BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 09:22

Username Protected wrote:

So to reiterate my answer given what I saw in the video/photo, there are/were not enough visual cues for me to note with certainty that I had a runway environment sufficient for ME to land on.

I would have gone missed at DA.

I am comfortable landing ME but I wouldn’t have done it SE....oh wait. :duck:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 09:42

Hey Mark, that’s no fair, those turbines never fail. Ummmm....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 09:49

You did fine Mark, runway in site. I would have landed also.

Username Protected wrote:

Based on what you both tell me(inferred in your posts), that's more than a reason to divert.

I think that the decision to land, whilst perfectly legal, was a poor one.

flame suit on

I’d do it again without hesitation. Two pro pilots, working as a team, with all the right queues , in a capable aircraft, at a stupid long runway. What am I missing?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 10:16

Mark, would the decision to finish this approach/landing in these conditions be different if it were at an airport you've never been to?

I know its all on the charts but for me familiarity plays into it, maybe a bit like home field advantage.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 10:28

Username Protected wrote:

Is an auto-pilot coupled approach allowed to minima?

1380 DA. You can hear me disconnect at the rabbit (at minimums) and I hand flew in from there.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 10:30

Username Protected wrote:

Mark, would the decision to finish this approach/landing in these conditions be different if it were at an airport you've never been to?

I know its all on the charts but for me familiarity plays into it, maybe a bit like home field advantage.

Clearly a home field advantage. 12,000 feet, 150 feet wide, no terrain or obstacles. Also knowing the weather patterns was helpful. Additionally I know that this ILS works really well with my AP in the Citation. Finally I know how well they manage runway conditions.

That said....if I saw what we saw on an unfamiliar field I would still have landed.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 10:30

Username Protected wrote:

Stages of the flight:

While In VMC at IAF, weather reported 600iirc and 7NM. Tower reported a jet landed earlier with moderate to good braking. 1/8” dry over 1/8” hardpack snow reported. Tower said a squall was moving in but would likely be gone by the time we arrived.

Tower later reported he couldn’t see the runway. “Advise on rollout”

Proceeded with approach

Contacted the Rabbit near minimums, continued

Contacted the runway lights, continued

Maintained descent to landing with runway lights in sight

We had and maintained the required visual cues at all times following the procedure. If the argument is based on personal minima, I get that. Otherwise, I’m wondering at what stage specifically you would have broken off and why?

Anytime you land in fresh snow (no tracks) with 12,000’, you’ll be using that style touchdown (maintain deck angle and shallow descent rate).

Mark got an alternate missed approved which was climb straight ahead to 3,600’. At any time we could have pitched, powered, and cleaned up straight ahead. There was never a reason to in my mind, although I was ready. We checked every box all the way down. An unnecessary missed approach below minimums is not without its own set of risks.

Yup, you did it right. I know the place. Stupid long runway, zero obstacles.
The weather is indeed weird there. Goes from bright sunshine to IMC, usually about a mile or two out. Must be the lake. That leg from EVYP somehow seems very long.
Mark was sharp asking for the alternate missed. The published one, asking for a turn at 1600 seems silly given how much room there is up there...... You have enough to do in a go around without worrying about a turn that low. Local knowledge pays....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 10:52

Lake effect snow. We had been watching the reports since the night prior, and watching the nexrad while enroute getting weather reports from ATC. It was highly variable.

While the touchdown visibility was reduced, this was one of the easier approaches I have flown. Loooong straight in, low wind, no turb, long runway, low terrain with few obstacles, and a copilot watching out the window. It doesn’t get much easier to fly an approach to minimums.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 11:49

Quote:

...and a copilot watching out the window with terrain visible below as we approached his home field

FIFY

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 11:52

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

...and a copilot watching out the window with terrain visible below as we approached his home field

FIFY

Yeah....no. :D

Yes there was ground clutter for Mark on the way to the DA, but that would only serve to identify we were indeed on the ILS which we already knew. Once it mattered, only the navaids were available. I never saw any ground clutter of course.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 12:04

Mark is due some credit.

This thread and all of these videos have become a tremendous resource for guys like me. He has put himself out there and opened up his flying to criticism, for the benefit of himself and everyone else.

Flying on camera was a little intimidating when I first hopped in the jet with no turbine experience. I love it now. Its like every ride is a checkride with the FAA AND 45,000 pilots who will catch every little thing. Having the vids has allowed me to study my mistakes and learn from all you guys analyzing them. And once in awhile, we’ll catch a cool approach on vid to save for reminiscing. Its great!

Thanks Mark.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 12:09

I’ll add my “thanks Mark” to that as well!! I’ve enjoyed and have learned a ton from reading and vicariously participating in Mark’s jet adventures.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 12:29

Username Protected wrote:

Mark is due some credit.

This thread and all of these videos have become a tremendous resource for guys like me. He has put himself out there and opened up his flying to criticism, for the benefit of himself and everyone else.

Flying on camera was a little intimidating when I first hopped in the jet with no turbine experience. I love it now. Its like every ride is a checkride with the FAA AND 45,000 pilots who will catch every little thing. Having the vids has allowed me to study my mistakes and learn from all you guys analyzing them. And once in awhile, we’ll catch a cool approach on vid to save for reminiscing. Its great!

Thanks Mark.

I’ll second or third that Thanks Mark. Great technique with critique. Way over the top effort.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 12:58

Thanks guys. I have said it before...I have the opportunity to be the smartest guy on BT because of all the input I get and all at no charge! Double whammy.

There are a few things you guys have missed lately. Slipping I think. E.g. no shoulder harness on KSAW approach. (I said to JJ “I know I had my harness on when we started that approach”. JJ:” I agree but I think you must have unhooked it to mess with the camera” :oops:

). Plus my video on the engine out showed something as well. Andrew V caught it and sent me a PM in the most polite unassuming manner.

To be clear I ain’t no Martin P or Alex G we hit comes to quality. I am a quantity over quality kind of guy so don’t judge me :lol:

I actually post comparatively few of my videos on BT . You can find them all on my YouTube channel...search N840md on YouTube. Don’t have many subscribers. It just sort of my personal scrapbook.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Jan 2018, 15:11

Re missing something on the single engine approach, I was wondering what was up with the flight director and glideslope indicators?

Flying the Citation II