greg_mp wrote:
just giving a sense to “sorry say again”
Remind me to never ask for regular “wind checks” as I go down on final on gusty day when AIP/OPS says max 15kts xwind 
Airborne_Again wrote:
Apparently the aircraft was in poor technical condition at the time.
It was registered HB-LOG at the time and then was transferred to T7 some time after that event and appeared on plannecheck for a while, but it appears it could well be the same owner still.
I have a tendency to “always” try to fly the ILS down to minima. Ι remember one time at Lyon Exupery that I am pretty sure the controller helped me getting in at night reporting initially an RVR of 550, then later (probably after the 1000 ft point) coming with an update of an RVR for that first sector of the runway of “unknown”. I must have posted that picture here before, but once at DA I did see some light coming from below which was the high intensity runway lights and was able to land ok (more trouble taxiing after that).
Now that I am getting a bit older (haha) I have a tendency to divert where I would before at least try the approach.
As for Sankt Gallen (Altenrhein), my wife’s brother lives there in St. Gallen so we fly regularly to that airport. I can’t remember there being lots of high obstacles before touch down other than a road, fence when approaching over the water side as well as that the missed is not overly complicated with lots of high terrain and/or obstacles around, so I would probably have given it a try here as well. Well, that is in the past, maybe not now anymore :-)
AeroPlus wrote:
I have a tendency to “always” try to fly the ILS down to minima. Ι remember one time at Lyon Exupery that I am pretty sure the controller helped me getting in at night reporting initially an RVR of 550, then later (probably after the 1000 ft point) coming with an update of an RVR for that first sector of the runway of “unknown”. I must have posted that picture here before, but once at DA I did see some light coming from below which was the high intensity runway lights and was able to land ok (more trouble taxiing after that).
I doubt that this Seneca was equipped like your aircraft (G1000 with synthetic vision) which gives a little bit different perspective to approaches to minima. I did few approaches to minima in real IMC with six-pack equipped TB20 and a bit more in G1000 equipped DA42 and I can say that the feeling is completely different.
AeroPlus wrote:
my wife’s brother lives there in St. Gallen
This city is my hometown….. I grew up and lived there for the first 35 years of my life.
@Mooney_Driver: Nice! Do you still regularly visit?
Emir wrote:
I did few approaches to minima in real IMC with six-pack equipped TB20 and a bit more in G1000 equipped DA42 and I can say that the feeling is completely different.
The life and death question is: Is it only the “feeling” or is the actual safety better….
Malibuflyer wrote:
is the actual safety better
Up to DH with enough visibility, life and death, should be the same between glass & steam if the autopilot is the same
At DH with 1km-2km visbility, G1000+Synt-Vision may make some difference to the state of the landing gear after landing
At DH with visibility less than your landing roll, nothing beats a go-around and pulling the chute…
Malibuflyer wrote:
The life and death question is: Is it only the “feeling” or is the actual safety better….
Ibra wrote:
Up to DH with enough visibility, life and death, should be the same between glass & steam if the autopilot is the same
Flying approach on any autopilot requires readiness to switch to hand flying at any moment and flying to DH. I had AP failure in IMC and 200-300 feet above DH once in TB20 and once in DA42. Besides the feeling the actual safety was better with glass cockpit due to moving map and geo-referenced approach plate. Although the airports were not exactly comparable (Belgrade LYBE in flatlands with TB20 with 200’ DH and Sarajevo LQSA in mountains with DA42 with 450’ DH), I believe that actual safety was higher with glass cockpit.
@Emir, interesting. The twin I fly (Tecnam P2006T) has a G950 – a G1000 minus the engine instruments – but I find an approach harder to fly than in the ‘classic’ setup in the C210 with a GNS430 and a HSI. Reason being the need to switch the scan between the HSI and the GS diamond in the G950/1000 – on the ‘classic’ HSI I have both CDI and GS displayed on same instrument. Same on the G5 HSI which lives in another airplane (a C182) I fly. Admittedly I am much more proficient with ‘classic’ instruments but still find the G950/1000 sub-optimal in this regard.
