[Yosemitest]

Sorry for the double post.
I asked for comment #78 to be removed due to typos, and replaced it with comment #81.
I'll consider this comment to answer comment #81.

"Never said it wasn't contributing, it isn't a causal factor.
As for whether or not the pilots read and intepreted their approach plates correctly
we do know
they didn't go around.
Lightning might be a causal factor,
that is why there are mishap investigations.
The fact that the pilot got a 7500' cig report, and still was IMC well below that,
tells me where the screwup was.
Would better wx reports be better,
of course,
but the failure for this mishap belongs in the cockpit
with the info available."

If it was up to you,

would YOU recommend the REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT of AWOS ?

[xone]

When I’m IMC I want weather from someone observing on the ground that is at my intended point of landing. I have flown around in Japan and Korea, bad places to be IMC. It isn’t that I don’t trust them, I don’t, but the language barrier is sometimes too much for the terminal phase of the flight. The communication piece interferes with the navigation and aviation resposiblity. I know this however, if I was expecting VMC below an overcast and still hadn’t got it at the published mins I’d be going around or diverting.

[xone]

If it was up to you, would YOU recommend the REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT of AWOS ?

Sorry I missed this. If I was still investigating I would probably be more up to speed with this system and have seen a developed pattern. My preference is for human metro guys so I can kill them if they screw me. I fail to see the sense in automating a process in a critical area like this when there are obvious qualified humans. I don't think it makes fiscal sense to replace a metro guy with a very expensive system that still needs a human to calibrate and fix it. Where's the savings?