FollowMe

Doesn’t look like it’s snow covered to me, seems to be a distinct gray amongst the otherwise white background...

Excargodog

Full scale deflection of a CDI all the way to its maximum range should only be AT MAXIMUM three degrees to the right or left of centerline. At the reported half mile visibility this aircraft should have been AT MOST 136 feet off the centerline. At the MDA for a localizer approach at PQI being 70 feet to either side of the centerline of the 150 foot wide runway ought to have given a full scale needle deflection.

If anyone is seriously saying that they ROUTINELY experience a lateral deviation of 100 feet at the mins they are either full scale deviation and ought to be going around or they are flying an aircraft that has instrumentation that is seriously out of tolerances and needs to be written up.

greenroute

I’ve landed on snow covered runways that were conpletely white on a completely white background. You still know it’s the runway because there are lights on both sides. If you don’t see the pavement OR the lights on both sides then you don’t have the runway in sight and you should be going around.

The strangest part of landing on an unplowed runway is the flare because you have no depth perception. It’s like landing at night with no landing light.

cursesRedBaron

Agreed. Depth perception is all off.
You basically rely on your reference to the lights on both sides of you.

tonsterboy5

Does the 145 have a false capture problem like the crj200?

Blackhawk

Localizer and glideslope don’t matter for the last 100’ unless you are shooting a Cat II/III.
91.175
“(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:

(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.

(ii) The threshold.

(iii) The threshold markings.

(iv) The threshold lights.

(v) The runway end identifier lights.

(vi) The visual glideslope indicator.

(vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.

(viii) The touchdown zone lights.

(ix) The runway or runway markings.

(x) The runway lights.”

I believe there is only a Cat I approach to this airport. No see runway, go around. It’s that simple.

BeechPilot33

thanks for pointing that out we all didn't know that. Glad you are 20/20 sitting in your desk with your hot coffee.

Blackhawk

If you can’t learn from the mistakes of the past you are doomed to repeat them.
I’m not sure if this accident counts as a “runway excursion” as they don’t seem to have touched the runway, but there have been quite a number of runway excursions over the last few years. They don’t seem to get the national publicity as to date the last fatality was the SWA over run at MDW, but if we keep this up there may well be another.

This is a really easy job. Until it isn’t.

PhantomHawk

I’m with Blackhawk. We should all try to give the benefit of the doubt, to the extent that it’s REASONABLE. Unless that plane was out of fuel, on fire, or both crewmembers were impaired in some way......there’s just no excuse. Once a fellow pilot reaches this point, it’s not a matter of “standing by our own”. For me, it’s more a question of protecting the rest of our careers, and the public at large. Anybody who would take it to this level is a liability.......to ALL of us.

But hey.....”kudos to the crew”........right?!

Coneydog

It does happen occasionally. I wouldn’t classify it as a problem. A false capture, however, wouldn’t cause an airline crew to land in the snow.