Flight OG269: At Least 88 Bodies Found At Phuket Airport Crash Site

[Spee]

What does the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 have to do with yesterday's? Between 1985 to 1996 Alaska Airlines progressively increased the period in between jackscrew lubrication as well as end play checks with the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). So who is at fault - the airline or the FAA?

All talk of poor maintenance and flight 261 have no bearing and are irrelevant.

The point is merely to call attention to the jackscrew lubrication issue and query whether Orient-Thai was doing this within the prescribed new intervals.

*and to call attention to the design deficiency of the MD80/82 of having a single point of failure potential with no fail safe mechanism, merely relying on maintenance alone.

The failure scenarios of the two flights appear to be completely unrelated. One more or less fell out of the sky in perfect weather due to loss of control while pilots were making normal maneuvers. The other was a complicated landing in severe weather. Making comparisons doesn't seem very applicable, IMHO.

Same with respect to the age of aircraft. Many of us have flown on 20-30 year old aircraft and perhaps never realized it. As others have said, it's the quality of the maintenance not the age of the airframe, engines and other core components. There are still WW2-era "Gooney Birds" (DC3's) flying all over the place.

RIP to all of the lost souls and condolences to surviving family and friends.

[paul-s]

VFR (Visual Flight Rules - it was daytime) conditions are pretty easy. It takes a pretty bad situation before an aerodrome or airport decides to 'shutdown'.

I believe that in this case, the conditions were expected given the location & time of year, but a sudden & extreme condition is not something that we humans can generally deal with in a timely fashion.

At the end of the day & under VFR, it's up to the pilot to make these decisions.

I'm pretty sure dekka can add to or correct my evaluation of this.

It is my understanding that it would be very unlikely for an airliner like this to be flying VFR, if only to avoid other traffic. It is more likely to be flying under IFR (instrument flight rules) and this would only make it even safer. In any case the pilot has the final descision and good visability would be very helpful, but they can go down to a very low height before the descision to land or abort is made.

The pilot seems to have been 56 years old so he would have had a lot of experience.

As it was said earlier, speculation will not solve the issue and air crashes are usually the result of a number of bad events all coming together at the same time.

I would also like join all those who have previously offered their sympathies to all those effected by the crash.

[cdnvic]

String of crashes in Asia raises concerns

snip

It's too early to say what caused Flight OG269 to crash in stormy weather, although one aviation expert, citing Thai aviation officials, said the pilot reportedly asked to circle around again because he could not see the runway, but the plane was already too low.

"It was hit by wind shear or strong winds and he didn't have time to react," said Tom Ballantyne, chief corespondent for Orient Aviation magazine, adding that the bigger question was whether the airport should have been allowing planes to land in such weather.

snip

usatoday.com

bigger question was whether the airport should have been allowing planes to land in such weather

VFR (Visual Flight Rules - it was daytime) conditions are pretty easy. It takes a pretty bad situation before an aerodrome or airport decides to 'shutdown'.

I believe that in this case, the conditions were expected given the location & time of year, but a sudden & extreme condition is not something that we humans can generally deal with in a timely fashion.

At the end of the day & under VFR, it's up to the pilot to make these decisions.

I'm pretty sure dekka can add to or correct my evaluation of this.

I highly doubt they were operating a commercial airliner under VFR. In poor weather airports tend to allow only IFR traffic.

[george]

Update:

First plane carrying victims arrives at Don Muaeng

BANGKOK: -- The first plane carrying some of the victims’ bodies from Sunday’s Phuket air crash has arrived at Bangkok’s Don Muaeng Airport.

A special flight operated by budget carrier One Two Go – flight number OX 8260 – was used to transport the bodies to the Thai capital, where relatives were waiting.

Among the identified bodies on the special flight were that of the Indonesian captain of Sunday’s crash Arif Mulyadi, the Thai co-pilot, flight stewards and attendants and two local government officials.

Fifty-five foreigners were among the 89 persons killed when One-Two-Go's MD-82 jet carrying 130 passengers and crew crashed at Phuket airport in bad weather late Sunday afternoon.

--TNA 2007-09-17

[Abrak]

Incidentally I remember early this year one TV member warning of safety issues with 1-2-go/orient air....

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=116792

[george]

Probe looks at human error

Role of air traffic controllers and I'nesian pilot under scrutiny

PHUKET: -- The role of the Indonesian pilot and air traffic controllers during the heavy rainstorm prior to the crash of flight OG 269 at Phuket Airport on Sunday came under intense scrutiny yesterday as authorities began their investigation into the tragedy that claimed 89 lives.

Initial assessments pointed to a possible misjudgement by the pilot as a major cause of the crash.

However the real cause would be determined by the two black box flight recorders which will be sent to the United States for analysis in the nest two days.

Chaisak Angsuwan, director-general of the Air Transport Department, said the voice and flight data recorders of the One-Two-Go OG 269 flight were dug out of the charred debris of the plane yesterday. He expected the results of the analysis from the US would be available within next week.

The Transportation Ministry yesterday also set up an investigative team to find the cause of the accident which claimed 89 lives, including 55 foreigners.

"The objective is to seek the real reason and to prevent it happening again," said Chaisak, who is also deputy chairman of the investigative team.

The OG 269 was carrying 123 passengers and seven crew, including the pilot and co-pilot, from Bangkok to Phuket when it slammed into the runway in driving wind and rain. The plane then caught fire and engulfed most of the passengers in flames.

A source at the Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (Aerothai), which oversees air traffic control in the country, said the traffic controllers at Phuket International Airport had informed the pilot about the bad weather conditions.

"The final decision on whether to land was made by the pilot, we only gave him the conditions," said the source who asked not to be named.

According to the source, besides the heavy rain and bad visibility, there was 30-knot crosswind at the airport at the very moment the plane attempted to landing.

"It was a very strong crosswind. The pilot should not have landed," said the source.

The bad weather conditions in Phuket on Sunday were confirmed by the Meteorological Department. Chamnong Jitphakdee, director of southern meteorological office, who said that Phuket was affected by severe storms around 3pm and he had to update the traffic control tower every 30 minutes.

Chaisak, who is also chairman of Aerothai, reckoned the pilot of OG 269 might have thought the landing would not a problem as another aircraft, also belonging to Orient Thai airlines, had landed just minutes before.

Chaisak said he was informed the OG 269 pilot had tried to land twice.

On the second attempt, he said, the pilot again informed air traffic control that he would go round again.

"It happened very fast. Just minutes after he talked to the traffic controllers, the plane crashed as it lost balance and the fuselage tilted to the right," said Chaisak, adding that the landing gear "was not down" when it crashed heavily on the runway.

However, some passengers said the landing gear was lowered to prepare for landing because the plane had skidded off the runway. Some witnesses said they heard a series of explosions before the plane crashed.

Chaisak admitted that he heard a conversation between the pilot and air traffic controllers which was recorded by air traffic controllers. However, he hadn't released the recording, saying there was "nothing special" about the conversation.

"It was just normal conversation that every pilot has when talking to air traffic controllers before landing," he said.

Udom Tantiprasongchai, founder and chairman of Orient Thai Airlines, which own One-Two-Go, said it was too early to point the finger at the pilot.

"He is chief of the One-Two-Go's pilots with long term experience flying passenger planes," he said referred to the Indonesian pilot "Ariff", as many Indonesians use only one name.

Udom said all parties should wait for the results of the black boxes.

"I've heard someone questions about why we use an Indonesian pilot. I beg you all not to focus on the nationality of any pilot. The most important thing is their skill and experience," he said.

Ariff, an experienced passenger pilot with several Indonesian airlines, had reportedly worked with One-Two-go for almost three years and had flown to Phuket many times, said Udom.

A source from Aerothai said all air traffic controllers stationed at Phuket airport when the crash took place have been temporarily moved to ground staff positions.

"From the control tower they saw everything and broke into tears the moment the plane crashed," said the source.

Kanit Phromsatit, a pilot with THAI Airways, said the judgement of a pilot when landing in bad weather condition was crucial and admitted that Phuket Airport was a difficult place to land being encircled by mountains.

"The plane had been is use for 12 years. Normally, any plane should have at least 15 years good service," he said.

-- The Nation 2007-09-18

[Goshawk]

The plane was indeed 24 years old.

Original Owner: Trans World Airlines

Serial number: 49183 LN:1129

Type: MD-82

First flight date: 17 November 1983

Delivery Date: 20/12/1983

Operator:TWA

Registration: N912TW

Delivery Date: 2/12/2001

Operator:American Airlines

Registration: N912TW

Remark: Stored at Roswell 04/2006

Delivery Date: 21/03/2007

Operator:One Two Go Airlines

Registration: HS-OMG

Here she is...

One-Two-GO (Orient Thai Airlines) McDonnell Douglas MD-82 (DC-9-82)

Bangkok - International (Don Muang) (DMK / VTBD)

Thailand, May 11, 2007

[elkangorito]

I highly doubt they were operating a commercial airliner under VFR. In poor weather airports tend to allow only IFR traffic.

Can you please quote an instance of this?

VFR is preferable to IFR in most circumstances. 'Seeing is believing'. But not withstanding this, ILS (not IFR) approaches are generally utilised at night (very helpful nonetheless)...daytime, it is an adjunct to VFR. Mind you, modern 'nightime' landing methods are something of which I know bugger all. Again, dekka can answer this.

Again, it is up to the pilot to decide what he will do. If he can't 'see', it may be better to use IFR but the conditions under which this catastrophe occurred was daytime, which generally indicates VFR conditions. The pilot would've had to decide upon this.

Landing an aircraft is a mixture of 'feel' & 'see'. In some aircraft, you can't see how you are 'finally' descending because of the 'attitude' (not altitude) of the aircraft. In some aircraft, the moments before 'touchdown' are monitored by instruments because of such a thing.

[Maestro]

... one aviation expert, citing Thai aviation officials, said the pilot reportedly asked to circle around again because he could not see the runway, but the plane was already too low.

I hope this is not true. From what I have read in posts in this thread from persons I believe to be knowledgeable on this subject, the pilot aborts a landing, ie does a turn-around, without asking permission from the tower.

A news report quoted in this thread – please don’t ask me to find it again – said that the pilot wanted to abort the landing but it was was too late to do so, the rear of the plane, perhaps pushed down by winds, hit the runway and the plane broke in two.

--

Maestro

[cdnvic]

If there was indeed rain and a 30 knot crosswind then he was exceeding the 20kt max crosswind landing speed by 10kts. 30 knots is the maximum for a dry runway with the MD-82.

Here's a report based on a similar accident in the US:

https://www.flightsafety.org/ap/ap_feb02.pdf

Makes interesting reading.

[Lucifer]

... one aviation expert, citing Thai aviation officials, said the pilot reportedly asked to circle around again because he could not see the runway, but the plane was already too low.

I hope this is not true. From what I have read in posts in this thread from persons I believe to be knowledgeable on this subject, the pilot aborts a landing, ie does a turn-around, without asking permission from the tower.

A news report quoted in this thread – please don't ask me to find it again – said that the pilot wanted to abort the landing but it was was too late to do so, the rear of the plane, perhaps pushed down by winds, hit the runway and the plane broke in two.

--

Maestro

No pilot EVER asks for a go round. We just do it.

It's then up to Air Traffic Control to sort the other aeroplanes that may be around.

[cdnvic]

No pilot EVER asks for a go round. We just do it.

It's then up to Air Traffic Control to sort the other aeroplanes that may be around.

Planning the path for a go round is part of the flight planning in most cases is it not? Or does it vary between airlines and flight crews?

[khuntony]

Since the DC3 has been mentioned, it is my understanding that that particular 'large' aircraft was one of the last, if not the last designed and manufactured that did not have an airframe structure that was 'life-limited'.

To explain, all modern transport aircraft are designed, manufactured and certified by the appropriate airworthiness authorities (FAA in the US, for example) with a finite life. This maybe expressed as a number of flying hours, years, or cycles (a cycle is usually one flight, ie a take-off, the flight, and the subsequent landing).

When an aircraft reaches it's 'finite-life' it must be withdrawn from service. However, the 'aircraft' in this case is the basic structure of the aircraft, and does not necessarily include the various mechanical, electrical or hydraulic components that enable the aircraft. These various components however, may also have finite or overhaul lives assigned to them, and of course the structure itself is inspected many times to varying depths throughout it's operating life.

To clarify, a 'finite-life' is a fixed limit when the item is permanently retired from service. Overhaul means that the particular component (which could be the engine, a flight control, landing gear, or maybe an electrical generator for example) is stripped down to it's individual components, detail inspected using a variety of procedures and 'limits', and reassembled, tested and checked before being 'released to service', to be fitted back to an aircraft again.

In layman's terms, every flight hour or cycle is recorded, on every commercial, military and private aircraft. records are maintained, and monitored, to ensure that these finite and overhaul lives are not exceeded. Every commercial operator (airline) is regularly 'audited', usually by the relevant national airworthiness authority, to ensure that they have procedures in place that will ensure safe operation and correct maintenance of the aircraft. Budget, or 'low-cost' airlines have to maintain the same standards as any other operator.

Budget airlines save money, for example, by not providing food maybe, or perhaps no in-flight entertainment. Yet despite not providing those services, they still have cabin crew... Why is that, you might ask?

Because the primary function of cabin staff on ANY airline is SAFETY, which is once again mandated by the airworthiness authorities.

Commercial aircraft operation is a complex business, and cannot be explained in 4 or 5 paragraphs.

What I have attempted to do, is illustrate that there are many 'controls' in place to ensure safe aircraft operation... an aircraft that may be 24 years old may have all new, or overhauled components fitted. Budget airlines operate under the same regulations as national flag carriers.

Unfortunately, Mother Nature doesn't read these regulations.

[Jingjok]

No pilot EVER asks for a go round. We just do it.

It's then up to Air Traffic Control to sort the other aeroplanes that may be around.

Planning the path for a go round is part of the flight planning in most cases is it not? Or does it vary between airlines and flight crews?

No, it varies between airfields. A specific go-around procedure is published for every licensed field. If followed, which it certainly will be by any captain who is not actually suicidal, the aircraft will not conflict with other traffic. That's one of the reasons (apart from the obvious imminent danger consideration) why the captain can just do it without 'asking' anyone.

[Maestro]

Planning the path for a go round is part of the flight planning in most cases is it not? Or does it vary between airlines and flight crews?

I may have made a mistake by using “abort a landing” and “do a turn-around” as synonyms. For all I know, the turn-around – or “go-around”, which seems to be the correct term (I know nothing about flying) – is distinctly separate from the aborting of a landing, with decisions being made at different times respectively different altitudes. Come on, pilots, help me out of this mess I got myself into

--

Maestro

[elkangorito]

... one aviation expert, citing Thai aviation officials, said the pilot reportedly asked to circle around again because he could not see the runway, but the plane was already too low.

Pilots do not ask to 'go around'...they (I) just do it!

I think the media is distorting the truth (as usual) by misreporting fact.

It really doesn't matter what the weather is like....at the end of the moment (day), it is the pilot who makes the decision about what to do. ATC does not dictate to pilots what they can & can't do under extreme conditions.

Pilot: "Bankstown, Victor Hotel Bravo requesting go-around due to a technical problem/low visibility/other problem".

ATC: "Victor Hotel Bravo, Bankstown, , request denied. Continue on final".

Pilot: "Bankstown, Victor Hotel Bravo, situation critical...must land now".

ATC: "Victor Hotel Bravo, Bankstown, other traffic on approach...permission denied".

This scenario takes valuable minutes/seconds. It will never happen!!!!!!

What are you people thinking when it comes to landing an aircraft in extreme situations? Do you think it all 'just happens nicely ' according to the rules? Unfortunately, the weather & other phenomena do not play by the rules.

BTW, this is a simplified view of a potential situation as envisaged by people unfamiliar to piloting. This 'view' will never happen under current regulations.

Edited September 17, 2007 by elkangorito

[elkangorito]

Planning the path for a go round is part of the flight planning in most cases is it not? Or does it vary between airlines and flight crews?

I may have made a mistake by using “abort a landing” and “do a turn-around” as synonyms. For all I know, the turn-around – or “go-around”, which seems to be the correct term (I know nothing about flying) – is distinctly separate from the aborting of a landing, with decisions being made at different times respectively different altitudes. Come on, pilots, help me out of this mess I got myself into

--

Maestro

A 'go-around' is in effect, an aborted landing.

BTW, most controlled airspaces/aerodromes/airfields have a generally understood 'circuit' pattern. For large airports, it's controlled by the ATC. For smaller airports, it's normally 'observed' (visually noticed) prior to landing or by radio contact. Radios do fail...the same as instruments, which is why VFR & 'eyesight' is the most valuable thing.

[Asian Frog]

It is urgent to wait the results of investigations. Too much non professional speculations on this forum.

An aviation accident is often due to a combination of factors. We have to wait and let the professionals analyse the contributing factors.

It is particularly important to be quite accurate in our vocabulary in those circumstances and yes, to operate an airliner is a complex operation, which requires a lot more than flying a cessna.

For your information, VFR flights are forbidden in Operation Manuals of most Airlines, so our aircraft are flying IFR. However we can be IFR and flying VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions) or to be IFR and make a visual approach.

[cdnvic]

It is urgent to wait the results of investigations. Too much non professional speculations on this forum.

An aviation accident is often due to a combination of factors. We have to wait and let the professionals analyse the contributing factors.

It is particularly important to be quite accurate in our vocabulary in those circumstances and yes, to operate an airliner is a complex operation, which requires a lot more than flying a cessna.

For your information, VFR flights are forbidden in Operation Manuals of most Airlines, so our aircraft are flying IFR. However we can be IFR and flying VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions) or to be IFR and make a visual approach.

Discussion, speculation, questioning and correcting each other is what makes it a forum. We discuss, debate, and learn. Waiting for the experts to tell us everything would make it more akin to a library than a forum.

[Jingjok]

Discussion, speculation, questioning and correcting each other is what makes it a forum. We discuss, debate, and learn. Waiting for the experts to tell us everything would make it more akin to a library than a forum.

Hear hear Cdnvic!

BTW, there's some interesting 'speculation' on pprune (The Professional Pilot's RUmour NEtwork):

www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=292331

Including posts from former employees of the airline.

[Asian Frog]

Sorry,

But the experts know that they have to stay out of the debate in order not to fuel controversial positions which may biase the result of investigations and may be used during the trials which will follow as there is a judiciary need for determining responsabilities particularly for Insurances.

If you want to know the real reasons of accident please go on the NTSB website (or equivalent Civil Aviation Authorities) in 6 months, time which is required for analysing all data. Analysing all contributing factors, including forensic expertise of the pilot bodies, analysis of their activities during the last 48 hours, analysis of their training, as well as check of all maintenance operations during the last month, analysis of weather conditions, analysis of all recorders (Aircraft and ATC)....

Proper experts will not give you any opinion until all parameters have been analysed, only week end pilots are doing and their interventions are lacking accuracy

[elkangorito]

It is urgent to wait the results of investigations. Too much non professional speculations on this forum.

An aviation accident is often due to a combination of factors. We have to wait and let the professionals analyse the contributing factors.

It is particularly important to be quite accurate in our vocabulary in those circumstances and yes, to operate an airliner is a complex operation, which requires a lot more than flying a cessna.

For your information, VFR flights are forbidden in Operation Manuals of most Airlines, so our aircraft are flying IFR. However we can be IFR and flying VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions) or to be IFR and make a visual approach.

It's (not) funny how 'visual' always seems to come into the equation.

The bloke who taught me how to fly was a bus driver. That was his claim to fame even after being a pilot for over 40 years. He learnt to fly before he could touch the pedals of a motor vehicle.

A guy, with whom I went to school, is now a Qantas captain...has been for many years. He was taught by the same bloke as I was. Both he (the Qantas guy) & me understand the realities about flying by the 'seat of your pants'. It is my belief & my friend from Qantas, that under extreme circumstances, a good pilot will not rely on the unreliable. Nor is it sensible to simplify matters by saying such things as "to operate an airliner is a complex operation, which requires a lot more than flying a cessna". Complete rubbish!!! Have you ever tried to land a light aircraft in crosswinds that exceed its' capability? For larger aircraft, this is a simpler thing to do. Not so for light aircraft. From this is where a pilot is created.

When it comes to the crunch, if all else fails, look out of the window. Oops!!! That is against the rules, (VFR flights are forbidden in Operation Manuals of most Airlines) even though the situation may clearly require it. I'm pretty darn sure that most pilots have enough 'common sense' to save themselves, & their passengers, from a dire situation, even if it means resorting to 'looking out of the window'.

As soon as you mention VMC or IFR, you remind me of when I had to wear the plastic headwear, which basically restricted my vision to nothing. There is no pilot in the world who chooses to fly 'blind' when, quite clearly, he has the option to 'see'.

[keemapoot]

Discussion, speculation, questioning and correcting each other is what makes it a forum. We discuss, debate, and learn. Waiting for the experts to tell us everything would make it more akin to a library than a forum.

Hear hear Cdnvic!

BTW, there's some interesting 'speculation' on pprune (The Professional Pilot's RUmour NEtwork):

www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=292331

Including posts from former employees of the airline.

That's very interesting reading, and even though they are professional pilots they are all bickering over the same issues as this forum!

*post #79 is quite worrisome from a former Orient Thai pilot! Not a ringing endorsement of 12go.

Edited September 17, 2007 by sbk

[Asian Frog]

ELKANGORITO

You are confusing VMC/IMC and VFR/IFR. Under IFR rules (pleonasm), the aircraft separation has to be done by ATC. Under VFR, it is the responsability of the pilot. So you can be under IFR rules and make a visual approach which means that the responsability of the aircraft separation is still ATC one

Edited September 17, 2007 by Asian Frog

[elkangorito]

ELKANGORITO

You are confusing VMC/IMC and VFR/IFR. Under IFR rules (pleonasm), the aircraft separation has toi be done by ATC. Under VFR, it is the responsability of the pilot. So you can be under IFR rules and make a visual approach which means that the responsability of the aircraft separation is still ATC one

Rubbish!!! A good pilot will always keep a visual lookout as to what is going on around him in these airspaces, albeit rather busy at this time. If this is not the case, why bother to have windows in the cockpit? (obviously to look at the lovely weather). Just fly by IFR/IMC.

Anyway, the aircraft in question just happened to be landing during daylight hours, albeit under very bad weather conditions. Also, aircraft separation is not the issue here. The aircraft was on finals & needed to go-around for reasons yet unknown.

[peterpanner]

Having worked as ground staff when I was young, I can only confirm - pilot misses landing, informs tower, then ops inform the pilot what hight to circle on until it's safe to try another landing. In some cases, the pilot won't even try to land and inform tower. He will then get info what his next best option is from "weather". They comm quite a lot, and no youngster is allowed to land when it get's really bad. It derpends on flying hours of the capt and the type of aircraft who can try a landing and who can't. That is decided from the ground, not by the pilot. I saw Fokkers allowed to land when Boeings had to move on. When asked, ops told me - "He's too young" meaning not enough hours.

One thing is for sure, no normal pilot crashes on purpose.

[Jingjok]

Sorry,

... But the experts know that they have to stay out of the debate in order not to fuel controversial positions which may biase the result of investigations and may be used during the trials which will follow as there is a judiciary need for determining responsabilities particularly for Insurances...

Are you seriously suggesting that anonymous comments made on TV will be admissable evidence in judicial proceedings?

... Proper experts will not give you any opinion until all parameters have been analysed, only week end pilots are doing and their interventions are lacking accuracy ...

Do you include pprune posters (I assume you are a member) in that category?

If you indentify inaccuracies (OK, Elkangorito's RT procedure was a bit odd, but you must get his point), please correct them - that is helpful to all who follow this forum. Including me.

I have never liked the term 'expert'. I have been accused of being one (in a totally unrelated field) and absolutely hate it.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Jingjok

[Asian Frog]

ELKANGORITO

Suggest you read ICAO Annex 2 rules of the Air to understand the difference. - (or can go on website UK-CAA to find the rules of the Air). Rules which does not mean that flying IFR, you do not have to look outside, sure it is good practice when VMC-

[elkangorito]

ELKANGORITO

Suggest you read ICAO Annex 2 rules of the Air to understand the difference. - (or can go on website UK-CAA to find the rules of the Air). Rules which does not mean that flying IFR, you do not have to look outside, sure it is good practice when VMC-

Only "insiders" know what ICAO, UKCAA, IFR, VMC mean - so your post just informed 1% of the readers here.

So did your post (re above).

I can just imagine myself inbound & on final to Phuket. I've done all the pre-worrying (& pre-final checks) & am now on approach according to normal procedure/rules. Obviously, the weather is not in my favour. All of a sudden, I decide that landing is not a good idea (for what reason is unknown...yet).

What do I do now?

Oh & BTW, you are correct when you say that flying IFR you can look 'outside', particularly if it is DAYTIME. But if it is daytime, you CAN look outside (excepting that low level cloud cover can obscure any vision).

Come on!!! Give me a break!!! The poor guy was obviously under immense pressure to land the beast under those conditions. Ok, he may have been a bit sloppy in his decision making but this does not relate to the rules. I think it relates more to aircraft performance & his performance. Perhaps if he had made his 'go-around' decision a bit earlier, things could've been quite ok. I am not suggesting that this is causal to the incident.

Can somebody please tell me that this particular pilot had daytime vision restricted to such a degree, that it was necessary to do a go-around as a result of such a problem? Maybe he did? (unless he was flying strictly IFR, in which case he would have no need to look at anything.)

Performance, performance, performance....key issues when taking off & landing, I'm sure you know.

Anyway, I am happy to admit that I am probably wrong in many of these aspects but having previously been involved in 2 'incidents' (in one of which I was the pilot), I really don't think that blindly following the rules solves any problem. It sounds like an engineer who has just emerged from university & then tells all & sundry how to do things 'by the book'. The weather & particularly humans, do not 'play by the book'. Nor should they.

Until the results hit the streets, we will never know.

So, asianfrog, what would you have done under such circumstances?

[peterpanner]

There is also a human limit to assume stress. Some can, some cannot. Pilots must assume a lot of stress. I.m no great fan of pilots as I know how arrogant and even ignorant many are, but I wouldn't blame one. They sit in the same boat whatever they do (should be plane I know)