Lear 36 crash at Freeport, Bahamas
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Huffington this morning they had photos of the accident site, labeled that a Cessna 402 had crashed, but then in the text they reported that 'the Lear 36' had departed Miami.
So I was pretty confused.
Looks like it could be weather related, just going to have to wait and see.
So I was pretty confused.
Looks like it could be weather related, just going to have to wait and see.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now there are multiple reports of the Lear hitting a crane in the shipyard where it crashed.
The cranes are NOTAMed to be at 400 feet AGL and they are located around four miles from the end of the runway the Lear was attempting to land on.
The cranes are NOTAMed to be at 400 feet AGL and they are located around four miles from the end of the runway the Lear was attempting to land on.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gone sailing
Age: 58
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following makes an interesting read. Happened this January:
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/cftt.pdf
- - -
@con-pilot: where did you find the NOTAMed crane? Only thing I got was 06 PAPI and wx freq u/s
ACN: 1140592
Synopsis:
A flight crew on the MYGF VOR Y 06 approach took evasive action from a crane extended to around 600 FT, 3.2 miles from the approach end and were told after landing that the TRACON Controller should have notified them and further that only visual approaches were conducted during the crane's presence.
MVFR conditions prevailed with cloud bases reported at 2,800 FT. After passing VALRY, the pilot flying initiated a descent to 700 FT MSL while established inbound on the 069 final approach course. At approximately 3.7 DME, the pilot not flying alerted the pilot flying of a crane existing on the final approach course to Runway 06. The pilot flying stopped the aircraft's descent and maneuvered right of the final approach course in order to avoid the unreported crane.
Given that MVFR conditions prevailed, the crew proceeded to execute a visual approach to Runway 06 and landed without further incident. The crane was resting on-top of a ship that was docked at the harbor southwest of the airfield on the final approach to Runway 06.
The pilots stated that the NOTAM referencing the three cranes, with Crane 8 disabled boom up, is not the same crane that the crew avoided.
The crane in place that day restricts approaches to VMC only, visual approaches. Also TRACON controllers are required to notify the crew about itīs presence. Neither of those conditions were met. The Tower Controller informed them of the restrictive conditions after landing.
If IMC conditions prevailed, the unreported crane would have posed a serious threat to the safety of the flight given that it existed exactly at the 3.2 DME/ 620FT step down fix. A NOTAM should be issued for this obstruction and its location should be passed along to aircrews conducting approaches to Runway 06. In addition, the VOR Y Runway 06 approach should not be utilized during this crane's presence.
Narrative: 1 (Pilot flying):
An unreported, unlit crane approximately 600-700 FT AGL existed at 3.2 DME on the final approach course to the VOR Y Runway 06 at MYGF.
The MYGF NOTAMs for MYGF did not contain temporary obstructions nor did they include amendments to the VOR Y Runway 06 IAP. On initial contact with MYGF Approach, the Approach Controller did not alert our crew of the temporary obstruction. Prior to the VALRY FAF, the Approach Controller cleared our crew for the VOR Y Runway 06 approach.
Narrative: 2 (pilot monitoring):
We were not cleared for the visual or told of the hazard on our approach path. The pilot flying was watching instruments. If the flight was in IMC conditions I believe fatalities would have resulted from impact with the shipyard crane.
Date : 2014-01
MYGF Airport
Flight Conditions : Marginal
Light : Daylight
Make Model Name : Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
Flight Plan : IFR
Nav In Use.VOR / VORTAC : ZFP
Flight Phase : Final Approach
Anomaly.Inflight Event / Encounter : CFTT / CFIT
Detector.Person : Flight Crew
Miss Distance.Horizontal : 1000
Miss Distance.Vertical : 200
When Detected : In-flight
Result.Flight Crew : Became Reoriented
Result.Flight Crew : Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Result.Flight Crew : Took Evasive Action
Synopsis:
A flight crew on the MYGF VOR Y 06 approach took evasive action from a crane extended to around 600 FT, 3.2 miles from the approach end and were told after landing that the TRACON Controller should have notified them and further that only visual approaches were conducted during the crane's presence.
MVFR conditions prevailed with cloud bases reported at 2,800 FT. After passing VALRY, the pilot flying initiated a descent to 700 FT MSL while established inbound on the 069 final approach course. At approximately 3.7 DME, the pilot not flying alerted the pilot flying of a crane existing on the final approach course to Runway 06. The pilot flying stopped the aircraft's descent and maneuvered right of the final approach course in order to avoid the unreported crane.
Given that MVFR conditions prevailed, the crew proceeded to execute a visual approach to Runway 06 and landed without further incident. The crane was resting on-top of a ship that was docked at the harbor southwest of the airfield on the final approach to Runway 06.
The pilots stated that the NOTAM referencing the three cranes, with Crane 8 disabled boom up, is not the same crane that the crew avoided.
The crane in place that day restricts approaches to VMC only, visual approaches. Also TRACON controllers are required to notify the crew about itīs presence. Neither of those conditions were met. The Tower Controller informed them of the restrictive conditions after landing.
If IMC conditions prevailed, the unreported crane would have posed a serious threat to the safety of the flight given that it existed exactly at the 3.2 DME/ 620FT step down fix. A NOTAM should be issued for this obstruction and its location should be passed along to aircrews conducting approaches to Runway 06. In addition, the VOR Y Runway 06 approach should not be utilized during this crane's presence.
Narrative: 1 (Pilot flying):
An unreported, unlit crane approximately 600-700 FT AGL existed at 3.2 DME on the final approach course to the VOR Y Runway 06 at MYGF.
The MYGF NOTAMs for MYGF did not contain temporary obstructions nor did they include amendments to the VOR Y Runway 06 IAP. On initial contact with MYGF Approach, the Approach Controller did not alert our crew of the temporary obstruction. Prior to the VALRY FAF, the Approach Controller cleared our crew for the VOR Y Runway 06 approach.
Narrative: 2 (pilot monitoring):
We were not cleared for the visual or told of the hazard on our approach path. The pilot flying was watching instruments. If the flight was in IMC conditions I believe fatalities would have resulted from impact with the shipyard crane.
Date : 2014-01
MYGF Airport
Flight Conditions : Marginal
Light : Daylight
Make Model Name : Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
Flight Plan : IFR
Nav In Use.VOR / VORTAC : ZFP
Flight Phase : Final Approach
Anomaly.Inflight Event / Encounter : CFTT / CFIT
Detector.Person : Flight Crew
Miss Distance.Horizontal : 1000
Miss Distance.Vertical : 200
When Detected : In-flight
Result.Flight Crew : Became Reoriented
Result.Flight Crew : Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Result.Flight Crew : Took Evasive Action
- - -
@con-pilot: where did you find the NOTAMed crane? Only thing I got was 06 PAPI and wx freq u/s
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@con-pilot: where did you find the NOTAMed crane? Only thing I got was 06 PAPI and wx freq u/s
The shipyard that they hit was approximately 4 miles from the approach end of Runway 6, and the cranes in that shipyard are listed as under 400 ft on the Sectional.
However, from the incident report you posted, the cranes can be 600 feet AGL.
Sorry if I caused any confusion.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gone sailing
Age: 58
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, con-pilot.
This is the current FAA sectional chart:
The pilots must have known about the cranes - the latter have been standing there virtually forever (been @MYGF in 2002 and the cranes are already mentioned in my old charts).
Thatīs why I wonder why the aircraft was so low on the approach.
This is the current FAA sectional chart:
The pilots must have known about the cranes - the latter have been standing there virtually forever (been @MYGF in 2002 and the cranes are already mentioned in my old charts).
Thatīs why I wonder why the aircraft was so low on the approach.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gone sailing
Age: 58
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
