"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

Not a red herring at all. Precision approaches are "safer" if flown
correctly, but since this crew was not able to fly the localizer and
missed
properly, how can they be expected to fly any other one?

Maybe because the other one provides more positive vertical guidance. An
approach with vertical guidance to the runway end offers fewer opportunities
to screw up. Therefore it is more likely that the approach will be flown
correctly.


I responded to
this other person who objected to me doing what he thought was speaking
ill
of the dead. Again, I see no reason to belive that in this case a
precision approach would have been any better. They ran into a clearly
plotted bit of terrain that is 2000 feet below the approved height for
that
sector/part of the approach.

There is a question of intent here. I agree that if you willingly bust
minimums or go sniffing around where you shouldn't be that no magical
approach will save your ass. But we do know that circling to land at night
near minimums is a much more dangerous place to be than coming down an ILS
to even lower altitudes. It is likely that many accidents that happen on
non-precision approaches would not happen on a precision approach. Therefore
the publishing of LPV approaches should be seen as a safety issue and not
just a matter of utility. That's my point and I'm sticking to it.

-cwk.