nfnsquared

Not sure how close they really came to the tower, but seems they were way off course on that second approach and the tower controller seemed pretty shocked. Now the Feds are involved. Will be interesting to see where this goes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T9m1GF2Fys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xauO-7FH8qI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPCTrHJn4H4

rickair7777

https://apnews.com/article/faa-inves...2f0bf792280af5

NotAPilotfromFL

I don't know if C.W. touched on this, but it seems like they were likely AP Coupled which isn't allowed on this approach. They were certainly in line with the tower. Doubt they would have hit it...but crazier things have happened.

Juan Brown's ever-insightful input.

https://youtu.be/3FQE38L81DI?si=heOsjdKIeoOszUB5

2StgTurbine

How can you tell if the AP was on or off? LOC interference with the AP on is just as likely to have happened as a poorly hand-flown approach. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter if you couple the approach or not as long as you are paying attention. If the LOC signal is bent somehow through interference and you are hand flying, you will still track that incorrect signal just the same as the AP.

In my experience, any LOC issues I have had were erratic indications, not actual bent signals. The erratic LOC signal would kick off the AP off anyway.

Adlerdriver

First of all, if the auto-pilot was on, that's a big problem since the approach clearly restricts that. As far as the rest, I disagree. The whole reason behind the no auto-coupled restriction on this approach is potential signal interference and the lack of the auto-pilot's ability to cope. If you're hand flying an ILS and get a spurious signal, it's likely you wouldn't be fast enough to start following it before it came back to null. If you've got the LOC wired, it's also unlikely that all of the sudden you're just going to be off course for no reason so you're less likely to bite off on it right away. On the other hand, the auto-pilot is going to immediately react which creates a "do I step in or do I let it correct on its own" situation which we've all seen create problems. That decision loop when automation isn't performing well can lead to a late human intervention while we tend to give it a chance to correct on its own whereas, we don't have to wait to evaluate when it's us making the error. It's no different than auto-throttles with gusty winds. The speed jumps up 5-10 knots and the auot-throttles over correct. They reduce significantly and then as soon as the gust is over, speed is trending down and suddenly they're way up past normal trying to catch up. If you're hand flying, you leave the power set where it has been holding the speed nicely and after the gust everything goes back to normal.

galaxy flyer

Looking at the track displayed on these videos, it's clear they were tracking the LOC pretty until about 650' AGL. Then, they start going off the LOC dramatically and close to what I'd expect, if the winds were as posted in on of the comments--180/48 at 3,000' and the crew did report a strong tailwind in the first approach. Descended thru the wind shear, didn't make a rapid cut back to the LOC while trying to nail the GS.

If the crab angle was about 13 degrees, failing to take it out leads to about their off-track distance of 1400'

JohnBurke

This is wholly inappropriate. Only Juan Brown can divine the truth. Introduction of logic, facts, and rational observation, before Juan has had ample opportunity to screw it up while mugging for the camera, is not allowed.

Elevation

John Burke and I have different views on human nature, especially as it relates to promotion and selection. Even I agree with that Juan Browne camofluages a terrible product in the trapp8ngs of "professional" analysis.

Also Juan is in the habit of making some very poor assertions then taking them down when new facts come to light (An MD80 accident in Texas comes to mind where Juan and Dan Gryder jumped to some deeply flawed conclusions comes to mind.) The result is he seems more insightful than he actually is. There are creators out there who publish after facts and reports are out, then delve into the strengths and weaknesses of a particular investigation. I'd strongly recommend looking at their stuff instead.

cardiomd

I'm surprised that any professional pilots would watch that guy, or most of the youtube "analysis" crews. I looked at around 5 videos of "blancolirio" and while 50% of the content was reasonable, there is a lot of weird low-probability conspiracy or sometimes just bad analysis. I'm surprised he is praised by some. I'd rather listen to joe rambling at the local FBO.

There is also the "pilot debrief" guy who is supposedly retired military pilot, but some of the stuff he says is kind of really dumbed down?? A recent one he keeps talking about hitting "best climb", but doesn't specify Vx or Vy even when situation clearly demands differentiation of the two. I think his youtube show is aimed at non-pilots.

The AOPA pilot safety institute videos were always quite nicely done and the early analysis reasonable, but the presenter McSpadden died recently in a crash... so may not have more of those.

rickair7777

Yeah honestly Juan's value add is retrieving and publishing the available info nearly immediately.

Mentour Pilot and that former eagle driver (Hoover) do a much more professional job of addressing accidents in detail, after more official data is available. Mover has a good channel too.