accident in austria, flight UK to hungary (?)

[vanHorck]

my thought was more a bad weather VFR circuit, flown at 500 to 600 ft agl (1500 ft on the qnh), yes indeed perhaps on the AP, unexpected IMC at the end of the downwind leg after having been in view of the runway all downwind and so feeling safe, perhaps expecting just a puf of cloud so waiting a second or two to find himself in solid IMC.

Fog and clouds tend to hang at the mountain edge

suddenly in IMC, so checking his map for the base leg heading (its a double base leg remember not 90 degrees)

CFIT

[IO540]

Airfield elevation = 765ft.
Taking the Metars of say 700ft cloudbase, this is 1465ft AMSL.
However, the MAPt for the VOR approach is 2270ft AMSL.

So yes he could have been flying a low level circuit at say 600ft AGL but how did he get down there?

I agree, it's possible. But it would be a complicated way to do it, given that the "official" way to do this would be to fly the VOR approach and then fly the much tighter circuit (at 1500ft AMSL) which is shown on the VFR approach chart. The outward downwind leg (Sierra-Tango) is a long way away from the VOR approach MAPt.

Yet, somehow he did manage to end up apparently at the end of the outward downwind leg.

Too many unknowns....

[vanHorck]

descend to 2300 ft QNH from the VOR, cancel IFR and announce intending to join right hand circuit for 13 at Sierra

track outbound from the VOR to Sierra and join Sierra whilst still slowly descending till visual (probably intermittent) at around 1400 ft QNH = about 600ft QFE or perhaps a touch lower. It would be the logical thing to do on a non ILS field if you were intent on landing there it seems to me, perhaps with the anticipated diversion to Vienna if not visual at 500 ft AGL (let s try it, i can always divert to Vienna if i can t get visual at 500). I m not advocating this, please note, i m following the get-home-itis bug here). The error here would have been to continue descent from the MDA to a bad weather circuit level which is only there for non-IR flyers, who got in trouble in the first place... but it is a line of thought i can follow from a get-home-itis bug IR victim

The downwind for 13 is almost on the 310 radial of the VOR anyway, so tracking out is easy from the VOR.

I think how to get to Sierra is less of an issue. What we re really missing here is factual information on the weather state at the time of the accident, true cloud base, how scattered was it at 600 ft, was the horizon (mountains) obscured with total coverage?

I saw on youtube btw that most circuits are flown left hand for 13, but i guess for noise abatement the left hand circuit is pretty tight for a Malibu perhaps, also coming from the VOR it would make little sense.

Perhaps the Fluglehrer from Vienna could comment on common practice and the real weather and snow cover?
IO540 how about my theory?

[IanSeager]

Originally Posted by vanHorck

The point of impact is 1.5NM ( 90 seconds at 120 knots)

45 seconds

Ian

[vanHorck]

Correct, thx Ian

[LH2]

One N-reg crash in France was nearly 2 years ago and still no publication

This one?

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2006/n-ag...n-ag060116.pdf

(quite an interesting occurrence, btw)

[IO540]

IO540 how about my theory?

Yes, possible.

3 cases:

1) the pilot can see the airport at the VOR approach MAPt

In that case, you come straight off the VOR approach, fly nearly overhead the airfield, and fly the LH circuit joining it late downwind, as tight or as loose as you like. Let's face it, looking at the typical VFR-only pilot, just about nobody else would have been airborne in this weather. I would always choose a LH circuit because I sit in the LH seat, and even in the TB20 (whose visibility out is excellent) I hate RH circuits because one cannot see the runway from downwind, unless one is a long way out.

2) the pilot cannot see the airport at the VOR approach MAPt (but has to pretend to because it is VFR-arrival-only)

In that case, what I would do is remain at a nice safe altitude, positioned myself on about a 3nm long final at 1000ft AGL (1700ft QNH), fully configured for a landing, and descended at say 700fpm to a self imposed MDH of say 500-600ft.

The Q then is how to position oneself on this 3nm final approach track. A straight-in approach is always safest, so using the GPS OBS mode I would fly reciprocal outbound first for about 10nm, do an FAA-style procedure turn, and then come back in.

Of course, being N-reg and aware of 91.175, I would not be doing this and if I was I would not be writing about it But taking the totally hypothetical scenario (which you are not allowed to read unless flying a G-reg, in which it would not be illegal) that I was doing this, I would have done "due diligence" before departure (especially in this case, knowing the weather was going to be at best marginal VFR) by looking at the topo charts and checking that the 500-600ft MDH is fine at the last SDF. (I do have 1:50k topo charts for Austria but in so many files, for Oziexplorer, that I don't have the time to find the tile which covers LOAV). I would have also fixed two GPS user waypoint SDFs (stepdown fixes), both on long final: one at 10D, one at 3D, and worked out a missed approach procedure (probably a straight climb back to the VOR). Ideally, flown that whole approach in VMC, first, on a previous visit. Actually there is more to this; one would check RAIM, check the fixes using VOR/DME, etc. The outbound would be flown using the OBS mode and the inbound would be best flown using the predefined waypoints but could also be flown using the OBS mode - that is how one flies NDB or VOR approaches using the GPS.

What would somebody else do? I don't know. My guess is that most pilots would self position on a long final and then descend towards the runway.

Very few people have accidents doing this kind of thing; after all it is practically a proper instrument approach all the way to the airport. But lots have accidents trying to play the official VFR game and remain VFR under a low cloudbase, perhaps flying a whole circuit.

3) the pilot comes off the VOR approach at the MAPt and can sort-of see the ground.

Difficult to say. It depends on what level of "sort of".

Looking at the crash location, 1) is a possible explanation, 2) very unlikely, 3) possible.

But we could go round in circles, without knowing the radar track. You bet some ATCO at LOWW is reading this....... in fact the staff at LOAV will know the exact track too.

LH2 - N2195B is the one I referred to. But I will read yours too

[vanHorck]

LH2

Very interesting and not an uncommon error on a back track....

In this case however, the heading was spot on, but just 45 secs too long and the altitude well out probably for weather reasons but perhaps for other reasons as suggested by the family.

[vanHorck]

At the very least it seems he did not have TAWS on board, perhaps not even a large moving map with terrain.

Given the position of the VOR and the mountains and the wind, would you have positioned long final for 13 or 31?

I guess 13 given the wind gives you more leeway in case of a high approach, but the mountains on a long final for 13 are a bit close for comfort...

Either way, the impact suggests he did take the right hand circuit for 13 option, the impact point being nowhere near a long final for 13 position

PS IO540 I appreciate your careful but frank approach to the subject

[IO540]

Can't read French

N403HP did not have a large moving map? Are there no panel pics on the internet? Maybe not unless the plane was up for sale recently.

[vanHorck]

i don t know, i never found a panel picture

[IO540]

Here is a 2000 Jetprop - probably the same panel.

Here is another 2000 Malibu Mirage.

and here is another 2000 one.

Can't imagine these not having a moving map. This review suggests same.

Interestingly, year 2000 ones seem to have the STEX 55 autopilot, so my KFC225 comments above do not apply. However, an STEC will descend into the ground just as happily...

[172driver]

I think QFE is a British-only thing (the RAF uses it)

To the best of my knowledge you're right here, I don't think it is used anywhere else, except in the ATIS in some Spanish airports (e.g. LEMG) with a very high level of British traffic.

METAR LOAV 141200Z 14012KT 5000 BR BKN006SC 04/03 Q1012 OVC
METAR LOAV 141300Z 14012KT 5000 BR BKN006SC 04/02 Q1012 OVC
METAR LOAV 141500Z 13012KT 5000 BR BKN007ST 04/03 Q1013 BKN

What does confuse me slightly, however, is the format of the METAR for LOAV, more precisely the SC and ST at the end of the sky condition group. I cannot find any explanation for these. Can someone explain and/or provide a link ?

[BackPacker]

Stratocumulus and stratus perhaps? Or, more generally, cloud type?

Technically I think it's only required to list CB and TCU in a METAR, but that doesn't mean that it's illegal to mention other cloud types.

[IO540]

Yes, I have never seen this before either. I don't really get it.

METAR LOAV 141500Z 13012KT 5000 BR BKN007ST 04/03 Q1013 BKN

ST fairly obviously means the BKN007 is stratus base, and the BKN means it is broken. No idea why "BKN" is in there twice!

METAR LOAV 141300Z 14012KT 5000 BR BKN006SC 04/02 Q1012 OVC

OVC means the BKN006 is overcast, but why not report OVC006 in the first place instead of BKN006? In a TAF one never has OVC but in a Metar it can be used.

SC is stratocumulus.

Bookworm is the specialist on this stuff...

[soay]

Isn't that what they expect the cloud cover to become by the time the next METAR is issued?

[dont overfil]

It looks from the METAR it could be one of these rare occasions when the weather looks better from the air than it does from the ground.
DO.

[BackPacker]

Isn't that what they expect the cloud cover to become by the time the next METAR is issued?

I assumed that the last BKN or OVC would be the general cloud condition above whatever layers were specifically mentioned. So above the first BKN layer there would be a second BKN or OVC layer, but the height of that layer could not be determined, or would be too high to be included in a METAR.

If it were to be a prediction, wouldn't they need to add a "BECMG"?

[172driver]

AFAIK, the OVC / BKN at the end of the METAR refer to a layer being different at different parts of the airfield, IOW, in the second example it would vary between BKN and OVC. Why the first report states BKN twice I have not the faintest idea

Now to the SC and ST. I have never - so far - see any cloud type other than CBs and TCUs mentioned in a METAR. I am therefore a bit reluctant to accept this as explanation. I might actually give the guys at LOAV a call to find out.

[172driver]

one riddle solved....

I might actually give the guys at LOAV a call to find out

OK, I did just that and had an interesting chat with the met guy there. The SC and ST do indeed refer to Stratocumulus and Stratus clouds. Apparently all GA airfields in Austria (those with a met guy) report the clouds in that way. Reason being the mountains which can lead to extreme wx variations of short distances (I can attest to that!). I have not yet tried it, but according to the gentleman I just spoke to, looking up any Austrian GA field in Homebriefing.com will reveal METARs of this type.

Another observation made during the conversation was that LOAV can have the rather unusual wx combination of high winds and fog. The explanation for that is the vicinity of the Neusiedersee, a large lake to the SE of the field.