MedJet crash CA

[henzilla]

No aircraft accident good, a vendor many here use caught my ear today. My son-in- law is a tower controller at John Wayne

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20211227-0

 

[skibum69]

Ouch!

 

[senseamidmadness]

Sounds like weather and poor visibility were a big factor.

 

[darrell]

Message from Medjet Assistance, LLC (rally attendees)

While still a very sad situation they did respond it was not the service I or maybe many BMW riders use. Here is their reply.

Thank you for the note, but this was not our company. We are MEDJET Assistance, LLC commonly referred to as “Medjet” and the company involved was Med Jet LLC.

Unfortunately, the words Med and Jet are in common use and in at least 4 air ambulance companies. As you can imagine, this has caused a high level of confusion surrounding this horrible incident.

 

[henzilla]

That is confusing with names, thanks for the info addition

 

[glenfiddich]

That was about three blocks from the house I owned when I was home ported in San Diego!

 

[rj555]

I am guessing the focus on the weather will be a huge part of the investigation. My parents married in Ej Cajon in the 1950s.

 

[52184]

I am guessing the focus on the weather will be a huge part of the investigation.

Weather is always looked at by NTSB, but I expect the bigger question will be why an IFR-rated pilot would break off an instrument approach, in the rain, to attempt a VFR approach on a different runway in the dark of early evening. It’s a tragic incident regardless, and just lucky that no one was hit on the ground.

Best,
DeVern

 

[pglaves]

Weather is always looked at by NTSB, but I expect the bigger question will be why an IFR-rated pilot would break off an instrument approach, in the rain, to attempt a VFR approach on a different runway in the dark of early evening. It’s a tragic incident regardless, and just lucky that no one was hit on the ground.

Best,
DeVern

Pay attention to the recent claims that 5G cell signals might interfere with aircraft altimeters.

 

[52184]

Pay attention to the recent claims that 5G cell signals might interfere with aircraft altimeters.

Yes, specifically with radar altimeters which I suspect would be most depended upon at lower altitudes and approach/departure. No idea if the Lear 35A is so equipped, tho.

Best,
DeVern

 

[pkpilot]

5G should not be a factor in this crash. It does not affect radar altimeters because the frequencies are significantly different. 5G affects the precision GPS approach capability. This airport in question does not even have a precision GPS approach likely due to the surround terrain and obstacles.

The Lear 35 usually has a radar altimeter installed, but it is not required. Although different companies have difference procedures for its employment, it is highly unlikely that it would have had any bearing on this crash based on standard employment techniques.

The crew decided to change the runway they wanted to use for landing because of the wind. They apparently made this decision after getting below the cloud layer. They did not request a circling approach, so they likely decided it was more expeditious to cancel instruments, go VFR and circle to land on the desired runway. The tower cleared them for this. Their other option would be to go missed approach, the fly another approach (possibly a circling approach) to use the desired runway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[pglaves]

5G should not be a factor in this crash. It does not affect radar altimeters because the frequencies are significantly different. 5G affects the precision GPS approach capability. This airport in question does not even have a precision GPS approach likely due to the surround terrain and obstacles.

The Lear 35 usually has a radar altimeter installed, but it is not required. Although different companies have difference procedures for its employment, it is highly unlikely that it would have had any bearing on this crash based on standard employment techniques.

The crew decided to change the runway they wanted to use for landing because of the wind. They apparently made this decision after getting below the cloud layer. They did not request a circling approach, so they likely decided it was more expeditious to cancel instruments, go VFR and circle to land on the desired runway. The tower cleared them for this. Their other option would be to go missed approach, the fly another approach (possibly a circling approach) to use the desired runway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for this!

 

[Omega Man]

Gravity- most powerful force in the universe. Reminds of a Sunday a while back.

https://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread.php?64024-I-missed-the-race-today&highlight=Missed



OM

 

[kthutchinson]

5G should not be a factor in this crash. It does not affect radar altimeters because the frequencies are significantly different.

Radar altimeters operate in the 4200 to 4400 MHz band at relatively low power. 5G operates from 3700 to 3980 MHz, but at much higher power. Since radar altimeters were developed at a time when there was almost no other activity around their frequency band, there are no specific requirements in the airworthiness standards regarding interference susceptibility. The last update to the standards was in 1980, well before cell phone usage took off (pardon the pun). In today's crowded electromagnetic spectrum environment, any bleed over from the higher power 5g signals could indeed affect radar altimeter performance.

 

[dravnx]

5G should not be a factor in this crash. It does not affect radar altimeters because the frequencies are significantly different. 5G affects the precision GPS approach capability. This airport in question does not even have a precision GPS approach likely due to the surround terrain and obstacles.

The Lear 35 usually has a radar altimeter installed, but it is not required. Although different companies have difference procedures for its employment, it is highly unlikely that it would have had any bearing on this crash based on standard employment techniques.

The crew decided to change the runway they wanted to use for landing because of the wind. They apparently made this decision after getting below the cloud layer. They did not request a circling approach, so they likely decided it was more expeditious to cancel instruments, go VFR and circle to land on the desired runway. The tower cleared them for this. Their other option would be to go missed approach, the fly another approach (possibly a circling approach) to use the desired runway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

5G is an important concern to radar altimeters, not GPS.

 

[dravnx]

CTLs are not allowed on a Part 135 op, that is why the crew cancelled the clearance and went VFR.

 

[spx]

CTLs are not allowed on a Part 135 op, that is why the crew cancelled the clearance and went VFR.

That’s not correct.
However, what is correct is that CTL at night to the runway they landed on is not permissible. Hence their need to cancel IFR.

 

[dravnx]

Stand corrected, a CTL at night is not permissible.

 

[pglaves]

Would not the ability to CTL IFR be specified in the operators Op Spec?

OK, now that it is cryptically in at least three post, what is CTL?

 

[lee]

OK, now that it is cryptically in at least three post, what is CTL?

When I look up aviation abreviations all I get for CTL is Control.