Damn, my sister lives very close to that.

As a former Mainlander I am well aware that conditions on the Bay can radically change. I picked the following observations off the NOAA website for Scholes on the 22nd. Between 13:52 and !5:52 note the dramatic drop in visibility from 5 miles to 0.5mi.

22 15:52 SE 8 0.50 Fog

22 14:52 E 7 0.50 Fog

22 13:52 E 6 5.00 Fog/Mist

Ain't that far from O and 42nd to Ofatts Bayou. Crossing the Causeway vis can get really hairy once you top out. Can believe 90' one place and 2000+ a short distance away.

Yes 200' is correct, mea culpa.

5Amp said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

5Amp said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Heavy fog usually means no to low wind.

RWY 14 has an ILS so I'd assume that was the approach they were on.

I'd take a Cat II to mins (my jet doesn't have autoland) over a localizer to mins any day.

---

Read the NOTAMS for KGLS

Difference between ILI and LOC?

RNAV 14 safer procedure on this case?

---

I mean the ILS is glideslope is notam'ed out 17-25 Dec…if that's the case an RNAV will usually get you lower than an LOC but if the weather in this thread is accurate they had no shot.

---

He was in a King air. High end civilian autopilots can take you 50' over the threshold. I would assume military grade is even better, even the Mexican military would have decent autopilots.

i don't think he read the NOTAM and was not prepared to hand fly the guide slope and never got established on the approach.

We all agree he should have diverted to Ellington and had the child transported by car. The passenger list had not only a nurse but a Doctor on board plus a number of military officers. I wonder how much pressure was put on the pilot to land at GLS.

---

I'd make more cautious assumptions about mil

I can't autoland or fly to LPV DAs or even LNAV/VNAV mins in my grey jet.

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

5Amp said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

5Amp said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Heavy fog usually means no to low wind.

RWY 14 has an ILS so I'd assume that was the approach they were on.

I'd take a Cat II to mins (my jet doesn't have autoland) over a localizer to mins any day.

---

Read the NOTAMS for KGLS

Difference between ILI and LOC?

RNAV 14 safer procedure on this case?

---

I mean the ILS is glideslope is notam'ed out 17-25 Dec…if that's the case an RNAV will usually get you lower than an LOC but if the weather in this thread is accurate they had no shot.

---

High end civilian autopilots can take you 50' over the threshold. I would assume military grade is even better, even the Mexican military would have decent autopilots.

i don't think he read the NOTAM and was not prepared to hand fly the guide slope and never got established on the approach.

We all agree he should have diverted to Ellington and had the child transported by car. The passenger list had not only a nurse but a Doctor on board plus a number of military officers. I wonder how much pressure was put on the pilot to land at GLS.

---

I'd make more cautious assumptions about mil

I can't autoland or fly to LPV DAs or even LNAV/VNAV mins in my grey jet.

---

Digging around a little I found some interesting stuff.
AI tells me the standard autopilot for a 10 year old King Air with tail number ANX-1209:

"2015 King Air would have been delivered with a Rockwell Collins Pro Line 21 integrated avionics system, which includes the standard autopilot for that model year.
The Collins autopilot is a robust, three-axis system that is integrated into the flight deck and typically requires the yaw damper to be functioning for engagement."

Key Aspects of Collins Autopilots (circa 2015)

• Design Philosophy: Collins systems are engineered to reduce pilot workload and improve situational awareness, with controls becoming more intuitive over time.
• Pro Line Fusion: This system, prevalent in aircraft like the King Air 350 around 2015, features large touchscreen displays and is designed for "eyes-forward" operation. Pilots already familiar with previous systems, like Pro Line 21, could learn the core operations quickly, though mastering all advanced capabilities takes time.
• System Specifics: Older models like the APS-65 are also appreciated for their "ease of use" and modular design, allowing pilots to engage different modes like heading hold, navigation tracking, and altitude hold.
• Pilot Experience is Key: While the systems are designed to be intuitive, proper training and familiarity are essential for safe and effective operation. The key takeaway from pilot discussions is that once a pilot understands their specific autopilot's functions, its use becomes straightforward.

I know personally that the TAF had forecasted 1/2 SM 300' OV for the time he was to arrive and when I left the field an hour before the accident, I would agree with that assessment on the south end. The north end of the runway was less than 1/4 SM.

If he would have flown the RNAV 14, maybe we wouldn't be discussing this Or even better, if diverted to Houston.

I found this snippet supporting the ILI not fully functioning.

• Investigation: The NTSB is currently investigating the cause, noting that a critical navigation system for the intended runway had been out of service for approximately a week.

Thanks for all you do for our country!!

fire09 said:

---

Ive shot that approach a ton, both ILS and RNAV on that runway. If the ILS is out I believe DH for the RNAV is 700 ft. He would have been way low if he flew it into the water where that track ended and should have already been going missed. Could have been failure of instruments or incorrect altimeter setting, or a ton of other things. RIP to the victims.

---

Yes, I was about to post that they most likely failed to set the altimeter properly, which is the simplest answer. He likely flew the plane right into the water thinking he was several hundred feet above ground.

Any pilots here that never forgotten to set their altimeter or dialed it improperly? Easy to do.

"Easy to do" sure…I guess.

Even if they were never above 18K on the flight, I'd wager the PF would've heard a local altimeter at least twice from ATC within 15-20 minutes of landing and on ATIS. Add once or twice more from ATC within 30 if they were above 18K.

Local at the field at the time of the mishap was 30.15 or so from what I see on historical metars. If they had been 29.92 for class A inbound, I don't see how ATC doesn't catch them on an altitude dev at any point on the arrival either. 200' off is huge.


Flying sucks because one mistake kills you if your number comes up that day…but I'd take a huge pause before implying mis-setting an altimeter is common or the most likely cause here. If so, that's terrible airmanship and checklist discipline from the PF.

Another story of a pilot making dumb mistakes

When visibility is that bad, don't the ATCs divert flights to other airports in the region, assuming there are others that have better visibility?

Agreed. I had to drive down Seawall on Christmas Eve and the visibility was probably 10'.

PS- i live near Ball HS as well on one of the one ways.

flakrat said:

---

When visibility is that bad, don't the ATCs divert flights to other airports in the region, assuming there are others that have better visibility?

---

ATC doesn't typically own diverts.

Airlines (aka part 121 regs) can't shoot an approach when weather is reported below mins by a weather station unless there's a pirep of mins or better. Part 91 can.

Militaries will typically have internal restrictions or allowances.

In the first video, he dismisses the idea the pilots confused the I-45 causeway for the runway. However, he comes back to it in the second video.

Admittedly I haven't watched the videos, but that's a little far away to see road lights and think you are somehow above the runway and should dive for it before having to go missed. There's a marked VDP on the ILS, so it's possible there was some confusion on what that means, but I'm hesitant to jump to that conclusion.

laavispa said:

---

Galveston media is reporting a Mexican Navy aircraft has crashed into West Galveston Bay on approach to Scholes Field. According to reports this was a medical mission.

Quote:

---

Several people were killed Monday afternoon when a Mexican military medical aircraft carrying eight people crashed into West Galveston Bay as it approached Scholes International Airport in heavy fog, triggering a large-scale, multi-agency search and rescue response west of the Galveston Causeway.

https://www.galvnews.com/news/several-dead-after-airplane-crashes-into-galveston-bay/article_9907faf1-19fa-504b-a31c-0c5310e1eca5.html

https://abc13.com/post/multiple-agencies-respond-reports-plane-down-water-galveston/18307312/

---

This time of the year fog around the bay is often '0' visibility prompting closure of the Port of Galveston, Port of Texas City and the ship channel. Wonder if the prudent method would have been diverting to Hobby or to Elington?

---

Maybe they were low on fuel and couldn't make it to an airport with good visibility. But I'm just speculating here.

I'm sure the NTSB will ask the same question during their investigation.

Property planning requires enough fuel to get to an alternate airport

The anecdote of hearing the plane going to idle while still out over the causeway from the retired commercial pilot on Tiki Island is pretty interesting. Almost seems like he lined up on the causeway bridge lights as the airport/runway. Otherwise, I don't understand getting well below the glide slope so early (I'm probably under estimating the impact of the low visibility + some degree of less than adequate instrument management). And the audio anecdote sure says he was attempting to land (i.e. didn't descend into the water under power).

Based on where they contacted the water and the overall height of the causeway bridge PLUS the lights/poles, they had to have barely missed the bridge light poles. Will be really interesting to see what the NTSB comes up with on actual visibility conditions when they shot the approach.