Inasmuch as the weather conditions throughout the area were close to or below minimum instrument conditions, it was incumbent upon both pilot and diapatch personnel to exercise particular caution in the selection of alternate airports, checking the weather trends enroute and at the destinnation, and determining with reasonable accuracy the winds prevailing at the destination. The failure on the part of diSpatch and pilot personnel alike to give proper consideration to weather conditions indicama lack: of caution in pro-flight planning and in—flight weather observation. It must be concluded, therefore, that the pilot failed to fulfill his reaponsibilities as concerns checking of weather, and that the company failed to excercise adequate supervision over the flight in question.
The minimum ceiling and visibility for instrument approach to La Guardia Field are determined on the basis of that minimum weather condition which W111 still permit a pilot to circle beneath the overcast safely in order to land on any runway the existing wind may require. Weather Conditions below these minimums constitute conditions unauthorized for instrument approach. Inasmuch as the weather at La Guardia Field was within the minimums prescribed by the Operating Certificate of the company, it should have been possible for the pilot of Flight 14, therefore, to have maneuvered safely beneath the overcast following a reasonably accurate approach and to have effected a landing on any runway available at La Guardia Field.
Findigs
Upon the basis of all available evidence the Board finds that:
1. The company, aircraft and crew were properly certificated for the flight.
2. Inadequate caution was exercised in pre-flight planning and in-flight weather observation.
3.The aircraft and porrerplants were functioning normally at the time time of the accident.
- 9 -
