descent below minimums

On 6 Jan 2005 23:06:12 -0600, Andrew Sarangan
wrote:

I wonder how often that really happens. I know of only one case when a
Seattle pilot hung on a wire. I would imagine that the chance of hitting
a wire and hanging upside down is just as remote as surviving a midair
collision. I could be wrong though.

Not related to the original "descent below minimums"-question, but
anyway:

A couple of years ago our club lost an Archer. It ran out of gas about
20 miles from the destination, but just over a glider airfield with
plenty of runway available. The pilot misjudged the gliding capability
and flew a too-wide traffic pattern. The airfield was located on a
plateau, and about half a mile before the threshold there was a
powerline crossing the approach path at about field elevation.

Our poor plane ended up dangling in that powerline and its occupants
had to be freed by the local fire brigade. One of them spent a few
nights in hospital, but nothing really serious.

Tobias

In article ,
says...

Like I said, if you can see the runway, there ain;t no hill between
you and it.

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2002/na0204.html

--Carlos V.

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 07:10:00 GMT, Carlos Villalpando
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Like I said, if you can see the runway, there ain;t no hill between
you and it.

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2002/na0204.html

--Carlos V.


Nothing in this article that contradicts this statement:

If you can see the runway, there ain't no hill between you and it.

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2002/na0204.html

Nothing in this article that contradicts this statement:
If you can see the runway, there ain't no hill between you and it.

Not true. What =is= true is "If you can see the runway, there ain't
no hill between your eyeballs and it." However, there is more "you"
below your eyeballs. So your statement (which you keep repeating on
technical grounds) is incorrect - on technical grounds.

Further, as has already been pointed out, there is a lot of airplane
below your eyeballs which can run into the hill your eyeballs just
missed. This is the point of disagreeing with your statement. It
implies safety, and delivers the opposite.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:36:51 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Further, as has already been pointed out, there is a lot of airplane
below your eyeballs which can run into the hill your eyeballs just
missed


Not with about 6 ft of visibility or more.

Of course, with 6 ft of visibility, you probably ain't seeing the
runway either.

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:36:51 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Further, as has already been pointed out, there is a lot of airplane
below your eyeballs which can run into the hill your eyeballs just
missed


Not with about 6 ft of visibility or more.

Of course, with 6 ft of visibility, you probably ain't seeing the
runway either.

On a dark night, treetops can be totally invisible. Try flying a visual
approach into HPN's 29. All you see is runway lights surrounded by inky
blackness. If you get too low, the (displaced) threshold lights just
suddenly wink out for no apparent reason.

It's easy to imagine being on a flight path which drags your landing
gear through the treetops and not being aware of it until it's too late.

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 11:06:33 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

If you get too low, the (displaced) threshold lights just
suddenly wink out for no apparent reason.


No apparent reason?

The obvious reason is, you are getting too low.

Gentlemen:

The idea that 'if I can see the runway then there is nothing between me
and it' is both true and deadly, especially at night. It presumes that
your flight path is the same as your line of sight, and this is not
always so.

Pick up ASF's video package on Controlled Flight into Terrain, and pay
close attention to the section on the Black Hole Approach. Many a
pilot has made the mistake of depending on the 'I can see the threshold
cue,' when in fact they are executing what is technically called a
'constant visual angle' approach. The trees suddenly fill the
windscreen, and by the time they see it it is usually too late to
initiate a successful go around.

Typically, if the pilots survive to be interviewed, they were convinced
they were on a normal glide path right up until the moment before
impact.

Gene

wrote in message
oups.com...

Pick up ASF's video package on Controlled Flight into Terrain, and pay
close attention to the section on the Black Hole Approach. Many a
pilot has made the mistake of depending on the 'I can see the threshold
cue,' when in fact they are executing what is technically called a
'constant visual angle' approach. The trees suddenly fill the
windscreen, and by the time they see it it is usually too late to
initiate a successful go around.


When it happened to me (black hole illusion), I became aware of the
treetops that I was descending into only when they were illuminated by the
wingtip strobe lights. If I had not had strobes, I would have dragged the
gear into the trees without ever losing sight of the runway (until impact).

It presumes that if one ALWAYS sees the target, there will be nothing
between the aircraft and the target.

.... and that presumption is deadly false. There may be nothing
between the eyeball and the target, but the aircraft dangles below.
Furher, there can be invisible barriers between the aircraft and the
target - wires come to mind, especially at night. True, wires aren't
a hill, but neither are tree branches, both of which could spoil your day.

If one lost the target 5 seconds ago on a descent, one can regain
the target and clear it by returning to the altitude he was at 5
seconds ago, and remaining level.

In that time you are moving forward. The object that caused you to
lose sight of the target may well be wrapped around you by then.

"If you never hit anything, you won't crash."

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.