descent below minimums

In a GA aircraft the aircraft dangles 5 feet below eye level.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can't see objects 5 feet below
the aircraft, with visibility good enough to see distant runway
lights?

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. And in five seconds the
aircraft can easily go five hundred feet.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:31:33 GMT, Jose
wrote:

... and that presumption is deadly false. There may be nothing
between the eyeball and the target, but the aircraft dangles below.
Furher, there can be invisible barriers between the aircraft and the
target - wires come to mind, especially at night. True, wires aren't
a hill, but neither are tree branches, both of which could spoil your day.


In a GA aircraft the aircraft dangles 5 feet below eye level.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can't see objects 5 feet below
the aircraft, with visibility good enough to see distant runway
lights?

C'mon.

At night? Absolutely.

wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:31:33 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that you can't see objects 5 feet below
the aircraft, with visibility good enough to see distant runway
lights?

C'mon.

Yes, if the ambient lighting is not bright (dusk, dawn, fog, mist, etc)
you could miss the fact that you're about to hit dirt as you descend
toward the runway, even though the runway is in sight.
NTSB reports are full of stories about pilots that had the runway in
sight and still hit the ground.
Remember the C-130 that bounced on the ground a half mile short of the
runway in Kuwait a couple of years ago and killed 3 passengers when the
gear busted through the floor of the airplane? He had the approach
lights in sight, too. Perfectly good airplane with no problems, but
another controlled flight into terrain.

JPH

wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:31:33 GMT, Jose
wrote:


In that time you are moving forward. The object that caused you to
lose sight of the target may well be wrapped around you by then.



In 5 seconds? With visibility good enough to see the runway?

Give me a break.

You've never actually flown at night, in a remote location, have you?

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:35:52 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. And in five seconds the
aircraft can easily go five hundred feet.


And about 40-80 feet vertically, which can be regained in about 2-4
seconds

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 18:13:33 -0600, J Haggerty
wrote:

NTSB reports are full of stories about pilots that had the runway in
sight and still hit the ground.


NTSB reports are chuck full of bad piloting stories.

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:16:17 -0900, Scott Skylane
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:31:33 GMT, Jose
wrote:


In that time you are moving forward. The object that caused you to
lose sight of the target may well be wrapped around you by then.



In 5 seconds? With visibility good enough to see the runway?

Give me a break.

You've never actually flown at night, in a remote location, have you?

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane


Actually, I have. In hilly country at that.

It's where I learned that when making a visual approach to an airport
at night, and the runway threshold lights start to disappear, that one
needs to get some altitude back in a hurry and keep visual contact
with the approach end of the runway at all times.

Obviously, many pilots have some other way of avoiding terrain,
although I haven't quite figured out what it is, exacty. (except to
keep the gear up so you don't drag them in the trees which are 5 feet
below the aircraft but for some reason not visible, which is a
phenomenon I must say I find highly interesting. 5 feet ain't that
far, when you really stop and think about it.)

Then of course, there's the even more interesting question of how you
know something is 5 feet away if you can'tsee it..

According to the local automobile association here, it takes (on average)
0.75 seconds to perceive a need to brake, and (on average) 0.75 seconds to
figure out what action is needed and execute it. (Geek that I am, I still
have my old driver's training manual...) Assuming these stats can be applied
to this problem, it will take 1.5 seconds from the moment you perceive the
terrain for you to take corrective action. Assuming 500 fpm, that's about
12.5 feet of descent, not 5.

Now add to that the altitude you lose if you happen to be watching some
other traffic, tuning a radio, setting an OBS, consulting a chart, etc -
even if it just takes you one second, the safety margin's now up past 20
feet. Also take into account that you're not seeing a big red danger sign
flashing in front of you; rather, you need to react to dark shapes in your
peripheral vision.

Add to this a moonless night, or a failed landing light, or a
steeper-than-usual descent, or whatever...

-Rob

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:35:52 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. And in five seconds the
aircraft can easily go five hundred feet.


And about 40-80 feet vertically, which can be regained in about 2-4
seconds

I must confess, however, I don't know how you would know for sure
that they were only 5 feet away since you admittedly wouldn't have
been able to have seen them.

When you drag your landing gear through them, they are five feet away.

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. And in five seconds the
aircraft can easily go five hundred feet.

And about 40-80 feet vertically, which can be regained in about 2-4
seconds

2-4 seconds is another 200-400 feet forward We're up to almost a
thousand feet horizontally and maybe 80 feet vertically.

NTSB reports are chuck full of bad piloting stories.

.... like descending the plane into trees while your eyeball has the
lights in sight.

...I learned that when making a visual approach to an airport
at night, and the runway threshold lights start to disappear, that one
needs to get some altitude back in a hurry and keep visual contact
with the approach end of the runway at all times.

.... from which it does =not= follow that keeping the threshold lights
in sight prevents CFIG.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 06:02:27 GMT, Jose
wrote:

... from which it does =not= follow that keeping the threshold lights
in sight prevents CFIG.


Well, please, share your technique with the rest of us.