Coagie/Capn Bloggs
Quote:
We can discuss mirages, refractions, tree heights, runway in sight call outs, etc., etc., but the basic fact is they were lower than published minimums.
I'm with you. They were way too low. I was just trying to figure out why, it seems, they were oblivious to being a couple hundred feet low.
"the basic fact is they were lower than published minimums."
The crew were visual with the runway (report on the CVR). What are the 'published minimums' once visual with the runway?
As the crew were visual it is a problem of visual approaches to 18 that should be addressed, not how to fly the NPA. The NPA had 'done its job' and the crew were now runway in sight landing visually. Something, in that visual approach led them to drop significantly below the visual glide path shown by the PAPIs/Approach lights/runway lights. Should the range/altitude checks of the NPA be continued despite being visual and inside/below MDA?
Was it in response to the 'sink rate' or a range/altitude check that the reassurance was given of 'runway in sight'? If so then that is an indication of some sort of visual illusion or an unforgivingly small vertical margin for visual approaches.