SoCal TRACON, Montgomery Field Tower Evacuated.

[Larry Dighera]

From a TV news broadcast:

It appears that forest fires have forced the evacuation of SoCal
TRACON and Montgomery Field Tower. LA Center is handling LAX traffic.

[BTIZ]

and many airlines have stopped flying into LAX for the moment..

I-15 is also closed.. stranding weekend travelers in Las Vegas..



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> From a TV news broadcast:
>
> It appears that forest fires have forced the evacuation of SoCal
> TRACON and Montgomery Field Tower. LA Center is handling LAX traffic.
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> I-15 is also closed.. stranding weekend travelers in Las Vegas..

The horror!

(I should be so lucky... :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[BTIZ]

I live here.. those trapped tourist keep my tax $ down..

:)
BT

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:xe0nb.38054$Tr4.78629@attbi_s03...
> > I-15 is also closed.. stranding weekend travelers in Las Vegas..
>
> The horror!
>
> (I should be so lucky... :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

Did you know that as a result of the fires / tower closure / poor pilot
judgement, a Mooney crash landed at Montgomery, or I should say, on the
freeway just west of the runway. Plane cartwheeled a few times per
witenesses, burst into flames, but the pilot walked away with no injuries!

Initial talk says the pilot was landing with a tailwind that had to have
been 20 kts at Montgomery (with a closed Tower) realized he wasn't going to
be able to land and stop with useable runway leftover so he initiated an
emergency go-around. Pilot was quoted saying the airplane just would not get
any lift on the go-around and so he "put it down" on the freeway albeit not
to gracefully.
Initial reporters were stating that he was attempting the landing with the
known tailwind so he could use the ILS for 28R. Obviously the reported and
the pilot in this case didn't know about a backcourse? Hmmm.

Should be interesting to read the reports on this when they are done..

JB


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> From a TV news broadcast:
>
> It appears that forest fires have forced the evacuation of SoCal
> TRACON and Montgomery Field Tower. LA Center is handling LAX traffic.
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:51:18 GMT, > wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>Did you know that as a result of the fires / tower closure / poor pilot
>judgement, a Mooney crash landed at Montgomery, or I should say, on the
>freeway just west of the runway.

No.

>Plane cartwheeled a few times per
>witenesses, burst into flames, but the pilot walked away with no injuries!

Fortune can be merciful occasionally.

>Initial talk says the pilot was landing with a tailwind that had to have
>been 20 kts at Montgomery (with a closed Tower) realized he wasn't going to
>be able to land and stop with useable runway leftover so he initiated an
>emergency go-around. Pilot was quoted saying the airplane just would not get
>any lift on the go-around and so he "put it down" on the freeway albeit not
>to gracefully.

There's something wrong with that explanation. If the aircraft had
not yet landed, it would only require the application of full throttle
to continue to sustain it in the air. A climb might be difficult (but
possible) under such conditions if full flaps were extended.

>Initial reporters were stating that he was attempting the landing with the
>known tailwind so he could use the ILS for 28R. Obviously the reported and
>the pilot in this case didn't know about a backcourse? Hmmm.

It would be interesting to know what other landing options were open
to the pilot at that time, and what lead him/her to choose a downwind
landing at a closed field.

>Should be interesting to read the reports on this when they are done..

Agreed. The first report will likely appear here:
http://www2.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm . Later here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp#query_start

I find nothing on either web site about the accident you mention yet.

>JB
>
>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> From a TV news broadcast:
>>
>> It appears that forest fires have forced the evacuation of SoCal
>> TRACON and Montgomery Field Tower. LA Center is handling LAX traffic.
>>
>>
>

[Jim Weir]

Larry Dighera >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->There's something wrong with that explanation. If the aircraft had
->not yet landed, it would only require the application of full throttle
->to continue to sustain it in the air. A climb might be difficult (but
->possible) under such conditions if full flaps were extended.

Lessee...hotter than hell in San Diego, pilot scared out of his wits with the
smell of smoke in the air, full flaps, gear down, slow as mercifully possible to
make the lading short, near IFR (more probably LESS than IFR) conditions, no
visible horizon to keep things level while cleaning up the airplane...talk about
Monday morning quarterbacks.


->
->>Initial reporters were stating that he was attempting the landing with the
->>known tailwind so he could use the ILS for 28R. Obviously the reported and
->>the pilot in this case didn't know about a backcourse? Hmmm.

There is no published backcourse for Montgomery. Sure, you can shoot the
backcourse any time you want, just don't get caught doing it in less than VFR
conditions. And, I might add, without glideslope. Finding the runway
centerline was one half of this poor feller's problems. Finding the end of the
runway was the other half.


->
->It would be interesting to know what other landing options were open
->to the pilot at that time, and what lead him/her to choose a downwind
->landing at a closed field.

Oh, dozens. And I'm sure that you can sit in your easy chair sipping a cold one
and figure out just exactly what you would have done. The airport wasn't
closed; the tower was. Montgomery is long enough that a 60 knot tailwind would
not cause overshoot if you hit the numbers. This poor ******* couldn't find the
numbers in the smoke.

Jim
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[John T]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message

>
> Montgomery is long enough that
> a 60 knot tailwind would not cause overshoot if you hit the numbers.
> This poor ******* couldn't find the numbers in the smoke.

Hence the question: Why did he feel that he *had* to land at Montgomery?
That's what I'm hoping winds up in the NTSB report.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:40:23 -0800, Jim Weir > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>Larry Dighera >
>shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>->
>->There's something wrong with that explanation. If the aircraft had
>->not yet landed, it would only require the application of full throttle
>->to continue to sustain it in the air. A climb might be difficult (but
>->possible) under such conditions if full flaps were extended.
>
>Lessee...hotter than hell in San Diego,

The temperature at KMYF did not exceed 88 degrees F. on October 26,
2003: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/wrhq/GetMetar.cgi?MYF+Column *

>pilot scared out of his wits with the smell of smoke in the air,

Then why did he launch?

>full flaps, gear down,

Both are reasonable presumptions.

>slow as mercifully possible to make the lading short,

That would be prudent in an intentional downwind landing. Of course,
we don't know if the pilot was aware of the direction and velocity of
the surface winds.

>near IFR (more probably LESS than IFR) conditions,

You'll find the viviparities for October 26th at the end of this
message.

>no visible horizon to keep things level while cleaning up the airplane...

I doubt the pilot would have attempted the landing if he had had no
reference outside the cockpit nor inside.

>talk about Monday morning quarterbacks.

So you don't disagree that the aircraft should be able to climb
despite it possibly being configured with full flaps?

>
>->
>->>Initial reporters were stating that he was attempting the landing with the
>->>known tailwind so he could use the ILS for 28R. Obviously the reported and
>->>the pilot in this case didn't know about a backcourse? Hmmm.
>
>There is no published backcourse for Montgomery. Sure, you can shoot the
>backcourse any time you want, just don't get caught doing it in less than VFR
>conditions. And, I might add, without glideslope. Finding the runway
>centerline was one half of this poor feller's problems. Finding the end of the
>runway was the other half.

Umm.. Let's see... You were at the airport and in communication with
the pilot at the time of the accident? Or are you just "Monday
morning quarter backing?

>->
>->It would be interesting to know what other landing options were open
>->to the pilot at that time, and what lead him/her to choose a downwind
>->landing at a closed field.
>
>Oh, dozens.

What leads you to that conclusion?

>And I'm sure that you can sit in your easy chair sipping a cold one
>and figure out just exactly what you would have done.

This statement goes beyond Monday morning quarter backing, and verges
on clairvoyance. How are you at pickin' the ponies? :-)

>The airport wasn't closed; the tower was.

The TV newscast wasn't clear about that fact. Do you have any
supporting evidence for it?

>Montgomery is long enough that a 60 knot tailwind would
>not cause overshoot if you hit the numbers.

At 4,577' runway 28R would probably fail the 60 knot downwind landing
test, IMHO.

>This poor ******* couldn't find the numbers in the smoke.

That fails to explain the pilot's alleged assertion, that "the
airplane just would not get any lift on the go-around and so he put it
down."




*
Observations for: Montgomery Field, San Diego
Raw Observation Format
Basic Format
date time wind vis weather sky condition temp dwpt pressure 6 hour
precipitation Remarks

PST (kts)
(mi)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(F) (F) altimeter
(in) sea level
(mb) high low 1 hr 3 hr 6 hr


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27 08:53AM 00000KT 1 3/4 HZ FU BKN038 69 37 30.09 1018.4
27 07:53AM 13003KT 1 3/4 HZ FU OVC045 67 36 30.09 1018.5
27 07:53AM 13003KT 1 3/4 HZ FU FEW045 67 36 30.09 1018.5
27 06:53AM 00000KT 1 3/4 HZ FU BKN039 63 35 30.09 1018.6
27 06:29AM 00000KT 1 1/2 HZ FU SCT044 BKN060 63 34 30.09
27 06:09AM 00000KT 2 1/2 HZ FU SCT050 OVC065 63 34 30.10
27 03:53AM 09003KT 3 HZ FU FEW044 SCT070 66 32 30.10 1018.7 74 63
27 02:53AM VRB03KT 4 HZ FU OVC065 66 33 30.10 1018.7
26 10:53PM 33006KT 1 3/4 HZ FU CLR 72 29 30.11 1019.0
26 10:19PM 35005KT 1 1/4 HZ FU CLR 72 28 30.11
26 10:06PM 34006KT 2 1/2 HZ FU CLR 73 28 30.11
26 09:53PM 34007KT 1 1/4 HZ FU CLR 73 28 30.11 1019.2 86 69
26 09:42PM 34005KT 1 HZ FU CLR 73 27 30.12
26 09:34PM 36005KT 3/4 HZ FU CLR 73 28 30.12
26 09:31PM 34007KT 1 HZ FU VV011 73 28 30.12
26 08:53PM 32007KT 1 1/2 HZ FU FEW028 74 27 30.12 1019.5
26 08:30PM 00000KT 1 1/4 HZ FU FEW026 BKN060 OVC070 72 28 30.12
26 08:07PM 05003KT 2 HZ FU BKN055 OVC075 75 27 30.12
26 07:53PM 05004KT 3 HZ FU OVC050 76 54 30.12 1019.4
26 07:38PM 00000KT 2 HZ FU BKN050 OVC060 73 54 30.12
26 07:15PM 04003KT 1 1/4 HZ FU FEW030 BKN038 OVC055 75 54 30.11
26 07:07PM 36003KT 3/4 HZ FU BKN031 OVC050 75 55 30.11
26 06:53PM 00000KT 1 3/4 HZ FU BKN024 BKN035 OVC050 75 54 30.11
1019.0
26 06:46PM 00000KT 3 HZ FU BKN031 OVC050 75 55 30.11
26 06:16PM 22004KT 1 1/4 HZ FU FEW042 SCT060 BKN075 75 54 30.10
26 05:53PM 00000KT 2 1/2 HZ FU CLR 76 53 30.10 1018.7
26 05:21PM 35008KT 4 HZ FU BKN032 BKN041 79 55 30.10
26 05:14PM 01006KT 2 1/2 HZ FU BKN030 BKN039 OVC060 79 55 30.10
26 05:08PM 36005KT 1 1/2 HZ FU BKN026 BKN034 OVC060 79 55 30.09
26 05:01PM 01006KT 3/4 HZ FU FEW003 BKN020 OVC039 79 55 30.09
26 04:53PM 36006KT 1/2 HZ FU FEW003 BKN012 OVC039 79 55 30.09 1018.5
26 04:33PM 34008KT 1/4 HZ FU VV009 79 55 30.09
26 04:22PM 35004KT 3/4 HZ FU VV012 81 54 30.09
26 03:53PM VRB06KT 1 1/4 HZ FU BKN015 86 47 30.08 1018.3 88 82
0.0
26 03:21PM 05015KT 1 1/2 HZ FU BKN015 88 46 30.08
26 03:07PM 06013G17KT 1 HZ FU VV013 88 46 30.08
26 02:53PM 04009KT 3/4 HZ FU VV010 87 47 30.08 1018.2
26 02:14PM 07006G14KT 1 1/4 HZ FU OVC014 88 45 30.08
26 01:53PM 08014G18KT 1 1/2 HZ FU OVC016 87 45 30.07 1017.7
26 01:31PM 08010KT 1 1/2 HZ FU OVC014 88 45 30.07
26 01:15PM 06009G19KT 1 1/2 HZ FU OVC016 88 45 30.07
26 12:53PM 09008P27KT 2 HZ FU OVC018 87 43 30.07 1017.9 0.0
26 12:36PM 08014G18KT 1 3/4 HZ FU BKN016 88 43 30.08
26 12:19PM 08007KT 2 1/2 HZ FU SCT018 BKN029 86 41 30.08
26 12:16PM 09009KT 3 HZ FU SCT020 SCT029 86 41 30.09
26 11:53AM VRB03KT 6 HZ FU BKN026 BKN039 85 40 30.11 1019.0
26 11:30AM 11006KT 7 FU BKN026 BKN040 84 37 30.12
26 10:53AM 13010KT 8 FU OVC041 84 36 30.13 1019.8 0.0 RAE1755
26 09:53AM 14005KT 3 -RA FU OVC019 83 35 30.15 1020.3 83 64 0.0
0.0 RAB42
26 08:53AM 00000KT 6 HZ FU OVC022 75 30 30.15 1020.5
26 07:53AM 35004KT 6 HZ FU OVC022 76 27 30.15 1020.5
26 06:53AM 07007KT 6 HZ FU OVC036 77 27 30.13 1020.0 SMOKE AND
ASH NE-N
26 05:53AM 13005KT 6 HZ OVC034 71 36 30.12 1019.6 TSNO
26 04:53AM 04004KT 7 OVC044 67 39 30.11 1019.3 TSNO
26 03:53AM 00000KT 10 BKN038 OVC050 65 45 30.10 1018.8 67 59
70001 TSNO
26 02:53AM 33004KT 10 BKN036 OVC049 65 45 30.09 1018.5 TSNO
26 01:53AM 00000KT 10 OVC037 63 48 30.10 1018.8 TSNO
26 01:53AM 00000KT 10 OVC037 63 48 30.10 1018.8 TSNO
26 01:53AM 00000KT 8 CLR 63 52 30.09 1018.6 TSNO
26 12:53AM 31003KT 8 CLR 61 54 30.08 1018.0 402670133 TSNO
25 11:53PM 02003KT 5 BR CLR 61 58 30.06 1017.6 TSNO
25 11:53PM 02003KT 5 BR CLR 61 58 30.06 1017.6 TSNO
25 11:08PM 00000KT 3 BR CLR 63 61 30.07 TSNO
25 10:53PM 00000KT 2 1/2 BR CLR 62 60 30.06 1017.7 78 60 TSNO
25 10:24PM 00000KT 2 BR CLR 63 61 30.07 TSNO
25 10:04PM 00000KT 1 1/4 BR SCT001 61 61 30.06 TSNO
25 09:53PM 33004KT 1 BR VV001 60 60 30.06 1017.8
25 09:32PM 34005KT 3/4 BR VV003 61 61 30.06
25 09:16PM 33005KT 1 1/4 BR FEW012 61 61 30.05
25 08:53PM 36003KT 2 1/2 BR CLR 63 62 30.05 1017.3
25 08:34PM 34005KT 2 1/2 BR CLR 63 63 30.05
25 07:53PM 36004KT 3 BR CLR 65 62 30.04 1016.8
25 06:53PM 00000KT 4 HZ CLR 67 62 30.02 1016.4
25 05:53PM 33007KT 4 HZ CLR 71 62 30.01 1015.9
25 04:53PM 00000KT 6 HZ CLR 77 58 29.99 1015.3 80 74
25 03:53PM 31008KT 7 CLR 78 52 30.00 1015.7
25 02:53PM 28006KT 8 CLR 79 57 30.00 1015.4
25 02:09PM VRB06KT 6 HZ CLR 77 59 30.00
25 01:53PM 31008KT 7 CLR 78 57 30.00 1015.6
25 12:53PM 30006KT 8 CLR 78 60 30.02 1016.3
25 12:53PM 30006KT 8 CLR 78 60 30.02 1016.3
25 11:53AM 27006KT 6 HZ CLR 78 61 30.05 1017.1
25 10:53AM 00000KT 7 CLR 75 56 30.06 1017.7 75 56 0.01
25 09:53AM 00000KT 3 HZ CLR 66 59 30.07 1017.9
25 09:25AM 00000KT 3 BR SCT001 61 61 30.07
25 09:13AM 35003KT 2 BR BKN001 59 59 30.07
25 09:13AM 35003KT 2 BR BKN001 59 59 30.07
25 09:04AM 35004KT 1/2 FG OVC001 59 59 30.07
25 08:53AM 35005KT 1/4 FG VV001 59 59 30.07 1017.9
25 07:53AM 36004KT M1/4 FG VV001 56 56 30.05 1017.4 0.01

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message
...
|
| Did you know that as a result of the fires / tower closure / poor pilot
| judgement, a Mooney crash landed at Montgomery, or I should say, on the
| freeway just west of the runway. Plane cartwheeled a few times per
| witenesses, burst into flames, but the pilot walked away with no injuries!
|

According to AVweb and AP the pilot barely managed to pull himself from the
wreckage and was hospitalized.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 01:09:25 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>From a TV news broadcast:
>
>It appears that forest fires have forced the evacuation of SoCal
>TRACON and Montgomery Field Tower. LA Center is handling LAX traffic.
>

Here's the FAA preliminary report on the accident that occurred at
Montgomery:



http://www2.faa.gov/avr/aai/G_1027_N.txt
************************************************** ******************************
** Report created 10/27/2003 Record 1
**
************************************************** ******************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 1147N Make/Model: MO20 Description: MO-20
Date: 10/26/2003 Time: 2219

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Minor Mid Air: N
Missing: N
Damage: Destroyed

LOCATION
City: SAN DIEGO State: CA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE I-163 FREEWAY,
SAN
DIEGO, CA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 1
Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:

WEATHER: UNK



OTHER DATA
Activity: Unknown Phase: Unknown Operation: General
Aviation

Departed: ST JOHN, AZ Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: SAN DIEGO, CA Flt Plan: UNK Wx
Briefing: U
Last Radio Cont: UNK
Last Clearance: UNK

FAA FSDO: SAN DIEGO, CA (WP09) Entry date:
10/27/2003

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:36:17 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
> wrote in message
...
>|
>| Did you know that as a result of the fires / tower closure / poor pilot
>| judgement, a Mooney crash landed at Montgomery, or I should say, on the
>| freeway just west of the runway. Plane cartwheeled a few times per
>| witenesses, burst into flames, but the pilot walked away with no injuries!
>|
>
>According to AVweb and AP the pilot barely managed to pull himself from the
>wreckage and was hospitalized.

Would you be so kind as to provide those links?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:29:34 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>viviparities

Correction: viabilities

It appears that the visibility was 1/4 mile at the time of the
accident.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:52:51 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>viabilities

Correction to the correction: visibilities

[BTIZ]

I don't think a tower being open would have made any difference.. just the
same as landing at any other non controlled airport..

to blame this on the tower being closed is stupid.. if they had to close the
tower for ATC controller safety... maybe he should not have been lading
there either..

JMVHO
BT

> wrote in message
...
>
> Did you know that as a result of the fires / tower closure / poor pilot
> judgement, a Mooney crash landed at Montgomery, or I should say, on the
> freeway just west of the runway. Plane cartwheeled a few times per
> witenesses, burst into flames, but the pilot walked away with no injuries!
>
> Initial talk says the pilot was landing with a tailwind that had to have
> been 20 kts at Montgomery (with a closed Tower) realized he wasn't going
to
> be able to land and stop with useable runway leftover so he initiated an
> emergency go-around. Pilot was quoted saying the airplane just would not
get
> any lift on the go-around and so he "put it down" on the freeway albeit
not
> to gracefully.
> Initial reporters were stating that he was attempting the landing with the
> known tailwind so he could use the ILS for 28R. Obviously the reported and
> the pilot in this case didn't know about a backcourse? Hmmm.
>
> Should be interesting to read the reports on this when they are done..
>
> JB
>
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > From a TV news broadcast:
> >
> > It appears that forest fires have forced the evacuation of SoCal
> > TRACON and Montgomery Field Tower. LA Center is handling LAX traffic.
> >
> >
>
>

[Jeff]

they said tonight on the local news that I-15 was still open.
But I also heard from CNN or Fox, that I-15 was closed the other day. I
think the local news would be the more correct of the two.

BTIZ wrote:

> and many airlines have stopped flying into LAX for the moment..
>
> I-15 is also closed.. stranding weekend travelers in Las Vegas..
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > From a TV news broadcast:
> >
> > It appears that forest fires have forced the evacuation of SoCal
> > TRACON and Montgomery Field Tower. LA Center is handling LAX traffic.
> >
> >

[Tom S.]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:mG1nb.94367$La.51230@fed1read02...
> I live here.. those trapped tourist keep my tax $ down..
>
> :)
> BT

When the fires are out, is Mustang Range still in operation to KEEP them
trapped? :~)

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:xe0nb.38054$Tr4.78629@attbi_s03...
> > > I-15 is also closed.. stranding weekend travelers in Las Vegas..
> >
> > The horror!
> >
> > (I should be so lucky... :-)

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:13:23 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>I don't think a tower being open would have made any difference..

With visibility at 1/4 mile around the time of the accident, I would
suspect that the tower controller would not have approved an
instrument approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> With visibility at 1/4 mile around the time of the accident, I would
> suspect that the tower controller would not have approved an
> instrument approach.
>

The approach is not subject to the tower controller's approval.

[mutts]

I have heard that the pilot may have lived in nearby scripps ranch
where many homes were lost.
may have contributed to his urgency to get home.


NTSB Identification: LAX04LA028
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, October 26, 2003 in San Diego, CA
Aircraft: Mooney M20K, registration: N1147N
Injuries: 1 Minor.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On October 26, 2003, at 1419 Pacific standard time, a Mooney M20K
airplane, N1147N, landed hard on a highway after a partial loss of
engine power during a go-around from Montgomery Field (MYF), San
Diego, California. The pilot/owner was operating the airplane under
the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The private pilot sustained minor
injuries; the airplane was destroyed in a post-impact fire. The flight
departed St. John's Industrial Air Park (SJN), St. Johns, Arizona,
about 1200 mountain standard time. Instrument meteorological
conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) plan had
been filed for the personal cross-country flight.

In a telephone conversation, the pilot reported that he filed IFR to
BARET intersection with the intention of landing at Montgomery Field.
Forest fires in the area had restricted IFR flights into the area.
Prior to landing, he canceled his IFR clearance and descended below
the smoke layer. During landing, the pilot executed a go-around. He
applied the throttle and as the airplane began the crosswind turn, the
engine lost partial power. He was unable to maintain a climb, and
landed the airplane hard on Highway 163. As the airplane touched down,
the right wing was torn off and the airplane impacted a divider.

The Safety Board investigator contacted Prescott Flight Service
Station (FSS) regarding the accident. The pilot received a preflight
weather briefing from 1120 to 1131. FSS personnel advised him that he
might not be able to get into the San Diego area airports under IFR
due to congestion in the area as a result of the forest fires.

A notice to airmen (NOTAM) advising the closure of the Montgomery
Field tower was issued at 1152.

An aviation routine weather report (METAR) was issued at 1453. It
stated in part: wind from 040 degrees at 9 knots; visibility 3/4 mile;
haze; smoke; vertical visibility 1,000 feet; temperature 31 degrees
Celsius ; dew point 8 degrees Celsius; altimeter 30.08 inHg.





On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:46:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>>
>> With visibility at 1/4 mile around the time of the accident, I would
>> suspect that the tower controller would not have approved an
>> instrument approach.
>>
>
>The approach is not subject to the tower controller's approval.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:46:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
> wrote in message
...
>>
>> With visibility at 1/4 mile around the time of the accident, I would
>> suspect that the tower controller would not have approved an
>> instrument approach.
>>
>
>The approach is not subject to the tower controller's approval.
>

True. I should have said, cleared the flight to land.

Also, I misread the wx sequence; visibility was reported down to 3/4
mile shortly after the time of the mishap, and was likely better than
that when the pilot attempted to land.

26 03:07PM 06013G17KT 1 HZ FU VV013 88 46 30.08
-> 26 02:53PM 04009KT 3/4 HZ FU VV010 87 47 30.08 1018.2
-> 26 02:14PM 07006G14KT 1 1/4 HZ FU OVC014 88 45 30.08
26 01:53PM 08014G18KT 1 1/2 HZ FU OVC016 87 45 30.07 1017.7
26 01:31PM 08010KT 1 1/2 HZ FU OVC014 88 45 30.07

3/4 of a mile is the minimum visibility for the ILS Rwy 28R approach
with RAIL or ALS out. So the approach/landing may have been just
within compliance with FARs at the time.

The 6kt to 14kt tail wind would have contributed only 600' to 1,400'
per minute to the landing roll (by my rough calculations). As Mr.
Weir intimated, that's probably not enough of a tail wind to cause an
overshoot. Incidently, WRT Mr. Weir's assertion, a 60kt tail wind
would contribute 6,000' (1 NM) feet per minute to the landing on the
4,600 foot runway. I wouldn't attempt it.

[Craig Prouse]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

> 3/4 of a mile is the minimum visibility for the ILS Rwy 28R approach
> with RAIL or ALS out. So the approach/landing may have been just
> within compliance with FARs at the time.

According to the NTSB prelim, the pilot had cancelled IFR and was proceeding
to the airport under VFR. Square that with 3/4 of a mile.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 18:01:10 GMT, Craig Prouse >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>"Larry Dighera" wrote:
>
>> 3/4 of a mile is the minimum visibility for the ILS Rwy 28R approach
>> with RAIL or ALS out. So the approach/landing may have been just
>> within compliance with FARs at the time.
>
>According to the NTSB prelim, the pilot had cancelled IFR and was proceeding
>to the airport under VFR. Square that with 3/4 of a mile.

Hmmm.... I hadn't noticed that.

It would seem that either FAR 91.3(b) or FAR 91.13 may have been
applicable in that case. :-)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> True. I should have said, cleared the flight to land.
>

From the information available in the report, what basis would the tower
controller have to deny a landing clearance?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:33:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> True. I should have said, cleared the flight to land.
>>
>
>From the information available in the report, what basis would the tower
>controller have to deny a landing clearance?
>

To what report are you referring?

And regardless, I'd prefer that you made your point rather than
forcing me to infer it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> To what report are you referring?
>

The one that followed your statement "Here's the FAA preliminary report on
the accident that occurred at Montgomery:"


>
> And regardless, I'd prefer that you made your point rather than
> forcing me to infer it.
>

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm trying to understand the point you were
apparently trying to make.

You wrote; "With visibility at 1/4 mile around the time of the accident, I
would
suspect that the tower controller would not have approved an instrument
approach." But the approach is not subject to the tower controller's
approval. You then wrote; "True. I should have said, cleared the flight to
land." But the report you posted contained nothing that suggested any basis
upon which to deny a landing clearance.