I emailed him.
UdoR wrote:
So where have you taken your words from? ;-)
LOL, they came just out of my fingers when I typed them. So they did indeed originate somewhere between my ears.
Pretty careless imho.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Compare the text in that Video with my initial post on this here forum:
That’s a 95% quotation, yes. So where have you taken your words from? ;-)
Snoopy wrote:
My bad I didn’t read the previous posts correctly, I thought they were on final and shortly before touchdown.
The video in @Dan’s post gives the crash position pretty accurately. So yes, they were on final, 2 NM before the THR.
BTW: Compare the text in that Video with my initial post on this here forum:
Mooney_Driver wrote:
A PA46T, N5EQ, has crashed on approach to CYYR, about 3 NM before the runway. So far, one of the occupants has died, another is in hospital with serious injuries. Both occupants are Swiss.The aircraft appears to be based in St.Gallen Altenrhein, but was flown to Vero Beach in September and was on the way back. One day before the crash it had been enroute from the US to Goose bay but diverted to Sept Isles airport.
Do I notice a certain ressemblance?
Longer audios and presentation by Flight Records:
My bad I didn’t read the previous posts correctly, I thought they were on final and shortly before touchdown.
I don’t think flying the approach at minimum approach speed, with no increments, in this kind of weather (anybody mentioned ice yet?), is a good idea.
Yes slow speed is usually not good in IMC with any extra add-ons gusts, ice, convection…automation hates it and hand flying is disorientating…the ILS/LPV in weather need some speed, you point aircraft by pitch and it flies there is plenty of room to slow down in air or on runway
I think STOL technique & IFR technique don’t mix very well? maybe slow flying workd better when one has Synthetic-Vision and AoA? only then one can PIT = +10deg with AoA = +13deg with FPV = TDZ while tracking 3deg GS on HSI !
well, that’s probably all correct @Mooney_Driver
But the only point I’m trying to make is that, AFAWK, N5EQ was flying at what appears to be a very low speed in those conditions. And we have no clue if that has anything to do with the accident.
The stabilised criteria, 1000/500’ as used by the airlines have been introduced by themselves (or rather their insurers…) in order to prevent runway overruns. For aircraft having a Vapp of say 130-150kts.
CYYR 08 has a total runway length of 11’052’ or 3’300m, which should be more than enough for a PA46, even with deduction of the TDZ. If it was the case, I don’t think flying the approach at minimum approach speed, with no increments, in this kind of weather (anybody mentioned ice yet?), is a good idea.
@Dan,
he did report SATAK, that was the last report if I get the recording right.
Coordinates given by the tower later are N53 16 52 W060 30 14. That is pretty much near a place called “old crow farm” on google maps, a bit north of it. can’t measure distances on google maps (at least I don’t know how) but it appears to me that this may be about 2.5 to 3 NM west of the THR but north of the centerline.
@Snoopy, what I hear them say is “approaching LESIX”, which means they have not overflown it. Now it is another 6NM to the FAF at a minimum of 2800’, and another 3.1NM to SATAK. And another 4.8NM to the threshold.
The wind is given as 050/17-22 for runway 08.
Not sure about what the winds were higher up, but probably stronger and from a slightly different direction. Flying this “long” approach in IMC, with a 6NM level segment followed by a 3° slope, one would avoid to loiter on the approach, and add some increments for wind and gusts.
Again, I have only flown bigger or smaller airplanes, but my guess is that the PA46-350P is an easy machine to slow down, so why fly so slow? CDAs work best for the airlines (at least at the ones I flew for 
) but should also be the standard for GA, VFR or IFR.
