This thread is a real wake-up to anyone who thought this was a forum for Professional pilots. It has turned into a feeding-ground for the media to hoover up the most idiotic misinformation to pass on to the public. The signal to noise ratio here is not just dismal, it is almost zero. If the press are printing gobbledegook about this incident they could do no better than get it here, because the preceeding pages are bursting with it.
We have people prating on about an imaginary "three approach rule" and a fabulously inventive "2X improvement" whatever that may be - it is clear even they don't know.
There is clearly a major misunderstanding among some of the basic concept of a "rule", with advice and guidance being assigned this normally unambiguous designation. That is a very worrying trait indeed if the people involved are pilots but one that is, in my experience, becoming more common nowadays since the plethora of rules and rigid SOPs displaced airmanship. There is a widespread concept in some circles that if something is not mandatory it is forbidden - a worrying trend in misunderstanding the simple and fundamental concept of "must" and "should" which hitherto every ten year old knew instinctively. That appears not the case now.
We have constant discussion of Cat II and III minima in an incident involving a Cat I aircraft. Why, why would anyone bring up autoland minima with reference to a Metroliner? It cannnot perform even a Cat II approach so why the discussion? Worse, much worse is the evident misconception among some that Cat I minima include a cloudbase component, an admission that is to my mind simply incredible in a pilot, and inexcusable from someone who is not sufficiently knowlegeable to blab such utter nonsense from a position of ignorance.
"Go and see if it is landable at XXXX" is a euphemism for busting minimas? In your fertile imagination pal, and nowhere else. Do we really have people flying public transport aircraft who read that sort of content into a plain language statement? What's the difficulty with finding it isn't landable and acting accordingly- that's your Professional responsibility isn't it?
Some clearly don't understand the approach ban, something so fundamental that I would not have believed it possible until I read it here.
I shan't even start on RVRs vs Vis or taking METARS as being indicative of vis/RVR passed to an aircraft on its approach, or the ability claimed by some to divine the detailed dynamics of an accident from the position and cleanliness of an undercarrriage leg. Gawdelpus!
Please, this incident is in the spotlight right now, have a care about what you post as "facts", especially if you believe that a 200' cloudbase is part of the approach ban or that autoland minima affect Metroliners...