Page 14 - TNTMay18

just a second or two before the left wing dropped, showing the entire top of the airplane. Other witnesses also reported that they observed the airplane in a right turn with the wings in a high angle of bank. Some witnesses described seeing the airplane’s wings “wobbling” before the left wing dropped and the airplane descended to the ground. Security video cameras installed at numerous commercial buildings also captured the last moments of the flight, showing the airplane at high angles of bank. One security camera showed the airplane in a steep right wing low, nose down attitude at impact.
There are many lessons promoted by this event, two specifically I want to draw from this example. The first comes from the NTSB excerpt above. 14 CFR 91.175 tells us that f light below Decision Height (DH), Decision Altitude (DA), or apropos to the Learjet’s circle-to-land maneuver, Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA), is permissible only when “...the aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the
intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers....” (emphasis added).
Although “normal maneuvers” is not defined, banking excessively in the traffic pattern is not usually considered “normal.” The need to bank so steeply should prompt the pilot(s) to level the wings, then execute the missed approach procedure as applicable to the aircraft’s current location in the circle-to-land maneuver.
Lesson 1
The first takeaway from this report: Keep bank angle shallow close to the ground, even (especially) if in a circle- to-land or other visual maneuver. If your flight path, the wind or any other factor would require a steep bank or other unusual maneuver to establish or maintain alignment, use that need as a prompt to break off the approach— using normal f light maneuvers.
Lesson 2
Media commentaries about this report centered on crew qualifications,
especially that of the First Officer. The NTSB docket (detailed report) states:
Within the [aircraft owner’s] operation, SIC [Second-in-Command] pilots were ranked on a 0 to 4 scale and restricted as to the type of flying they were allowed to perform so as not to overwhelm them before they were ready. In order to be allowed to fly as SIC on empty legs [positioning f lights], the right seat pilot of the accident aircraft would have been required to hold a rating of SIC-2. On the day of the accident, he was rated as a “0” and as such should not have been [Pilot Flying] of the aircraft at any time.
Both the Captain and the First Officer appear to have been qualified for their respective roles, at least as far as the FAA is concerned. The “0-4” rating scale discussed in the NTSB docket is a company policy, not an FAA rule...unless, perhaps, it is written into the charter operator’s FAA- approved Operations Specifications (OPS-SPEC), and that OPS-SPEC was required to be in force not only while the carrier engaged in Part 135
12 • TWIN & TURBINE
May 2018
Preferred Airparts Quarter Page 4/C Ad
www.Preferred.com
Specialized Aero Quarter Page 4/C Ad
www.SchemeDesigners.com