4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

[CpnCrunch]

Is the approach into Brampton offset for some reason while the VASI or PAPI isn't? Perhaps if there's a PAPI there it's simply a trick to lure unsuspecting pilots to fly into trees, when they should have been flying a special safer but secret and uncharted "offset" approach. Who can say.

Brampton doesn't have an offset approach...

[photofly]

Apart from that there's the problem of downdrafts...

You’re starting to sound like pdw.

I don’t see there’s an issue with Nanaimo. The CFS tells you exactly what you need to know to follow the PAPI safely:

3.5º PAPI Rwy 34 offset 8º rgt & usable within 3NM

Just like the AIM promises. The fact that it’s a terrain obstructed approach means as a pilot unfamiliar with the area I’d be twice as likely to follow the visual guidance provided and much less likely to eyeball my own way in on a dark night. For whose benefit do you think the guidance was installed, if not for mine?

[CpnCrunch]

Apart from that there's the problem of downdrafts...

You’re starting to sound like pdw.

I don’t see there’s an issue with Nanaimo. The CFS tells you exactly what you need to know to follow the PAPI safely:

3.5º PAPI Rwy 34 offset 8º rgt & usable within 3NM

Just like the AIM promises. The fact that it’s a terrain obstructed approach means as a pilot unfamiliar with the area I’d be twice as likely to follow the visual guidance provided and much less likely to eyeball my own way in on a dark night. For whose benefit do you think the guidance was installed, if not for mine?

Have you ever actually flown at the airports I mentioned? Youll notice theres no rw 34 instrument approaches at Nanaimo. The cfs even mentions downdrafts at Duncan....if youd flown there youd know theyre not a figment of pdw's imagination in this case.

All Im saying is that there are valid reasons for a steeper approach at many airports.

[photofly]

Have you ever actually flown at the airports I mentioned?

Oh my goodness. No, I haven’t, that’s the point. That’s exactly why at night I’d take care to use the solid visual guidance aids where provided. That’s what they’re for.

You’re welcome to freelance approaches as steep as you like, though.

[CpnCrunch]

Oh my goodness. No, I haven’t, that’s the point. That’s exactly why at night I’d take care to use the solid visual guidance aids where provided. That’s what they’re for.

You’re welcome to freelance approaches as steep as you like, though.

Sure, but my point is that eyeballing a 10 degree offset at night is nothing like following an ILS, and Nav Canada seems to think that it's too dangerous for an instrument approach.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My 02 cents

As a general comment I fly VFR 3 deg approaches in large/high performance aircraft and steeper approaches in light aircraft. My experience is that you need quite a bit of power to fly a 3 deg approach with landing flap while flying a steeper approach with just a trickle of power seems more natural.

With respect to night approaches I do not see any downside to a steeper than PAPI approach within reason.

The bottom line for safe VFR night approaches:

Do you homework, make sure you have a plan to get to final that will guarantee terrain clearance , don't descend until you have a safe flight path to the runway with solid visual references and pre brief the go-around.

Something to think about:

AOPA thinks that for a US non instrument rated pilot flying a single engine aircraft the risk of a fatal accident is up to 25 times higher for a night flight as compared to the same flight during the day....

Personally I no longer fly single engine aircraft at night outside the circuit. The risk reward equation just does not work for me.

[photofly]

Oh my goodness. No, I haven’t, that’s the point. That’s exactly why at night I’d take care to use the solid visual guidance aids where provided. That’s what they’re for.

You’re welcome to freelance approaches as steep as you like, though.

Sure, but my point is that eyeballing a 10 degree offset at night is nothing like following an ILS, and Nav Canada seems to think that it's too dangerous for an instrument approach.

I don’t think NavCanada opines on or grades the relative dangers of an instrument approach; either an instrument approach within the relevant criteria of TP308 - or whatever it is - can be designed, or it can’t.

For sure there are airports where unfamiliar pilots probably shouldn’t approach to land at night. I don’t know if Nanaimo is such a place. Other than that, I’d still follow the visual guidance. A three degree slope is no trouble, and Nanaimo is steeper at 3.5 degrees.

[CpnCrunch]

I don’t think NavCanada opines on or grades the relative dangers of an instrument approach; either an instrument approach within the relevant criteria of TP308 - or whatever it is - can be designed, or it can’t.

For sure there are airports where unfamiliar pilots probably shouldn’t approach to land at night. I don’t know if Nanaimo is such a place. Other than that, I’d still follow the visual guidance. A three degree slope is no trouble, and Nanaimo is steeper at 3.5 degrees.

Im guessing it doesnt fulfill the requirements for an instrument approach but is allowed for vfr at night.

[pdw]

I’m running my engine at a non-trivial power setting to keep my plane on such a flat glide path.

Oh my gosh. A non-trivial power setting!? How truly awful.

DPM's posts are representing the point very well there, actually. The "non-trivial" (a fair bit) is what might be getting a high-weight flat & "draggy" little lowpower-single into trouble in this type of METAR, shorter-rwy, night-fall with obstacle. Seems two similar attempts have failed to get to the threshold.

It's next to impossible to get caught "draggy" like that in this type of AC under its trivial power (idle or nearly) when that's a 6deg-plus descent angle at 20degflap. Hand-on-throttle then has ALL extra power available (even extra flap still avail in event-of unwarned requirement to shorten / steepen it some onto the shorter field if too high/fast short final) for emminent decay/sink or other underestimation of power/height which seems apparent here while " on such a flat glide path".

[Cliff Jumper]

DPM's posts are representing the point very well there, actually. The "non-trivial" (a fair bit) is what might be getting a high-weight flat & "draggy" little lowpower-single into trouble in this type of METAR, shorter-rwy, night-fall with obstacle. Seems two similar attempts have failed to get to the threshold.

It's next to impossible to get caught "draggy" like that in this type of AC under its trivial power (idle or nearly) when that's a 6deg-plus descent angle at 20degflap. Hand-on-throttle then has ALL extra power available (even extra flap still avail in event-of unwarned requirement to shorten / steepen it some onto the shorter field if too high/fast short final) for emminent decay/sink or other underestimation of power/height which seems apparent here while " on such a flat glide path".

I finally get it.

I've never been happier.

It's like looking at one of those hidden image puzzle pictures for weeks and then finally seeing the sailboat!

What pdw is conveying across the (in and out) keyboard connected subtle output, is the clear effect of time periods when ALL sorts of effects have been transected until the quartering aft inverted push is INCREASING more than the limited time spent student pilot had formulated (too fast to outwards, then quickly retreating inwards) except not here, in this case where THE warnings were presented via the quickly decelerating/needle triggering the need for EXTRA push, or less negative-pull-if-the-swing was obtuse, which needs verification. The same variation has been seen during "similar declination" before (same lat/long tangent, adverse or otherwise) AND IF this has occurred it must be known to those viewing the bases from east-west positions from the steepening of the curve convex or not would be obvious, if not 'underestimated'.

[rookiepilot]

DPM's posts are representing the point very well there, actually. The "non-trivial" (a fair bit) is what might be getting a high-weight flat & "draggy" little lowpower-single into trouble in this type of METAR, shorter-rwy, night-fall with obstacle. Seems two similar attempts have failed to get to the threshold.

It's next to impossible to get caught "draggy" like that in this type of AC under its trivial power (idle or nearly) when that's a 6deg-plus descent angle at 20degflap. Hand-on-throttle then has ALL extra power available (even extra flap still avail in event-of unwarned requirement to shorten / steepen it some onto the shorter field if too high/fast short final) for emminent decay/sink or other underestimation of power/height which seems apparent here while " on such a flat glide path".

I finally get it.

I've never been happier.

It's like looking at one of those hidden image puzzle pictures for weeks and then finally seeing the sailboat!

What pdw is conveying across the (in and out) keyboard connected subtle output, is the clear effect of time periods when ALL sorts of effects have been transected until the quartering aft inverted push is INCREASING more than the limited time spent student pilot had formulated (too fast to outwards, then quickly retreating inwards) except not here, in this case where THE warnings were presented via the quickly decelerating/needle triggering the need for EXTRA push, or less negative-pull-if-the-swing was obtuse, which needs verification. The same variation has been seen during "similar declination" before (same lat/long tangent, adverse or otherwise) AND IF this has occurred it must be known to those viewing the bases from east-west positions from the steepening of the curve convex or not would be obvious, if not 'underestimated'.

[PilotDAR]

So... the situation was getting less worse more slowly?

[pdw]

Huh ?

[Cliff Jumper]

The first time around is in very similar component conditions as the second try (see METAR) if there was little that changed in those 3 minutes.

Exactly, but the push-pull vector (aggregate) isn't aligned WITH outside expectation, otherwise sufficient blow by.