"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:80aa3cae34e9a@uwe...
Phil J wrote:

I read that they were attempting to land on runway 23. According to
one website I found they have runways 05/23 and 15/33. Seems like 33
would have been a better choice if the wind was from 290.


That's correct. The failed attempt was on rwy 23 and the METAR showed
winds 290 @35G55. A 60 degee right crosswind. Their second (less
eventful)
landing was on 33. A more manageable 40 degree left crosswind.

23 had the ILS, didn't it? The METAR also indicated clouds at 1100 and
1400, so I wonder if he just said "Screw it. I'm going visual" the second
time around.

Maybe the problem started because he didn't want to bust IFR. It looked
overcast, though, despite the METAR so he might have had to approach through
that as well.

-c