Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dredmorbius 2410 days ago
The question of landing choice highlights a number of concerns, all well-addressed especially in McMahan's account.

The region is California. Considered landing locations were San Diego (a notoriously short and crowded field with a difficult, over-city approach), Palmdale and Edwards AFB, both closed, Las Vegas and Phoenix, both requiring high-altitude flight over mountains with potential turbulence, and LAX, with a long runway and over-water approach.

I was surprised other inland fields, say, Bakersfield, weren't mentioned, though I'm also not a pilot and don't know the runway lengths or airfield situation generally.

The thing about a disaster is that you're operating under greatly increased constraints, and limited options. The question to be addressed is "what is the next best option?".

Given the circumstances of this incident, instrument approach to LAX still seems like a reasonable option. The principle fault lay in controls, not instruments, time-in-air was a risk, avoiding overland travel, and preserving the option of a sea ditching, were both prudent considerations.

It's possible that McMahan could have inquired as to viability of a Palmdale or Edwards landing with ATC, and it appears he didn't. Given his and crew's workload, that's understandable.

2 comments

All good points. I suppose my bias is skewed by having a good amount of instrument time and realizing how much higher a workload can get during an instrument approach. I’ll run it by some colleagues at work and see what their take is on it.
Something tells me the mainline Captain from the post also has "a good amount of instrument time."
Certainly, but the average HN user most definitely doesn’t.
To add to this, the pilot also mentions fuel as another primary reason that Phoenix or Las Vegas were not considered.

Bakersfield Airport is the same distance from LAX as San Diego. Would they have had enough fuel to basically double the flight length?