerline. Another problem was that the approach was made with a survey error.

 

On September 10 an FAA inspector told me that the procedure for the GPSRunway 5 approach had been drawn using a 1990 survey that contained a 500-foot error. The 47-foot threshold crossing height should have been 500 feet farther down the runway, and several trees on that approach penetrated the obstacle clear line, some by as much as 80 feet. Three were more than 100 feet tall.

[N6330V 0]

They wouldn't have been able to do this as they would have been following company SOP, and a dot high on the approach would have meant they were out of the stable approach criteria and would have been going around once they hit 1,000' AGL.

 

Yeah you're right...I was referring to Part 91 non corporate GA. :)