desmotronic
see post # 52 for an eyewitness statement which sounds to me like a second engine problem. Combine that with the obvious lack of performance and it is reasonable to conclude that something was amiss with the remaining engine is a possibility.
OK... so let me see if I've got this right. I'm not allowed to comment until the report comes out, but you are happy to go with an unverified report from a non-expert witness? I see. And there was an "obvious" lack of performance? How do you know? How do you know WHEN that lack of performance started? How do you know it was engine-related? Why is it reasonable for you to assume stuff, but apparently not OK for me to do so?
And for the last time, nobody is speaking ill of the dead. If you can't discuss this subject without getting all emotional, you will never learn from it.
Old Akro
Runway visibility is measured adjacent to the touchdown areas and at the centre of the runway at a height of 5 metres. This is intended to be indicative of the pilots view when landing. The automated service at Richmond reported a visibility of 200m at this 5m height.
No, RVR is measured that way. There was no RVR reported for RIC. In any case, it wouldn't be possible as the meteorological definition of shallow fog is a layer of fog below 2m (6'), which would not be picked up by the transmissometers which are, as you said, at 5m (actually 14', but whatever). I'm not sure where the automated service gets it's vis reading from, but it certainly wasn't recorded in the manner you describe.
In what fairy tale land does that translate to isolated patches of 6 foot thick light mist?
In the fairytale land of meteorological definitions (and the accounts of locals in the first thread on this subject, should you care to read it) - and PA39's comment above. By the way, I have never used the terms "patches", or "thick light mist" which is an obvious oxymoron.
From the pilot's point of view the thickness is irrelevant if he couldn't see the ground and the reported weather was well below ILS minima, then Richmond airport didn't exist for his purposes.
Are you seriously suggesting that it isn't possible to see the runway through a 2m (at the most) layer of fog through which the visibility is 300m? Haven't flown around fog much, have you?
From altitude that would be virtually transparent. At no point on the approach are you likely to lose visual reference with those conditions.
Some of you need to get a grip on what radiation fog actually is, and what 300m met vis looks like.
Douche (yep, that sums it up)
I mean honestly; if you believe that an ILS approach into fog in a very sick MOJAVE is a good idea, then you're a retard.
And if you think that trying to fly an additional 23 miles with an aircraft in such a condition is smart... you are way beyond being a retard...