Jacko wrote:
Not really, but it does merit a bit of forethought. Wind strength usually reduces as we get closer to the ground. With a headwind this helps us to touch down rather than floating in ground effect. With a tailwind, it’s the opposite, the reduction in (tail)wind strength supplementing the problem of ground effect.
That’s what I was referring to, tail winds & tails gust is like downhill in sports cars while pressing from time to time on the “Nitrous oxide” button
Yes very easy to cope with while practicing and understanding reverse wind gradient but it is something that still got me by surprise few times
Not judging anyone, I would have gone to the hedge in similar conditions and probably less brave to make a candid public statement if I did…
For clarity: this thread started during a time when Timothy had expressed zero intention of posting on EuroGA, hence it was discussed in his absence. It is a 5 year old thread!
Lots of people do this on social media. They appear, then disappear, then reappear, then disappear again, for years sometimes. Some people regularly fight battles with forums; that’s how the internet is. Often, a group of their friends or compatriots leave also and then drift back over the next year or two. Yes, he was much later banned… If Timothy wishes to comment on the accident he is always free to submit some text which can be posted here – same as post #1.
landing with more than 5kts tailwind is tricky everywhere
Not really, but it does merit a bit of forethought. Wind strength usually reduces as we get closer to the ground. With a headwind this helps us to touch down rather than floating in ground effect. With a tailwind, it’s the opposite, the reduction in (tail)wind strength supplementing the problem of ground effect. So we just need to practice, paying attention to airspeed and bringing our aiming point back a suitable amount from our intended touch-down point.
Incidentally, I am not at all comfortable discussing Timothy’s fender-bender in his (enforced) absence. I doubt that he has anything to add to his admirably candid and public-spirited statement, but if he did I would listen.
4.5km visibility and SCT002, BKN003 for costal airport is no way close to zero-zero, with enough holes it’s VFR 
I understand landing at St Mary’s is tricky even under sunlight, landing with more than 5kts tailwind is tricky everywhere, in a twin no idea, the scattered clouds is the easy bit IMO
The approach ban is derived from RVR, so technically not an approach ban.
Google is not getting me the AIP EGHE NDB 27, but expect minimum visibility required is around 1500 m based on system minima and lack of obstructions.
A short wet runway and two ton plus MEP is quite tricky, except in a Twotter or Islander.
Graham wrote:
Not zero-zero, but the BKN level was substantially below MDA for the NDB approach – as were the two regular METARs before that one.
No doubt. But BKN is not OVC and the main danger in an instrument approach is low visibility and not low cloudbase,
Airborne_Again wrote:
It also wasn’t anywhere near zero-zero. From the accident investigation report:SPECI EGHE 201631Z 19016KT 4500 BR SCT002 BKN003 17/17 Q1017
Observation made as a result of the accident.
Not zero-zero, but the BKN level was substantially below MDA for the NDB approach – as were the two regular METARs before that one.
Graham wrote:
Now now, it was an NDB approach…
It also wasn’t anywhere near zero-zero. From the accident investigation report:
SPECI EGHE 201631Z 19016KT 4500 BR SCT002 BKN003 17/17 Q1017
Observation made as a result of the accident.
