Lower Won't Work

While we usually train by flying right to minimums and then frequently flying the missed, how often in our actual flying do we miss and do it again, or divert to an alternate? How often do we get caught by surprise when the ceiling were expecting to break out of is lower than we thought (or lower than we need)? For those of us operating under 14 CFR Part 91, how often do we consider or actually find ourselves pushing the looser legal limits of landing under IFR?

Elaine Kauh

Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

A pilot's series of poor decisions, including filing IFR to an airport without instrument approaches and subsequent diversions into deteriorating weather, culminated in a fatal crash.
Despite deteriorating weather and failed attempts, the pilot continued to attempt approaches into conditions well below published minimums at multiple airports.
The accident pilot failed to execute a missed approach at Charlevoix (KCVX) when weather was below minimums, instead attempting a circling maneuver at 200 feet AGL before stalling and crashing.
The incident underscores the critical importance of adhering to IFR minimums and procedures, as well as the dangers of pushing legal and personal limits under pressure in challenging conditions.

See a mistake? Contact us.

There’s always that difference between a textbook procedure, such as an approach to published minimums, and real-life conditions that are rarely so clear cut.

While we usually train by flying right to minimums and then frequently flying the missed, how often in our actual flying do we miss and do it again, or divert to an alternate? How often do we get caught by surprise when the ceiling we’re expecting to break out of is lower than we thought (or lower than we need)? For those of us operating under 14 CFR Part 91, how often do we consider or actually find ourselves pushing the looser legal limits of landing under IFR?