Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Another Alpine crash - near LOWZ, SR22 D-EPRB

During the instrument training in America, I learned that there is this thing called a contact approach. That’s basically like special VFR but under IFR (Contact Approach = A contact approach is an approach available to aircraft operating on an IFR flight plan, where the pilot may deviate from the published instrument approach procedure (IAP) and proceed to the destination airport by visual reference to the surface.) And I’ve been taught that this is very dangerous, obviously because the airport is not in sight and you are on your own when a missed approach becomes necessary. Unlike during a circling, the missed approach might not keep you from terrain. I know that this procedure is of course not available in Europe, I’m just saying that it reminds me of it, as the scenario is very similar.
In the USA, there are similar procedures as this one in Austria and that “VFR leg” is called a “Fly visual segment” (discussed here for more info: bruceair blog). Usually these approches have a required minimum visibility higher than VMC. For example, the fly visual segment at Eagle County (KEGE) is 4.3nm and required visibility is 3nm. While I’m not saying the required minimum should be the distance to the airport, I think that at least the pilot should have a personal minimum of “airport in sight at MAP”, or have a well-defined ceiling. Scud running is dangerous, doesn’t matter if you’re under VFR with 1nm visibility or under IFR on a contact approach, or on a fly visual segment.

Last Edited by ArcticChiller at 30 Dec 17:15

Personally I would not fly this approach in IMC, simply because I don’t like the idea of being surrounded with mountains without being able to see them.
But, the safety margins – with regard to distance to terrain / obstacles – for this approach are the same as for all other approaches. So if you stick to the procedure till the MAPt you’re safe.

An ILS or LPV approach does bring you much closer to terrain…

What I take from this tragic accident is that at the MAPt you need to have the runway environment in sight in order to proceed.
Below the MAPt you’re on your own.

The SR22 has a Go Around button on the throttle which activates the Missed Approach and sets the FD accordingly.
The issue here could be that the pilot was navigating to the airport in HDG / VS mode and once he realized he needed the Missed Approach he was still following runway heading…

For clarity: a contact approach in the US must be requested and approved by ATC (ATC is not allowed to suggest it) and the minima are
- clear of cloud
- 1 (statute) mile viz
- reasonable expectation that this condition or better will prevail to the airport

Wouldn’t have applied here (notwithstanding the fact it doesn’t exist in Europe), because there is no ATC at LOWZ and from what we know he must have been in the wx pretty much all the way down.

IMHO a case of catastrophic decision making.

Is lowz just 660m in length? I’ve never seen a shorter runway with an ifr approch. I think what could have happened is that at the mapt (4nm from runway) the pilot was in vmc and committed to land, but he later realized he was too fast given the short runway (sr22 are hard to slow down, especially after a steep landing approach). At that point he was way ahead and low to start the published missed (climb ahead till 7500ft) and maybe tried a diy vfr escape towards the lake. I never thought of runway overrun risk during an ifr approach, but from now on I will tell myself that if I pass the mapt to land, I will never take off again no matter what (unless circle to land is allowed).

United Kingdom

Yes I think that is very likely, because even a total cowboy with decent avionics ought to be able to find the runway, just by descending towards it. The valley is really flat leading to the airport (as the photos and videos above show) so there isn’t much to hit. Even in OVC001 you would eventually “find” the runway. But you can’t land on it if you are too fast / too high.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The thing is, the pilot apparently was very familiar with LOWZ so must have known the length of the rwy, not only form the plates but also from experience landing his airplane there.

this is not an IFR approach. It is a cloud breaking procedure designed to get through relatively high clouds initially but then to proceed visually. In no way this should be mistaken for an IR approach.

Safe landings !
EDLN, Germany

Very sad – the FAA is quite insistent on check rides that the SUSP key is pressed at MApt, which is a flyover waypoint. This would have loaded the missed approach and provided both situational awareness and a fly right beam bar if, as occurred, the aircraft maintained the original final approach track.

Not sure how insistent EASA examiners are on the same point, but hopefully is a safety learning from this tragedy. The assumption being the aircraft continued in approach mode past MApt.

CDFA also implies go around at MApt if the runway environment is not visible.

Someone might help on whether an approach ban was in force, 6km may qualify as no approach ban, and DA is above 1,000’ agl, so not applicable?

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Based on the weather reports, the pilot wasn’t in VMC at the minima. And SR22s are not that hard to slow down as evidenced from earlier posters. I don’t buy it. If he tried to escape to the lake they would have hit in a different spot.

EGTK Oxford

EuroFlyer wrote:

this is not an IFR approach. It is a cloud breaking procedure designed to get through relatively high clouds initially but then to proceed visually.

I can’t find it anymore, but it even says that (cloudbreak procedure) on some doc I Googled at the beginning of this thread.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top