SoCal TRACON, Montgomery Field Tower Evacuated.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:13:23 -0800, "BTIZ"
wrote:

I don't think a tower being open would have made any difference..

With visibility at 1/4 mile around the time of the accident, I would
suspect that the tower controller would not have approved an
instrument approach.

wrote in message
...

With visibility at 1/4 mile around the time of the accident, I would
suspect that the tower controller would not have approved an
instrument approach.


The approach is not subject to the tower controller's approval.

I have heard that the pilot may have lived in nearby scripps ranch
where many homes were lost.
may have contributed to his urgency to get home.


NTSB Identification: LAX04LA028
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, October 26, 2003 in San Diego, CA
Aircraft: Mooney M20K, registration: N1147N
Injuries: 1 Minor.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On October 26, 2003, at 1419 Pacific standard time, a Mooney M20K
airplane, N1147N, landed hard on a highway after a partial loss of
engine power during a go-around from Montgomery Field (MYF), San
Diego, California. The pilot/owner was operating the airplane under
the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The private pilot sustained minor
injuries; the airplane was destroyed in a post-impact fire. The flight
departed St. John's Industrial Air Park (SJN), St. Johns, Arizona,
about 1200 mountain standard time. Instrument meteorological
conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) plan had
been filed for the personal cross-country flight.

In a telephone conversation, the pilot reported that he filed IFR to
BARET intersection with the intention of landing at Montgomery Field.
Forest fires in the area had restricted IFR flights into the area.
Prior to landing, he canceled his IFR clearance and descended below
the smoke layer. During landing, the pilot executed a go-around. He
applied the throttle and as the airplane began the crosswind turn, the
engine lost partial power. He was unable to maintain a climb, and
landed the airplane hard on Highway 163. As the airplane touched down,
the right wing was torn off and the airplane impacted a divider.

The Safety Board investigator contacted Prescott Flight Service
Station (FSS) regarding the accident. The pilot received a preflight
weather briefing from 1120 to 1131. FSS personnel advised him that he
might not be able to get into the San Diego area airports under IFR
due to congestion in the area as a result of the forest fires.

A notice to airmen (NOTAM) advising the closure of the Montgomery
Field tower was issued at 1152.

An aviation routine weather report (METAR) was issued at 1453. It
stated in part: wind from 040 degrees at 9 knots; visibility 3/4 mile;
haze; smoke; vertical visibility 1,000 feet; temperature 31 degrees
Celsius ; dew point 8 degrees Celsius; altimeter 30.08 inHg.





On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:46:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

With visibility at 1/4 mile around the time of the accident, I would
suspect that the tower controller would not have approved an
instrument approach.


The approach is not subject to the tower controller's approval.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:46:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in Message-Id:
:


wrote in message
.. .

With visibility at 1/4 mile around the time of the accident, I would
suspect that the tower controller would not have approved an
instrument approach.


The approach is not subject to the tower controller's approval.


True. I should have said, cleared the flight to land.

Also, I misread the wx sequence; visibility was reported down to 3/4
mile shortly after the time of the mishap, and was likely better than
that when the pilot attempted to land.

26 03:07PM 06013G17KT 1 HZ FU VV013 88 46 30.08
- 26 02:53PM 04009KT 3/4 HZ FU VV010 87 47 30.08 1018.2
- 26 02:14PM 07006G14KT 1 1/4 HZ FU OVC014 88 45 30.08
26 01:53PM 08014G18KT 1 1/2 HZ FU OVC016 87 45 30.07 1017.7
26 01:31PM 08010KT 1 1/2 HZ FU OVC014 88 45 30.07

3/4 of a mile is the minimum visibility for the ILS Rwy 28R approach
with RAIL or ALS out. So the approach/landing may have been just
within compliance with FARs at the time.

The 6kt to 14kt tail wind would have contributed only 600' to 1,400'
per minute to the landing roll (by my rough calculations). As Mr.
Weir intimated, that's probably not enough of a tail wind to cause an
overshoot. Incidently, WRT Mr. Weir's assertion, a 60kt tail wind
would contribute 6,000' (1 NM) feet per minute to the landing on the
4,600 foot runway. I wouldn't attempt it.

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

3/4 of a mile is the minimum visibility for the ILS Rwy 28R approach
with RAIL or ALS out. So the approach/landing may have been just
within compliance with FARs at the time.

According to the NTSB prelim, the pilot had cancelled IFR and was proceeding
to the airport under VFR. Square that with 3/4 of a mile.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 18:01:10 GMT, Craig Prouse
wrote in Message-Id: :

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

3/4 of a mile is the minimum visibility for the ILS Rwy 28R approach
with RAIL or ALS out. So the approach/landing may have been just
within compliance with FARs at the time.

According to the NTSB prelim, the pilot had cancelled IFR and was proceeding
to the airport under VFR. Square that with 3/4 of a mile.

Hmmm.... I hadn't noticed that.

It would seem that either FAR 91.3(b) or FAR 91.13 may have been
applicable in that case. :-)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

True. I should have said, cleared the flight to land.


From the information available in the report, what basis would the tower
controller have to deny a landing clearance?

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:33:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in Message-Id:
.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

True. I should have said, cleared the flight to land.


From the information available in the report, what basis would the tower
controller have to deny a landing clearance?


To what report are you referring?

And regardless, I'd prefer that you made your point rather than
forcing me to infer it.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

To what report are you referring?


The one that followed your statement "Here's the FAA preliminary report on
the accident that occurred at Montgomery:"



And regardless, I'd prefer that you made your point rather than
forcing me to infer it.


I'm not trying to make a point, I'm trying to understand the point you were
apparently trying to make.

You wrote; "With visibility at 1/4 mile around the time of the accident, I
would
suspect that the tower controller would not have approved an instrument
approach." But the approach is not subject to the tower controller's
approval. You then wrote; "True. I should have said, cleared the flight to
land." But the report you posted contained nothing that suggested any basis
upon which to deny a landing clearance.