Originally Posted by
tightcircuit
AV8R76,
Are you talking to me? What do you not understand about the fact that they claim they had the required visual reference at MDA. Let me say it again with emphasis. THEY CLAIM AND THE REPORT SEEMS TO ACCEPT THAT THEY HAD THE REQUIRED VISUAL REFERENCES AT MDA. Of course I am not advocating continuing regardless. What do you do if you have the required references at decision? Are you suggesting you should go-round anyway just in case thing deteriorate? Blimey just read my posts properly please.
Could you tell us what specific required visual references they had. Seeing as there are no approach lights but the crew said they saw approach lights and therefore continued seems to suggest that they didn't have the required visual references. Perhaps if they had looked at the approach chart more closely, they would have noticed this and realized that any lights seen outside are not approach lights.
I have gone around more than once after having the required visual references at minimums. Once for losing sight of the approach lights on a 300 foot DH ILS and more than once in whiteout conditions on non-precision approaches where depth perception was inadequate leading to being high.
I doubt they saw anything useful. You have to know your distance versus height, what rate of descent is required among other variables such as runway length and conditions, etc and put it all together.
If you are going to just plow on down(such as in an emergency), then have a plan and create a stabilized descent rate on a proper glidepath using your technology well back from the MDA. We did that in the old days.