![]() “That would always be an option.”Ī preliminary report is expected in 14 days, Simpson said. “If they had flown the approach the first time and didn’t see the runway, they could have chosen to divert to another airport with better weather,” Trescott said. It wasn’t clear why the pilot made the second approach. Instead, he aborted and circled to make a second attempt. Trescott said an instrument landing would have guided the plane to about 250 feet above ground, at which point the pilot would have made the decision to land if he could see the runway. They can use instruments to get near French Valley but have to see the runway to land. The county-owned airport has no tower - pilots rely on air traffic controllers at another airport. ![]() The pilot would not necessarily have received the second report of deteriorating conditions, he said. ![]() “The weather did get worse during the time they were making their two approaches.” “It was changing for the worse for these folks,” Trescott said. That differs from Simpson’s assessment.Ī minute after the crash, visibility was worse, at three-eighths of a mile below the minimum. was one-eighth of a mile less than required for instrument approach at that airport. Max Trescott, a Palo Alto flight instructor who publishes the Aviation News Talk podcast, said data from an FAA weather website showed that visibility three minutes before the jet’s initial approach just before 4 a.m. On Saturday morning, a layer of fog hung over the field where the wreckage lay, a short distance north of the runway. Simpson said it’s too soon to tell if weather was a factor in the crash. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |