Certain aircraft have advanced radar altimeters that you can set ground proximity alerts on...lets say you set it to beep when you get within 200 feet of terrain...they do not however have the ability to detect or predict obstacles such as towers or cranes. That is a pure visual thing...also, considering the weather, and the lack of radar on the field the ATC guy in the tower is limited to what he can see...he may not have been able to see the plane...if he could in heavy rain, his depth perception would have been severely compromised. As for the pilot, on a precision ILS approach, you mainly call the outer marker and start of final approach, then your next call is either a missed approach or airport in sight...at which point the controller clears you to land or gives you further instructions for your missed approach. There is not much talking or position reporting from the time you call the outer marker, to when you call a missed approach at your lowest decision height...typically most ILS approaches, if you cannot see the airport at the 200 feet mark, you execute the missed approach. He hit the crane at 115...
In theory...the ILS is meant to give you a consistent and stable glideslope/path into the runway...for simplicity sake, if you are at 1,400 feet at the outer marker, you are working down to 0 feet by the runway...so that would have him at 1,050' at 3 miles, 700' at 2 miles, 350' at 1 miles, then touchdown. 115 feet on the glideslope would have him about a half mile out from the numbers.
OK...Looking at the ILS Z approach...at the LOM at 4 DME, you intercept the glideslope at 1,350 feet...at which point you maintain the glideslope, you don't just drop over 1,000 feet in half a mile. Even in a non-precision approach like a VOR approach, you don't destabilize yourself that dramatically dropping down to your next approved altitude.
Logic would have it that he had sufficient fuel on board for the original flight plan...he got the weather update prior to departure and gave himself an extra hour of fuel at the last minute for contingencies. I would have done the same thing. Flipping his flight from VFR to IFR conditions, an extra hour of fuel would give him PLENTY of reserves to fly to his alternate and still have 45 minutes to spare. Bearing in mind, in VFR conditions, you should have at least 30 minutes reserve in the tanks.
We don't know how much fuel he already had on board...he could have had significantly more...all we know is that he added 160 gallons to what he was already carrying. No plane sits around with empty fuel tanks. Quick websearch quotes the 36A as having a fuel burn of 173 GPH.
Just reviewing Google Earth...the distance from the very end of the approach end of RWY 6, to the GB Shipyard is 2.7 miles, which makes sense with the approach...they want you higher while you clear that work area. 1.9 miles puts him on the other side of the causeway, even with the Bahamian Brewery and the other big warehouse. He crashed more like 2.7 miles out...and, the actual distance on that approach is calculated from the VOR beacon which is in the middle of the field, not at the end of the runway, so the actual distance from the VOR to the shipyard is 3.5 nautical miles.
Don't worry Birdie...it will be 15% very very soon...maybe even more as the economy tanks and the government doesn't get the revenue they were hoping for from a VERY bad tax idea.
Definitely...there was never any doubt that weather played a very major 'contributing' part...but no matter how bad the weather, unless there was a MAJOR downdraft, the pilot should be flying that aircraft within the boundaries set by his own personal abilities, and also those boundaries that are set by the flight conditions at the time, in this case the flight was in IFR, he would have been shooting a very specific documented and laid out instrument approach to that runway. The impact was at 115 feet, according to this story and 1.9 miles out from the runway according to the story run in another publication...? That is crazy, and assuming no other mechanical situation or downdraft scenario that trumps my next statement, it makes for very reckless flying. I will be very curious to see the transcripts and possibly hear some of the CVR recordings. According to the published procedure...at 2.7 miles from the airport he shold be no lower than 680 feet...once he hits the 2.7 mile marker he is only permitted to descend to 480 feet until he has a good solid visual of the runway, at which point he can descend further in a controlled fashion for landing. 115 feet...he shouldn't be that low until he is nearly ontop of the threshold.
We are already trimming staff...mostly through attrition, as they quit or are fired for other reasons, we are not replacing them...wage freeze also in place. Things are going to be tough in about a months time. All you people on the edge better take it easy with that Xmas shopping.
B_I_D___ says...
Certain aircraft have advanced radar altimeters that you can set ground proximity alerts on...lets say you set it to beep when you get within 200 feet of terrain...they do not however have the ability to detect or predict obstacles such as towers or cranes. That is a pure visual thing...also, considering the weather, and the lack of radar on the field the ATC guy in the tower is limited to what he can see...he may not have been able to see the plane...if he could in heavy rain, his depth perception would have been severely compromised. As for the pilot, on a precision ILS approach, you mainly call the outer marker and start of final approach, then your next call is either a missed approach or airport in sight...at which point the controller clears you to land or gives you further instructions for your missed approach. There is not much talking or position reporting from the time you call the outer marker, to when you call a missed approach at your lowest decision height...typically most ILS approaches, if you cannot see the airport at the 200 feet mark, you execute the missed approach. He hit the crane at 115...
On Report says weather played major part in plane crash
Posted 26 November 2014, 10:11 p.m. Suggest removal
B_I_D___ says...
In theory...the ILS is meant to give you a consistent and stable glideslope/path into the runway...for simplicity sake, if you are at 1,400 feet at the outer marker, you are working down to 0 feet by the runway...so that would have him at 1,050' at 3 miles, 700' at 2 miles, 350' at 1 miles, then touchdown. 115 feet on the glideslope would have him about a half mile out from the numbers.
On Report says weather played major part in plane crash
Posted 26 November 2014, 4:21 p.m. Suggest removal
B_I_D___ says...
OK...Looking at the ILS Z approach...at the LOM at 4 DME, you intercept the glideslope at 1,350 feet...at which point you maintain the glideslope, you don't just drop over 1,000 feet in half a mile. Even in a non-precision approach like a VOR approach, you don't destabilize yourself that dramatically dropping down to your next approved altitude.
On Report says weather played major part in plane crash
Posted 26 November 2014, 4:16 p.m. Suggest removal
B_I_D___ says...
Logic would have it that he had sufficient fuel on board for the original flight plan...he got the weather update prior to departure and gave himself an extra hour of fuel at the last minute for contingencies. I would have done the same thing. Flipping his flight from VFR to IFR conditions, an extra hour of fuel would give him PLENTY of reserves to fly to his alternate and still have 45 minutes to spare. Bearing in mind, in VFR conditions, you should have at least 30 minutes reserve in the tanks.
On Report says weather played major part in plane crash
Posted 26 November 2014, 4:04 p.m. Suggest removal
B_I_D___ says...
We don't know how much fuel he already had on board...he could have had significantly more...all we know is that he added 160 gallons to what he was already carrying. No plane sits around with empty fuel tanks. Quick websearch quotes the 36A as having a fuel burn of 173 GPH.
On Report says weather played major part in plane crash
Posted 26 November 2014, 3:57 p.m. Suggest removal
B_I_D___ says...
Just reviewing Google Earth...the distance from the very end of the approach end of RWY 6, to the GB Shipyard is 2.7 miles, which makes sense with the approach...they want you higher while you clear that work area. 1.9 miles puts him on the other side of the causeway, even with the Bahamian Brewery and the other big warehouse. He crashed more like 2.7 miles out...and, the actual distance on that approach is calculated from the VOR beacon which is in the middle of the field, not at the end of the runway, so the actual distance from the VOR to the shipyard is 3.5 nautical miles.
On Report says weather played major part in plane crash
Posted 26 November 2014, 3:51 p.m. Suggest removal
B_I_D___ says...
Don't worry Birdie...it will be 15% very very soon...maybe even more as the economy tanks and the government doesn't get the revenue they were hoping for from a VERY bad tax idea.
On 'I can only survive by more downsizing'
Posted 26 November 2014, 3:37 p.m. Suggest removal
B_I_D___ says...
Definitely...there was never any doubt that weather played a very major 'contributing' part...but no matter how bad the weather, unless there was a MAJOR downdraft, the pilot should be flying that aircraft within the boundaries set by his own personal abilities, and also those boundaries that are set by the flight conditions at the time, in this case the flight was in IFR, he would have been shooting a very specific documented and laid out instrument approach to that runway. The impact was at 115 feet, according to this story and 1.9 miles out from the runway according to the story run in another publication...? That is crazy, and assuming no other mechanical situation or downdraft scenario that trumps my next statement, it makes for very reckless flying. I will be very curious to see the transcripts and possibly hear some of the CVR recordings. According to the published procedure...at 2.7 miles from the airport he shold be no lower than 680 feet...once he hits the 2.7 mile marker he is only permitted to descend to 480 feet until he has a good solid visual of the runway, at which point he can descend further in a controlled fashion for landing. 115 feet...he shouldn't be that low until he is nearly ontop of the threshold.
On Report says weather played major part in plane crash
Posted 26 November 2014, 3:26 p.m. Suggest removal
B_I_D___ says...
We are already trimming staff...mostly through attrition, as they quit or are fired for other reasons, we are not replacing them...wage freeze also in place. Things are going to be tough in about a months time. All you people on the edge better take it easy with that Xmas shopping.
On Wage declines spark fear of VAT living standards squeeze
Posted 26 November 2014, 3:05 p.m. Suggest removal
B_I_D___ says...
This entire government is an abortion...
On Nottage: We are still assessing over crime
Posted 20 November 2014, 3:48 p.m. Suggest removal