The recorded flight data could be read out of the G1000 system. It showed that there had been no issues with GPS reception at any point during the approach.
The pilot had asked LOWZ if landning on 08 was possible and was told there were slush on the runway and a 3 kt tailwind.
The aircraft passed the MAPt at 3911’ – 779’ below the MDA! The aircraft then passed about 400 m south of THR 08 on a 090-100 track and later started a left turn that would have put it on final to 26, so the accident investigators speculates that his intention was to land on 26. (See page 34 of the report for a depiction of the flight track.)
After having turned about 60° to a track of about 030° the pilot abandoned the turn and turned right instead, possibly because of even worse visibility between his position and the airport. This appears to have been the final mistake as that lead him straight into the mountain. Had he continued the turn he would most likely had made it to the airport. If I may speculate, he might have been thinking that he could escape east through the valley, but he was already too far north for that.
I am sure he had ground surface in-sight but not the airport threshold passing abeam the MAPt bellow MDA, don’t ask me how I know about this…
I learned after that the best way to make it is to go down the glide path to system published minima open your eyes land or go-around anything else is risky and too iffy (including using conservative random personal planning/flying minima it will get you killed)
Peter wrote:
This guy didn’t just push the minima a bit (flying a 500ft DH down to 400ft) but flew the approach so far below minima that the only thing which would have got him out of there was synthetic vision.
Airborne_Again wrote:
also with a conservative interpretation of weather forecasts.
Good example that ramp perception (and even the impression of instructors) can be completely disjoint from reality. Not only this flight, but also the long list of METARS from other flights of this pilot showed, that he was all but conservative about weather. While he formally might not have broken the rules, but some of the flights have been clearly outside of my comfort zone with more experience and a more capable plane …
Not saying he was a bad pilot – but he was for sure not conservative with respect to weather compared to most other recreational pilots in SEP aircraft.
Ibra wrote:
but the variability on those snapshot METAR is astonishing, it went from OVC023 to OVC014 to OVC004 in one hour on barely 4kts winds
I guess that is the limitation of METAR in mountainous terrain: The divergence between OVC004 and NOSIG can be one Cu at the wrong spot – that can form and dissolve very quickly in unstable conditions…
Ibra wrote:
I am sure he had ground surface in-sight but not the airport threshold passing abeam the MAPt bellow MDA, don’t ask me how I know about this…
At least the second part is a safe bet given the visibility at the airport and the distance between the airport and the MAPt. The first part is indeed quite likely…
Ibra wrote:
I learned after that the best way to make it is to go down the glide path to system published minima open your eyes land or go-around anything else is risky and too iffy (including using conservative random personal planning/flying minima it will get you killed)
On an IFR approach followed by an IFR landing that’s a given. But this was an IFR approach followed by a VFR landing and then things are not so clear-cut anymore.
Airborne_Again wrote:
But this was an IFR approach followed by a VFR landing and then things are not so clear-cut anymore.
It’s very subtle indeed, in a cloud-break (got sight of surface & visual references) you still have to “decide when to stop flying visual” and “how to find the airfield”, it just can’t go forever, in my opinion, this will only work when you are familiar with the area and have done it millions of times in CAVOK and less challending conditions
If you never flew visual at 200ft agl to land at your VFR home airport worth practicing in sunny days as it’s a good eye openner (it’s legal if you land), especially the visual navigation… if you can’t get it work on sunny days, you won’t in hardcore weather, of course not what you try while visiting unfamiliar places on published “IFR/VFR cloud-break IAP” with OVC004 & hardcore terrain (it’s already very tough to make it work in Essex with 500ft ceiling & 2km vis)
PS: just disclaimer, UK pilots have the right to dive & sample few times with no VFR/IFR clerances before climbing or diverting, all 100% legal, but of course one should not spend too much time “cruising bellow MSA near IMC”…
One can debate lowest circling height but you are still supposed to reach VMC before the procedure DH.
The rest is just noise.
There are only 3 ways this pilot could have got out of there
Peter wrote:
There are only 3 ways this pilot could have got out of thereuse synthetic vision 100% – presumably he didn’t otherwise why hit the hill?
descend all the way down and fly at say 100ft, left turn over the lake, to the north, and fly along that canyon all the way to Salzburg (and get busted because lots of people, starting with LOWZ staff, will report you for flying at 100ft)
No one has F16s, I think the 2nd point is very valid if one flies the “last VFR segment” but still can’t find the runway to land on before reaching the end of the runway, turning toward the lake is the best option rather than trying to go back to the missed approach segment !
Of course how “you pick-up IFR” from there is another question 
Synt-Vision, I don’t buy it if you end up low unless you start from the runway it’s not guarateed you will get out alive (or at least you are the first guy to try and besides people do hit mountains in good ceilings & visbility when they are in the wrong spots & heights why Synt-Vision would make any difference?) but it may help someone in-sight of the surface with visual references at the MAPt to fly and find the runway maybe avoid the mountain
If you look at VFR chart for 08 departure it’s sharp right then sharp left to ECHO at 4500ft before turning to fly over the lake, I have not flown to LOWZ but doubt that was about managing VFR circuit arrivals/departures? it seems it allows one a good distance to climb
One has to keep in mind that the airport is “VFR only”, there are no IFR departures/arrivals just VFR circuit charts
They published a climb above MSA and one IFR/VFR cloud-break, you are on your own in between
The safest approach is to treat it as “IFR landing” which will require 10km visibility
His ATO states he was a conscientious student on his IR, and he appears to have carried out continuous education on a Cirrus program.
How well is an approach ban taught at the PPL/IR level, or is it only taught at the CPL level? Does the Cirrus CE program have modules on approach briefing and the concept of approach ban?
Mein bisschen Deutsch means I will have to read the report a couple of times, but isn’t the approach procedure a misnomer? Shouldn’t it be correctly described as a let down procedure? Perhaps the report will cover the actual design of the procedure?
RobertL18C wrote:
How well is an approach ban taught at the PPL/IR level, or is it only taught at the CPL level?
I guess it’s a theory vs. practice thing rather than a CPL vs. PPL one. In theory it is taught in both courses – but in practice of both courses a student (at least in Germany) can call oneself lucky if he actually had one real approach down to minimums. Majority of IR training (also approach training) takes place in weather that is very significantly above actual minimums (also due to the fact that in most areas in Germany it is not so often that you have ceilings close to minimum but still weather that is flyable in typical training SEPs (e.g. no ice, etc.).
So one can assume that this pilot in theory knew quite well that he should not have done this approach – in practice he did anyways…
RobertL18C wrote:
Mein bisschen Deutsch means I will have to read the report a couple of times, but isn’t the approach procedure a misnomer?
That is the reason why at least the report doesn’t call it approach but cloud braking procedure (“Wolkendurchstossverfahren”).
@Malibuflyer love those compound words :)
