HN threads on aviation are always a bit goofy to anyone who's actually flown a plane, yeah.

rootsudo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Very much goofy, especially when people here try to extrapolate ground stop / AOG / IROPS. True armchair warrior without any competence.

▲

busterarm a minute ago | parent | next [-]

This is true of just about any subject. 90% of the comments are noise.

▲

the_af 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd say this can be generalized: threads on HN are goofy about all the kinds of things HN readers and hackers are unfamiliar with but think they have the common sense to reason about.

This week I witnessed a similarly illogical argument between someone who thought they could argue about AI in movies and someone who actually works in the movie industry and has years of experience. The hacker was lecturing the movie person about why they were wrong about the future of the movie industry, with zero experience to back it up other than "I dabble in AI and watched some movies".

	▲	27183 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Dunning-Kruger lives!

▲

EA-3167 7 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

HN threads are goofy for anyone with domain expertise in the domain being discussed, except for web development.

▲

rdtsc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I never flew a plane just know enough that a visual approach means “visual” rules. Hitting a mountain at that point is hard to argue for blaming anyone else but the pilot error? Did I get it right?

▲

gpm an hour ago | parent | next [-]

No, you didn't, because they apparently had instrument clearance from the tower at the time they crashed into the mountain.

The only correct conclusion here is more investigation is necessary than what has been publicly published.

▲

rdtsc an hour ago | parent [-]

I read this in the preliminary report

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/G...

> The flight crew again reported they “[have] a visual on Ruidoso” at 0008:30 and that they could “go visual.” The ARTCC controller subsequently cleared the flight to SRR, cleared the flight for a visual approach, and informed them they could cancel IFR in the air above 9,000 ft msl or they could cancel their clearance via the flight service station after landing.

So you’re pointing out that they requested VFR, got clearance for it but still were flying under IFR rules? Basically the transition to VFR hadn’t completed fully?

	▲	sokoloff an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A "visual approach" is an instrument flight rules operation. The flight was still IFR and had requested/been cleared for a visual approach, but had not switched to VFR (which they'd do by cancelling IFR). When they accepted the visual approach, they took responsibility for navigation and terrain/obstacle clearance.
	▲	gpm an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes... though I'd include the subsequent quote "and responded that they would cancel IFR “in just a couple of minutes.”" Also someone is correctly pointing out to me downthread that a visual approach is technically an IFR procedure under IFR not VFR flight rules (the latter basically meaning you aren't using instruments at all). I'm assuming IFR in the summary is referring to the non-visual approach (rnav or ILS) but the preliminary report is I suppose ambiguous as to that.

▲

theflyingelvis an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes

▲

streetfighter64 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Perhaps I'm being a bit reductive, but threads on anything that you're more well versed in than the average person, are evidently almost always goofy. It's called the "Gell-Mann Amnesia" effect.