Dressing up and masquerading Flight Aware data as "what happened" is misleading because the basis upon which the data is created and displayed is not proven as an investigative tool with high and reliable accuracy.
PJ2's point restated for emphasis.
Sid: sidAnd I'll tell yah...Don't ever think it can't happen to you.
QFT
Aside: to whomever posted the CFIT pdf from flight safety ... that's using the forum to inform. Well done. For aterpster: your educational value in this thread has been great. Many thanks.
Info
from the FAA approach plate, dated July 2013.
DME or Radar required.
When VGSI inop, procedure NA at night.
Visibility reduction by helicopters NA.
REIL Rwys 18 and 36
MIRL Rwy 18-36
Tubby:
the second states that the approach is not authorised at night.
If Jepp and the FAA have a disagreement, to whom should you default?
Per A squared:
the Jepp plate for the LOC approach (posted in post #228 of this thread) seems to suggest in the minima section that it's N/A at night. However it also contains the note that the procedure is N/A *if* the PAPI is inop. That taken by itself implies the the procedure is approved for night ops if the PAPI is operative. So there seems to be conflicting information on the Jepp chart.
Is Jepp liable?
Tubby
I still stand by my assertion that there are charting discepancies at this airport.
Have you collected the data on how many approaches have been flown into this runway under IMC conditions in the past year? The past three years? The NTSB may, in the end, agree with you ... or not. We shall see.
We also need to know whether the "runway in sight" call was a response to their first sighting of the runway or whether it was a response to 'reacquiring' a visual after temporary loss for whatever reason.
Was there an earlier 'runway in sight" call that hasn't been reported?
Had not thought of that. Good question.