3 ms·

I believe something similar to this happened to me on a ~20 minute puddle jumper flight. Late at night, nothing unusual then out of nowhere we descend to what f

I believe something similar to this happened to me on a ~20 minute puddle jumper flight. Late at night, nothing unusual then out of nowhere we descend to what felt like just above the tree-line, as in low enough to make out the edges of license plates on cars below, even in the glow of the street lights. Very distressing, especially because the pilots didn't mention anything over the intercom before during or after. We stayed that low long enough for me to quickly call my close family members. There wasn't any feeling of falling at all. Also absent of any feeling of revitalization after a near-death experience, if that is in fact what is was or could have been. Then back up just under the cloud layer, landed fine and then that was that.

kayodelycaon 3y ago
An emergency descent for pressurization stops at 9,000~10,000 feet or minimum safe altitude. You shouldn't be low enough to see license plates.
buildsjets 3y ago
Sounds like a standard, run-of-the mill "dive and drive" style non-precision instrument approach. With the advent of commonplace GPS based approaches, they have become less common than they used to be, but they still exist and are safe to use. Non-Precision means that you are using a simple ground-based navigation aid that does not provide vertical guidance, (a glide path indication) for example an NDB (Non-directional beacon) or VOR (VHF Omnidirectional Range) So, there are intermediate "step-down" fixes, that require you to maintain a certain minimum altitude until you reach a certain distance from the navaid. The route and altitude requirements (obstacle and terrain clearance) are selected by a well documented process called TERPS / FAA Order 8260.3F. (Edit, oops up to F now.) There's always been debate among pilots about whether these approaches should be flow using a "Continuous Descent" method, where you select a descent rate to try to arrive at the altitude crossing restriction exactly before the next one comes into effect, or if you should descend rapidly to the altitude restriction, then level off until the next altitude restriction arrives, AKA "Dive and Drive." There are pros and cons to each method and you can find well respected flight instructors that advocate for each. But a "Dive and Drive" approach can put you visually close to the ground when you are still pretty far from he airport. Really, modern GPS based RNAV approaches make the whole debate close to obsolete. Any podunk airport can get a satellite based precision approach with no significant investment in equipment, just a survey and some lighting improvements.

kayodelycaon 3y ago

An emergency descent for pressurization stops at 9,000~10,000 feet or minimum safe altitude. You shouldn't be low enough to see license plates.

buildsjets 3y ago

Sounds like a standard, run-of-the mill "dive and drive" style non-precision instrument approach. With the advent of commonplace GPS based approaches, they have become less common than they used to be, but they still exist and are safe to use. Non-Precision means that you are using a simple ground-based navigation aid that does not provide vertical guidance, (a glide path indication) for example an NDB (Non-directional beacon) or VOR (VHF Omnidirectional Range) So, there are intermediate "step-down" fixes, that require you to maintain a certain minimum altitude until you reach a certain distance from the navaid. The route and altitude requirements (obstacle and terrain clearance) are selected by a well documented process called TERPS / FAA Order 8260.3F. (Edit, oops up to F now.) There's always been debate among pilots about whether these approaches should be flow using a "Continuous Descent" method, where you select a descent rate to try to arrive at the altitude crossing restriction exactly before the next one comes into effect, or if you should descend rapidly to the altitude restriction, then level off until the next altitude restriction arrives, AKA "Dive and Drive." There are pros and cons to each method and you can find well respected flight instructors that advocate for each. But a "Dive and Drive" approach can put you visually close to the ground when you are still pretty far from he airport. Really, modern GPS based RNAV approaches make the whole debate close to obsolete. Any podunk airport can get a satellite based precision approach with no significant investment in equipment, just a survey and some lighting improvements.