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.