Posted on 05/22/2025 8:53:32 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Okay, I found them, about a mile down the page! Past all the ads................
So basically flew right into the ground in the fog, thinking he had a 300 foot ceiling........................
It sure sounds like it.
Dan Millican’s channel Taking Off has a vid...
https://youtu.be/BGBLXqoMsdQ?feature=shared
Again, be sure to read the comments, especially on this channel.
And something that’s not getting any follow up...
During one of the first pressers it was reported that all of the car fires were out...except for one stubborn car fire that they were having difficulty extinguishing.
Wish someone had asked if the car was an EV.
But maybe the lack of curiosity is telling us the answer.
It’s axiomatic nowadays that a car fire that won’t extinguish is an EV of some sort............
Interesting that nobody would ask or report it, though, eh?
BTW, shouldn’t a CA FD that large have car fire blankets for EV fires...?
One would hope.
They probably only have one per firehouse............
Since I hopped down this rabbit hole...
https://texfire.net/en/blog/126_how-long-does-a-fire-blanket-take-to-extinguish-a-vehicle-fire.html
Holy crap. And you’re tying up personnel, equipment while you babysit the dang thing.
It’s a self-feeding chemical fire that you just have to wait out until it runs out of chemical energy.
Now imagine these new ELECTRIC SEMI-TRACTORS. They have HUGE BATTERIES...................................
In a mass casualty event this would be the last thing you’d need.
What a cluster.
So far it seems the pilot flew an illegal approach, and poorly at that. Probably didn’t have a legal alternate either, given the weather.
The Citation 550 is a Cat C aircraft. The approach had no Cat C or D minimums, there were only A & B mins (both 3/4 mile visibility).
From the ADS-B data looks like he got low on the (illegal) approach and ran into trees or power lines.
Reckless, both in planning and execution.
Under Part 91, a Category C aircraft can fly an approach without published Category C minimums if flown within the operational constraints (e.g., speed and maneuvering capability) of a lower category. It is the PIC’s responsibility to ensure compliance with obstacle clearance and safe operating limits.
However I don’t think this pilot made that kind of nuanced distinction anyway.
Regarding part 91: You can start the approach with vis below minimums - a “look-see” approach - but:
You may not descend below DA/MDA unless:
• You have the required visibility (as reported or as observed).
• The runway environment is in sight.
• You can make a normal descent to landing.
So you can start the approach in poor visibility, but you can’t land unless the conditions improve enough by DA/MDA.
The latest from YouTuber Captain Steeeve...
https://youtu.be/RZkSTDirah8?feature=shared
Worth the watch. Additional info, pilot’s perspective.
Again, comments also worth the read.
I was thinking of non-jets though this was a jet, sorry.
Another pilot error - apparently, the outage was in the NOTAMs. On the transcript, you can hear the clicks as he was trying to turn the lights full up.
Runway lights weren’t working as pilot tried to land at foggy San Diego airport before fatal crash
https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-investigators-comb-san-diego-192748797.html
Pilot knowingly undercut the minimum approach altitude or had a faulty altimeter setting, which could make a critical misrepresentation of altitude, they think he hit power lines and lost control from there.
In any case, why fly in the early morning hours in darkness and make an approach into a FOG BANK?
It makes no sense!
Yes.
And he could have gone to San Diego (SAN) instead, only a six miles southwest, with 1,000 ft overcast skies and 9 miles of visibility.
I read somewhere that he had a female passenger who needed to take her child to school early in the same morning as their arrival - her car parked at Montgomery - not sure but she may have been the woman occupying the right seat (female who was not a pilot).
He made some enormous judgment errors, and the ATC controller never mentioned SAN, though it seems implausible he didn’t know the weather there was much better.
Don't get me talking!
“”Authorities later confirmed that all of the fatalities were aboard the aircraft and no residents of the community required hospitalization.””
That is a stunning miracle. Fifteen houses on fire, 3:45 am in the morning with people still in bed, but no fatalities or even serious injuries? How does that happen, exactly (if not by God).
As for the fog issue, the jet had to have instruments showing the plane’s altitude....right? Did the pilot fall asleep? Really weird.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.