GarageYears

Also on CNN, less info there

Caution: some of the pictures in following link are disturbing

See: Honduras: 14 muertos en accidente aéreo - País - LaPrensa.hn

Pictures, crew and passenger manifest and report (Spanish).

cats_five

BBC have it now:

BBC News - Honduras vice-minister Robelo among 14 plane crash dead

"Honduras vice-minister Robelo among 14 plane crash dead"

MAN777

HR-AUQ - Central American Airways LET L-410UVP-E Turbolet Aircraft Photo | Airplane-Pictures.net

bubbers44

The TGU R02 approach had to be done accurately or you would hit that hill with an early descent. The DME for the approach when I was flying there in a 757 was deemed unreliable to the south so we used an NDB bearing to start the final step down. I always verified the accuracy of my on board crossing the VOR outbound navigation to back up the NDB bearing knowing what an early descent would cause. We couldn't land straight in but had to circle to land. The minimums were a lower MDA that direction so if we missed the approach from the north we could go lower approaching from the south. TGU is an airport that doesn't give you a whole lot of room for error. I loved it. Landed there hundreds of times.

aterpster

bubbers44:

ST27

The article in Avherald shows the approximate location of the wreck, an approach plate, plus discusses the risks inherent in an early descent.

Crash: Central American Airways L410 near Tegucigalpa on Feb 14th 2011, impacted trees on approach

... a landing vid from the cockpit

YouTube - Cockpit view of a jet landing into Tegucigalpa Honduras TGU

... plus an AA'57 dropping in for a visit

YouTube - Wicked Landing Toncontin Int`l - AA B752

dvv

aterpster, in this photo, you can see VOR/DME TNT, which is 1.7NM from the threshold. The reports, however, place the crash much farther out at Cerro de Hula — it's the 5660' peak about 7NM out and before abeam the start of the final step-down.

aterpster

dvv:

If the posting showing the crash site is correct, then it would seem to be a failure (for reasons unkown) to level off at MDA coming out of the procedure turn. The photo, nonetheless, shows how challenging this airport is.

aterpster

I should have said step-down altitude, not MDA.

captjns

Used to be more fun before they took off the top of the hill south of the runway.

bubbers44

My friend who managed our ops in TGU said the airport winds were 360@12 knots but the winds at the crash site were over 40 knots. That would produce a significant down draft on the south side of the hills. This may have contributed to going below their step down altitude. The captain was a friend of his.

I have experienced the very strong updraft on the north side turning final but expect the downdraft on the south side would be about the same. Maybe now they have the 02 VOR DME approach approved again but when I retired we needed the NDB bearing for final step down.

aterpster

bubbers44:

They also now have RNP AR approaches to both runways for those who can do those. The RNP AR to Runway 20 is pretty good, but the one to Runway 2 is what I would call an RNP to visual conditions; not exactly what RNP AR is supposed to do.

bubbers44

I agree. Continental and us usually arrived at TGU within minutes of each other so this day it was VMC and continental was directly below us 1,000 ft so we were following them in as #2 to land. They decided, probably for training, to do the RNP arrival so we had to hover over them for several minutes for their 3+ mile excursion to the west for a long left base. We could have landed and parked by the time they landed on 02. I told our manager who was testing that approach for us what a waste of money and training it was for us to do the same thing. I told him I have landed here over 500 times and only one time had to divert. No airliner landed that day because of low ceilings. We didn't change our approaches and probably saved 100s of thousands of dollars. 90% of the landings are on 02 because of the prevailing wind and as you said the RNP approach doesn't help on 02.

I guess I took us off topic, sorry, but I don't think an RNP procedure would have helped them make a safer approach because even though they were doing the 20 approach, because of the north wind, they would have had to circle to 02.

bubbers44

The hill in question was several miles south of the picture. Properly flown this, in my opinion, is a safe airport. Just fly the approach. Any approach, improperly flown, can end up in disaster. Any landing, disregarding tailwind, wet runway can be a disaster. How many landing accidents at TGU were not caused by pilot error. Probably none. You have to know what you are doing to land there. You don't have to be an ace, just do it right. TGU was my favorite because it was challenging, but safe. The people were great and the passengers always clapped when you came to a stop without killing anybody. Never happened in Miami.

Zeffy

bubbers44:

Can't quite reconcile your two posts:

Isn't it far more likely they were flying the VOR DME Rwy 02 procedure?

bubbers44

Yes, they were doing the VOR DME 02 approach. I was referring to the post saying the RNP 02 approach doesn't do more than set you up for a visual into the valley but the RNP 20 approach lines you up with 20 and with any significant north wind they would have to circle.

keezy44

I can't find any RNAV approaches to MHTG on my computer but would like to see what their minimums are. We never approved these approaches so we have no access to them. If you Continental guys that have it would post it, I would appreciate it. As I said, I had no problem with the basic approach getting in so want to see the advantage of the RNAV approach. Thanks.

We landed there one day when we were an hour late and Continental had diverted to SAP. We filled up our extra seats with their stranded passengers so walked over to their ops and said why are'nt you landing,look at the sky? Their captain said they must have landed below minimums. He finally took off and came back to pick up the passengers who couldn't get on our flight. We had blue skies when we took off. Yes, we liked getting their passengers, but felt sorry for the ones we left for no reason since the captain must have been using old wx data. More than likely it was the best wx he could get in Honduras.
I tried to get over to say hi to their pilots when I could. They were good guys and liked a bit of adventure. PMing would be fine if you prefer.

dvv

keezy44, it's all in the AIP: AIS | MHTG - TONCONTÍN

bubbers44

Thanks dvv, I have never seen the RNAV 02 approach so had no idea they could go to 850 ft AFL at MAP. We had to have 2700 ft AFL for the VOR 20 approach. Looking at it I am glad we never got certified for it. We didn't get GPS until my last couple of years before retirement but losing systems on that base leg with mountains on both sides would be very interesting. I now stand corrected and the RNAV 02 from the north would have prevented this accident. I still can't believe they approved this approach to those low minimums with mountains all around them and that close. Can you skin that close to mountains on an ILS? I didn't think so but never having done a GPS RNAV approach have no knowledge of the rules so I will shut up.

aterpster

bubbers44:

This is not an ordinary GPS approach. It is an RNP Authorization Required approach. (RNP AR). Whenever an RNP AR approach requires less than RNP 0.30 or the missed approach requires RNP of less than 1.0, then the position has to be backed up by at least one IRU for additional FMS position. Thus, if the GPS fails, the IRU or IRUs (usually three) will provide sufficient position accuracy to complete the missed approach procedure.