Eclipsehornplayer

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

It never ceases to amaze me that they try to land in weather like this. It makes you wonder how sane the pilots really were.

How sad.

Tootsall

Sometimes there is no choice but to land. In those instances you just hope that the pilot's training and skills and the equipment are all up to the test. In the case of the Russian airlines I'd venture to guess that aircraft maintenance, pilot training, AND ground control and airport maintenance all leave a little to be desired.

Eclipsehornplayer

You know it's ironic that this would happen today.

Last night I was watching Air Emergency on National Geographic and it was about a Russion Airbus A310 that crashed in Siberia enroute to Hong kong.

Eireeeeeee man!

Now grant it; this is an Armenian Airlines Airbus but very ironic indeed!

And your right, we just don't know why they did what they did. It will be interesting to see if we ever know.

Siegtrmpt

I read the article and got very little useful information to comment on. Since I have not flown the A-320 I'm not familiar with their equipment but, in general, all modern airliners are equiped to take you down to 200 ft agl or lower before you need to look outside to land. Some properly equipped airliners can even land in zero zero (no visibility, no ceiling) conditions. Basically that means you can't see outside the airplane. Wind certainly could be a factor in the go around. Both the airplane and airport have limitations on wind velocity that, if exceeded, require a go around and either another attempt or diversion to the alternate airport. The phase of flight that this accident occured is a high workload envirionment where lots of decisions are made and lots of regrouping to set up for whatever you decide to do next. It's a common place and situation for accidents to occur. Was the crew sane? Probably. Competent? Probably. Tired and stressed? Count on it. Bill S. (ATP/CFII C-500, Lear Jet)

PINCHUNO

Eire man? Isn't that in Ireland