Hard landing in Richmond

Oh, the perils of flying Econ Mode <img src="tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-roll2.gif" alt="roll2">. Flight seemed great, even with really limited visibility at both Orig and Dest. I had already programmed my ILS approach to rwy 34 and it captured and showed the LOC and GS indicators lit when I activated approach mode. I was suspicious though when the glideslope needle didn't come alive - staying centered. Still, I hated to continue along and do a go-around so I figured I'd see what happened. Well, when I passed the waypoint at 1700 ft and didn't begin to descend from there, it was clear that I wasn't going to. I set the altitude for 200 with the runway elevation at about 167. This was - of course, below the minimums from where I was at, but I hoped to see something to help guide me. I should have known better because of the LIFR conditions at KRIC (Note to self: those flight rule qualifiers MVFR and LIFR are not indicative of an improvement of the specified conditions, but quite the opposite - I finally looked that up to see what I was getting myself into).

Well, I popped out just above the trees and about a third of a mile from the runway threshold. I quickly took control of the plane and increased altitude to improve my safety margin, but not even close to a stable approach. As I tried to manage speed and altitude after turning off the autopilot, I used up half the runway and had to either set it down or abort. I tried to set it down - hitting the runway at over 800 fpm and making the passengers scream in fear. So...in my haste to avoid a go-around, I ended up losing a $200+ profit and suffering about a $2600 loss for the flight to fix my aircraft and settle my frightened passengers financial claims of mental anguish.

I think all would have been ok had the Virtualcol glideslope worked correctly. I'm not sure what was wrong there, but I think I've seen this before and it must be an intermittent problem with either the way I'm setting things up or a bug with the modeling by Virtualcol. While it's possible I was already below the GS when I activated it, I don't think I should have been as I activated it before the IAF. Also, I would have thought the needle would have been active even if the autopilot didn't capture the glideslope and begin automatic descent.

I can't beat myself up too badly, after all, I just watched the latest Air Disasters episode from Sunday night. Coincidently, this involved the <a href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransAsia_Airways_Flight_222" target="_blank">flight of TransAsia Airways Flight 222, which crashed on approach where the pilot did about the same thing I just repeated here. Unfortunately, that plane crashed into the trees and village, killing most passengers and injuring some on the ground. I suspect my plane's handling was more responsive and less realistic than theirs was - as I certainly deserved the same fate for my foolishness. I guess it just shows you how tempting it can be to do things you know you shouldn't (even in the real world where lives are on the line).

Lesson learned - I'll be more careful next time...maybe <img src="tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif" alt="wink">.<br /><br /><!-- editby --><br /><br /><em>edited by: jer029, Feb 12, 2019 - 01:03 PM</em><!-- end editby -->

John,

Boy, is this a familiar story. Non-capture of the GS is a recurring problem in my flight sim experience. The most common cause of course is being too high without knowing it and then trying to capture the GS from above - rarely works. However, there are other causes too. I try to come in low and intercept the GS from below as per the IAP. If the GS indicator doesn't pop up above me, and certainly if it doesn't start to descend as I near the intercept point, I routinely abort and try again.

The Econ mode is pretty scary. Since I crashed my Kodiak into the Logan basecamp and lost $5000 about a month back, I have experienced a number of white knuckle approaches. The worst happened yesterday. I was flying my ERJ145 from Bismark to Williston (KISN). There is a single ILS at Williston on Rwy 29, so I set-up assuming that approach. The weather was like its been the last week or two, a low cloud deck just above minimums, in this case OVC 400, 2 SM.
As I started my approach, Williston was reporting 120/10, not good for Rwy 29. So, ATC directed me to the GPS approach to Rwy 11. Well, my ERJ navigation suite doesn't support GPS and the MFD navigation display does not show runway approaches. On top of that, the FGC autopilot doesn't include a backcourse option. So, I was stuck: blow off ATC and attempt a downwind ILS approach, or use the nearby Williston VOR and the ILS backcourse to attempt a "dive and drive" approach. At this point, I wished I had filed an alternate, but I was pushing hard to get the assignment filed before it expired. So,I opted for the latter, aided by the radar altimeter on the PFD. So, I followed ATC vectors until they told me to maintain 3600' until established on the approach and then contact Williston FSS. So with nothing more that the VOR/DME and a rough heading, I descended through the soup all the way to about 2300' (350 AGL), where I could see the snow covered ground, but not the airport. Flying "VFR" below the cloud deck, I crept the last 10 miles or so at 22 deg. of flaps and about 190 KIAS until I could see the red lights of the VASI peering through the gloom ahead.

As I approached the threshold I had to switch off the auto pilot and make the always tricky transition to hand flying the approach from abut 300'. Predictably, although my heading was correct, I was not aligned with the runway, so I had to sidestep and then roll back onto the runway heading. In my experience, this maneuver rarely goes well because it lacks the "stable approach" component of a good landing. So, once again, I found myself slaloming back and forth across the runway trying to get both the position, heading and pitch right to make a landing before I ran out of runway. I just managed to pull it off with a Vs a little under - 500 fpm, but it wasn't pretty. I asked the ground crew to try to get the grass stains off the tires before we disembarked the passengers.

Mike

Hah Robert - I do use ForeFlight - and that's how I had up to date rwy use and weather conditions. The problem here was related to a simulator malfunction and most likely below acceptable minimums visibility. Even Foreflight can't improve continually changing conditions - and the simulator malfunction might just as well have been a real-life system malfunction. It was incumbent upon me as the pilot to execute a go-around, and if necessary, go to an alternate. Of course, since this is only simulation - I took an unreasonable chance, and with the Econ Module addition, paid the price - a minor cost compared to the real-life example I included in my original thread. I also use a GPS addon that is as good as ForeFlight - but for GPS in simulators and a lot cheaper in the long run. Still, I had my Ipad in front of me with Foreflight up and running. So with all the latest and greatest technology, I could see my plane over the runway - or approaching the runway, but I'm still traveling at about 140 Kts. in zero visibility and everything happening at once - the trees appearing right in front of me with the runway behind them, a quick turning off of autopilot, and auto-throttle - separate buttons to turn off while trying to maintain a controlled elevation and lateral position, and then set the plane down while watching the fpm descent as I'm quickly running out of runway to land on.

I can only imagine how much more difficult it must be to pilot a real plane with the much more realistic response in such a busy circumstance and so much more at risk hanging in the balance. Not worth the risk in that case for sure - yet it happens.

I guess my point is that, even with the best technology, we are still at the mercy of the weather and our own foolish tendency to do what we know is wrong for the sake of expediency. On top of that - if we get away with it once or twice, we're more likely to try the same in the future - or worse, increase the odds against us a little bit more and a little bit more until we finally run out of luck.

Of course, the other important point here is to share with other pilots how much fun can be added to the flight simming experience by adding real-time weather and some additional consequences (provided by our Econ-2018 module). It can add a whole new dimension to flight simulation for pilots who might be looking for adding some additional challenges.

Fortunately, this is just one of the many offerings to our SPA pilots - and pilots can pick whatever flight type interests them, and pick something else tomorrow if they want something different.

Right now, for me, I like the added challenge - and enjoy sharing my harrowing flight details and reading those of others - right now mainly Mike D. who shares the interest in real-world weather and flight planning (more than I do actually - that's why I'm more accident-prone I'm guessing). Anyway - I find myself learning more as I do this - like finally looking up MVFR and LIFR definitions to understand why I couldn't see the runway until I almost planted my face into it. <img src="tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-lachen.gif" alt="lachen">

John