Challenger Crash Almaty

[Harrier46]

Jet Connection Challenger crashed on take-off here in the early hours, leaving runway 05 and hitting a fence and wall. Initial reports say one passenger killed and pilots and F/a in hospital. The aircraft was operated by Jet Connection (JCX826?) and was flying from HAJ-HKG. The airport was closed for a short time for runway inspection and due to the rescue services involvement. It has now re-opened.

[AbuK]

Greetings Harrier46!

Are you ex RAF by an chance? And based in ALA?

Just heard about this incident, would appreciate any updates as we operate CL locally.

Thanks and all the best,

[Harrier46]

Indeed but not on Harriers! Aircraft arrived from HAJ for fuel stop at about 0030 local time, then accident was on departure. Apparently destroyed by the impact and subsequent fire.

[Silverspoonaviator]

A HS from here is there today too.

Been monitoring WX for them, apart from a period of freezing fog, mostly OK.

I go to Kiev in a few days, and they also have been giving freezing fog.

RIP. There but for the grace of God, etc, etc.

Apart from my GPS parking me in the main terminal building, all systems were operational, and very efficient, QNH based ATC. a long direct approach being offered.

SSA

[Istorik]

Kazakh news media report that Lars Windhorst, a famous German businessman, was on board. It seems he is survived, but a co-pilot was killed...

[weedosphere]

Kazakhstan - A German-owned business jet exploded on Wednesday during take-off at Kazakhstan's Almaty airport, killing the sole passenger and injuring three crew, officials said.
"The plane left the runway and there was an explosion aboard. The reason for the crash is being investigated," said Jamilla Kaimoldina, spokesperson for the Emergency Situations Ministry.
The passenger, whose nationality was not identified, died.
The pilot and co-pilot, who were German, and the Turkish stewardess were hospitalised but their lives were not in danger, a Health Ministry spokesperson said.
The plane, a Canadair Bombardier Challenger bound for Hong Kong, belonged to German company Jet Connection Business Flight, the Emergencies Ministry said.

[hetfield]

Looks like they had only one challenger.

http://www.charliebravo.de/sp/2006/fra0318/25.jpg



Very sad.

[Istorik]

Yes. It is D-ANKE. Here is a pic of its wreckage with a dark blue tail:
http://www.vecher.kz/?S=4-200712251200

[Istorik]

Last info - it is D-ARWE. This aircraft was recently purchased by Jet Connection
http://www.myaviation.net/search/search.php?view=&regnr=D-ARWE
General Prosecutor's Office of Kazakhstan confirms that on their website. D-ARWE had the same colour scheme...

[HermanTheGerman]

according to a german newsticker bild.de passenger windhorst survived and one of the pilots died

[lomapaseo]

Does the wreckage look like it's upside down? If so it may have gotten airborne

[Istorik]

Short translation of the report of the Office of Prosecutor of Kazakhstan:
Immediately after take-off the aircraft banked right, the wing struck the ground. Then the aircraft deviated to the right, hit the concrete perimeter fence, crashed, broke up and caught fire.
____________________________________________________________ _
The last 4 Challenger CL-600/604 accidents since 2000 till now were on take-off. Cause all those events - stall immediately after take-off. There were icing at 2 of them and there were a wrong balance of the aircraft at 2 other.

[Sir George Cayley]

Sad news, especially at Christmas.

I don't speculate about causes of accidents and I'm sure many will fill the gap over the next few days.

I do however have concerns about CL aircraft take-off accidents.

There have been enough to catch my attention including a fatal at Birminghm (BHX) a couple of years ago and one at Moscow last year(?)

Low temps seem to have been a factor in those. Regardless of the final outcome of investigations into this tragedy, could a positive from this thread be to spread the word to CL pilots about contamination from frost or ice, and the effect it has been shown to have on this model?

Hope the injured make full recoveries.

Sir George Cayley

[FIRESYSOK]

The word has already been spread. This wing does not forgive even the slightest contaminant aboard. How many more accidents can it possibly take before pilots wake to this fact? Not saying that's what happened here, but the report plays like a broken record.

[PJ2]

The word has already been spread. This wing does not forgive even the slightest contaminant aboard. How many more accidents can it possibly take before pilots wake to this fact? Not saying that's what happened here, but the report plays like a broken record.

There have also been approach accidents (which didn't kill anyone) with this type. The wing is "hard", (for others, that means no leading-edge slats which bring the stall speed down and which sometimes render stall characteristics more gentle. FIRESYSOK is right -this hard-wing stalls swiftly - see the last report regarding the increase in Stall AOA with only slight contamination).

This thread may have some common elements with the Boston IB de-ice thread where the ethical and operational question was whether others should speak up or not regarding contaminated wings on another aircraft before its departure.

Montrose - NTSB PPT:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2006/MontroseCO/montrose1_as01public.ppt#257,1,Canadair Challenger November 28, 2004 Montrose, Colorado



China Eastern CRJ200:
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/chinaCRJ200crash.html


Birmingham Airport, GB:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_503172.pdf
FSF paper on Birmingham accident:
http://www.flightsafety.org/ap/ap_jan05.pdf


Fredericton Airport, New Brunswick, Canada:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1997/a97h0011/a97h0011.asp

[farmer jo]

The Actual at the approx time of accident
UAAA 251900z 31003mps 280v350 1100 R23/P2000n SN BR OVC013 M11/M12
Q1032 234/1032 Tempo 0600 SN FG RMK QFE717/0956=
Not a nice evening - Almaty is an evil place in the winter
My sympathies go to the family of the person who died
ACD

[PJ2]

Flintstone;

Yes, I changed the word in the post from "will" to "may" with that in mind.

Re speculation, agree when facts are not known or one is not in a position to offer specialist knowledge or experience. The pattern/sequence of this accident is reported however, Short translation of the report of the Office of Prosecutor of Kazakhstan: Immediately after take-off the aircraft banked right, the wing struck the ground. Then the aircraft deviated to the right, hit the concrete perimeter fence, crashed, broke up and caught fire., so I think the notions expressed here are at least worth discussing because the pattern of the accident sequence reported has occurred at least four previous times with this type. That isn't speculation, that is fact but caution must be exercised that this remains a discussion and not a summary of the cause of this accident which is not known. The line is a fine one indeed.

[Flintstone]

Point taken PJ. I'm painfully aware of the attributes of this type what with living with it on a daily basis. What I'm hoping to avoid is the swathe of idiots that home in on these threads like flies round a cow's arse.

[PJ2]

What I'm hoping to avoid is the swathe of idiots that home in on these threads like flies round a cow's arse. LOL!!
My Dad always said that any fool can speak up, and usually does....bless him, he understood human nature.

It is interesting to discuss "what is" in these matters. With some exceptions, I think that the thread on the Turkish MD82 accident was a good example of this kind of discussion even though there was some hot-behind-the-eyes contributions towards those who obviously were not knowledgeable. It isn't worth the blood pressure to try to correct or stop such entries; one can only control what oneself can and will do. The work done by earnest, informed and cautious contributors on that thread was good, readable stuff by and large. Those who's egos require an "early entry" to be seen either as prescient (a no-risk position to take), or as "part of the gang" don't understand the investigative process and that safety work is almost exclusively driven by "what", not "who".

I note that the empennage is upside down. Perhaps photos of the larger area will reveal more.

[megapilot]

The actual weather was:
UAAA 252100Z 01003MPS 0900 R05/2000D SN BR OVC003 M14/M15 Q1038 054/1032 NOSIG RMK QBB110 QFE718/0957=
It was heavy snow fall

[PJ2]

Interesting that the few photos available show the vertical stab upside down but the engines are "pointing" in the opposite direction to what one would expect given the position of the vert.stab.

[Engine3firehandle]

Hi,
to be honest, it just sounds to me like icing.

I was twice in the last month in ALA and had to fight the weather.

One of the problems is pollution in ALA. ( Smog ) These little particles in the air are ideal condensation points for FZFG for example. No or almost no wind makes it even worse.
That is for example why you got these poor visibilities in ALA so often.

The other day I was surprised myself, I took over an airplane which just came in and at my walkaround I did not see any ice. Visibility was around 1200m and temperature slightly below zero, no percepitation. I think it was about M6. Then I inspected the wing from above and was very surprised to see so much frost accumulated right where the spoilers are. You could not see it from the front or any other place then from the window inside.

We did De-Ice and left the place.

Very dangerous weather in Almaty and a unforgiving wing at the challenger jet.

Also do not forget, it was at night time, a night flight for the 2-man crew and duty times coming to a limit. There was not a lot of time for De-Icing either.

HAJ-HKG is very long, especially with a refueling stop.

Just my 2 cents...

[StressFree]

Engine3,
Good points........I was recently in Uralsk and Atyrau in Kazakhstan in atrocious weather.

I fly a 604 and in icing conditions it gives me the creeps.....not that we know yet the cause of this tragedy, we'll have to wait and see but I won't be surprised if icing is a factor.

Consider also that this aircraft had just done a long sector and therefore was cold soaked. Terrible event, deep sympathy for all involved :(

[armchairpilot94116]

cold soaked?

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7137596-description.html

-quote-
The physics behind the frosting phenomenon is well known. After a certain length of flight time at cruising altitudes, wing tank fuel temperature can reach -40 degrees F. When the wing fuel reaches such low temperatures it is commonly referred to as "cold soaked". For reasons of aerodynamic stability, relatively warm "belly" fuel on an aircraft is typically burned first. This often leaves the "cold soaked" fuel undisturbed in the wings during short duration flights. This "cold soaked" fuel, when remaining in contact with the wing surface, can result in non-environmental frosting upon landing. This is particularly problematic, if a particular airline route or schedule of flights should involve a number of short hops to pick up addition passengers or cargo. Often these stops are required to be of short duration for economic reasons. The non-environmental frosting can prevent an aircraft from maintaining a quick turnabout on these short hops and may cut into the benefits or gains that may otherwise be realized.

The desire for a quick turnabout from landing to takeoff can conflict with the necessities of dealing with such non-environmental frosting occurring after landing. Although an airline may allot only fifteen or twenty minutes for a given stop, a heavy coat of frost and ice may rapidly form on the top surface of the wings after only five or ten minutes on the ground. FAA regulations may then require the captain of the airplane to either wait for ambient airport weather conditions to eliminate the frost and ice formations or actively have the wings de-iced. Each of these solutions requires a penalty of time and money to implement. Many de-icing procedures can carry with them environmental concerns as well. Therefore, current approaches towards the removal of non-environmental icing often are not compatible with the airline industries goals involving scheduling, cost savings, and time management.

-unquote-

Sad someone died. Looking at the pictures, seems a miracle anyone survived that.

[hetfield]

@Armchair..

Excellent post. Our SOP in icing conditions are, to put the cold fuel during turnaround out of the wings into center and refuel with "warm" fuel to melt possible wing icing.

Maybe it has nothing to do with this tragic accident.

[sevenstrokeroll]

are we forgetting the Colorado Springs (USA) crash of a similiar plane? Head of NBC TV sports onboard...son killed while taking off on a shortish runway and ice covered wing...plane got airborn briefly and crashed.

[PJ2]

sevenstrokeroll;
are we forgetting the Colorado Springs (USA) crash of a similiar plane?
No it has not been missed. I posted the link to an NTSB PPT presentation on post #15. There is plenty on the web including this link (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0603.pdf) to the Montrose accident report.

[doubleu-anker]

Very sad case indeed.

Yes I am aware the accident report is not yet out on this one.

However the CL wing does seem a very unforgiving and particularly vicious wing when contaminated near the stall. What a great shame the manufacturers and authorities are unable to come up with a realistic test to see how an a/c performs at Vr+ with contaminated wings. In actual fact, any pilot of any a/c, who attempts to get airborne with contaminated flying surfaces becomes part of the test flight program.

[FEHERTO]

Hi all, partly living in Almaty and being in the de-icing/anti-icing business for a long time, I am reading all your comments very carefully and also the weather report. Some things are not really fitting:

1. SN in the weather report means "moderate snowfall". If it would be "heavy snow" (SN+), the aeroplane would be not certified for take-off in anyway.

2. The aeroplane received no de-icing/anti-icing treatment. What had been the reason not to treat the aeroplane ? I am training a lot of ground crew & pilots and unfortunately I must say that companies operating business jets or private persons flying them, very often do not spend a single USD in the information and training of their flight crews.

3. I am attending all the international conferences and being member in SAE and so on. Never see business jet operators at such happenings.

4. ALA is in winter not worse than other airports. Basically it would a have a long runwy to gain extra speed. The de-icing/anti-icing service had been audited very short ago and found compatible with EASA, AEA and FAA requirements.

5. The accident seems to be a copy of the one in Moscow-Vnukovo on Feb. 11th this year. Aircraft type, weather and so on are very close to each other. Difference: aeroplane in Moscow had been treated, but the whoel de-icing/anti-icing process is not in good shape at this airport.

Hope that all survivors will recover soon and feel sorry for the family of the killed one.

[411A]

I am attending all the international conferences and being member in SAE and so on. Never see business jet operators at such happenings.

And you won't likely, either.
The competant bizjet owner/operators have already attended NBAA conferances/training...surprised this was not known
And then we have this...
What a great shame the manufacturers and authorities are unable to come up with a realistic test to see how an a/c performs at Vr+ with contaminated wings.
The author may like to contact the manufacturer to see just how they tested their aeroplane.
All the necessary was done, and the flying characteristics of the particular model in question are very well known.
In fact, as part of the regular maintenance program, these aircraft undergo a mandated wing leading edge polishing from time to time.
Before posting, some might actually like to become familiar with the facts...:}

[PBL]

So,

1. Weather conducive to icing
2. Wing very sensitive to contamination
3. Previous accidents which are similar phenomenologically (wing drop shortly after TO)

If the AC was not deiced before takeoff, there has to be a suspicion that this is at least partly due to icing.

The problem with determining wing icing to be a (the) cause is that direct physical evidence is absent. So, given that the phenomenology as reported by some is consistent with asymmetric lift, icing would be an explanation whose strength derives directly from the weakness of evidence for alternative explanations. It is, logically, an explanation by default, and therefore subject to all the difficulties of explaining by default, such as the effectiveness of the search for other explanations. If something else physical is amongst the causes, then finding evidence for that is dependent on how carefully the burnt-out wreckage is investigated.

Kazahkstan is a participant in the Interstate Aviation Committee, which includes the Russian Federation, so I presume the MAK will be investigating.

PBL

[megapilot]

Right! The "SN" in METAR means moderate snowfall. My opinion, it was heavy snowfall (my home place is about 9 nm from ALA airport). I made some photos through window about midnight (it was 3 hours before crash). It was terrible weather conditions near my place.
http://i030.radikal.ru/0712/09/ee77984a2a92.jpg
The RW was covered with dry snow with depth up to 10 mm and braking action was .32 (METAR) The snow looked dry but my sat dish (the tilt about 70) is covered with snow now (it is in 2 days after snow fall).
Normally taxi to RW05 takes 5 min (not more), but if another a/c has landed and is back tracking, it can take up to 20 -25 min.

[taq511]

Hi
as to my information, the Crew de-iced the Aircraft before Depature, but I don't know what Fluid and Mix.

[FEHERTO]

I agree that a lot of US biz operators are going to NBAA. But two things:
- This had been a German registered aeroplane and I talk about the situation under EASA rules.
- The NBAA I am also attending, but the quality of meetings, for my opinion, do not reach SAE level.

[FEHERTO]

The de-icing/anti-icing agent in ALA is the airport. They have a 70:30 T1 mix (heated) available as well as concentrated T2 fluid. Both from the same manufacturer from Europe.

[jetopa]

The F/O was the PF and under supervision, since new to the aircraft. I've known him for years as a good and professional colleague. The PIC, who survived (as did the CA and the sole PAX), is under shock and does not remember much apart from grabbing the checklist after liftoff and then seeing 90° bank to the right.
Very sad story. He was so happy for his new job...
Let's hope we find out what the cause was and that something can be done to avoid this from happening again.

[chandlers dad]

Was at an airport just South of this one yesterday in much the same conditions minus the snow, but with freezing fog. Vis was at mins and not a nice day. The whole area was bad WX.

The Challenger wing is not tolerant of anything on it. Sorry to see another one go down and my thoughts and prayers go out to everyone onboard.

CD

[fireflybob]

Many years ago the B737-200 had the odd incident of undemanded roll immediately after take off. Boeing introduced various measures to address this issue but I recall that in almost every case the rate of rotation was much higher than the (then) recommended rate of 3 degrees per second.

I just wondered what the recommended rotation rate is for the Challenger and whether this had significantly been exceeded on the previous accidents?

[411A]

....just wondered what the recommended rotation rate is for the Challenger and whether this had significantly been exceeded on the previous accidents?

It certainly was with the accident in Kansas with manufacturer test pilots on board.
Each manufacturer publishes the recomendations as to rotation rate, yet I have noticed (in training/line flying, actual airlpane) rotation rates commonly exceeded. When a new First officer attempts this with yours truly in Command, they are told right then and there that if this is attempted again, they would be returned to the sim for 'additional training'.

I learned a very long time ago that excessive rotation rates are a recipe for disaster, especially with the older jet transports and during takeoff in heavy rain/snow.

Think I'm wrong?
Find yourself an old B707 and find out, firsthand.:E

[FIRESYSOK]

Boy, do you have that right. I fly with so many newbees who want to yank the CRJ right off the ground like a C172. If trimmed correctly, a jet will fly itself off the runway with very little help. Add in Flap 20 takeoff, heavy weight, engine and wing anti-ice on... And I'm fed up with seeing the continuous ignition status message post as a result of overly aggressive rotation technique (or lack thereof).

[hbiwe]

A little note regarding the 737-200. Followig was published many years ago:

Since 1970 there have been a number of reports by operators of B-737 aircraft who have experienced an aircraft pitchup or rolloff immediately after takeoff in weather conditions which were conducive to the formation of ice or frost on the wing leading edges.

As a result of incidents involving B-737 aircraft which experienced a sudden
roll after takeoff, The Boeing Co. on October 24, 1974, issued Operations Manual Bulletin
No. 74-8.

The continuation of reports of pitchup/rolloff occurrences prompted The
Boeing Co. to examine further the B-737 aircraft sensitivity to leading, edge contamination. In 1977 plans were formulated for wind tunnel and flight tests. Even before conducting these tests, The Boeing Co. on February 23, 1979, issued Operations Manual Bulletin 79-2 to advise flightcrews of a possible inadvertent pitchup/rolloff after takeoff due to ice accumulation on leading edge devices

As part of its investigation of the reported incidents, The Boeing Co. flight
tested a B-737-200 advanced airplane in the fall of 1980 to quantify the aerodynamic effects of contaminated leading edge slats. The leading edge slats were coated with an epoxy potting compound and the surface was roughened with a paint roller to simulate a coating with corn ice. A series of stalls was conducted with flaps up, and at flap positions of 1, 15, and 40. The stall characteristics with both symmetric and asymmetric leading
edge contaminations were characterized by a very apparent pitchup, yaw rate, and rolloff. These characteristics were more pronounced at flap settings less than 5 when the slats were sealed, that is, when there was no gap between the leading edge slat and the basic
wing such as that which occurs when the slats are fully extended coincident with flap settings between 10 and 40. The Boeing Co. concluded that takeoffs are executed during suspected icing conditions or adverse weather conditions, sound operational techniques must be employed.

The Boeing Co. internal memoranda showed that it was considering an engineering change to the wing thermal anti-ice system to permit the use of that system on the ground to assure a clear leading edge.

For those interested, more details can be found in the Air Florida Flight 90 accident report.

[mechanic4711]

Sorry but what I don't understand is the proud of a pilot. Is it to much to perform a correct de-icing of a aircraft. So many accidents are happen cause the guys fwd left and right are to proud. STOP it and many peole will live

[hetfield]

@mechanic

How do you know if icing played a role in this accident?

[IcePack]

Who Knows if icing was involved.
But will we ever learn?
Off thread, but a coleague who went for an interview with a certain low cost carrier was asked by the human resources type person. What he would do if he found ice on his a/c in the morning. He replied de-ice it! Answer from human resources Do you know how much it costs to de-ice a 737, why not wait untill the sun comes up and melts the ice. His comment I know how much it costs to de-ice a 747 and whats that got to do with it? He got up and walked out.
So whilst company's are actively promoting this kind of thing accidents will still be happening due to ice contamination.
:ugh:

[Akuma]

Does somebody has the METAR from the time the crash happened from UTTT and UAFM? Would be interesting.

[jettrail]

http://english.wunderground.com/history/airport/UAAA/2007/12/25/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA&theprefset=SHOWMETAR&theprefvalue=1

http://english.wunderground.com/history/airport/Uttt/2007/12/25/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

http://english.wunderground.com/history/airport/Uafm/2007/12/25/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

[sevenstrokeroll]

Bravo the poster who mentioned the "JERKOFF" instead of a smooth rotation into a takeoff.

It is also called a "snatch" rotation. And except for certain, almost test flight situations, shouldn't be used.

And this goes for all planes , not just the Challenger.

I wish the FAA had observers at the end of all runways to perform an external wing check prior to takeoff, and if no good, no takeoff clearance. Same for other ICAO nations.

Feeling the plane's lift, sensing it, the heft in the stick, whatever you want to call it...is a lost art.

[pit_pitty]

quote
It is also called a "snatch" rotation. And except for certain, almost test flight situations, shouldn't be used.
unqoute
That is not entirely correct, certain types of airplanes need to be (strongly) "pulled" ( into a "snatch" rotation) ...there is a special "pull" call @ v1 when icing conditions are given and the aircraft has been de iced before.... ( fluid in the area of the elevator which requires higher rudder forces ) , however at the CL 604 that´s not the case:8

[AbuK]

weather that evening was nearer -15, probably lower. It was -17 at 0800 on 26th.

UAAA authorities are meeting this morning to discuss incident

[PJ2]

doubleu-anker:
What a great shame the manufacturers and authorities are unable to come up with a realistic test to see how an a/c performs at Vr+ with contaminated wings.

The information and the knowledge regarding this aircraft is widely available. I posted the link to the Canadian TSB's report on the Air Canada CRJ accident at Fredericton, New Brunswick because it addresses this question, in part, in Appendix C of the report and is entitled:

Appendix C -

Computed Versus Expected CL-Alpha Curve


I will not reproduce the graph here as it is under copyright protection but the report is freely available to all at the link provided.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

While there are undoubted design similarities between the CL-604 and the CRJ-100/200 (the former being the subject of the accident to which this thread relates, the latter being the Fredericton aircraft), with the two types sharing a common type certificate and a common ancestor (the CL-601) there are of course also some important differences, so one must be careful in attempting to draw conclusions which apply to both variants.

Additionally, Frederiction was a landing accident, with the aircraft essentially in the landing configuration at the time of the stall (the call had been made for flaps, per the TSB report, but would hardly have had time to move from the flaps 45 position). Almaty is by all accounts a takeoff accident, which means flaps 20 for the CL-604. So the graph in the TSB report can only be of fairly general use.

[PJ2]

Thanks for the important clarifications M(F)S.

[mechanic4711]

PROBABLE CAUSE
The Board concludes that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crew's failure
to ensure that the airplane’s wings were free of ice or snow contamination that accumulated
while the airplane was on the ground, which resulted in an attempted takeoff with upper wing
contamination that induced the subsequent stall and collision with the ground. A factor
contributing to the accident was the pilots’ lack of experience flying during winter weather
conditions.

This happened Montrose, Colorado, November 28, 2004

The next thing, it was a fuel stop. We have low temp. and the aircraft is refueled with "warm" fuel, so everybody knows what will happen (condensed water), special on the upper wing skin.

Simular accidents happened 3 times before, what will be with estimated number of unreported cases, will say, what was close to the accident but godspeed, nothing happened.

to be continued.....sadly

[kitekruncher]

Holdover time for type 1 fluid 75/25 in snow 6 - 15 mins with a lower temp limit of -14 for application
Holdover time for type 11 fluid 75/25 in snow 15 - 30 mins lower limit of -14 for 75/25 mix
I am not speculating, just thought I would check the conditions that have been posted on prune regarding this sad accident as an exercise (for my benefit) from the tables provided as a guide found in most ops manuals and the UK CAA AIC's. No one seems to have highlighted this point yet and its pertinant to all ops not just the Challenger. Food for thought when considering fatigue and commercial pressure.
Regarding the 850 accident at Moscow didnt that have some problem with its nosewheel steering??? On a contaminated runway???
Safe flying to all for 2008

[Engine3firehandle]

I still wonder how they wanted to manage their flightdutytimes.
Maybe someone can help.
The operator is from Frankfurt Germany and T/O was from Hannover.
They must have been in Hannover already and rested at least 10hours.
The distance is approx. 6000NM ( exact 5971NM ) and that is HAJ-direct-ALA-direct overfly Lanzhou-direct HKG. No approaches included and every distance great circle. You never fly ALA-Lanzhou direct but it was easier to calculate. This leg is much longer.
Cruise speed is 0.80 459kt
or long range is .74 425kt
http://www.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_2/pdf/challenger_604_factsheet.pdf
No wind this means: 6000/459= 13h 04 minutes.
Max dutytime is only 14hours for a two man cockpit.
Considering 30minutes preparation ( min. by german law ) and 15 min. after work ( also min. by german law ) You got the 14h max duty time almost full.
But there is the chance to max it out by the commander under special circumstances to an additional 2 hours.
But in these two hours you got add the following:
You got taxitime out at HAJ and refueling ground time at ALA. De-icing, taxi in and out of ALA, approach into HKG and taxi at HKG and your 16hours are more then full.
Pretty sharp calculated timetable.

[FixedRotaryWing]

The destination was Bangkok, not Hong Kong, according to information from www.procuror.kz. This makes only a slight difference in distance:

EDDV - UAAA: 2739 NM
UAAA - VHHH: 2384 NM
UAAA - VTBD: 2408 NM

All distances are calculated via airway routings.

The total distance is 5123 NM or 5147 NM. This is still a huge distance for a crew of two pilots - during night and without any rest time between the legs.

[Engine3firehandle]

Sorry, for the wrong distances.
Got it from this website..

Never trust the internet :)

http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/calculate-distance.html

Still a very long flight.

[411A]

How do we actually know if it was a private or for hire flight?

[king surf]

I was flying from yerevan that night to Bishkek where we scraped in.It was indeed an auful night with vis right down to 800m in moderate snow.Winter in this part of the world can be terrible with very few options for diversions.

[His dudeness]

"Because once you hold an AOC (commercial carrier) in Europe, JAR OPS 1 applies for each single flight- even if the owner is on board. Unless you temporarily remove this particular A/C from your AOC- which is a very time consuming paper work. So i assume it was "for hire"."

Not necessarily true. Some operators do have exemptions for owner flights. (in Germany).
Some authorities do accept a simple "P" instead of "C" in the techlog and you´re private. (Luxembourg for example) [I know that JAROPS is actually saying something different, but thats how it works in real life]
BTW. D-A RWE would suggest another owner than Mr.Windhorst?

But then, does it really matter? At the time of the accident, they should not have been anywhere near the FDT limits. And if you regularly operate as an AOC pilot, you don´t "switch" your habits just because this one flight is privately operated. At least not regarding DeIcing, IMO.
_____

"Holdover time for type 1 fluid 75/25 in snow 6 - 15 mins with a lower temp limit of -14 for application"
"They actually deiced the a/c with type I fluid."

Mhhhh. May I ask how reliable your information is? I´ve heard all sorts of info on de-icing ranging from not deiced to your post...I do know that the surviving pilot said that they deiced.

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

I've just compared the enormity of this scheduled duty with one that I look back on as a right cracker: MAN-TLV-MAN in a 737-200ADV with an aux tank. It was a daylight flight, max scheduled FDP 13 hours 15 minutes, round-trip distance approximately 4200 n.m. i.e. some 900 n.m. less. My logbook shows a total block time of 11 hours 10 minutes, and I remember filing a captain's discretionary report for exceeding the scheduled FDP. The 737-200's cruise was M0.73, i.e. much the same as previously quoted for the Challenger's long-range cruise.

My goodness, these pilots were given some task.

[hetfield]

If max duty time was a factor in this tragic accident, it's another bloody example.

When are authorities going to wake up?

[FixedRotaryWing]

In Germany flight duty time regulations also apply to employed pilots flying without AOC. There is no exemption for that.

If they really used Type I Fluid for anti-icing, they had a holdover time of 2 to 4 minutes (at below -10°C and snow). They also had to consider AEA cautions:

CAUTION: Heavy precipitation rates or high moisture content, high wind velocity or jet blast may reduce holdover time below the lowest time stated in the range. Holdover time may also be reduced when aircraft skin temperature is lower than OAT. Therefore, the indicated times should be used only in conjunction with a pre-takeoff check.

and

CAUTION: Wing skin temperatures may be lower than OAT. If this condition is identified, a stronger mix (more glycol) may need to be used to ensure a sufficient freeze point buffer.

That is not working in given conditions unless you anti-ice at the threshold immediately before takeoff.

[His dudeness]

"In Germany flight duty time regulations also apply to employed pilots flying without AOC. There is no exemption for that"

Granted - but have you ever heard of ANY action regarding FDT against a non-AOC pilot in Germany? I haven´t...I´d guess JAROPS 2 or however it will be called then will change that. Maybe. Or not.

Correct me if I´m wrong, but they were just about to begin their second leg, weren´t they? So they just had done some 5,5-6 hrs of flying...or maybe 8 hrs of duty IF they came from EDDF to pick the pax up. Hardly over the FDR. The second leg would have been, granted.

[nunki]

As a simple and humble SLF with interest in aviation I would like to contribute at least something to enlight the facts of Mr. Windhorst's business travel.
I'm not really that good in English, but I hope this translation is welcome...

The business man Lars Windhorst, who was severly hurt on 26 of Dezember at a plane accident in Almaty in Kasachstan is being treated at a hospital specialized in trauma treatment in Berlin Marzahn. This was reported by a hospital spokesman.

The 31-year-old had been brought by an ambulance from Schönefeld airport at three a.m. Windhorst had crashed with a German business aircraft. One of the two pilots died, the other was severely injured. As was confirmed by aviation insiders, this was a police detective who was performing an officially licensed second activity in piloting business aircraft.

According to the hospital spokesman Detlef Hoffmann, Windhorst had suffered burns as well as injuries of the facial skull and the thorax. He is being supervised in the intensice care unit by physicians of different disciplines. He is said to be stable, awake and reacts when talked to by the physicians, but may not receive visitors. Windhorst as for now does not remember anything about the accident, Hoffmann said.

Windhorst was the only passenger on the flight of the Challenger 604 from Hannover with destination Hong Kong and a stopover to take fuel at Almaty. Soon after take-off, the aircraft, according to reports, had crashed to the ground, had been flung against a wall and had burst into flames.

The Challenger belonged to the enterprise Jet Connection which had been founded in 1997 and is based on the Frankfurt airport, and is specialized in the charter of business aircraft. As manager Georg Biesing told the Tagesspiegel yesterday, no reports of the Kasakh officials had reached him yet. Contrary to first news, there had been no explosion on board. Experts of the State Department for investigation of Aircraft Accidents in Braunschweig yesterday took off for Almaty to participate in the investigations of the cause of the accident.
According to Biesing there had been no technical disorders of the 7 year old aircraft. The same type is also used by the Flugbereitschaft of the German airforce The co-pilot and the cabin crew member also were injured and meanwhile have been brought by rescue aircrafts to German hospitals for further treatment.

Lars Windhorst is said to be one of the most glamorous personalities in the boom times of internet. In the 90ies, the young entrepreneur had come into focus when accompanying Chancelor Helmut Kohl. Windhorst had founded a business for computer equipment when only 16 years old. Kohl made of him role model for the young generation and took him along on trips to Asia to raise publicity.

Windhorst, who succeeded in convincing many investors to entrust him their money, wanted to create a huge economic empire, but finally went bankrupt in a spectacular way. Many asked later how professionals of money business could have mingled with him. Probably they were amazed by his boyish charme.

Later, he had been sued by many disappointed creditors, most of all by Ulrich Marseille, the manager of a big German hosptal chain. Surprisingly, with the aid of the new private insolvency law, Windhorst succeeded to be free from any personal debt within three years.

After his business and privat insolvencies Windhorst is now working for a finance investor.

(Source: Tagesspiegel, Berlin, from dec. 29th, 2007)

[fokkerjet]

Has Bombardier addressed this accident yet in any briefings to operators?

[doubleu-anker]

jungle drums

Couldn't agree with you more as regards to your 3rd paragraph. I do that myself.

However "the book" does not state this, so the people who fly by "the book" do not gain from the added advantage of the extra speed gained, to perhaps assist in the handling of any emergency during t/o.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Has Bombardier addressed this accident yet in any briefings to operators?

Yes, an Advisory Wire was sent out on 26th December. Challenger operators should have received it, and it's also available via the Bombardier customer website for operators with access. It adds little to the statements in the media and the various news items linked to earlier in the thread (bear in mind it went out within 24h of the accident) but does state that the local authorities have notified TSBC, to whom Bombardier have offered assistance, as is customary for any OEM.

[411A]

Well, provided there are no runway, tyre or climb related limiting criteria, is to brief to intentionally stay on the ground once past V1 and committed to GO, until you reach V2 or even V2 plus rather than VR. A few extra seconds accelaration on the ground when you have the runway and performance, for peace of mind?



A technique from long ago, JD, used on many older models of the B707, those without full span leading edge devices...limited mostly by tire speeds.
Forgotten now I expect, except by a few older hands...myself included.

When in doubt...accelerate.
Used by Boeing.
Used by Lockheed.

Mostly for improved climb performance.
Wonder in Bombardier have this in their book?
If not, why not?

[Engine3firehandle]

Regarding post #68
If your dutytime will be excited you are not allowed to T/O to your destination.


Just found some more infos:

Had to translate the text via a website.

Aircraft arrived in the airport of Alma Ata into 2.20 (Tuesday, 23.20 msk). The dispatcher of airport communicated communication about the emergency into the service of rescuing. This occurred into 3.11 local time (0.11 msk).

As they report the media of Kazakhstan with the reference to the representative of MChS [emergency and disaster relief ministry] of republic, emergency occurred soon after the refueling of the aircraft, when it left to the takeoff and landing strip and gained itself speed to [vzlet].[vzorvalsya].
Aircraft burnt completely. At the moment of wreck aboard was situated four people - three crew members and one passenger.

In 3.05 (6.05 msk) for the not established thus far reasons CL60, belonged to German company Jet Of connection Of business Of flight, after passing 400 m, descended from the runway and opened enclosing landing area ferroconcrete fence, after which it exploded.
Aircraft burnt completely. At the moment of wreck aboard was situated four people - three crew members and one passenger.

Infos are not complete and are from this russian website ( local newspaper )
All other infos had been in the previous postings.
http://www.gazeta.ru/social/2007/12/26/2474796.shtml

This means a ground time from only 45 minutes.

That is pretty fast for a turnaround with deicing ( especially in Almaty ) and as final destination I still find the information about HKG in the news. VHHH

The last time in ALA they told me, they only got Type I fluid anyway. Maybe it was only at that special day ?

Does anyone know the Off Block time in HAJ ?
Where does it say BKK as final destination ?

The 400m I found in a different report as well and there it meant:
after 400m from the runway they hit the concretewall

[threemiles]

Unless you don't know the winds aloft the data you are requesting are not of any use to you and your magazine.
With a nice tailwind component HAJ-ALA and beyond can be made well within duty time limits.
And there is tailwind most of the time in this direction.
45 minutes is not a fast turnaround for a business jet that needs no loading/unloading.
Keep on searching, maybe better elsewhere.

[Green Guard]

When in doubt...accelerate.
Used by Boeing.
Used by Lockheed.
Mostly for improved climb performance.
Wonder in Bombardier have this in their book?
If not, why not?
It may not be in the "book" for T/O, so why not look in the "book" for App/Land with wing anti Ice inoperative , or just use something from stall recovery "book"?!

[Ular]

If speaking about same weather conditions, there were similar accidents at CIS airports.
2001 - Yakovlev RA-88170 at UUEE
and 2007 - CRJ N168CK at UUWW

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000309-0 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000309-0)

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=264081&highlight=N168CK (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=264081&highlight=N168CK)

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1174201/L (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1174201/L)

[canardnorth]

Up and away there is ample stall margin during maneuvering, but during takeoff there isn't much to begin with. Maneuvering in pitch as the aircraft is lifting off reduces what little stall margin there is, especially at heavy weight when acceleration is slower. A reduced rotation rate and the addition of speed above Vr before lifting off significantly increases stall margins, especially if the wing has been contaminated. An intuitive pilot would reduce his pitch rate and add some speed on takeoff if there were any possibility of a contaminated wing, even after de-icing. This technique seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Pilots tend to fly the way they train, and pilots are typically trained to fly as though the engine were going to fail just after V1 on every takeoff. Speed is life.

[Engine3firehandle]

threemiles..
Unless you don't know the winds aloft the data you are requesting are not of any use to you and your magazine.

threemiles -- stay with the facts !

who told you I am with a magazine ?

Maybe it is only a newspaper ?

It´s none of it. I am just a little pilot...

( ehh, what are windsaloft ? )

I guess, you are one too...


Besides, landing, taxi-in at Almaty in snowy weather, refueling and taxi out including De-Icing and T/O is pretty fast in 45 minutes.

Take a look at the taxi and the approach chart.
I guess you have not been to Almaty before.

It was snowing that day and there is CAT2 only to RWY 23. If you approach via RWY 05 you got backtrack. Watch out for those two little turnpads, the first one probably pretty slippery, because only the smallest birds make it there.

I do not know your taxispeed in these conditions, but I go very safe. I want to retire without a dent.

If you got inbound traffic wait for the other traffic to clear the runway...
And your time is just passing by..

Almaty is definetely not one of the airports you should underestimate.

[Engine3firehandle]

Canardnorth:

I do the same thing, when I go to the end of the holdovertime definetely and also make a clear statement for my fellow pilot, that he knows that I will be rotating slower and gain a little extra speed, but of course only if the situation permits it.

In any case of abnormal situation I go to absolute standard ( abnormal ) procedure.

I also try to get higher speeds in my performance computation and take more time for this part with my second pilot.

[LRdriver II]

Speed is life.. amen to that.

Coming from a Lear 60 and now captain on a 604, I have the utmost respect for any sort of wing contamination and any doubts always end in a de-icing.

The techniques for slow rotation and higher speed are mentioned here on the last few posts and I always let the 604 fly itself off the ground when she is ready (rotate at normal rate and let wing fly itself). The rotation forces are wierd in the 604 as they are very light when factory trim settings are used and even more so with a full tail tank. I prefer a slightly heavier feel to the "pull" as having the airplane spring into the air as soon as you unweight the nosewheel is a bit disconcerting at times.

Having operated the last two winters in Reykjavik, I have been at pains to show/tell our new F/O's that rotating at same speed and yanking it up into V2 in any and all situations aint the best idea. Granted the "book" says one thing, but real life nuances come with experience. Also the simulators that alot of us use, dont quite reproduce the feel/look of the airplane in that transient stage.

Sad outcome eitherway... RIP

[sevenstrokeroll]

real life nuances

well done!

I don't know if you guys know about the book "fly the wing" by webb.

he speaks of a takeoff in supsected or possible windshear. he points out that finding out the max weight for takeoff from a particular runway and then using the "NUMBERS" (v1/rotate) for the highest weight allows you to have a reserve of speed at takeoff.

perhaps so too in suspected icing situation?

think about it, read his book, perhaps this is something that can prove the nuance concept expressed above...but in a numerical fashion.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Gentle rotation has always been the answer to most take off problems, get V2 ++ under your belt before commiting aviation. Then a engine failure is a piece of cake, and the margin between the stall of a contaminated wing (singular) is below the flying speed.

As an aside, but still related: Many times I have been over 14hrs, if you look at realistic pre flight duty times and post flight duties, Since when has the trip from the hotel, been included in these calculations.....Also many times sat on the ground in Moscow, or similar cold locations, and waited for deicing, Then depted on a 12hour + flight....All perfecly normal for a Corporate driver. Three Charters in the last week.............And the company insisted the aircraft then ferried back to base, to save a hotel night.
Please do not think that Corportate charter operators actually comply with FTL, and when the real "duty Time" is considered, almost all Gulfstream V and G550 flights are scheduled in to discretion.

Please prove me wrong, by quoting the times your CAA have punished an operator.

Then you are scheduled for Minimum rest...in day time, after waiting for the cabin crew to finish, then the hours drive to the hotel, and then the delays with a morning check in. 20 hoours of real ON DUTY TIME, and 10 hoours rest.

De icing once or even twice is a common need in the RF, and the quality is slightly dubious.

Gfl

[Engine3firehandle]

I know what you mean. i am using this technic too, but only when there is a danger of a windshear.

First choice of course is to avoid WS and delay a T/O.

The procedure I am using is:

First I calculate the actual weight and use a optimum or lower flap setting.

The MATOW from there I use for a new calculation and use the same flap setting as above.
This way you are safe in regards to your Vmcg.

Now I am using the speeds from the first step and remember the increased Vr speed.( The performance limited Vr speed ) I rotate normal at the increased Vr speed and aim for the increased V2 from the MATOW calculation.


But if the runway is contaminated you got to use Full thrust or use Derated T/O thrust. In either of these cases, you can not use this procedure.




Dutytime regulations.

Good point Gulfstreamaviator

These regulations are made for us pilots and we should stick to them. I know very well how hard it is to say:
Sorry I got to sleep now for 10 hours.:}:}

Better you hide yourself after saying it via PA.
Especially if you got 300 people in your belly already waiting for hours in the a/c.

#2 - Your company is pushing you to fly and you got to explain yourself, why you are not flying. Did happen of course to me too and I already had some discussions about it with my scheduling.

But we shouldn´t forget, if something happens, it is up to us.
Who has to face the judge and explain why people got hurt on that flight.
Good if nothing happens, but better not to challenge our luck.

I think we can give a little, but we still got to stay within a reasonable limit and should not stretch the law to far.

Imagine getting to HKG and someone gets hurt after 16:10h dutytime.
The attorney confronting us, will rip you in pieces at court.

Had a friend at court in the U.S. because a PAX got hurt in turbulence in U.S. airspace and she had her seatbelt not fastened ( Seat Belts Signs ON ).

That really gave him many sleepless nights. But this is a different story.

[Ignition Override]

About three years ago we taxied our narrowbody jet to the international ramp in ATL to de-ice.

This was a two-step operation, at the busiest airport in the US. Luckily, this was about 2000, but dark, and little traffic.
The point about the location is that this should have been a first-rate de-icing procedure.

Not only was the radio at the de-icing cabin inop, but the de-icing crew walked away with no indication to us that we received a wave-off. But we saw them about 200 feet away.
She gave us the start time for the first step, not the second step, as
required, then unplugged from the intercom.

How is de-icing done for the other US airlines at "spoke" airports? 'Wino'? 'Airb'?
Does this happen with other crews?

As bad as they were at standard communications, one can only imagine how it could be with either a language problem or other problems with training, standardization and/or morale.

Last winter, a de-icing crew in the upper midwest only sprayed one of the wings on a jet. Snow was on both wings and the tail etc.
A Line Check Airman told me about this. Luckily, the passengers noticed and said something.

Outsourcing. Less pay, less results, more job turnover, reduced safety. And this is in the US, with management's blessing$ (indifference).

[Gulfstreamaviator]

There is a lot of good sense in say f10 not f20, as you say speed is life.

Not covered in the AFM, or SOPS, issued by Glf.

Just years of learning, and the occasional fright.

Depending on where you are there will never be warning of windsheer, just knowledge of a strong inversion layer, perhaps.



glf

[Global Warrior]

There's no evidence to suggest that the handling pilot of this particular 604 did not in fact use increased V speeds and/or a slower rate of rotation as suggested above. For all any of us know, he did apply both techniques.

People suggesting increased V speeds need to try to give a balanced point of view and not lead less experienced pilots into believing that when a wing is contaminted, increased V speeds are somehow a magic fix. Granted speed is good but only when you know what you are doing with it.

Increased V speeds techniique is available in the AFM and these are there to increase the climb gradient for obstacle clearance NOT contaminated wings.

From memory, the severe icing checklist on a 604 suggests that the MINIMUM speed that should be flown if Severe Icing is encountered is Vref + 27 and if you experience severe icing you would want to definately fly a higher speed than the minimum and this figure is based on Wing Anti Ice ON and working and is actually to give the stabilizer enough bernoullis to do its job as it is not fitted with Anti Icing capability.

So if you EVER have any doubts about contaminated wings and Hold over times, go back and get de-iced again!!!! DON'T USE HIGHER ROTATION SPEEDS AS A DEFINATE SOLUTION as there is NO evidence to suggest that an extra 10 kts, 20 kts or even 30 kts is going to do anything for you with regards to safetly getting airbourne with wing contamination suspected.

All the best

GW

[courtney]

You read some amazing rubbish on these forums but to suggest that adding a few knots means that you can go with contamination beggars belief.

[LRdriver II]

That is NOT... I repeat again... NOOOOOT what is being said here.

As if we would be that stupid to launch with iced up wings by adding 5kts.. jeez.. what do you take us for. Having flown Lears and Challengers in and out of wintery places, do you seriously think I would still be alive now if I had been doing what you are suggesting? I am the bane of the existance of both beancounters and grumpy passengers with a zero-tolerance attitutude towards wing contamination... this I will shove down the throats of anybody I fly with to keep them alive.


GlobalWarrior speaks sense.

[bullshot]

GW

Agree with everything you say but I don't think that your pious lecturing tone was particularly justified.

Previous posters were not, if I read correctly, advocating a technique to be used instead of or as a substitute for proper de-icing. They were suggesting a 'belt and braces' technique that may add to flight safety.

Thanks chaps - I don't fly these types but am learning a lot from this thread.

BS

[FixedRotaryWing]

A quote from the section "SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEDURES Cold Weather Operations" of the official Bombardier CL-604 Operating Manual:
8. PHASE OF FLIGHT PROCEDURES
...
E. Take-Off
...
Considerations:
...

Do not exceed 3 degrees/second rate of rotation. Anticipate and be prepared to accept a higher than normal initial climb speed. This increased initial climb speed will not adversely affect the climb profile.
...
If the airplane tends to pitch-up or roll-off once airborne, immediately reduce the pitch to reduce the angle of attack and simultaneously apply maximum thrust. Be prepared to accept altitude loss to recover aircraft. Use ailerons as required to level wings.

[balaton]

A question to all professionals in this topic:
You are landing on a Caribbean island (hot and dump) after a long flight at FL410 with your 604, for a short stop to refuel.
During the refueling/short walkaround you notice frost on the lower part of your wings formed by cold soaked fuel.
Can you disreagard it and takeoff?
Wait for an hour or two watching the frost to dissipate?
balaton

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

You are landing on a Caribbean island (hot and dump) after a long flight at FL410 with your 604, for a short stop to refuel.
During the refueling/short walkaround you notice frost on the lower part of your wings formed by cold soaked fuel.
Can you disreagard it and takeoff?
Wait for an hour or two watching the frost to dissipate?

Challenger 604 AFM, as at Rev 66, Feb 01/07 (and subs), Operating Limitations, page 02-04-2:

WARNING
Even small amounts of frost, ice, snow or slush on the wing leading edges and forward upper wing surface may adversely change the stall speeds, stall characteristics and the protection provided by the stall protection system, which may result in loss of control on take-off.

NOTE
1. Comprehensive procedures for operating in cold weather are provided in the Operating Manual, Volume 1, Chapter 6; SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES – COLD WEATHER OPERATION .
2. Take-off is permitted with frost adhering to the underside of the wing that is caused by cold soaked fuel, in accordance with the instructions provided in the Operating Manual, Volume 1, Chapter 6; SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES – COLD WEATHER OPERATION – PRE-FLIGHT PREPARATION – External Safety Inspection .

So, follow those noted instructions, and you can go. Otherwise, either wait or de-ice.

[balaton]

Many thanks Mad (Flt) Scientist,
You are right, I have just checked it in my manual. Even the allowable thickness is determined. I was a bit carried away with this 604 wing ice turmoil.

[FEHERTO]

has opened a few years ago a door, which should have been never touched:
On the B737 New Generation the take-off is permitted with a certain amount of frost on the UPPER WING surface, in the so called cold fuel soaked zone.
Teaching winter operation & de-icing/anti-icing I often get the question, which other aircraft types are also good for this.
Saying only this one, often gets me head shaking as an answer.

THis shoudl have never happened, as it is also clear against the "Clean Aircraft Concept" as already published in the ICAO document nearly 20 years ago.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

How is that even possible? It's in direct contradiction to:

§ 121.629 Operation in icing conditions.

(b) No person may take off an aircraft when frost, ice, or snow is adhering to the wings, control surfaces, propellers, engine inlets, or other critical surfaces of the aircraft or when the takeoff would not be in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section. Takeoffs with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks may be authorized by the Administrator.

There's no legal basis for the FAA to provide any other alleviation. Unless I'm thoroughly misunderstanding that section.

[Zeffy]

Prior to Dryden, La Guardia, etc. the word "adhering" was subject to rather arbitrary interpretations.

[RatherBeFlying]

Was SLFing on my then employer's A-310 in '89 on a fine Summer day and noticed frost on the upper surface over the wing tanks.

The area was quite limited, about 20 sq. ft. and towards the rear of the wing; so, choose not to bring it to the attention of the crew. Takeoff was fine.

I sent an inquiry up through channels and got a reply back from the CP that the FOM allowed takeoffs with frost in that location.

After the Dryden report, Transport Canada changed the regs to exclude all upper surface frost.

[txl]

A little update from German news reports: The passenger injured in the Almaty crash, Lars Windhorst, was released from hospital on Jan 3. A day later, investment firm Vatas, for which Windhorst acts as managing director, annouced it had acquired a 15 percent share of Air Berlin.

An interesting side note: News reports said that the first officer killed in the crash was a police officer from Berlin, piloting was his second job. Further reports claim that he was on a prolonged leave from his police job due to health issues. A spokesman for the jet charter company stated that the first officer, who was relatively new to this type of aircraft, had all the necessary paperwork including health checks.

[saffron]

In an earlier post,it was stated that Russian de-icers know their work,well don't count on it.Last Nov de-iced in Novosibirsk,after inspection of deicing,noticed large areas on wing (one in front of engine ingress path) & tail missed,told them to redo ,then they sprayed type 4 all over the windscreen (after being told specifically to not de-ice fwd of main door)
Concerning increasing rotate speed,be carefull if obstacle limited,you might not meet your obstacle clearence heights,however no obtacles no problem,with sufficient runway length,
A retired colleague had an interestig experience flying a BAC 1-11 for Ford Air out of Stansted some years ago,inspected wing,found snow on wing but very dry snow he could blow off,so he thought to himself the snow will just blow off during the t/o roll,I don't need to de-ice..... On T/O at rotate speed pulled back,nothing happened,he then firewalled the throttles(you can get away with that on Speys as they have governors) accelerated another 30 kts & staggered into the air.He lived to fly another day,moral of the tale;ANY contamination on top of the wing DE-ICE!

[jetopa]

Dear TXL,

there is nothing wrong with that. Having had another 'life' before flying does not hurt nor does it imply anything about the skills of the applicable airman.
The killed fellow-pilot had enough experience, he used to fly LearJets for many years to destinations all over the world. Most people knew him as being careful and professional. So did I.
Yes, he was new to the CL604 and he was still under supervision, but: aren't we all at one point or during our career? The Commander with him had sufficient experience and this one wasn't the first long-distance trip at night for this particular crew.
All the speculations - particularly from the German yellow press - are missing important things: facts. They're full of speculation and allowing the airport chief of Almaty publish his opinion as 'preliminary report' is totally irresponsible as long as f.ex. the FDR and CVR are still under examination by the Russian Authorities, who took over when the accident occured (Kazachstan is said to not even have an AAIB of their own...). The Germans haven't even received the tapes yet.

So, hold your horses, cowboy. Nothing's determined.

[PBL]

The German daily Bild Zeitung (the most popular newspaper in Germany) published some comments last Wednesday on the Almaty Challenger crash. For those who read German, link is http://www.bild.de/BILD/berlin/aktuell/2008/01/30/windhorst/absturz-akte,geo=3628176.html#

For those who don't, a certain Rishat Tustkbaev, who appears to be the airport manager and a member of the "Special Commission" was reported as saying it was pilot error.

Since Kazahkstan is a member of the Interstate Aviation Commission, the Russian MAK is the responsible investigating body, and I don't know what relation the "Special Commission" has to it.

Tustkbaev is reported as saying that the pilots did not have anti-ice on; that they didn't follow all safety requirements; that the captain gave the copilot misleading instructions; and that the copilot was not experienced enough (he had 60 hours on type).

Two seconds after "start" (I guess they mean the unstick point) the aircraft rolled 64° right and the wing touched the ground. Apparently, to recover, SOPs say pull the throttles back and the crew did not do this.

Tustkbaev is reported as putting all the blame on the pilots.

I report this here only for the record. There is a lot of obvious rubbish. If they rolled 64° right two seconds after liftoff and there is no mechanical explanation then it looks very much as though the right wing lost lift or never had any. Icing is the obvious suspect and, regardless of whether the crew had anti-ice on or not, one wants to know when and how the aircraft was de-iced. And of course the airport is responsible for the quality of de-icing and it is the airport chief who is speaking out.

Any suggestion that a 64° roll within two seconds of liftoff is something that experienced pilots can handle is nonsense. If you don't have lift on your right wing, physics dictates what happens next, not number of hours on type.

PBL

[ARINC]

Came across this some time ago and made me somewhat sceptical of the design then. Wonder if this had any part to play.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s3_2005_bombardier_cl600_2b16_challenger_604__vp_bjm.cfm

The HSTCU is susceptible to contamination. A sad loss.

[jetopa]

You're right, but this is known and has just recently been widely published, for example in Flight International.
We still have to wait for the conclusions of the Russian and German AAIB. It appears though, that the aircraft's right wing did not produce the necessary lift after rotation. Assuming that the aircraft commander acted wisely in deciding pro de-icing, one must focus on the ambient temperature and the nature of precipitation during the quick turn-around enroute to Hongkong. We can safely assume that the airframe itself must have been cold soaked after the first leg from Hannover to Almaty. We all know how the task-sharing during such a technical stop works: CM1 does all the paperwork, payments and overlooks the refuelling (and de-icing, when necessary), while CM2 goes through new WX-information and starts punching in the numbers for the 2nd leg into the FMS (which could have taken some time, given that he still was under supervision).
What I'd be interested in finding out: what type of de-icing fluid was used and were there any samples available in the days after the accident?
Something went terribly wrong that night and my guess is, that the occupants of this CL604 were doomed once they applied takeoff thrust...

[txl]

there is nothing wrong with that. Having had another 'life' before flying does not hurt nor does it imply anything about the skills of the applicable airman.

Jetopa, I didn't imply anything. I just consider it interesting that piloting a plane apparently can be somebody's second job. This was not about having a prior life, but rather a double job. At least that's what the newspaper reports said: That he was still employed as a police officer, though not on active duty due to health issues. And this was before recent speculations by that Kazakh official published in Bild.

Again, I don't want to imply anything, much less putting blame on the deceased pilot before any facts are on the table. So no need to call back my horses.

[His dudeness]

Well, if he wasn´t policing, he didn´t have a double job, did he?

"This was not about having a prior life, but rather a double job. At least that's what the newspaper reports said: That he was still employed as a police officer, though not on active duty due to health issues."

There are lots of Doctors, Laywers, Policemen, you name it, out there freelancing. As long as they are checked out properly - no prob IMO.

The health issues that would prevent you from policing, but allow you flying - I´d be very interested to learn what that could have been...


For the sake of the surviving captain, I just hope they deiced. The question is, how many people were around the airplane during that stop - and at least the deicer crew and the handler should be able to tell if they deiced or not. And what fluid/type was used.

Does one get a "no takeoff" in the CL604 if trim runs out of range ? I´d think you would. And would it be posted with the contimantion prob?

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

For those speculating on stab trim issues, be aware that all the Challenger 604 fleet (including I presume this aircraft) were already retrofitted with new HSTCUs to address the contamination issue, as reported in this week's Flight, prior to this accident.

[farmer jo]

I understand from rumours (very reliable source !) in Germany than the de-icing truck ran out of which ever type fluid they were using and that the right wing may have been de-iced using water only not 50/50 mix or whatever. It will be interesting to see if they did have problems

[hetfield]

It will be interesting to see if they did have problems

Oh boy! How you will find out?

It happened in Kasachstan......

[xsbank]

There seem to be only two things that will bring down a 604: over-rotation and any ice.

[AVNBROKER]

de-icing truck ran out of which ever type fluid they were using


They used Kill Frost ABC 2000 type 2 - I had'nt heard that rumour about running out of fluid thought :uhoh:

[Rumble]

Got about 4000 hrs on CRJ & we used to find lots of very thick clear ice on the UNDERwing after having landed in cold temps (melt & Run back ice), even when the overwing was clear. I used to go around scraping it off with a plastic ruler. De-icing trucks can find it very difficult to de-ice under the wing. Warm fuel can help but can cause melt & re-freeze (harder to see)if the ice is not removed physically after it starts to melt.

I once picked up a brand new one at montreal & on the acceptance flight test the Bombardier test pilot said they could already measure the diference in wing efficiency from the first flight of the aircraft due to flies & stuff on the leading edge. That is how unforgiving this wing is. I would never be tempted to go one second over minimum holdover on this A/C.

[jetopa]

Sources close to the only surviving cockpit crewmember indicate, that Kasachstan’s Authorities hastily destroyed the remaining de-icing fluids that were used during the night of the accident. They apparently neither allowed foreign investigators to take samples of the fluid, nor did they allow them to collect a sample of the accident aircraft’s structure for further metallurgical analysis…

Russia’s MAK is still in possession of the flight data and cockpit voice recorders, but do not grant German or Canadian Authorities access to them for detailed data readout.

What could be the reason for this? Why did the airport manager already a few weeks ago in a ‘preliminary report’ publicly announce pilot error to be the probable cause? Why is Kasachstan so eager to point into the direction of the crew?

Something’s awfully wrong here.

[PBL]

Sources close to the only surviving cockpit crewmember indicate, that Kasachstan’s Authorities hastily destroyed the remaining de-icing fluids that were used during the night of the accident. They apparently neither allowed foreign investigators to take samples of the fluid, nor did they allow them to collect a sample of the accident aircraft’s structure for further metallurgical analysis…

If that is so, then that would have constituted violations of Clauses 3.2 and 3.3 of ICAO Annex 13.

Russia’s MAK is still in possession of the flight data and cockpit voice recorders, but do not grant German or Canadian Authorities access to them for detailed data readout.

That would also be a violation of Clause 3.3 were it to be true, based on the rights of participation laid out in Clause 5.18

PBL

[cldrvr]

This thread is going nowhere, as many others. The 604 is a good aircraft, with a fabulous wing. As with any other swept wing bird you don't take chances with ice, you watch your speed and you don't overrotate. Anyone with 20-30 hours on the plane will have learned to respect the above three. Any pilot within Europe is well versed with its handling in all above three scenarios especially in icing. Whatever reason the Russians ultimately give for the accident will be backed up by scientific data or else it will have no merit. Lets wait and see what comes out.

[PBL]

Lesson 1 in how to keep a thread active when there have been two posts in the last month and little new info: post a message saying the thread is going nowhere.

Lesson 2 in how to keep a thread active when there have been three posts in the last month: post a message pointing out Lesson 1.

PBL

[punkalouver]

The 604 is a good aircraft, with a fabulous wing. As with any other swept wing bird you don't take chances with ice, you watch your speed and you don't overrotate.

Perhaps so but it appears to very sensitive to contamination. Much more so than many other swept wing airliners.

[jetopa]

@ cldrvr:

I think that this is misleading. Maybe the Chellenger / Canadair Jet series aircraft are particularly sensitive to any contamination of frozen precip, and this remains to be taken a very close look at. The number of accidents / incidents with this type of airplane is worrying, to say the least.

But: there was a problem with the de-icing service at Almaty. It took the ground crew 3 attempts to bring a truck with a functioning spray nozzle. And looking at the actual weather that fateful night, applying nothing would probably have resulted in an uneventful takeoff.

I was told that a Swiss Global Express crew just recently (after the crash in Dec.) orderered de-icing there. Looking at his airplane in disbelief, the pilot saw ice hanging down from the stabilizer (like in those deep caves) after the de-icing crew was done. The ground crew also had applied the fluid from the trailing edge, because they said they couldn't get to it from the other side...

The fact, that Kasachstan is - sort of - sabotaging an independent accident investigation, could leave the impression that they have something to hide.

And to PBL:

I don't think that this tread is leading nowhere either. As long as the cause for this sad accident hasn't been found, nobody in the flying community can be sure, that a comparable scenario won't happen to them or their friend / colleague again.

[punkalouver]

I was told that a Swiss Global Express crew just recently (after the crash in Dec.) orderered de-icing there. Looking at his airplane in disbelief, the pilot saw ice hanging down from the stabilizer (like in those deep caves) after the de-icing crew was done. The ground crew also had applied the fluid from the trailing edge, because they said they couldn't get to it from the other side...

This sounds like a serious potential for an accident to happen. We can get used to thorough or more than thorough de-ice/anti-ice here in the west and not think that in lesser developed locations improper de-icing techniques could lead to wing contamination on takeoff due to incompetence or perhaps even intentionally not using enough fluid. In reality many of us, myself included are assuming that the de-icing crew are doing a competent job because we can't see the critical surfaces from the cockpit. Beware.

[HarryMann]

Increased V speeds techniique is available in the AFM and these are there to increase the climb gradient for obstacle clearance NOT contaminated wings


Er, Increase the climb gradient?:ugh:

[cldrvr]

Absolutely!!!

Aircraft Vspeeds are designed based on runway performance and are significantly lower then the speed for best climb gradient, the speed for best rate is greater again, in most cases

All larger aircraft, including the 604, have optimum (greater) V speed tables to increase climb gradient.


CL

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Not the 604, I'm afraid. I believe it's already been suggested earlier in the thread as something people would like.

The following is the list of sections for the relevant part of Chapter 6, Performance, from the 605 Flight Manual (which, other than formatting, is basically the same as the 604)

TAKE-OFF PERFORMANCE
Introduction 06−03−1
Maximum Allowable Take-Off Weight 06−03−1
Take-Off Weight Limited By Climb Requirements – Flaps 20° 06−03−2
Take-Off Weight Limited By Brake Energy – Flaps 20° 06−03−6
Take-Off Weight Limited by Maximum Tire Speed 06−03−8
Take-Off Distance 06−03−10
Take-Off Distance, Flaps 20° – Anti-Icing Off 06−03−10
Take-Off Distance, Flaps 20° – Anti-Icing On 06−03−13
Take-Off Speeds 06−03−16
Minimum V1 Limited By Control on the Ground – V1MCG 06−03−16
Take-Off Decision Speed, V1 – Flaps 20° – Anti-Icing Off 06−03−18
Take-Off Decision Speed, V1 – Flaps 20° – Anti-Icing On 06−03−20
Rotation Speed, VR, Flaps 20° – Anti-Icing Off 06−03−22
Rotation Speed, VR, Flaps 20° – Anti-Icing On 06−03−24
Take-Off Safety Speed, V2 – Flaps 20° 06−03−26
Maximum Allowable Brake Temperature For Take-Off 06−03−28
Adjustments for Extended Second Segment Climb 06−03−28

None of those are for increased V speeds for improved climb gradient. All of the charts and procedures for determining speeds have a single result for a given set of conditions; there's no option to vary, say, V2. There's also no "overspeed supplement" to the AFM, as some other Bombardier Aircraft have.

[Orp Tolip]

Punkalouve raises a very good point.

I know of at least one incident in the west, UK actually, last year where de-icing was less than thorough, with significant snow and ice left in place on both wings.

Chances are, if its happened once, it can happen again.

With that in mind I always do my own post de-icing inspection, but, whilst I can see the wings I cannot see the top of the Stab and have to trust that the de-icing crew, and regardless of how competant I think they are, it leaves that slight element of doubt..........

[taq511]

At some point you have to trust the people doing the right stuff, they should be the experts within there job. With Hold over Time running, I can't go out and check the Anti Icing in bad weather. Should I also check, if the JetA1 is contaminated with water?:sad:
If I didn't trust my dentist or lawyer, I change 'em. But changeing an refuelling spot, due to a bad feeling, is a little bit complicated to explain to the company,
I simply hate going east, espacially in wintertime.:eek:

Hope they didn't nail the crew.

Cheers