Aircraft down in Bever Switzerland [Archive]

A A Gruntpuddock

19th Dec 2010, 16:25

Just seen an item on an American website (Liberal Guy) :-

"GENEVA – Swiss police say a plane has crashed in the southeast of the country, about 125 miles (200 kilometers) east of the capital, Bern.

Police in the southeast canton of Graubuenden say the plane is on fire and all available rescue forces have been sent to the scene of the crash near the town of Bever.

The statement posted on the police website shortly after 3 p.m. (1400 GMT) gave no indication of the type of plane involved, how many passengers it had or where it was flying from." (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/19/swiss-police-jet-plane-crashes-southeast/)

His dudeness

19th Dec 2010, 16:40

Its D-IAYL.
have alook at the updated link:

http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/pri...flammen-162988

Poor guys, rest in peace.

And its operated by Windrose, callsign Quadriga (QGA)

Kyprianos Biris

19th Dec 2010, 17:21

From the video and the pictures it looks like it was a landing attempt for runway 03 with tailwind and low visibility during snowfall.

bizjets101

19th Dec 2010, 18:27

20 Minuten Online - Business-Jet stürzt in Bever ab - zwei Tote - Kreuz und Quer (http://www.20min.ch/news/kreuz_und_quer/story/Jet-steht-in-Bever-nach-Absturz-in-Vollbrand-22927273)

AN2 Driver

19th Dec 2010, 18:37

Kyprianos,

could well have been an approach to 03 followed by a circling attempt to 21....

no telling at this stage.

bizjets101

19th Dec 2010, 18:52

The Kathryn Report: Hawker Beechcraft 390 Premier IA, Windrose Air Jetcharter, D-IAYL. Crashed near St. Moritz-Samedan Airport (SMV) Switzerland. Two fatalities. (http://www.thekathrynreport.com/2010/12/hawker-beechcraft-390-premier-ia.html)

INNflight

19th Dec 2010, 18:55

Could have also been a missed approach 03 and wanting to fly a left hand circuit for another attempt. The position / published procedure would just about work out.

No matter how it happened, still very sad. Only just been to LSZS yesterday - been a lovely clear day.

bizjets101

19th Dec 2010, 19:27

Google Maps (http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=st.+moritz&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=&hnear=St+Moritz+St.+Moritz,+Maloja,+Grisons,+Switzerland&ll=46.549055,9.889778&spn=0.000422,0.000862&t=h&z=20)

You can see the shadow of the power cable towers, reports are saying the aircraft was turning to go around when it hit the power lines???

AN2 Driver

19th Dec 2010, 19:32

That is the point with Samedan, don't you think? As long as people do not press on with poor vis and low ceilings, nothing happens and it's a great place. But there are too many accidents up there when people insist and insist until it's too late.

SMV is VFR, period. No GPS, no hand made let down, no heaven knows what "knowledge" of the situation helps that. in that valley, 3km and snow is not a place to try out things. Maybe this will only stop after the FOCA closes them down again or imposes strict limits, such as 8 km and ceiling above the highest obstacle. Nobody wants that, but this IS gonna happen if we get more of the same every year.

deefer dog

19th Dec 2010, 20:29

Yes, many of us are regulars to Samedan, but isn't a bit early to be speculating?

Two guys lost their lives here, and already the armchair accident investigators have determined;

a) missed approach off 03followed by LH circuit

b) approaching 03 with tailwind ....(despite a METAR giving 200/08kts, you just HAD to write something, didn't you?)

c) hit power lines

d) circling off 03 for 21...followed by "no telling at this stage though" :ugh: Yes, correct, there is no telling at this stage though, so why tell us?

Is the urge to type something so irresistible?

bizjets101

19th Dec 2010, 20:43

I posted the power line map, as it was reported in the press that the aircraft had
hit the power line, thus has nothing to do with being an armchair critic.

A friend of mine flies a 1A out of YYZ, the fact that until now there have never been a fatality involving a Premier - definitely caught my attention.

Plane crashes near Swiss resort - World - IOL | Breaking News | South Africa News | World News | Sport | Business | Entertainment | IOL.co.za (http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/plane-crashes-near-swiss-resort-1.1002965)

gregwood

19th Dec 2010, 21:59

jackx123

19th Dec 2010, 22:55

Beautiful airport...

YouTube - Samedan Airport Rwy 21 Approach & Landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqO0QWtOgZM)

bizjets101

20th Dec 2010, 00:56

I agree with the visually stunning scenery, this video is a little easier on the ears . . .
show approaches on both runways 21 and 03.

YouTube - LSZS Samedan visual approaches (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e2faDWysBk)

captainsuperstorm

20th Dec 2010, 01:26

here the link, it 's in french.
it says the jet plane crash in power lanes when doing a large circuit, not very far from the train station. Only the 2 pilots on board died.

http://www.20min.ch/ro/news/suisse/story/Un-drame-a-ete-evite-de-justesse-12229612 (http://www.20min.ch/ro/news/suisse/story/Un-drame-a-ete-evite-de-justesse-12229612)

read carefully airport charts and MSA.

jackx123

20th Dec 2010, 04:34

easier on the ear yes, but only managed to watch 2min before falling asleep :rolleyes:

His dudeness

20th Dec 2010, 06:29

With a METAR of 3000mtrs and BKN 040, that's hardly VFR WX. Maybe it's time the FOCA make Samedan an approved operators only airport and any AOC company who operates there will have to supply to the FOCA their sim training details

Yes exactly. Next we introduce a 'how-to-use-your-zipper' training module before we use the toilet.

gregwood, we need more of your type. OTOH we could also downright forbid aviation right now and here. Screw accident investigations, we just need to ask gregwood, who knows already what the issue IS.

So you already know that it wasn´t, say, a split flap? Or just a plain old stall in a visual?(forgot to add power?) Or something else?

MartinBaker

20th Dec 2010, 09:06

100% hear hear!:D

AN2 Driver

20th Dec 2010, 16:21

From the airport website:

Immediate measure regarding the accident of the 19th December 2010

As immediate action regarding the accident of the 19th December 2010 the management board of the Engadin Airport in accordance with the executive board and the FOCA (Federal Office of Civil Aviation) has decided to implement a compulsory familiarization briefing for jets and multi engine pilots as of the 21st of December 2010. This immediate action will be published at the NOTAM. About other masures in accordance with the BAZL will be informed at the 22/23 of December 2010.

seems gregwood is not the only one starting to ask questions. Still, better than certified operators only....

FalconFlyr

20th Dec 2010, 17:21

I'd agree His Dudeness, if last winter I hadn't heard am aircraft cancel VFR with the valley covered in cloud and heavy snow and then watched a CJ appear out of snow so heavy we could barely see the end of the runway from the FBO office....the operator? Well I'll leave you to guess...:ugh:

His dudeness

20th Dec 2010, 18:58

if last winter I hadn't heard am aircraft cancel VFR with the valley covered in cloud and heavy snow and then watched a CJ appear out of snow so heavy we could barely see the end of the runway from the FBO office....the operator? Well I'll leave you to guess...

So a certification or familiarization will change that? Can THAT have an impact on pilots that can´t understand the concept of flying VFR to a VFR only airport surrounded by real high terrain?

If one is stupid enough to fly a self made GPS into an airfield such as one like Samedan, then I fear a piece of paper won´t change that.

Stupid is who stupid does said a guy in a famous film...

THIS accident (I think) was probably different as they did not hit a mountain (other than the polish dudes, that tried to plow a new pass through the engadins mountains...)

BTW, I think I have an idea on your operator, or two, or three...

INNflight

20th Dec 2010, 18:58

A first official report available:
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/D-IAYL.pdf

Worth noting:
In order to land at Samedan airport, the aircraft
performed a right turn at low altitude and hit the ground.

His dudeness

20th Dec 2010, 19:03

A right turn at this position? Strange...

gregwood

20th Dec 2010, 19:35

lear60fellow

20th Dec 2010, 20:08

Lack of situation awareness? or QNH not set up? I guess they had radio altimeter but with snow things change a lot.

what next

20th Dec 2010, 21:04

A right turn at this position? Strange...

In one of the Swiss newspapers (I think it was Startseite (NZZ Online, Neue Zrcher Zeitung) (http://www.nzz.ch)) they qoute a police spokesperson who said they were high on finals and wanted to fly a threesixty to lose altitude. Coming in from the north-east, the valley is wider on the right side than on the left. Not an easy maneuver with a fully configured aircraft in a narrow valley over a mountain airfield, maybe in icing conditions (or with an iced-up airfrane) and certainly in poor visibility. Very easy to develop a higher than expected sinkrate in these conditions. I narrowly avoided that fate in similar conditions (and at night) in Bolzano many years ago.

AN2 Driver

21st Dec 2010, 06:26

His Dudeness, as much as I agree with the concept of freedom of the skies and all that, it can't be ignored that certain VIP Airfields have a tendency to attract this kind of accidents. Samedan is probably one of the most difficult places around and up there, there is simply no place to dick around in marginal VMC/IMC trying to find the runway, or landing there and going for a walk in the snow or what else has happened up there in recent years.

It is exactly because of the fact that loads of well trained and discipilined pilots are operating for decades up there who know when to call it quits that maybe for those who don't a proper legislative framework needs establishing, to prevent such tragedies.

I seem to remember that Samedan used to be controlled. Would a Tower controller have allowed such maneuvering? Probably not, and he has the authority to tell a crew who is obviously getting dangerous what to do. Maybe it's as "easy" as that. What I'd hate to see is some sort of a knee jerk closure of SMV to all jet traffic or outside CAVOK. But accidents like this may well provoke such an outcome in todays regulate as regulators can environment.

AN2

what next

21st Dec 2010, 07:26

What I'd hate to see is some sort of a knee jerk closure of SMV to all jet traffic or outside CAVOK.

But strict regulation would really be the best solution here: approaches in CAVOK conditions only. And a proper control zone with a controller who can forbid landing attempts in unsuitable weather. And who regulates traffic properly at all times.

I am getting sick of having to listen to news like this one year after year and trying to figure out if this time colleagues or friends are among the victims. I am aware of no other airport in Europe that claims victims among (professional!) pilots on such a regular basis than this one.

And this online questionaire (just clicked through it) is not going to save a single life. How can the correct answer to "What is the name of the town six miles from threshold 03?" save you from hitting cables or rocks in conditions of low visibilty? You will not even be able to see that town!

INNflight

21st Dec 2010, 07:45

They did a go around during the approach to rwy 21 and then elected to fly a right hand circuit while the published traffic pattern as per VFR chart is left hand, and for single engine aircraft only.

In VMC conditions jets would obviously go around, then climb out and head off further to the West in direction of St. Moritz to turn around. It seems that during this kind of weather that was not an option and they decided on the low-alt, unpublished circuit.

AN2 Driver

21st Dec 2010, 19:58

INNflight

I see, that is even crazier than what I thought initially. With a jet? Actually, I do wonder how on earth they managed to turn the first 180° to the right without ending up in a pile. And a final turn out of the position they crashed at, I just can't see that happening. Definitly, the citizens of Bever had a very lucky escape last night.

His dudeness

21st Dec 2010, 22:19

His Dudeness & MartinBaker, i stand by my statement. This airport needs to be more clearly regulated to stop the cowboys flying into here. MSA is 16000ft, so if you can't find a VFR sensible approach from overhead at that altitude, go elsewhere.

U are of course entitled to your opinion. I for one think that a familiarization or a sim requirement won´t change anything, ESPECIALLY if 'cowboys' are involved. I´m right now aware of 3 accidents: the B300 with the polish pilots on board, they made a mistake or two using their FMS/GPS and ended up dead on a iced up mountain slope.

IMO this accident has nothing to do with Samedan, it just happened there. You can kill yourself in that way in a lot of places. (anywhere with some elevation around)

Next I recall was the Falcon 10 that collided with that snow bank. I knew the co. Apart from the fact that the Capt had sort of a history, CRM/SOPs seem to be nonexistant and the Airport hadn´t cleared the runway correctly I don´t recall what was so Samedan specific. I'd say that this accident might have happened at any VFR airfield with the same daylight/weather/snow conditions.

This one now, is sort of...well, I sure hope it was something technical and therefore my private assumption is wrong, but to me it looks very much like they ran out of airspeed in an tight turn, that is something I´d relate to either bad CRM or lack of experience and should not happen to a commercial pilot crew.

Yes, Samedan is demanding. But it is not a piloteater. One has of course to have a high level of awareness and a plan B. But thats true for all other airports as well, innit?
Yes, a lot of our fellow pilots lack basic knowledge of VFR flying.

Will a fam/simrequirement change that? To me, it goes deeper than that. Will the level of experience put on flights like that rise? (I don´t know the pilots involved and might be on the wrong 'track' here, but frankly, I´ve seen and continue to see very low experience level pilots fly CJ´s/Premiars/etc as captains with even greener cos.) Will we see a - IMO - change of standards especially at commercial operators, some of which seem to employ pilots that no one else would touch even with pliers ? (not implying anything here in respect of the pilots of D-IAYL, I didn´t know them, just generally speaking here)

I don´t think so.

We do have rules (VisualFlightRules/prescribed flight tracks) and we have SOME people either ignoring or bending these. Then a fraction of these crash. Now, is it more logical to enforce the rules in existance or to introduce new rules/regs and probably don´t enforce them beyond the paper trail?

gregwood

21st Dec 2010, 22:49

Hiss Dudness,

Nice reply. I think we all need to work together here. As someone posted earlier;the best we need in samaden is a FOCA air controler. Please let this happen soon as i'm started to get pissed off with twits than cannot fly a biz jet into this lovely airport.

bizjets101

22nd Dec 2010, 03:02

Familiarisation Briefing for Jet and Multiengine Aircraft Crews - Engadin Airport.

http://www.engadin-airport.ch/fileadmin/qdb/QDB/QDB.swf?RemoteLaunch=7

what next

22nd Dec 2010, 11:35

Good morning!

...as i'm started to get pissed off with twits than cannot fly a biz jet into this lovely airport.

??? :confused: ??? I consider myself to be one of these "twits" and the last thing that I want to do is to "piss you off", Sir. But as an averageley skilled, averagely experienced bizjet pilot, I need some kind of guidance that protects me, my crew, my passengers and the people on the ground from the consequences of wrong decisions that are based on nothing but guesses and estimates.

Rules and regulations are needed to protect the weak ones, not the strong ones (a "good" driver does not need speed limits, he always knows how fast he can take the next turn, yet there are speed limits everywhere and few people question their usefulness). Considering myself a member of the "weak fraction" here, so to say, I demand a clear set of rules upon which to base my decision wether to fly an approach into Samedan or not. Just the same way as with every instrument approach: RVR below minimum -> divert, no questions asked. As it is now, I can always try to find my way into Samedan provided the weather on the ground is above class G airspace VFR limits (it almost always is, and it was the afternoon of this accident). Even if I have never been there before. All I need to do is click through thirty questions of an online questionaire. That's not good enough. Usually people say: "that's an accident waiting to happen", but here, in fact, it's an accident that has already happend far too many times.

His duedeness: IMO this accident has nothing to do with Samedan, it just happened there.

I don't see it that way. In most other airfields, a "visual" approach in poor weather conditions (probably preceded by some selfmade FMS/GPS based approach) will place you in a position from which a staight-in landing is possible once you are visual with the runway. And even if some maneuvering is required, the obstacle situation will allow you to to this without the need of tight turns. Not here, obviously.

So what would be wrong with a set of Samedan-specific rules like "10 km visibility and the mountain tops visible from the ground (determined by an official oberserver)", otherwise the airport remains closed? Works elsewhere too.

Regards,
max

His dudeness

22nd Dec 2010, 12:15

I demand a clear set of rules upon which to base my decision wether to fly an approach into Samedan or not.

Excuse me, I thought the regulations are already there. Last time I checked VFR meant Visual Flight Rules. Honestly, I don´t get 'it'. There is a set of regs that can 'protect' you and if YOU as F......PILOT IN COMMAND can´t make that decision in a safe and sound way, you are in the wrong seat.

You fly into a valley ONLY if the approach track you decided for can keep you clear of obstacles. IF you can´t or if your too high/hot and have to execute a missed or traffic pattern, you do just that. IF the conditions won´t allow for that, you don´t approach that airport.(the 'plan B').

Whats the rocketscience about that????

I don't see it that way. In most other airfields, a "visual" approach in poor weather conditions (probably preceded by some selfmade FMS/GPS based approach) will place you in a position from which a staight-in landing is possible once you are visual with the runway. And even if some maneuvering is required, the obstacle situation will allow you to to this without the need of tight turns. Not here, obviously

IIRC they put in a line that had them go over a mountain, but decended to early. They had no VFR charts of Samedan on board. WTF???

Look up the accident report:
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1874_d.pdf and check the photo of the wreckages location and tell me again that this accident had ANYTHING to do with the airport Samedan itself.

I checked on the webpage of the swiss accident investigation:

BFU - BEAA - UIIA - AAIB (http://www.bfu.admin.ch/de/dokumentation_berichte_suchen.htm)

and checked for the accidents happened there since 1992 with turboprop and jet aircraft.... here is my summary:

1992, Beech 200 landed short and lost the nose gear in the process - no one killed
1998 a Ju52lost control after landing - no one killed
2002 Beech 300LW collided with a mountain east of Samedan - both pilots killed
2007 a C550 overshoot after landing on a BA POOR runway - no one killed
2007 a B1900 had is nosegear retract after landing - no one killed
2009 a GLEX overshoot the end of the runway after a too fast approach and landing late. - no one killed
2009 the Falcon 10 that tried to land in WX not suitable, after deactivation of the EGPWS. no CRM and plowed through a snowwall that was up to 4 m high - 2 pilots killed, owner survided. This man had asked his pilots to discontinue the apporach and "fly out of here"
2010 the Premier. 2 dead.

Now, maybe I overlooked a report, still I think the accident rate is not so bad. (course one acc is one too much)

I stand by my opinion, that Samedan does not need further regulation.

BTW I don´t consider myself being gifted by above average flying skills etc.

AN2 Driver

22nd Dec 2010, 19:39

Well, the Swiss FOCA has reacted, as expected.

BAZL - Piloten beim Anflug nach Samedan untersttzen (http://www.bazl.admin.ch/aktuell/medieninformation/00024/index.html?lang=de&msg-id=36956)

So the test will remain.
VFR Minimas for Multi Engine and Jet Aircraft rised to 5 km, 2200 ft ceiling.
Compulsory introduction flight before any operation into Samedan.

The intro flight is not law yet, the rest has been, will be notamed tomorrow.

what next

22nd Dec 2010, 20:36

Hello!

... I thought the regulations are already there. Last time I checked VFR meant Visual Flight Rules.

The problem is, that they consist of one set of rules that applies to the whole planet. Land and sea, desert and mountains. A rule (like 1500m visibilty (to be determined by the pilot himself on who knows what basis!) and stay clear of clouds) that is good for a seaside airfield may be less than adequate for a mountain airfield inside a deep valley. Other European mountain airfields like Chambery, Lugano, Bolzano or Couchevel have accepted this fact and created their own set rules that better suits their situation. I am not aware of any fatal accidents at either of these airfields during the last 10 years.

Honestly, I don´t get 'it'. There is a set of regs that can 'protect' you and if YOU as F......PILOT IN COMMAND can´t make that decision in a safe and sound way, you are in the wrong seat.

If life would always be that easy, why did JAR (and now EU) insist on installing RVR based approach criteria and factored runway lengths? Pilots have been in command long before these regulations. Most of them have taken the right decision most of the time, but not always all of them (often enough based on fear of losing their jobs when everybody else lands and only they divert). And as I said earlier: "The law" was invented to protect the weak, the strong ones can look after themselves.

A class D control zone at LSZS with class D VFR minima, extending four miles into each side of the valley would already take most of the stess away from operating there. Works nicely everywhere else. And if I compare the situation with Innsbruck (not so very totally different), why should it be so impossible to install some kind of instrument approach?

INNflight

23rd Dec 2010, 09:12

And if I compare the situation with Innsbruck (not so very totally different), why should it be so impossible to install some kind of instrument approach

The valley to the East of Innsbruck is A LOT wider, allowing for the (slightly offset) LOC DME approach.

The only real IFR solution imho that would be a possibility in LSZS would be an RNP RNAV approach. Innsbruck has one aswell that is rarely used though, and the problem arising with that is

a.) lack of appropriate aircraft equipment

b.) additional crew training needed

c.) (most crucial imho) the national authorities need to certify and allow such procedures.

Afaik not a single German operator is allowed to fly RNP RNAV approaches so far by the German LBA.

Doodlebug

23rd Dec 2010, 09:21

''Other European mountain airfields like Chambery, Lugano, Bolzano or Couchevel have accepted this fact and created their own set rules that better suits their situation. I am not aware of any fatal accidents at either of these airfields during the last 10 years.''

True, but then Chambery, Lugano and Bolzano have instrument approaches. Couchevel is so short that it is virtually irrelevant.

His dudeness

23rd Dec 2010, 13:31

The problem is, that they consist of one set of rules that applies to the whole planet. Land and sea, desert and mountains. A rule (like 1500m visibilty (to be determined by the pilot himself on who knows what basis!) and stay clear of clouds) that is good for a seaside airfield may be less than adequate for a mountain airfield inside a deep valley. Other European mountain airfields like Chambery, Lugano, Bolzano or Couchevel have accepted this fact and created their own set rules that better suits their situation

I have written the approach procedures and training procedures of a AOC holder for Chambery and Lugano, so yes I´m aware of their legislation. However, as doodlebug rightly points out, you are comparing apples with some other fruit. To me 1500m alone is not enough. You have to be able to keep clear of the mountains and you have to see ground.

If life would always be that easy, why did JAR (and now EU) insist on installing RVR based approach criteria and factored runway lengths? Pilots have been in command long before these regulations. Most of them have taken the right decision most of the time, but not always all of them (often enough based on fear of losing their jobs when everybody else lands and only they divert). And as I said earlier: "The law" was invented to protect the weak, the strong ones can look after themselves.

Again, apples and something else. RVR in a precision approach has NOTHING to do with VFR minima and how to determine them. I don´t we need to discuss that stuff...

Maybe its time that EASA starts to think again who is suitable for command in a fast mover? Maybe EASA needs to think again about mountain flying and the learning of it. Maybe EASA should look into the training again IF average skilled pilots such as me need regulations on top of what already exists.

I dont know if D-IAYL had a CVR/FDR, so we might never really know what happened.

Now, it doesnt matter any more what we discuss, BAZL has taken his decision, which IMO is a kneejerk type reaction. We have 2 dead after a total chaotic approach with no CRM whatsoever and inadequate snow removal, that have been several times there (so what would the now required instruction have changed???) and we have 2 dead after what very much looks like a stall at low altitude in the pattern.[have they been at Samedan before?] (the other 2, the B300 happened not really at Samedan and could have happened anywhere)

I doubt that the BAZL has already determined wether the crew of D-IAYL has been in Samedan before, I would have though that at least a prelimenary report should have been made before any reaction, but apparently the swiss go down the same route than the rest of Europe: forbid, rule, regulate without thinking.)

So are you happy now Max? :-)

bizjets101

23rd Dec 2010, 15:02

Set of 33 photos

Giancarlo Cattaneo. Fotograf. Photographer.St. Moritz | fotoSwiss.com > pressPhotography presseFotos (http://www.fotoswiss.com/portfolio/G0000prQHhDbPbHo#I0000knNIZ23YIjo)

G-SPOTs Lost

23rd Dec 2010, 16:33

We need a mandatory briefing for Cannes nowadays, so with that history of incidents (the majority of which boils down to captains egos writing out cheques their lack of common sense cant cash) then a mandatory briefing makes good sense....its also down to the airport to close the place if they dont have the minimum 5k.

In addition they need a remote visiometer 1/2 way down the valley at altitude with it being reported together with the field viz on an ATIS

The first visit needs 10k+ with an airport issued approval certificate issued there and then - it can sit in the aircraft docs.

To go down the sim route would be stupid its VFR only.... its about compliance and ramp checking.

what next

23rd Dec 2010, 18:02

Hello!

So are you happy now Max? :-) Happier than before, yes. Like yourself, I fly mainly corporate. To Samedan, it's always the owner and his family. So if I say "I don't like the weather there today, let's go elsewhere" he will understand and my job is never at danger. But I know quite a few pilots who will be called to their bosses office if they don't go to Samedan in "legally possible" weather conditions, and therefore will always attempt to get in there. For them, the world is a safer place now. For me personally, nothing has changed.

And as others have pointed out, most of my examples above are mountain airports with IFR approaches and "wider valleys". And even then, they require min.vis. like 5000m and ceilings in excess of 2000ft (like Insbruck). So these should be the absolute minima for a VFR only mountain airfield like Samedan, don't you agree at least a litte bit?

Happy landings (and holidays!)
Max

His dudeness

24th Dec 2010, 10:18

If your owners are who I think they are, then I know them very well, since I flew them sometimes when they still had their KingAir (thats the one before the V). In fact I managed their KingAir a while. We always told them if the weather was fishy that we wont land at LSZS if we doubt the safe conduction of our flight. Mrs.Senior Owner would have died by heart attack if we´d tried to 'smuggle' us in.

But I know quite a few pilots who will be called to their bosses office if they don't go to Samedan in "legally possible" weather conditions, and therefore will always attempt to get in there.

I know some of that kind as well. It sounds maybe harsh, but for me, these have no place in a cockpit. And such owners/operators need to be punished.
Now all are punished by a regulation not necessary IMO.

And even then, they require min.vis. like 5000m and ceilings in excess of 2000ft (like Insbruck). So these should be the absolute minima for a VFR only mountain airfield like Samedan, don't you agree at least a litte bit?

I agree to the extend that I say that the measurement alone, at one or now 2 points not necessarely means that an approach could not be executed safely. Kind of like an IFR approach with fog on the lawn and therefore the transmissiometers giving very low RVR values whilst the Rwy itself is clear. Had that bout 2 months ago at Farnborough. I also would say that arriving in a Twin Otter is different than in a F-16, to take it to the extreme.

Anyhow, it doesn´t matter what my opinion is. BAZL has ruled.

Happy xmas !

AN2 Driver

24th Dec 2010, 23:52

I know some of that kind as well. It sounds maybe harsh, but for me, these have no place in a cockpit. And such owners/operators need to be punished.
Now all are punished by a regulation not necessary IMO.

Unfortunately, this is a real problem. I fully agree that such owners/operators should be taken out of circulation. In an ideal world, people who crew for such folks have no place in the flight deck. However, like in many other jobs these days, in a situation where one open job receives 50 applications, if one sais no and is fired, there are 50 others to take his place just to finally get in a cockpit and pay back that horriffic debt they carry from paying for their own license.

Face it, many who fly as private pilots to owners are not airline material or they would not be where they are in the first place. For many, it is second or even third choice. With modern outfits the problem has gotten a lot better I think than in the time when such crews were basically "owned" by the proprietor and treated like furniture. But it still exists. And I do reckon that a lot of those folks would love to get out of that work but can't afford to before they don't get those 2-3k hours in order to find better work elsewhere. I know they still SHOULD pipe up, refuse and even blow the whistle if necessary, but with some folks this will certainly terminate your job and possibly create more hazards.

Therefore, the new regs at Samedan might well be a protection for such folks and also give the regulators the possibility to go after offenders without the need of whistleblowing. Sad that it is like that but there are too many out there who will try anything to keep their seats in the cockpit at all cost.

No RYR for me

31st Dec 2010, 10:35

While flying at a well know fractional I hated not so much some of the ignorant owners but the fact that some fellow operators who would fly in here while we could not. We had put in higher minimums after a proper safety assesment done by the company safety department. Our rules where similar to the ones now announced by FOCA. :\

We had to explain to the owners time and time again that there was a reason behind this... The other company always could claim the fact that they met the legal requirements, which was true. As I am fully aware most small one man band operators do not have the resources nor the manpower to do the same assesment the regulator have to step in.. :(

But even with all these rules if it is true that they made a non approved right turn it is to no avail.... Lets wait for the report.. :uhoh: