SoCal TRACON, Montgomery Field Tower Evacuated.

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.

"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.

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. :-)

"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?

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.

"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.