Challenger crash at KASE [Archive]

con-pilot

5th Jan 2014, 21:23

I've flown the circling to 33 in a 604 many years ago, but in almost perfect weather. Gusty winds, icing, vis etc makes it just that much more difficult...

I have as well, not in a 604, but in other jet aircraft and as you posted, clear day and dry ruway.

Also, as you probably know, you have to plant the aircraft on the runway 33 in the touchdown zone due to the down slope, or you'll float forever.

As far as I can remember, this only the second fatal jet accident at Aspen, the other one of course was the G-III. I was in Aspen when it crashed. I saw one other fatal accident at Aspen, it was a glider. We watched it fly into a river ridge. It was one of those 'Take a glider ride in beautiful Aspen for $50.00.' things. A couple on their honeymoon decided to take a ride, it was the wife's turn when it crashed, both her and the pilot were killed.

You have to be on top of your game at Aspen, God knows I've been there enough times, an average of once a week for 16 years combined winter and summer, to well understand that.

letsjet

5th Jan 2014, 21:46

WC, I respect your abilities, but I really think the "The key to success" at Aspen is knowing when to divert. I'm not second guessing or being critical of any pilot. But, when I read the NTSB report of the Gulfstream crash that's what kept running through my mind.

con-pilot

5th Jan 2014, 22:01

Okay, I have some additonal information.

The aircraft was a 601-3AR. They were making their second attempt at landing on 15. It crashed trying to land on 15, not 33. On the first approach they went around when they got a 30 plus knot tailwind component on short final.

Just prior to the accident the tower reported the wind to the crew as; "330@16, 1 minute average 330 @14 gusting 25".

From reports from another website, the crew was new to the aircraft, it was sold in October in Mexico City.

Tower ATC tape here;

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kase/KASE-Jan-05-2014-1900Z.mp3

In the background at about 21:55 on the tape you can hear someone in the tower yelling "Go around, go around, go around!". Sobering.

From the pictures I have seen of the accident site, down valley was clear and the sun is/was shinning. For you here that are experienced Aspen pilots, know that is often the case, even with the local weather reporting overcast.

I will get a report from a crew that was in Aspen and saw the entire accident in about an hour or so. I'll relay it here.

galaxy flyer

5th Jan 2014, 22:08

Deferring to con-pilot's superior experience, going around at KASE, Landing 15, would be a sobering experience, indeed! The video posted on APF, shows the ski areas and town in cloud, the ridge opposite the terminal side is obscured looking toward the end of 15. A go around would be right into cumulo-granite.

con-pilot

5th Jan 2014, 22:12

Close up picture of accident.

[IMG]http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c246/con-pilot/zEd1z5D_zps55f626a9.jpg (http://s28.photobucket.com/user/con-pilot/media/zEd1z5D_zps55f626a9.jpg.html)

4listair

5th Jan 2014, 22:33

http://www.ustream.tv/cbsnews

(live at 23:35 UTC)

West Coast

5th Jan 2014, 22:51

Lets jet

Pretty sure you know exactly what I meant.

There are things you do there that are uncommon elsewhere. On the LOC DME 15 it's common inside the FAF to be descending at 2500 FPM to get to MDA prior to MAP or turning right as soon as the wheels break ground. That is where repetition pays off.

Knowing when to divurt isn't a skill particular to ASE.

letsjet

5th Jan 2014, 23:08

WC,

I agree with you....

con-pilot

5th Jan 2014, 23:20

turning right as soon as the wheels break ground.

Yeah, those head to head arrivals and takoffs were a bit unnerving at first, but one gets use to it. I only had to go around once* that I can remember because the departing aircraft started its takeoff too late.

The tower was not pleased, neither was I really. They kept telling the crew to either start their takeoff immeditely or clear the runway and of course they did neither untill I had to go around. After I started the miss, they finally took off.

The tower gave them their landline number and told them to call back after they landed, wherever they were going. I never found out if they did or not.

That's just the way it is in Aspen, ya got to roll with the punches.

* The more that I think about it now, it happend about three or four times in all those years, but I think the above was the only time it was a corporate jet. The other times they were light aircraft.

But have to admit, there were times I could see what color tie the departing pilot was wearing. :p

I.R.PIRATE

5th Jan 2014, 23:35

...white of the eyes....

West Coast

5th Jan 2014, 23:45

Yeah, I never thought I could get used to it, but you do.

lifeafteraviation

6th Jan 2014, 00:00

I really think the "The key to success" at Aspen is knowing when to divert.

This really is the key. Your company must have solid and unbreakable SOPs when it comes to such airports. As a pilot you must be able to make that decision without being second guessed.

The passengers will always give you a hard time...(politely ignore them)

"other airplanes are landing and taking off"

"my other pilots land in weather like this all the time"

"aren't you good enough?"

If you work for a company that talks to you like that or doesn't back you up when you make a safety call you really should consider looking for another job before you find yourself in a similar situation.

lifeafteraviation

6th Jan 2014, 00:21

Does anyone know who the operator was? Corporate? Charter?

Says the crew was three Mexican men. That's all.

letsjet

6th Jan 2014, 01:07

N115WF Aircraft Registration ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N115WF)

completely deck

6th Jan 2014, 01:13

From Aviation-Safety.net (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140105-1)

A Canadair Challenger 601 corporate jet, reported by Flightaware to be N115WF, sustained substantial damage in a landing accident at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, CO (ASE). The airplane came to rest upside down on runway 15. The right hand wing had broken off and a fire erupted. Three people were on board the airplane, the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office said. One person died in the crash, one person has major to severe injuries and one person has minor to moderate injuries.
Flightaware data show that Challenger N115WF arrived at Tucson International Airport, AZ (TUS) about 08:47 MST following a flight from Toluca (TLC), Mexico. The airplane then departed at 10:04 MST, bound for Aspen, CO.
Audio from the Aspen Tower frequency shows N115WF being cleared to land about 12:10 but the flight executed a missed approach: "Missed approach November one one five Wiskey Fox .. Thirty three knots of tailwind." Other flights had also reported low level windshear and a gain of 5-20 knots on approach.
Following the missed approach procedure, N115WF was again cleared to land about 12:20: "November one one five Wiskey Foxtrot wind three three zero at one six, runway one five cleared to land. One minute average three two zero, one four, gust two five." This clearance was confirmed by N115WF: "Roger one one five Wiskey Fox."
The FAA confirmed to ABC News that the airplane was a "Bombardier Challenger 600, coming from Tucson to Aspen".

con-pilot

6th Jan 2014, 01:16

Says the crew was three Mexican men. That's all.

It is being reported on an other pilot's website (pay site) that they were new to the aircraft and this was their first trip into Aspen. The aircraft was sold to a company in Mexico City in October.

That is pretty reliable information. However, as they were going to ASE to pick up the passeners, how did the passengers get there in the first place, if not in that aircraft?

Oh well, we'll find out soon enough.

Jet Jockey A4

6th Jan 2014, 02:01

If the tailwind/windshear conditions hold true for a landing on RWY 15 then they had no business being there and trying a second time after their initial missed approach.

That airport is already a hole to start with, never mind having to deal with bad wx conditions, circlings (especially at night) or trying to land with a tailwind that exceeds the manufacturers limits.

Our company policy for KASE is a "DAY VFR" operation only and with a 604 we take a minimum load out of there and go to Denver for a technical stop.

Tray Surfer

6th Jan 2014, 02:12

Sad news I hope the survivors make a speedy recovery.

Jet Jockey A4

6th Jan 2014, 02:19

Jet Jockey A4

6th Jan 2014, 02:42

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/mlab601/Challenger2_zps7a7b2bb9.jpg

Shaman

6th Jan 2014, 02:58

Airfield details:

ASE - Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field Airport | SkyVector (http://skyvector.com/airport/ASE/Aspen-Pitkin-Co-Sardy-Field-Airport)

CaptainProp

6th Jan 2014, 03:02

Aircraft registered with Mexican owner since early October 2013. Ownership address is a C/O address for a company (operator?) registered in Mexico City.

phollard

6th Jan 2014, 03:12

These guys make it looks so easy...

Aspen Landing 2013:
ZjXkPpvDFGM

galaxy flyer

6th Jan 2014, 03:21

Is a 601 door different than 604/605?

GF

Jet Jockey A4

6th Jan 2014, 03:40

Yes it is in a small way...

On the 604/605 they incorporated a small trap door that pops open prior to the main door opening and it is located above the door handle.

It's a bad picture I know but as you can see the handle is within the red stripe. If you look just above the stripe you can see the outline of that small pop out trap door.

The crashed Challenger's door does not have that pop out trap door making it a 601 model.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/mlab601/604door_zps5d308af0.jpg

Jet Jockey A4

6th Jan 2014, 03:43

Yes on a clear beautiful day with most likely minimal turbulence, windshear or tailwinds on the approach.

wingspan68

6th Jan 2014, 04:06

4 white PAPI lights and rather long landing... :hmm:

Machinbird

6th Jan 2014, 04:13

4 white PAPI lights and rather long landing.That approach is visually very deceptive since the runway runs uphill significantly in that direction.

Fly the PAPI lights or you might have to climb to make it to the runway.:O

Capn Bloggs

6th Jan 2014, 05:51

4 white PAPI lights and rather long landing.

That approach is visually very deceptive since the runway runs uphill significantly in that direction.

In that case you'd expect to see 4 Red PAPI lights...

Machinbird

6th Jan 2014, 06:10

In that case you'd expect to see 4 Red PAPI lights.I think I did by the time I could pick them out.
I was expecting the illusion, and it still caught me by surprise!

Flingwing47

6th Jan 2014, 06:10

Actually the PAPI is set for the designated GS ie 3.0/3.25/3.5 to the touchdown point. Just follow the correct combo of red and white for your acft.

So regardless of the runway gradient or slope, you should follow the PAPI and touchdown at the chosen spot in the windshield.

This may give you a high rate of closure with the ground landing up slope so an early flare may be called for - conversely landing down slope will need a little less flare. In PNG we were routinely landing without aids at runways with up to 13% slope - and on one earthquake relief task for the UN in Irian Jaya, one section of one high DA mountain strip was 25% slope - made for some short landing rolls :) And lots of power to make the parking bay for the three point turn required to depart.

Latte tester

6th Jan 2014, 06:13

Can't remember Vref, but a flap 20 landing would be easier, depending on runway required for their weight...

diego727

6th Jan 2014, 06:27

Read in another forum both pilots at the controls were siblings and former Mexicana pilots...

wingspan68

6th Jan 2014, 06:59

I'm actually surprised how many pilots are not able to follow the PAPI lights. Many times during line training I heard from the PF: I'll go below the PAPI on short final for a smoother landing := Those guys really do not understand the physics of an aircraft... :ugh:

By the way:
An earlier glideslope indicator system, the visual approach slope indicator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_approach_slope_indicator) (VASI) is now obsolete and was deleted from Annex 14 in 1995. The VASI only provided guidance down to heights of 60 meters (200 ft) whereas PAPI provides guidance down to flare initiation (typically 15 meters, or 50 ft).

ironbutt57

6th Jan 2014, 07:17

3-man crew positioning for pick-up...one of the FO's didn't survive.:eek:

172driver

6th Jan 2014, 08:11

The guys in the video seemed to be conscious about the PAPI situation. At about 0:45 the captain comments on 'four red' and then mentions a possible go-around ('vamos al aire'). Unfortunately there is some ATC audio during his comments, so not all is comprehensible.

lifeafteraviation

6th Jan 2014, 09:11

Some people are confusing the registration information easily found online with the operator information. Some of the hints in this thread that the airplane was possibly being operated by a Mexican outfit with a US registration may prove interesting as well as the nationality of the crew.

I'm anxious to learn about the nature of the operation, commercial or private?...if they were not waiting for the passengers in Aspen it smells a bit like a brokered charter operation although we won't know until the NTSB issues a preliminary report. Arizona was a customs stop from Mexico.

The cause of the accident is pretty clear...the nature of the operation will be what interests me and why those pilots were compelled to make such an incredibly poor decision.

As far as the video...it amazes me that pilots post videos of their landings on YouTube in the first place but if it's a sloppy approach and landing like that what on earth are they thinking? We all make sloppy landings once in a while but why brag about it? They must have thought it was a good one.

phollard... That is NOT an example of a good approach and landing at ASE!

His dudeness

6th Jan 2014, 11:22

Weather and conditions aside, we're focusing on commercial pressure to impress the new boss.

Are 'we' ? Or is it just you ?

Mad (Flt) Scientist

6th Jan 2014, 12:22

Can't remember Vref, but a flap 20 landing would be easier, depending on runway required for their weight...

Also not an approved landing configuration for a Challenger. (Note: a comment on the suggestion of flaps 20, there's no evidence that this crew was in an unapproved config)

jesush1234

6th Jan 2014, 12:49

As far as the video...it amazes me that pilots post videos of their landings on YouTube in the first place but if it's a sloppy approach and landing like that what on earth are they thinking? We all make sloppy landings once in a while but why brag about it? They must have thought it was a good one.

lifeafteraviation;

This video was posted in another forum (Mexico) so that other pilots can see what the approach into Aspen looks like, it was never posted to brag about it.

Also the pilots were aware of the 4 red lights and were prepared to execute the missed approach procedure if deem necessary, fortunately for us we had a beautiful calm day.

glendalegoon

6th Jan 2014, 13:38

IN one of the earlier posts (I think completely deck made mention of this report, though I am not attacking completely deck at all)a mention of a "GAIN OF 5-20KNOTS"

AS we all know there are increasing performance wind shear and decreasing performance wind shear. There are also incorrect reports on windshear.

I would like to know if it was a loss of 5 to 20 knots of IAS or a GAIN of 5 to 20 knots. Later on during the go around a pilot indicates a loss of 33 knots.

EARLY reports always seem to make us ask even more questions.

Latte tester

6th Jan 2014, 13:56

I thought the max tailwind for landing a 601 was/is 10kts... Clearly reported wind at 16kts...with gusts

Jet Jockey A4

6th Jan 2014, 14:35

"I would like to know if it was a loss of 5 to 20 knots of IAS or a GAIN of 5 to 20 knots. Later on during the go around a pilot indicates a loss of 33 knots."

On the ATC audio tape, pilots of various aircrafts were heard telling the tower they had "Windshear" of different strength while on the approach... One of them clearly stated to the tower that they had a -10kts to +20kts Windshear on their approach.

Now the doomed aircraft's pilots stated to ATC they were making a missed approach due to 33 kts "tailwind", no mention of "windshear".

Jet Jockey A4

6th Jan 2014, 14:45

"I thought the max tailwind for landing a 601 was/is 10kts... Clearly reported wind at 16kts...with gusts"

You are correct... The aircraft's limitation in the AFM is max tailwind component of 10kts.

On their second approach prior to landing the tower gave them the wind as 320 at 16 kts with peak gust of 28 knots within the last minute.

Given the high TAS because of altitude, increased actual approach speed for turbulence/windshear correction, add to that a high rate of descent to get down from the MDA to the runway and a crew apparently flying into KASE for the first time in less than ideal conditions, the holes were lining up for a disaster to happen.

That Challenger must have been smoking into KASE. The G/S must have been very high!

asc12

6th Jan 2014, 15:46

That Challenger must have been smoking into KASE. The G/S must have been very high!

Back of the envelope, and totally guessing about the aircraft's vref:

Vref ~ 120kt
+ 5kt
+ Headwind = 0
+ Half gust component = 6
= approach IAS of 131kt
= approach TAS at 8000ft of 148kt
= approach GS (15kt tailwind) = 163kt

6.59deg glideslope... 1200fpm?

(edited-- wrong envelope)

Mad (Flt) Scientist

6th Jan 2014, 16:09

That probably underestimates some of the adders : Challenger adds half the steady state plus ALL of the gust, per the OM.

(However, the +5 standard might not be applied, and we don't know enough of the other details to be too accurate. Regardless, it's not a slow number)

Latte tester

6th Jan 2014, 16:42

Mad (Flt) Scientist
Also not an approved landing configuration for a Challenger...

Where are you getting this info? Nothing in the AFM restricts the PIC from a less than full flap landing if conditions exist/warrant. I've done a few and so have a few of my colleagues. Better controllability especially in the gusts, but that's assuming an into wind landing.

con-pilot

6th Jan 2014, 17:03

One thing needs be remember about Aspen operations, nothing is normal, except airspeeds, re. V-speeds for takeoff and landing.

One can have a reported 1,000/2,000 foot overcast with five miles visiblity and never be in IMC from orginal descent from cruise altitude to touch down.

On departure you can have an obscured ceiling of less than 300 feet with a mile visiblity and can make the depatrure and have good visilibity for the takoff and the climb out. They have been a lot of times when we 91 operators can leave ASE, and the 135 and fractional guys and gals could not because of the reported weather. The folks in the tower try to work with them, but there is only so much they can do. In my experience, which is considerable in Aspen, the ATC controllers there are exceptional.

I have neve made a landing at Aspen with less than full flaps for landing, regardless of the aircraft I'm flying, nor the conditions. Maybe Challengers are different, never flew one.

I still don't understand how on Earth, Aspen did not make the list of the most dangerous airports in the world.

West Coast

6th Jan 2014, 18:03

I've asked that same question at meetings that included many of the movers and shakers in the ski and lodging industry along with the well connected airport director. They seem to have made a concerted effort by means unknown to me to stay off the list. Don't think it helps the fiscal bottom line to have your airport on anyone's conscience mind as being a dangerous one.

I recall after the relatively recent cable channel show about the most dangerous airports that passengers getting on the plane to EGE would ask if it was really that bad. Guess its not just nerdy pilots who watch that type of stuff.

EGE is a challenging airport, but it ain't no ASE.

Mad (Flt) Scientist

6th Jan 2014, 19:11

@Latte_tester

AFM Chapter 6, Performance, table defining configurations for various flight phases. Only flaps 45 is listed as a landing config. Only operations according to that table has published performance data of the required format. (Other data is intended for abnormal operations only)

Additionally, the Introduction to the Performance Chapter states;
The airspeeds and airplane configurations for take-off, climb and landing, as presented in this chapter, must be adhered to during the appropriate phase of flight.

Sorry, anything except flaps 45 for landing is NOT covered by the AFM, is prohibited by that wording and, perhaps most importantly, is not covered by flight testing for certification. That "must" in that quoted sentence is definitive. And it's an "approved" page as well.

falconflier

6th Jan 2014, 19:23

Hate to second guess another flight crew but the ATC audio is pretty consistently reporting sustained winds from the NW above 10kts and gusts as high as 30. Why force it? This should have been an easy decision to divert. In our 605 we would have never even tried to attempt it.

silverware

6th Jan 2014, 20:19

What a horrific accident, how on earth did this all go so wrong?
Going by some of the (not always trustworthy...) media there were no pax on board, only 3 crew.
KASE was in the news earlier this year as well, albeit a lot less tragic:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvr9x75bdhfjs81/ASE.Incident.010214.pdf

Latte tester

6th Jan 2014, 20:24

@ mad (flt) scientist

Not to drag this out, but flap settings, speeds and landing distances are calculated in the AFM and also presented in the QRH, yes in the abnormal section.
If in the judgement of the Captain a lesser flap setting will enable a safer approach and landing due to extreme conditions, that would be an abnormal stae which is therefore covered by the wording in the AFM.
I've been in a position where severe gusty winds necessitated a flap 20 landing due to controllability issues. I was with the check Captain and other than, "nicely done", nothing else was mentioned.
Sometimes it's not black and white...

galaxy flyer

6th Jan 2014, 21:29

The QRH Abnormals for less than 45 Flap are to address specific flap malfunctions not for the pilot to modify the AFM procedure.

I believe the procedure you are referring to is titled FLAP FAIL (ABNORMAL 8-6). it begins with flaps failure occurred at less than 8 degrees

Please explain where that procedure allows for a less tha 45 flap landing when the flaps are operative. And explain why controllability, tested during certification, was inadequate for the conditions?

One thing for sure, adding another 16-18 knots of true airspeed wouldn't have helped on that day at ASE under that tailwind.

Yankee Whisky

6th Jan 2014, 21:35

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/ASE/IAP/LOC_DME-E/pdf

Interesting !

Agaricus bisporus

6th Jan 2014, 23:24

how on earth did this all go so wrong?
Pretty simple really.

They shot a difficult non precision approach at high DA to a field with a deceptive sight picture (due gradient) and no horizon reference (due mountains) in a type apparently completely new to him with a 30Kt tailwind & reported 20Kt windshear on approach and a touchdown tailwind that was approaching double the type's limit.

What else would you expect the result to be?

How on earth were these guys allowed anywhere near an aeroplane in the first place is perhaps a better question.

acroguy

7th Jan 2014, 00:10

Well, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to realize that a close to 7 degree GS from FAF to the runway and a 25 knot+ tailwind is not a recipe for a good conclusion.

B-HKD

7th Jan 2014, 01:58

Airport is set to reopen at 1200Z tomorrow (7th).

West Coast

7th Jan 2014, 04:07

That doesn't jive with the NTSB statements. As of today, in the afternoon they still hadn't accessed the inside of the aircraft as was unstable and still had fuel onboard.

Sky Slug

7th Jan 2014, 05:09

I sat up front on a packed Whiskey 146 during the summer when I was going to attend a cousins' wedding. It was nothing like the EGE or HDN approaches we shot in the sim. I still remember grabbing the two seats in front of me as I looked at pine trees that were seemingly a few hundred feet away on the right side of me.

What a ride. The CA and FO rightly gave me a hard time as I grabbed my baggage.

ironbutt57

7th Jan 2014, 05:17

Sorry Latte tester...no published landing distance charts for the specific flap setting...no-go...it is black and white...and how you "feel" about it won't wash in court...im surprised the aircraft doesn't offer various flap settings for landing with appropriate landing distance data provided...but if it doesn't..then it's not debatable

lifeafteraviation

7th Jan 2014, 06:22

acroguy Well, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to realize that a close to 7 degree GS from FAF to the runway and a 25 knot+ tailwind is not a recipe for a good conclusion.

7 degrees?! Where do you get that from? Have you been there? I'd like to see any jet make a 7 degree glide path. I think you mean 3.5. Steeper than normal but doable with planning.

Capn Bloggs

7th Jan 2014, 06:38

11,700' Not Below at 5.7nm to the threshold...

India Four Two

7th Jan 2014, 08:04

ATAN( (11700 - 7837) / (5.7 * 6080) ) = 6.36 degrees

Capn Bloggs

7th Jan 2014, 08:08

Chart shows 6.59°. I'm impressed! :eek:

Do you guys left or right circle to 33 off 15? Chart doesn't say.

lifeafteraviation

7th Jan 2014, 09:02

Yeah I guess you're right....It's been a long time since I've been in there. Pretty steep. London City is 5.5 and I thought that was steep.

I do recall having to get down to approach speed by DBL or not being able to slow at all.

Those Challenger pilots never had a chance. I wouldn't be surprised if they issue special rules that flat out close the airport to jets under tailwind conditions. It would take away the ability of pilots with poor judgement to do such things.

It occurred to me today while thinking about this accident. If that captain knowingly violated the published limitations of the aircraft he could be found to have operated recklessly. With a fatality involved it goes beyond a simple accident and he could be charged with manslaughter. Imagine if he had rolled off the runway in the other direction and slammed into aircraft on the taxiway, the ramp, fbo or terminal!

Spooky 2

7th Jan 2014, 10:12

lifeafteraviation, you have the wrong country. We don't do that here in the US.:E

lifeafteraviation

7th Jan 2014, 10:38

you have the wrong country. We don't do that here in the US.

Are you kidding? Most pilots who believe that are naive. The reason it doesn't happen very often is most pilots are professional enough and most countries don't scapegoat innocent pilots for political reasons as easily as they might in say...Brazil.

If you have an accident it's not criminal but if you knowingly operate in a dangerous and reckless manner for personal gain... It doesn't matter what profession you are in, it's criminal if you damage property or injure or kill someone due to deliberate negligence or recklessness.

I can't see any way that this situation doesn't qualify unless the facts we have so far are completely wrong...but we can listen to the tape.

This is something you need to consider if you are a pilot for a small operator and feel pressured to do something dangerous or reckless for fear of losing your job....you can definitely be charged with a crime if things go wrong like this did.

Sillert,V.I.

7th Jan 2014, 11:16

This is something you need to consider if you are a pilot for a small operator and feel pressured to do something dangerous or reckless for fear of losing your job....you can definitely be charged with a crime if things go wrong like this did.

The captain is, at least, fortunate enough to face this possibility. In the Cork accident (which would seem to me to have worrying similarities; pressing on after a missed approach when the weather is outside limits for the a/c), the crew would likely have faced serious charges, had they still been alive.

In both cases, the controller passed weather information to the pilots which was clearly outside limits for the a/c, but the pilots chose to continue :ugh:.

I wouldn't want for a minute to place responsibility for these incidents other than at the pilot's door, but I can't help wondering if safety would be enhanced if controllers had a mandatory duty to report suspected serious violations of this nature.

IIRC there was at least one case described here when a UK controller advised a foreign crew that he would be obliged to report them if they continued an approach in weather below the approach ban limits; on hearing this, they quietly went someplace else.

galaxy flyer

7th Jan 2014, 12:22

Silbert,

US private operators don't have an approach ban, so it might be understandable that a US crew would try the approach. No saying they shouldn't know, the US regs require a pilot to adhere to the regulations of the country they're operating at, but it isn't uncommon to see this situation come up in conversation.

Cloudyifr

7th Jan 2014, 13:08

acroguy

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Egremont, MA, USA
Posts: 18
Well, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to realize that a close to 7 degree GS from FAF to the runway and a 25 knot+ tailwind is not a recipe for a good conclusion.

This is not accurate. Open up the approach plate. This is a non-precision approach I.e. No glide slope. So from the FAF to the MAP is 3.1nm which is a 6.59 degree angle. We all agree very steep and the tailwind and altitude do not help. But then the crew has 2.6nm to lose 2003 feet to the runway threshold.

I will let you someone else figure that rate.

lifeafteraviation

7th Jan 2014, 13:10

It's just like driving a car....or playing irresponsibly with your firearm if you're in law enforcement. If you get away with it and no one is hurt and nothing seriously damaged....it's not a problem most of the time. But if you have an accident that's the direct result of your willful negligence...you can be charged.

law enforcement officers have been charged for leaving a loaded gun unattended and a kid gets a hold of it and someone dies. The logic is they have a professional responsibility.

Reckless driving is criminal even if you don't cause an accident. You kind of have to enforce it with drivers because so many idiots operate a car and the potential for injuring others is very high. I would hate to see that type of logic pushed on to pilots because of a few irresponsible individuals.

A Squared

7th Jan 2014, 13:21

lifeafteraviation, you have the wrong country. We don't do that here in the US.:E

Actually, Lifeafteraviation is right, we *do* do that in the US. It's not common, but the precedent has been set. The was a guy a few years back who was giving someone a ride in a biplane (Waco, I think) someplace like Wisconsin, or Michigan, that part of the country. Anyway, he was flying low along a river and hit a crossing powerline. Plane ended up upside down in the river and his passenger died. He wound up going to jail for the accident. According to AOPA it was the first time that pilot had gotten a criminal conviction for an aircraft accident. But, that genie is out of the bottle now. If you consciously chose to violate the FARs, and that violation causes someone's death, you just might wind up in jail. It happens, even in the US.

deefer dog

7th Jan 2014, 13:35

Unlike demonstrated crosswind, maximum tailwind for landing is a limitation that all that day seemed to ignore!

Sillert,V.I.

7th Jan 2014, 14:03

I would hate to see that type of logic pushed on to pilots because of a few irresponsible individuals.

I must confess I'm not too comfortable with the idea that someone out there is just waiting for me to commit some minor indiscretion so they can snitch on me.

But this kinda suggests that if you get away with it, it somehow isn't irresponsible, which doesn't sit very comfortably either.

I suspect most pilots sitting reading this thread in an armchair would think it absolutely idiotic to continue a steep approach in a jet with a reported tailwind gusting to 36kt, yet a professional crew sitting in the cockpit somehow made that choice. Similarly at Cork (which was a public transport flight), a professional crew made a decision to attempt and continue an illegal approach in a Cat 1 a/c when the weather was significantly below the approach ban limit not once, but three times.

Understanding why pilots sometimes make choices while airborne which they likely wouldn't even consider when on the ground would go a long way to explaining why this type of accident keeps happening.

misd-agin

7th Jan 2014, 14:21

Risk/reward problem - circle to land in tight mountain valley or land with 30 kt tailwind.

Solution - ILS into EGE. 1+25 scenic drive to Aspen.

Outcome - eat regular food vs. hospital food.

Cloudyifr

7th Jan 2014, 14:41

Misd-agin,
That is exactly right. I have tried an approach twice but never three times. Inconvenience is just what it is but it is my life in their too!

Spooky 2

7th Jan 2014, 14:43

Not exactly the same but whatever floats your legal mind works for me. Highly unlikely in this case. Give it a rest.

BizJetJock

7th Jan 2014, 15:19

Risk/reward problem - circle to land in tight mountain valley or land with 30 kt tailwind.

Circling at Aspen isn't an option in the Challenger; airport max speed for circling 140 kts (very strictly enforced by the granite), Challenger min speed for circling 150 kts.

Max tailwind 10kts, so they shouldn't have been even thinking about it.

As for the landing flaps 20 suggestion, apart from the valid legal point made by MfS there is so little drag that the aircraft struggles to stabilise at Vref on a 3.5 degree slope, let alone 6.5. It is worrying that someone even thought about it.:ugh:

A Squared

7th Jan 2014, 16:48

Not exactly the same but whatever floats your legal mind works for me. Highly unlikely in this case. Give it a rest.

Not sure why you're choosing to act like an ass. As far as I can tell my response was perfectly polite. Or at least it was intended to be, aplogies if it seemed otherwise.

But regardless, the days of pilots never getting charged for accidents in the US are over. And the conditions under which it can happen are just as I stated: A willful violation of an FAR that directly results in a death. Those are just the facts. You can pretend it's not true if you want.

Is something like that likely here? Dunno, it's still a rare occurence. But it's not obvious to me that disregarding (by a lot) a regulatory aircraft limitation is substantially different that violating the minimum altitude regulations. Both are violations of the regulations, by any measure.

Old Boeing Driver

7th Jan 2014, 17:03

I've been to ASE a lot, but only in the G-III and G-450. Circling was not an option in those aircraft either.

We had a rule our owner sanctioned, to arrive before 1300 local, and day VFR only.

Rifle and Eagle were good alternates.

Before that time of day, the winds are generally favorable.

I know that type of rule puts a kink in a lot of operators plans, but it worked for us.

con-pilot

7th Jan 2014, 18:20

Swore I'd never do this after I retired, but I will anyway.

I missed the old days of going to Aspen. Back then there was no approaches for private aircraft, none, nada. Two of the airlines had private approaches, one an DME/ADF (NDB) approach and the other a private back course LOC. Course back when I frist started going to ASE, the airlines were using DC-3s* and Convair 580s. Saw a 580 lose the right engine just after lift off, no big deal watching it from the ground. The engine auto-featherd as the gear came up, they made a slight right turn, then circled around to the left and came back in and landed. I was quite impressed.

Anyway, as there were no approaches and the airport closed at offical sunset, or 30 minutes after, can't really remember now, it was much easier and simpler landing in ASE most of the time. Center would have you fly to the SKIER (or something like that) which was directly over the airport at the MEA. You looked out of the window and if you saw the airport, you cancelled IFR and landed.

You didn't see the airport, you had two options, continue on an Airway down the valley toward Rifle/Grand Junction, center clearing down the lower MEAs and if you broke out, they'd let you turn around and see if it was good enough to go back up the valley** in VMC back to ASE and land.

If not, Grand Junction here we come.

And no bloody night operations. So in my old fart's opinion, much easier and safer.

* The DC-3s had JATO bottles on them.

** The valley that lead to Aspen has a highway, railroad track and a river. As long as the valley you were following had all three, it would take you right to the airport. Lose anyone of the three, give it up and go away for another day.

OD100

7th Jan 2014, 18:28

Do be so sure....

Never, ever, underestimate what a massively big wing, with leading edge devices, can do for you in performance, until you have flown one....

Oh, and as you pointed out, this video was a VFR left hand circle back to 15. Quite different than attempting to circle east for a landing on 33, inside the valley...

acroguy

7th Jan 2014, 18:41

This is not accurate. Open up the approach plate. This is a non-precision approach I.e. No glide slope. So from the FAF to the MAP is 3.1nm which is a 6.59 degree angle. We all agree very steep and the tailwind and altitude do not help. But then the crew has 2.6nm to lose 2003 feet to the runway threshold.

I will let you someone else figure that rate.

Yes, according to the plate it is 6.59 degrees from the FAF to MAP, not the runway -- my error. Nevertheless, what are you suggesting? That the approach is somehow shallower because of that?

glendalegoon

7th Jan 2014, 19:19

agaricus...there is a horizon in mountain flying...it is at the base of the mountains though and not peak.

Learned that a long time ago from my first boss.

I seem to recall that boeing (yes I know that the challenger isn't a boeing) offers 15 knot tailwind data for additional money.

Just wondering if the challenger/bombardier folk do the same thing.

Cloudyifr

7th Jan 2014, 19:23

I am suggesting it is not quite as steep as led to believe and there is a bit more room to slow down. You still have the runway slope illusions.

glendalegoon

7th Jan 2014, 19:24

THERE seems to be two or three threads on this subject. Any chance of consolidation?

SEEMS to be a discussion on flaps. I've never been a fan of reduced flap landings except as directed in the manual for certain conditions like engine out landings. It does seem to me that the 737 allows for certain reduced flap landings at extremely high altitude (density altitude) airports, but I think its above 8000' (would have to pull the book out...not handy now).

I would have liked to have seen the video, but there doesn't seem to be a link.

Jet Jockey A4

7th Jan 2014, 19:32

Negative on more tailwind...

The aircraft is limited to a maximum of 10 kts tailwind as per the AFM.

aram

7th Jan 2014, 19:51

I would have liked to have seen the video, but there doesn't seem to be a link.probably meant this one Aspen Airport Instrument approach - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwPi2H8jPs8)

circling speed indicated to be 122kts - quite a difference to the challenger, as jet jockey (thanks!) has already cared to put down in detail

misd-agin

7th Jan 2014, 20:02

737NG's allow landing with F15, 30 or 40. Runway required is the deciding factor.

acroguy

7th Jan 2014, 20:10

I am suggesting it is not quite as steep as led to believe and there is a bit more room to slow down. You still have the runway slope illusions.

Unless I'm missing something obvious, it is only not as steep if you don't get to the MDA by the MAP. If you're too high at the MAP point to attempt a landing then what is the point of a shallower approach?

Jet Jockey A4

7th Jan 2014, 20:35

There is nowhere in the AFM or QRH that states or gives you information that would allow you to land other than a flap 45 configuration with a perfectly working aircraft or in other words in a "normal ops" situation.

The only time you would land with flaps 30, 20 or 0 would be with a flap failure.

Other emergencies or abnormal operations that would tell you to use flap 20 only for a landing would be; a one engine operation, controllability issues like thrust reverser unlock, an aileron, rudder or elevator jam, ground spoiler deployment and fuel imbalance to name a few.

Also if you get major tail plane icing while on approach, you could run out of nose trim when going from flaps 30 to 45. It is suggested you select flap 30 and add an additional 7 kts to your approach speed.

Basically under normal ops you have to use flap 45 for a landing.

Jet Jockey A4

7th Jan 2014, 20:41

Most airliner type aircrafts have multiple flap landing configuration charts, mainly to save fuel not so in the business jet aircraft world.

Not saying there are no business jet aircraft with multiple configuration flap landing charts but in general I think most business jets are certified with a full flap landing configuration.

con-pilot

7th Jan 2014, 22:37

Here is an intersting video of a missed approach at Aspen in a 125. I've seen this in real life more times than I like to remember. Listen to the comments, at the MAP the runway is in sight, right under them, but they (anyone) is too high to attempt a landing.

I lost count of the number if times I missed, just like they did on the video, be vectored for another appraoch and have the airport in sight at the Red Table VOR and shoot a visual approach. The weather can change quickly in Aspen and then again, it can get socked in for days.

Aspen Missed Approach.wmv - YouTube

Airbubba

8th Jan 2014, 01:34

Here is an intersting video of a missed approach at Aspen in a 125. I've seen this in real life more times than I like to remember. Listen to the comments, at the MAP the runway is in sight, right under them, but they (anyone) is too high to attempt a landing.

Years ago I flew with one of those bizjet outfits where everyone was a captain but the crew concept on this approach video strikes me as odd by modern standards.

It looks like the pilot flying is totally dependent on the pilot monitoring for altitudes and distances. Do they only have one approach plate? I realize that this is legacy round dial flying but I would at least want to cross check the cockpit GCA the PM is giving.

A Squared

8th Jan 2014, 02:42

I am suggesting it is not quite as steep as led to believe and there is a bit more room to slow down.

No, not really. If you cross the FAF at the minimum altitude and cross the threshold at the 55" TCH, that's a descent angle of 6.27 degrees. Technically, yes, it is *slightly* less steep than the published descent angle of 6.59, but not by enough to make much of a difference. It's only a third of a degree less steep. 6.27 degrees is still very steep by any means.

Capn Bloggs

8th Jan 2014, 04:06

That video, and the profile flown by the G3 in 2001, demonstrates all that is wrong with Dive and Drive. No pre-planned profile, bouncing off steps (or going through them) ... a recipe for disaster.

lifeafteraviation

8th Jan 2014, 04:15

It wasn't unusual for chartered business jets to have only one set of approach plates to share with both pilots.

It wasn't just about being cheap and not paying for an extra set. A set of Jepps for the entire USA takes up about seven or eight fully packed volumes. Add to that your nearby countries...Canada, Latin America, Caribbean and regs. Now you're looking at a pretty huge collection of charts to carry around all day in a small jet with limited space. Then think about all the updates!

Most companies now use EFBs anyway and are required to have two.

ETOPS240

8th Jan 2014, 07:35

Wow, that seems like a well-standardized operation!:}

thcrozier

8th Jan 2014, 07:57

atan((11700-7680+55)/(5.7*6076))=6.71 degrees.

atan((11700-7680+55)/((3.15+2.65)*6080))=6.59 degrees.

The published 6.59 degrees probably eliminates cumulative rounding errors.

So, with the 3.5 degree VGSI also at a TCH of 55 feet, it seems to me you'd be seeing a lot of white lights all the way from DOYPE to the threshold unless you push over into a far steeper descent angle somewhere in between.

Using the same logic, in order to intercept the VGSI 55 feet over the threshold, you would need descent angles of 7.59, 8.23, and 8.94 from the MAP (CEYAG) for Categories A, B, and C, respectively.

In fact, assuming the TDZ is 1000 feet down the runway and TDZE is 20 feet higher than the threshold, from CEYAG it's a 7.26 degree descent angle to the TDZ for Category A.

atan((9840-(7680+20))/((2.6*6076)+1000))=7.26 degrees.

Speculation Alert: Perhaps they maintained MDA all the all the way to CEYAG and then attempted VGSI intercept before reaching the threshold, resulting in excessive speed and a very steep descent angle.

physicus

8th Jan 2014, 23:42

it's pretty standard to be "too high at the MAP" in a non precision approach… the MAP is not the end of the approach, it's the commencement of the missed approach! Big difference...

acroguy

9th Jan 2014, 00:07

I doubt that there is anybody reading this who hasn't seen the runway at the MAP on a non-precision approach but been too high to land. That was the point of a previous poster in this thread. 6.59 degrees from the FAF to the MAP in a jet at +25 tailwind is a problem. Turboprop, doable. Piston doable.

Capn Bloggs

9th Jan 2014, 00:14

Speculation Alert: Perhaps they maintained MDA all the all the way to CEYAG and then attempted VGSI intercept before reaching the threshold, resulting in excessive speed and a very steep descent angle.
This is a circling approach. If you get Visual far enough out to duck down to the PAPI, well and good, but as physicus points out, considering the angles from the MAPt to the threshold is purely academic and a bit meaningless.

acroguy

9th Jan 2014, 00:29

But the Challenger is Category D, so there are no circling minimums.

thcrozier

9th Jan 2014, 02:11

This is a circling approach. If you get Visual far enough out to duck down to the PAPI, well and good, but as physicus points out, considering the angles from the MAPt to the threshold is purely academic and a bit meaningless.Is it academic and meaningless if it convinces the pilot not to try the maneuver?

From the Approach Plate: Paraphrased - "From DOYPE 6.59 degree descent angle to TCH 55". Exact quote - "VGSI and descent angles not coincident (VGSI Angle 3.50/TCH 55)."

Certainly that information is not intended to be ignored as "purely academic and a bit meaningless."

I no longer fly myself around; but I hope that the pilots in whose hands I place my life, seeing information such as cited above, fully analyze its implications before flying an approach. I always did.

Capn Bloggs

9th Jan 2014, 09:22

From the Approach Plate: Paraphrased - "From DOYPE 6.59 degree descent angle to TCH 55". Exact quote - "VGSI and descent angles not coincident (VGSI Angle 3.50/TCH 55)."

Certainly that information is not intended to be ignored as "purely academic and a bit meaningless."
I agree, but you were talking about angles from the Mapt (CEYAG) to the threshold. That is purely academic. If a pilot needs to get out his calculator to work out the approach angle for 2400ft AGL at 2.6nm from the threshold I strongly suggest you keep away from him.

But the Challenger is Category D, so there are no circling minimums.
So I assume all those nice shiny Cat D speed machines shown parked on Goooogle Earth landed there with VMC below the MSA... :D :ok:

thcrozier

9th Jan 2014, 10:10

As I said, I threw out a speculation, a hypothesis, a possible explanation for what witnesses described. The investigation will show whether there is any truth to it.

I guess I don't understand the point of your comments. What are you trying to accomplish with them?

msjh

9th Jan 2014, 10:29

Well, I've just watched Space Cowboys for the 3rd time and I reckon Clint Eastwood could grease it in. :E

Capn Bloggs

9th Jan 2014, 11:49

Interesting track - seems like a circle to land, followed by a missed, followed by a short approach for the 2nd shot???

Maybe, or one approach broken off early, one missed, and then one close in pattern to touchdown??
I plotted the Flightaware times on the map and as far as I can tell they did a big lazy orbit at high altitude over the area, then did one proper straight-in approach, missed approach at the charted Mapt then did another proper instrument approach. All looks "proper" from what I can see from Flightaware (notwithstanding the cloud and Cat D operation...). No pirouettes or low-level wiffodils...

hawk37

9th Jan 2014, 11:51

MFS,

Very interesting. Is there any relief for training situations? I know of a large outfit that for years practiced even flapless landings in the 600 and 601. (Maybe they were only touch and go's for flapless). So would factory pilots be unable to allow in aircraft training for a landing with less that full flap?

I realize most training is accomplished in the sim now, but for years that was not the case.

Can anyone remember Canadair (bombardier) training pilots allowing less than full flap landings?

lifeafteraviation

9th Jan 2014, 12:32

Very interesting. Is there any relief for training situations? I know of a large outfit that for years practiced even flapless landings in the 600 and 601. (Maybe they were only touch and go's for flapless). So would factory pilots be unable to allow in aircraft training for a landing with less that full flap?

I realize most training is accomplished in the sim now, but for years that was not the case.

Can anyone remember Canadair (bombardier) training pilots allowing less than full flap landings?

No, of course you can't fly outside the AFM limitations during training or for any reason other than a test pilot doing certification flights or to handle an emergency.

If you figure out some way to creatively second guess the manufacturer and invent your own techniques that are outside the recommended operating procedures but not directly exceeding any published limitations you will likely still be faulted for an accident if you have one. It won't matter that half the other operators are doing this. If your training center is teaching such practices they may be faulted as well.

Just because people may have done something in the past doesn't mean it's legal or safe, even if it was considered normal behavior at one time.

Lawyers love this kind of crap because it makes them rich...so don't do it.

acroguy

9th Jan 2014, 13:22

Quote:
But the Challenger is Category D, so there are no circling minimums.

So I assume all those nice shiny Cat D speed machines shown parked on Goooogle Earth landed there with VMC below the MSA...

I assume that they shot the LOC DME approach without a 25+ knot tailwind and landed straight in.

aterpster

9th Jan 2014, 13:36

acroguy:

I assume that they shot the LOC DME approach without a 25+ knot tailwind and landed straight in.

That approach doesn't have straight-in minimums for any approach category nor does it have circling minimums for approach category D. So an approach category D airplane cannot legally even begin that approach.

A Squared

9th Jan 2014, 14:02

No, of course you can't fly outside the AFM limitations during training or for any reason other than a test pilot doing certification flights or to handle an emergency.

What about a type rating checkride in the airplane? IIRC a no flap landing is a required element of a type rating ride. Seems like there's a few other things which would be required in a check ride which may not be approved for normal, non-emergency operations, like OEI maneuvers.

I agree that it appears the AFM would expressly forbid partial flap landings on a normal flight, but there's a lot of non-normal stuff that goes on on a checkride, often with the FAA on board.

Desert185

9th Jan 2014, 14:44

Is there an abnormal procedure in the Challenger book for doing a no flap landing, or will they always come down? Hard to believe there isn't an additive schedule for at least partial flaps.

Mad (Flt) Scientist

9th Jan 2014, 15:08

There is of course an abnormal procedure, the issue is that it for a failure case, not for a "selected" partial flap landing. For some training scenarios there is wording in the AFM to allow for deviation from the "normal operating" AFM limitations and procedures, but I don't know from memory if partial flaps is one such case. Often such things are in a "supplementary procedures" section with explicit permission stated to do the specific task.

edit: the only specific references to training appear to be related to the speed limits, where flight above VMO/MMO or below min speed is allowable under specific training conditions, and a change to the ADG speed limit for testing deployment cases. I don't see anything to allow for intentional reduced flap landings, for training or any other purpose.

flyboyike

9th Jan 2014, 16:42

glendalegoon

9th Jan 2014, 19:10

ATERPSTER makes a fine point. APCH N/A cat D.

But I really don't know what the Challenger is classed at. I realize it doesn't have slats/leds.

BUT I am sure that the actual AFM will declare this plane to be class "?".

Anyone have the book?

I remember a crash at Grand Juction in a Challenger. Famous NBC sports guy and family. Cause was something like ice on the wings during takeoff.

DOES that ring a bell?

VFD

9th Jan 2014, 19:46

DOES that ring a bell?
You are close.
I believe you are referring to NBC exec Dick Ebersol and family.
However, it was at Montrose, CO KMJT

lifeafteraviation

9th Jan 2014, 20:45

All this discussion is still academic concerning this accident. If (and it's a pretty likely if) the captain was found to have knowingly and deliberately exceeded the aircraft's published limitations (and by a significant margin) to land there he is guilty of reckless operation. Since he killed someone as a result and endangered the lives of others he is criminally liable. Whether he will be charged is another issue but I'm betting he will. The international aspect will add a wrinkle.

The authorities will not jump quickly on this issue because of the time it takes to complete an investigation and because of the serious implications involved in charging a pilot with a crime, especially a foreign pilot. There are still many factors that have to be explored such as the possibility of an undeclared emergency and an inability to recall details which is about the only thing I can think of that could save this guy.

Capn Bloggs

9th Jan 2014, 22:53

Self-Reported ceiling of 1043ft, 1400-odd ft below the MDA?

B3i_MqqYSjg

physicus

9th Jan 2014, 23:10

I can't hear the audio very clearly, but I don't hear anyone state "runway in sight, continue", or whatever the equivalent statement is in your ops, yet the descent is not arrested at MDA… evidence for a self built pseudo GS being flown?

aterpster

9th Jan 2014, 23:10

glendalegoon:

I remember a crash at Grand Juction in a Challenger. Famous NBC sports guy and family. Cause was something like ice on the wings during takeoff.

Montrose, Colorado. They probably would have been okay had they taxied to the long runway. Accidents like that one are pathetic and inexcusable.

acroguy

9th Jan 2014, 23:53

Self-Reported ceiling of 1043ft, 1400-odd ft below the MDA?

Doesn't look like a circling approach...:rolleyes:

thcrozier

9th Jan 2014, 23:54

Anyone willing to help me understand exactly what "Circle to Land" means these days?

http://www.ce560xl.com/files/Charting_Notice_Circle_to_Land.pdf

JRBarrett

10th Jan 2014, 00:24

Never flown the Challenger itself, but have flown three of its derivatives (CRJ-200/700/900). For all three of them, partial or no-flap landings were practiced in the simulator regularly. Just as well, because the -100/200, for example, had a habit of experiencing flap failures, while on the -900 I had one case of a slat failure. Furthermore, for all of those aircraft single-engine landings are made with Flaps 20, which is also the case for landings with a pitch trim failure.

Over the past 5 years we've had 3 separate instances of commuter CRJ-200s having to make no-flap landings at my local upstate New York airport. All had non-eventful outcomes, though emergencies were declared in each case, with fire and rescue equipment standing by.

All three flights originated in Detroit, and all the flap failures occurred in winter. Apparently the 200 model had issues with flap position microswitches freezing up due to water/slush ingress into the flap bays - usually on the preceding takeoff, leading to a flap system failure when the crew tried to deploy them during the approach.

The carrier has since retired all of their 200s in favor of CRJ-700s which don't seem to have that particular problem.

Murexway

10th Jan 2014, 00:53

I realize most training is accomplished in the sim now, but for years that was not the case. Can anyone remember Canadair (bombardier) training pilots allowing less than full flap landings?
As far as I know, all factory Challenger training was primarily in the sim right from the beginning. I was one of the first U.S. pilots typed in the CL 600, since my company put the first one into U.S. service. We trained in the sim at YUL.

That said, I really can't remember whether there was more than one landing flap setting in the book. It seems like we used less than full flaps in gusty crosswind landings, but we were very standardized, so if we did them as a matter of course it would have been in the book.

freespeed2

10th Jan 2014, 01:00

But the Challenger is Category D, so there are no circling minimums.

So I assume all those nice shiny Cat D speed machines shown parked on Goooogle Earth landed there with VMC below the MSA...

Years ago Gulfstream brought out an ASC (Aircraft Service Change) for the GIV that allowed the crew to change the aircraft category from D to C. It consisted of a credit card-sized piece of cardboard slotted into the co-pilots instrument panel. One side listed the reduced weight limitations to achieve Cat C performance, the other side; Cat D limits. You simply rotated the card in the slot to change category. The catch was that it had to be declared and recorded prior to take off. Couldn't be done in-flight. It allowed the GIV to get into airports (including KASE) that did not have Cat D minima by operating to Cat C limits with the associated payload/fuel and speed restrictions.

I'm guessing they did the same for the G450/GV/G550. It would explain some of the heavier metal on the ramp as KASE.

For the Challenger drivers; Does the 601/604 have a similar option?

acroguy

10th Jan 2014, 01:11

Anyone willing to help me understand exactly what "Circle to Land" means these days?

http://www.ce560xl.com/files/Chartin...le_to_Land.pdf

I would like to be enlightened too. :-)

I had always thought that a straight in approach was permissible if the runway was in sight and a normal landing was assured, even if no straight in minimums were published.

aterpster says no, and I would think he would know.

thcrozier

10th Jan 2014, 01:56

I guess this means a Category D is prohibited from using the LOC/DME-E, period. Correct?

Or was it allowable for a Category D to fly the approach to DOYPE (7.1 DME at 11,700) and proceed if they saw the runway?

Aircraft Approach Categories:

An aircraft's approach category is based on 1.30 VSO or VREF, as defined by the certification rules applicable at the time that the type certificate was issued, computed at the aircraft's maximum certificated landing weight. Transport airplanes type-certificated after December 2002 define final approach speed using the term VREF, which was newly added to the definitions contained in 14 CFR part 1. Prior to December 2002, final approach speed for transport airplanes was defined as 1.30 VSO.

Whether final approach speed is defined as 1.30 VSO or VREF, the aircraft's approach category is always based on maximum certified landing weight. It is never permissible to use a lower approach category based on the aircraft's actual landing weight. Non-standard landing configuration or abnormal procedure speed additives may result in the need to use minima associated with a higher approach category. If these lines of minima are not published, then circling approaches are prohibited.

http://www.ce560xl.com/files/Charting_Notice_Circle_to_Land.pdf

Aterpster says "That approach doesn't have straight-in minimums for any approach category nor does it have circling minimums for approach category D. So an approach Category D airplane cannot legally even begin that approach" and I believe him. Nor does any other instrument approach for KASE have minimums for Category D, so doesn't that mean that Category D aircraft are prohibited from all but visual approaches to this airport?

Airbubba

10th Jan 2014, 02:27

And, some aircraft (e.g. the B-757), are in one category for straight in approaches, and a higher one for circling.

Looks to me like the Challenger 601 is Cat C for straight in with an approach speed of 125 knots, is this right? Is it indeed Cat D for circling? :confused:

galaxy flyer

10th Jan 2014, 02:43

Crozier,

Not too sure of your question from the link posted.

The training issue is off the track. A TRTO will have authorization to perform maneuvers required for training by the regulator, in the absence of a training device. That authorization is completely unrelated from what an operational crew is authorized to do, as per the AFM. The relevant regulator will impose conditions on the TRTO as to how perform, in this case, partial flap landings for training and evaluation.

It's Cat C for straight-in approaches, Cat D for circling. This oddity has to do with the final approach speed for flaps 45 on straight-in and circling speeds with flaps 30 for circling. Yes, a bit unusual that it falls out this way.

The fact that that most KASE landings are flown "straight in" visually is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that the final approach descent gradient exceeds 400 ft/nm means it is a "circling" approach, not how the plane is aligned with the runway. Some TERPS/PANS-OPS study is in order, perhaps.

thcrozier

10th Jan 2014, 02:51

From what I see, every approach to KASE except the ROARING FORK VISUAL is Circling and none allow Category D. If that's the case, wouldn't the airport be off-limits to any Category D in IMC?

galaxy flyer

10th Jan 2014, 02:52

That's correct.

West Coast

10th Jan 2014, 02:57

There is a special approach, the LOC DME 15 that's not a circling approach. It however doesn't have cat D mins either.

thcrozier

10th Jan 2014, 02:57

Galaxy,

I'm just interested to know if any Category D aircraft can reasonably expect to execute a legal approach to KASE under IMC. It seems that the answer is no.

Thank you and with all due respect, Sir.

galaxy flyer

10th Jan 2014, 03:25

If its a special approach, it's not authorized. A lot of operators have "special", as opposed to "standard" IAP procedures authorized. I looked thru the database today and didn't see a standard IAP with either "straight in" mins or Cat D mins.

So, no, using SIAPs, a Cat D plane cannot fly the approaches, Visual arrivals only.

lifeafteraviation

10th Jan 2014, 08:37

I had always thought that a straight in approach was permissible if the runway was in sight and a normal landing was assured, even if no straight in minimums were published.

aterpster says no, and I would think he would know.

Listen to what galaxy flyer wrote above....it is accurate.

I think he explained it a lot clearer than I could.

I also agree the training issue was off track. If it's not in the AFM, you can't do it in the airplane except under the conditions I mentioned earlier (emergency and manufacturer certification). Special authorizations issued to operators is another exception he mentioned I didn't think about because I've never seen one. Who trains in the airplane these days anyway?

Practicing zero flap landings in the sim and on your check ride is required, that's why we do it (not sure about Pt 91 only checks but I'm guessing that too). If you do it without declaring an emergency you are probably going to get into big trouble if you bend the airplane. Like most things, if you get away with it, it just means you're lucky.

Another thing to mention....a visual approach is an instrument procedure, not VFR. Most jets that land in ASE use the visual approaches unless, as galaxy flyer mentioned, they have a special authorization which most smaller or individual operators do not. Airlines and larger operators have such special authorizations placing them in an operational advantage but the crews typically have to complete initial and recurrent training specific to the approach so there's a significant cost involved.

Some jets can circle category C...I can't list any specifics right now...been a while for me. Someone mentioned Gulfstreams with a supplemental certification...I haven't heard that but it makes sense to me.

Telluride (TEX) is a better example because it's restricted to category A and B circling only and basically those approaches are off limits to jets. Jets go in there all the time and they fly the procedure. The way they do it is they are cleared for the visual approach from the minimum altitude and then follow the procedure because it provides some guidance but they can't meet the restrictions so it must be visual. If a jet is cleared for the procedure they are probably in violation even in VMC.

Clearly from this thread there is a lot of confusion about all this and just because you see other people doing it or have done it in the past doesn't mean it's legal or safe.

If you want to really confuse people lets start talking about takeoff minimums and runway analysis. There's an area where a large number of pilots routinely violate the rules and have no idea. It makes landing criteria seem easy.

galaxy flyer

10th Jan 2014, 13:00

Can't speak for Gulfstreams, but Challenger 300s and Globals are Cat C for all approaches, straightin and circling. They both circle with landing flaps set.

The Honeywell FMS DB for the GLEX (Classic and XRS) did have several special RNP approaches available for selection. However, they required FAA authorization and I understand they should not have been included in the data set. In any case, flown visually, they had a normal vertical path, in the area of 3 degrees and wound quite nicely around the plateau on the approach. The valley rises such that, visual maneuvering can be flown with a reasonable descent rate.

aterpster

10th Jan 2014, 13:16

I had always thought that a straight in approach was permissible if the runway was in sight and a normal landing was assured, even if no straight in minimums were published.

aterpster says no, and I would think he would know.

I don't know who is quoting me, but I did not say that.

At a U.S. airport with an operating control tower you are expected to land straight-in on an approach reasonably aligned with the runway, even if that approach does NOT have straight-in minimums.

Aspen and Santa Monica (KSMO) are but two examples of many.

West Coast

10th Jan 2014, 18:10

I remember sitting on the ramp in ASE loading up for departure. Had taxied in on tower frequency, so it was up on speaker. The field was below VFR but there was a GA SE piston doing touch and goes on 33. I can only imagine the pilot was intimately familiar with the terrain. That and the world needs organ doners, not that they find much intact.

thcrozier

11th Jan 2014, 02:23

This thread has taught me or caused me to learn so many things I didn't know that I'm amazed I survived all the years I acted as my own pilot.

On the other hand, at least I knew when to stop. :O

Special thanks to Galaxy Flyer, aterpster, West Coast, lifeafteraviation, and acroguy.

clippermaro

11th Jan 2014, 04:39

All the comments seem quite fair, but there seems to be an underlying latent cause that no one has really put the finger on. Let's face it, if this happened, it could happen again, this is the main reason why we investigate accidents and occurrences. It's not only because the crew were incompetent, you can name pretty much everything, lack of training, unfamiliar airport, weather, etc and you'll find it in this sad accident, but what do we do next?

Most of these IAP's were designed in an era were there was light traffic, but cannot cope with the high volumes of traffic and is not using all the available technology.

I think the answer here is moving towards RNP APCH (AR), just like Juneau in Alaska, Kathmandu in Nepal, Queenstown in NZ and all these weird places where the construction and use of an airport is not ideal due to the terrain considerations, yet its use is more and more popular.

IMHO, I think this is a wake-up call to move in a direction away from old procedure design and "dive and drive" kinda flying towards the aviation as we like it on the 21st Century.

PLovett

11th Jan 2014, 05:18

I think the answer here is moving towards RNP APCH (AR), just like Juneau in Alaska, Kathmandu in Nepal, Queenstown in NZ and all these weird places where the construction and use of an airport is not ideal due to the terrain considerations, yet its use is more and more popular.

Correct me if I'm wrong but RNP APCH is just another phrase for GNSS or RNAV APCH, but it can be to a higher tolerance. That said, I don't disagree with you, however, it is going to be rare that a general aviation aircraft goes through the hoops and hurdles (and cost) to get a RNP approved to a higher tolerance than the usual GNSS or RNAV.

There is on YouTube a video from the cockpit of a CRJ doing an approach to KASE in foul weather and right on dusk or last light. The poster explained that they were doing an approved approach that has lower minimums than the usual published approaches. I suspect that it was a RNP APCH but it is not stated.

Landing in a snowstorm at Aspen - YouTube

West Coast

11th Jan 2014, 06:59

That's my airline, its the LOC DME 15. We aren't authorized RNP approaches.

As far as the poster advocating RNP as a method of increasing an airports level of operations, I don't think the argument works in ASE. Another runway would help, not that there's room or the political will for that. The opposite direction traffic is the limiting factor during busy days as arrivals and departures all come from/depart to the north.

Capn Bloggs

11th Jan 2014, 08:19

That's my airline, its the LOC DME 15.
What sort of vertical profile/guidance do you guys use inside of DOYPE? I'm curious about the procedures that permit you to go so low below the MDA descending steeply to pick up the PAPI/normal slope.

aterpster

11th Jan 2014, 13:28

West Coast:

As far as the poster advocating RNP as a method of increasing an airports level of operations, I don't think the argument works in ASE. Another runway would help, not that there's room or the political will for that. The opposite direction traffic is the limiting factor during busy days as arrivals and departures all come from/depart to the north.

Don't know who that was.

What an RNP AR approach would do for the qualified operator:

1. Provide vertical guidance not only to DA but to the threshold.

2.Provide a 3.4 to 3.5 degree vertical path.

3. Provide lower minimums with the application of a 425 foot per mile missed approach climb gradient.

lifeafteraviation

11th Jan 2014, 13:45

It would seem if there is no revision in facilities or IAP/Visual procedures at this airfield following this accident(and the sooner the better) another accident is liable to follow

How about we have rules that don't allow you fly recklessly outside of AFM limitations and don't land with a 20-30K tailwind!!! Oh Wait!

Professional pilots have been flying safely into and out of this airport for many years. The worst case scenario is the weather isn't right so you go somewhere else and someone's ski vacation is delayed for a couple hours.

Isn't there a special sim syllabus for CatC aerodromes like these to legislate crew with no previous experience to check out prior to operations?

Oh sure....let's have more regulation because some of us are too stupid to make judgement calls without it.

Some kind of glideslope guidance to higher than precision minimums and for circling implementing curved approach guidance flashing lights such as those that were at HKG Kaitak, might be considered

Are you going to pay for all that? Seriously....let's just shut the place down altogether....make people drive.

If it is known to be a dangerous airport why doesn't FAA and ICAO do something to minimize the risks?

Yes please! Come and save us pilots from our own ineptness.

I'm sorry for the harshness here but this is really p!$$ing me off! Think about what you're saying. The captain of this Challenger...unless by some crazy turn of events turned out to be responding to an emergency condition or the ATC recordings and weather reports we've all heard are completely wrong...was operating in a deliberate and reckless manner and is not an example of a typical professional business jet pilot.

Stop trying to make sense of this for anything other than what it was.

West Coast

11th Jan 2014, 14:43

Bloggs

That fix isn't on the special approach, so I can't comment.

ATERPSTER

All of that is good and well and would have positive implications for operators but wouldn't increase the efficiency of the airport given the opposite direction traffic scenarios. We achieve lower mins via the existence of an FAA blessed balked landing procedure. It's proprietary, so I can't post it.

OK465

I had heard of an approach like this, but the mins were too low given our needs to fly a missed instead of a balked landing procedure.

aterpster

11th Jan 2014, 15:28

West Coast:

All of that is good and well and would have positive implications for operators but wouldn't increase the efficiency of the airport given the opposite direction traffic scenarios. We achieve lower mins via the existence of an FAA blessed balked landing procedure. It's proprietary, so I can't post it.

Alas, not many biz jets can qualify for RNP AR. Those that can often are unwilling to go through all the expense and hassles imposed by the FAA.

As to your balk landing procedure I have a fairly good idea, having seen Air Wisconsin's of yesteryear.

His dudeness

11th Jan 2014, 16:17

I'm sorry for the harshness here but this is really p!$$ing me off! Think about what you're saying. The captain of this Challenger...unless by some crazy turn of events turned out to be responding to an emergency condition or the ATC recordings and weather reports we've all heard are completely wrong...was operating in a deliberate and reckless manner and is not an example of a typical professional business jet pilot.

Thanks for this sane posting. Way too many people think that "regulating" will make things better. The result is a monster and one can look at it and how it strifes to destroy anything but airline ops in Cologne, Germany.

Its called EASA and reinvents the wheel the 15th time in a non round shape and just wonders why the Goodyears works so well on the FAAs wheels...

fantom

11th Jan 2014, 16:39

It would appear several of this type have appeared on its side or upside-down.

Is there a problem with the gear geometry?

Airbubba

11th Jan 2014, 16:56

It would appear several of this type have appeared on its side or upside-down.

Is there a problem with the gear geometry?

I'm told that the MD-11 is affectionately known as the 'Turtle' at some operators because it rolls on its back and heads for the water in a mishap. It has been speculated that the wing comes off before the gear shears in many cases, perhaps the CL-600 series is similar.

galaxy flyer

11th Jan 2014, 17:02

fantom,

The 600-series that ended upside down were the result of IGE stalls that were the result of failure to de-ice prior to take-off and failure to properly use anti-ice equipment.

OD100

12th Jan 2014, 16:49

"...There is nowhere in the AFM or QRH that states or gives you information that would allow you to land other than a flap 45 configuration with a perfectly working aircraft or in other words in a "normal ops" situation.

The only time you would land with flaps 30, 20 or 0 would be with a flap failure...."

That's not true for the 605. It's in the Operating Manual....

If in icing conditions with flaps extended, if buffeting can be alleviated by reducing the flap setting, the pilot CAN at his DISCRETION, land at this reduced flap setting.

Refer to the Abnormal procedures - Flap Failure, for distance and speed corrections...

Jet Jockey A4

12th Jan 2014, 17:03

You did not read my post properly!

I do state the option of a landing with a reduced flap setting for icing conditions...

I indeed had to use this procedure going into KAPA one day several years ago.

And I quote from my own post (101)...

Also if you get major tail plane icing while on approach, you could run out of nose trim when going from flaps 30 to 45. It is suggested you select flap 30 and add an additional 7 kts to your approach speed."

westhawk

18th Jan 2014, 00:04

NTSB preliminary report:

NTSB Identification: CEN14FA099
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, January 05, 2014 in Aspen, CO
Aircraft: CANADAIR LTD CL 600 2B16, registration: N115WF
Injuries: 1 Fatal,2 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On January 5, 2014, at 1222 mountain standard time, a Bombardier CL-600-2B16, N115WF, impacted the runway while attempting to land on Runway 15 at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport/Sardy Field (KASE), Aspen, Colorado. There were two crewmembers and a passenger onboard. One crewmember was fatally injured; the other crewmember and passenger received serious injuries. The airplane was destroyed. The airplane was registered to the Bank of Utah Trustee and operated by Vineland Corporation Company, Panama, South America under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan. The flight originated from Tucson International Airport (KTUS), Tucson, Arizona, at 1004.

According to preliminary information from the Federal Aviation Administration, the flight was in radio contact with ASE air traffic control (ATC). At 1210, N115WF utilized the localizer DME-E approach into KASE. ASE ATC reported winds as 290º at 19 knots, with winds gusting to 25 knots to the crew before landing. The crew executed a missed approach, and then requested to be vectored for a second attempt. On the second landing attempt N115WF briefly touched down on the runway, then bounced into the air and descended rapidly impacting with the ground at midfield. No further communications were received by ASE ATC from the accident airplane.

At 1220, the KASE automated surface observation system (ASOS) reported the following weather conditions: wind from 320° true at 14 knots gusting to 25 knots, wind variable from 280° to 360, visibility 10 miles in haze, scattered clouds at 4,700 feet above ground level, ceiling broken at 6,000 feet, temperature -12° Celsius (C), dew point temperature -21° C, altimeter 30.07 inches of mercury. The remarks indicated a peak wind from 320° at 26 knots occurred at 1204.

The KASE ASOS one-minute data at the time of the accident reported the wind at 333º true at 14 knots gusting to 17 knots.

The cockpit voice recorder, flight data recorder, and Enhanced Ground Proximity System were recovered.Index for Jan2014 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/AccList.aspx?month=1&year=2014) | Index of months (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/Month.aspx)

Bouncing back into the air at midfield seems an awful lot like a few long landings I've witnessed where the airplane was forced onto the runway at excessive speed and landed on the nose wheels first. I saw a Challenger do that once before, but it went around before the nose wheels contacted the runway again. Even at normal touchdown speed it doesn't usually appear that the nose wheels are very far off the runway surface when the mains touch down. Probably not allot of margin for error it looks like to me. Someday when the FDR traces are available for viewing, it will be interesting to see what the indicated airspeed was during the sequence and compare it to the ref speed.

Can any Challenger drivers confirm whether Vref is higher for a given weight at 8,000 PA than it is at SL on the 601? It's not on the types I've flown but I seem to remember hearing something about that once...

BizJetJock

18th Jan 2014, 09:20

32,000lbs Vref SL = 128kias, 10,000 = 132kias.

So yes, different, but not dramatically.

BizJetJock

19th Jan 2014, 10:53

TAS @ 10,000 = 149 for 128kias vs 153 for 132.
So the difference due to the change in Vref is still only 4 knots, and even less significant than at sl!

deefer dog

19th Jan 2014, 11:45

Yes, but what would Vref be with an added allowance for gusts?

westhawk

19th Jan 2014, 20:45

Thanks for the info BizJetJock.

4 knots isn't much by itself, but is still extra airspeed. A few knots incorporated into the AFM derived Vref, a few more for gusts, a few for the home folks and pretty soon you're talking too much airspeed to to touch the mains down without touching the nose too. Add the effect of a pilot pushing the nose down and forcing the airplane onto the runway due to diminishing runway remaining and you have a scenario similar to what occurred in ASE. In hindsight a diversion to RIL or GJT and an hour ride with Mountain Limo don't look so inconvenient now...

Like I said, it will be interesting to see the FDR traces when or if they become publicly viewable.

Mad (Flt) Scientist

20th Jan 2014, 12:56

Yes, but what would Vref be with an added allowance for gusts?

The adders for Challenger 60x are half the xwind and ALL of the gusts. But never more than +20 total.

MikeNYC

22nd Jan 2014, 01:20

Surveillance video of the crash released:

Video from Aspen airport infrared cameras of Jan. 5, 2014 jet crash (https://vimeo.com/84713706)

OD100

22nd Jan 2014, 01:48

Camera 5 shows what appears to be a really hard push over after the bad bounce...a drastically hard pushover....

robbreid

22nd Jan 2014, 01:54

Crash was captured on CCTV and released today;

https://twitter.com/bizjet101/status/425822200285757440

West Coast

22nd Jan 2014, 02:36

Wow, that pushover was intense.

pattern_is_full

22nd Jan 2014, 03:05

Camera 4

The sobering - blowing snow on the ramp shows just how fierce the gusts/tailwinds were.

The piquant - the onlooker (left) who kicks out at a piece of equipment in anger/frustration/sickness over what he just saw happen.

Mother Nature was in a surly mood that day, and not to be trifled with....

VFD

22nd Jan 2014, 03:51

Machinbird

22nd Jan 2014, 04:37

Watching camera 5 it was hard to distinguish from the background but it looked like they made a couple of nose down push overs in succession dropping about 10ft at a time before they made the first contact with the runway.

Not sure I have ever seen that technique before.
It may not have been a technique. They may have been pushed down to the runway by turbulence. Aspen is a mountain strip after all.

But I have to admit, I think I can see the tail moving up and down in the attempted flare before the bounce and ugly pushover. Must have been ~ 20 degrees nose down.

Could they have broken something in the controls in the bounce immediately prior that would cause that? Otherwise it had to be a panic response to the high nose bounce attitude.

solent

22nd Jan 2014, 06:43

Reminds me of the Fedex MD11 crash in Narita......not good

mattpilot

22nd Jan 2014, 08:33

LiveLeak.com - Video Released Of Fatal Plane Crash In Aspen

stalled after the "touch 'n go" ?

Joe le Taxi

22nd Jan 2014, 08:53

The final snap nose over does look like a stall - but I'm not sure I'd call it a touch and go; There was at least one prior bounce, and even the first bounce seemed to create some sparks from the nose gear.

Very noticable the tailwind from the spindrift and the speed with which the smoke cloud drifts away.

glendalegoon

22nd Jan 2014, 09:11

I have seen the technique mentioned by vfd.

i call it fishing for the ground or pumping the yoke.

I do not encourage it for anything.

ONE OF THE GREAT visual miscues of mountain flying is the apparent location of the horizon (visual horizon)>

IT IS NOT at the top of the mountains, it is at the base of the mountains.

AS bad as it would have been to just level off to lose some speed and then go off the end, it would have been better than the result.

specialbrew

22nd Jan 2014, 11:19

Wonder why they didn't choose to circle for 33?..... considering they had already thrown away the first approach to 15

Jet Jockey A4

22nd Jan 2014, 12:32

WOW! That was a very hard hit.

For sure there are two instances of a push over. It will be interesting to see if these were totally pilot induced or the wx conditions (tailwind/windshear) had something to do with it.

Desert185

22nd Jan 2014, 15:03

You'd think the mitigating factor would be the wind report on the ATIS. Eagle, Rifle, Montrose, Grand Junction had to be better. Incredible.

galaxy flyer

22nd Jan 2014, 15:08

Rifle was much better, winds pretty much down the westerly runway. I looked as soon as the accident reporting was posted here.

West Coast

22nd Jan 2014, 16:47

Hard to tell given it's in IR, but I have a hard time thinking that push over was completely due to pilot input. Pusher perhaps. I've seen my share of bounced landings, but never one so abrupt.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

22nd Jan 2014, 16:53

Does the Challenger have a stick pusher? That pitch down after the bounce was very severe.

flyboyike

22nd Jan 2014, 16:54

Affirmative on the stickpusher.

thcrozier

22nd Jan 2014, 17:42

Seems to have generated a lot of heat at the bounce. Wonder if it's just the tires heating up or if something broke?

Also maybe a deep stall and no tail plane authority coming up off the bounce?

Right wing seems to be dropping fast in the final dive too.

awblain

22nd Jan 2014, 18:42

The wind is really shaking camera 5.

It looks like it's down (nose first?) for a second or two, then the nosewheel collapses, there are sparks, and it's yanked back up, into a huge bunt/stall.

Machinbird

22nd Jan 2014, 20:43

Affirmative on the stickpusher. Then this may be a case of death by stickpusher.
That feature should probably be attenuated or disabled below a certain radar altitude.

Last thing you need close to the ground is a big nose down input. It would be better to stall and settle in.

barit1

22nd Jan 2014, 21:32

Not sure if this could be related, but CG (elevator authority) has been an issue in the TEB TO overrun (http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2006/AAR0604.pdf) - see pp. 16-17

Old Boeing Driver

22nd Jan 2014, 21:36

All I can say is WOW...what a stick push.

I've never seen one from the outside, but to me, it looks like that may be what happened.

When they made the first touchdown and the sparks flew, maybe that slowed them down so much, that when they went airborne in the bounce, the system thought it was a deep stall.

And it may have been. The right wing looks to be dropping off.

Maybe some Challenger guys here can let us know how much force it would take to over ride the pusher.

Otherwise, I would assume the only other way to over ride it would be to push the A/P disconnect? Probably happened too fast for that.

thcrozier

22nd Jan 2014, 22:25

Doesn't really look like the tail is even flying - just being carried up and over by ... momentum? thrust?

I think the thrust is coming way up at the end of Camera 2 (although the apparently increasing heat signature may just be an illusion created by the changing view angle), and the pitch angle begins to diminish rapidly as he moves off-screen to the left.

tdracer

22nd Jan 2014, 23:46

Just speculation - but the first hit with the nose gear is so hard, I'm wondering if it structurally failed and pushed the gear back into the aircraft, damaging other systems.
It's happened before....

Mad (Flt) Scientist

22nd Jan 2014, 23:51

Last thing you need close to the ground is a big nose down input. It would be better to stall and settle in.

That statement is making a BIG assumption about the stall that you'd experience if there were no stick pusher. If all you did was "settle in" then you'd have "certifiable natural stall characteristics" and, er, likely not have a stick pusher anyway.

Mad (Flt) Scientist

22nd Jan 2014, 23:53

Not sure if this could be related, but CG (elevator authority) has been an issue in the TEB TO overrun (http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2006/AAR0604.pdf) - see pp. 16-17

I'd be quite surprised if it were the same kind of scenario - in addition to the difficulty is being loaded outside the envelope at that point in the flight, a far forward cg would have likely presented trim issues earlier in the approach after first selecting full flaps. That they got as far as they did seems to suggest not.

Also, the aircraft appears to pitch up quite smartly just before the final pitch down, which would suggest that something was powerful enough to pitch it up.

Mad (Flt) Scientist

23rd Jan 2014, 00:00

Maybe some Challenger guys here can let us know how much force it would take to over ride the pusher.

Otherwise, I would assume the only other way to over ride it would be to push the A/P disconnect? Probably happened too fast for that.

Force - a lot. Of the order of 75lbf. It's doable, but not without effort. Which is the point, since when it fires "for real" it needs to be able to do its job.

Challenger pusher doesn't work through the AP, so that wouldn't do anything. It can be disconnected, but bear in mind it IS the designed-in stall protection system; if it's firing, it's trying to tell you something.

if they did end up low, slow and stalling at whatever altitude they reached on that 'bounce', I fear there was little left for the crew to do but pray. Which, since two of them have survived to tell the tale, maybe someone was listening to?

thcrozier

23rd Jan 2014, 00:10

@Scientist:

Any idea how much downward pitch moment high thrust would produce in landing configuration assuming the airplane was in a stalled condition? Seems to me it would be some - since the engines appear to be above CG. Pardon me in advance for any mistakes in terminology.

nitpicker330

23rd Jan 2014, 01:50

Holy s*** Batman.:mad:

What the hell was going on there???????

Surely no normal half capable experienced Pilot would push forward that hard after such a big bounce????? Well I'd hope not anyway.......

Remember the FEDEX MD11 crash in Tokyo Narita a few years ago, the crew bounced there too and pushed forward.........

Old Boeing Driver

23rd Jan 2014, 01:52

I didn't mean to infer that the pusher worked through the A/P.

I don't know anything about Challengers, but the Gulfstream pusher could be disconnected at any time with a push of the A/P disconnect button.

It was one of the required checks.

In this landing, it doesn't look like they would have even had time to push the button, and from another poster, over riding the push manually would have been very difficult.

FIRESYSOK

23rd Jan 2014, 02:26

There is a scenario on the CRJ type whereby a bounce and subsequent movement of the thrust levers to idle can trigger the GLD (ground lift dump) whilst airborne. I think that is an unlikely issue, the largest being these guys didn't know what they were doing in the slightest.

Capn Bloggs

23rd Jan 2014, 02:46

Slowmo (camera 4 video removed):

Cpn5-VlHqTY

Machinbird

23rd Jan 2014, 03:47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinbird http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/531283-challenger-crash-kase-10.html#post8278572)
Last thing you need close to the ground is a big nose down input. It would be better to stall and settle in.

That statement is making a BIG assumption about the stall that you'd experience if there were no stick pusher. If all you did was "settle in" then you'd have "certifiable natural stall characteristics" and, er, likely not have a stick pusher anyway.
We are almost in agreement. Look at the assumptions I used and see if they are reasonable.
Assumption 1. The stick pusher is there to avoid a locked in stall condition.
Assumption 2. In a locked in stall, the aircraft would stay pitched up or even pitch up somewhat further relative to its flight path.
Assumption 3. Drag would rise, lift would decrease, and the aircraft would settle.
Assumption 4. Ground contact would stop the downward acceleration at a much lower velocity than would a lawn dart type earth entry thus increasing survivability. For this to be true, the stick pusher inhibition altitude would probably have to be on the order of 200 feet agl. It is still possible that a roll off could occur if controls are mishandled.

Do we really need the full 75 lbs of nose down force on the yoke in all flight conditions? Do we need a warning that the stick pusher is about to activate?:hmm:

thcrozier

23rd Jan 2014, 05:09

Still guessing that after the 'bounce' they ended up high in the air, but below stall speed and with increasing thrust. The thrust seems pretty clear thanks to the IR imagery - could be wrong - but the exhaust heat signature is well formed and stable or increasing.

How that could happen is a mystery - possibly a combination of ground effect, wind shear, and automatic configuration changes?

porterhouse

23rd Jan 2014, 07:53

Not sure where the mystery is. There is such a vast array of permutations of pilot's nervous actions that could account for the whole scenario. This is a repeat of similar accidents in small training Cessnas albeit energies, speeds and altitudes are higher.

Mad (Flt) Scientist

23rd Jan 2014, 11:11

We are almost in agreement. Look at the assumptions I used and see if they are reasonable.
Assumption 1. The stick pusher is there to avoid a locked in stall condition.
Assumption 2. In a locked in stall, the aircraft would stay pitched up or even pitch up somewhat further relative to its flight path.
Assumption 3. Drag would rise, lift would decrease, and the aircraft would settle.
Assumption 4. Ground contact would stop the downward acceleration at a much lower velocity than would a lawn dart type earth entry thus increasing survivability. For this to be true, the stick pusher inhibition altitude would probably have to be on the order of 200 feet agl. It is still possible that a roll off could occur if controls are mishandled.

Do we really need the full 75 lbs of nose down force on the yoke in all flight conditions? Do we need a warning that the stick pusher is about to activate?:hmm:

Assumption 1 isn't correct. On the Challenger, the stick pusher provides "stall identification" - it defines where the stall occurs, rather than a 'g' break or a pitch down due to aerodynamics or buffet or anything else. In the absence of a push, you won't get a locked-in/deep stall type scenario - you'll get a pretty violent roll-off as one wing inevitably stalls first, and abruptly. The ensuing roll-off is usually uncontrollable even with full roll input; ending up inverted is a good chance, unless something (like the ground) occurs to prevent it.

The various takeoff/icing accidents to befall the type illustrate what would happen without the pusher - a rapid roll and impact with the ground in a heavily banked state off to one side of the runway. (In those cases, the contaminated wings meant the pusher was unable to do its normal job in time)

Heathrow Harry

23rd Jan 2014, 11:33

what is horrific on the video cameras is just how far he slid inverted, on fire.......

Dash8100

23rd Jan 2014, 11:43

The post crash pictures shows the nose gear and elevators missing. Could the first bounce have been so severe that the nose gear came off, taking out one/both elevator(s)?

Isn't this dive what happens if your elevators ice up to the point where they lose lift? You nose over?

Jet Jockey A4

23rd Jan 2014, 12:23

About the stick pusher...

Yes you can deactivate the stick pusher... There are two toggle switches on either side of the cockpit at each pilot's stations, which can be moved out of their "normal" position to the "OFF" position to disable the pusher. Either one to the "OFF" position will disable the pusher.

Someone asked about the autopilot and stall system...

If the AP is being used, as soon as the stick shaker comes on the AP disconnects.

About the force a pilot would need to override the pusher...

I cannot remember the actual number but a pilot can override it by pulling back on the controls. In the simulator when practicing stalls if you are not paying attention and the pusher triggers depending on your recovery technic, you could have your hands full not to have multiple pusher activations.

About the centre of thrust...

Yes on the Challenger the C of T is high and combined with the huge fans with their high bypass ratio (6.2:1), when the thrust kicks in you will get a major nose down moment. This again is very noticeable during stall practices in the simulator. This is where if you are not paying attention as the thrust comes in you will have a tendency to over react to the nose down moment and pull back too hard or rapidly on the elevator control and go into a second or third pusher activation. It's like riding on a seesaw.

IMO, and this is without additional info on the accident, these guys were probably high and hot. With a very high TAS and GS due to tail wind and turbulence correction factors added in (plus add some windshear) the aircraft probably settled in the ground affect and started to float down the runway.

At one point someone probably pushed on the nose to get it on the runway. The first impact was hard enough to substantially damage the aircraft (in what matter is unknown at this time).

Perhaps they were at idle at the first impact and perhaps there was enough wheel spin to deploy the ground spoilers. In any case whether due to pilot input or from the momentum of the aircraft it got airborne again (perhaps 20 to 30 feet). Perhaps full thrust was selected as the aircraft got airborne after the initial impact, causing the ground spoilers to retract but then the aircraft pitches down (steep angle) caused perhaps by the C of T and a pilot that could not compensate for it (damaged aircraft, pilot incapacitation). If they then went back to idle and there was enough wheel spin the ground spoilers could have deployed yet again causing a loss of lift which in their situation would not have helped.

We all saw what happened at the second impact.

xcris

23rd Jan 2014, 13:36

Wow! Cam 4 - you can see on the tarmac the blizzard drifting the snow with high speed right in the landing direction...

ksjc

23rd Jan 2014, 14:39

The way the nose comes down so aggressively it looks like Stick Pusher activation drove the nose into the ground. Low airspeed with increased wing loading due to bounce could easily activate Stick Pusher. An override feature is available but one would have to be anticipating Stick Pusher and be waiting with their thumb on the button at this low altitude.

thcrozier

23rd Jan 2014, 16:50

Then among the automatic configuration changes at landing are 1) with thrust at idle, if the wheels begin to spin, the spoilers deploy; 2) if full thrust is subsequently applied, the spoilers will automatically retract, regardless of wheel spin, and; 3) if thrust is retarded again and the wheels are still spinning, the spoilers will deploy again regardless of actual contact with the ground.

In addition, stick pusher issues could come into play depending on airspeed and AoA. Correct so far?

Are there other automatic configuration changes in this phase of flight?

YRP

23rd Jan 2014, 17:01

Camera 5 seems to show a really abrupt pitch-down before the final touchdown (about 2:16 to 2:17 in the original video, not the slow motion one). It seems to go from slightly nose up to significantly nose down in less than a second. My guess would be 5 to 50 deg nose up to 20 to 30 nose down.

Can the flight controls explain that quick of a rotation, 30 to 45 pitch in around a second? Is there that much elevator authority at that low speed? Perhaps the pilots could have panicked and pushed down hard but would the plane have been able to react that fast?

Any chance the plane did in fact stall after the bounce and the stall caused the pitch down? The bounce might have caused an abrupt pitch up, stalling the wings too quick for the pusher to stop it.

(There was no roll as Mad Sci pointed out is expected in a stall but still)

thcrozier

23rd Jan 2014, 17:12

You can see the same thing at the end of Camera 2, as well as what appears to be the heat signature of high thrust which, as Jet Jockey points out, could cause a powerful downward pitch moment.

awblain

23rd Jan 2014, 17:34

YRP,
Don't forget that the video from camera 5 is substantially foreshortened. The angle of the climb after the bounce isn't that extreme. Look at camera 2 as the aircraft goes back up: from frame to frame as it leaves the shot, it appears to be at a much more natural angle. The same goes for the sharpness of the nose down before impact, which is caught on camera 3.

thcrozier,
Any exhaust leaving the engine, even at idle, will appear bright on an IR image. I don't think the visibility of the jet exhaust means anything more than that the engines are running.

On camera 1 there's still a clear hot wake from the engines as the aircraft floats into the first touch down, with no obvious change as the aircraft leaves the frame (I think still floating just off the ground - no tire heat signature). On camera 5, it's plausible that the engine glow rises after the first touch down as the "go around" starts, but it's not absolutely clear - the aircraft is approaching the camera, and naturally getting brighter anyway. I'd guess that's consistent with an intention to go around at the initial float, but for the likely damage/loss of the nose wheel in the first burst of heat underneath the aircraft (most visible on camera 2): that heating looks more dramatic than the tires heating on contact.

thcrozier

23rd Jan 2014, 17:51

awblain,

Since you are physically closer to JPL than I am, I'll take your word for it, unless of course you are in Pasadena, TX ;)

You are correct that my perception of increasing thrust could well be due to the changing view angle and increasing proximity in 2 and 5. It may also be confirmation bias; i.e. I'm trying to understand how it could get so tail high so quickly, and the leverage of high thrust well above CG, close to or below stall speed, might partially account for it - so I might just be seeing what I want to see.

glendalegoon

23rd Jan 2014, 18:45

So many are looking for airplane problems or uniqueness to account for this accident.

I think it boils down to this:

Plane was too fast (indicated airspeed)

Plane was too fast (ground speed because of above and tailwind, and high pressure altitude/higher TAS)

Plane hit nose wheel first. Best correction would have been a normal go around.

PILOTS attempted to salvage landing instead of going around and:

Either two pilots didn't work together and worked to make things worse

or, possibly there was a slightly forward CofG impacting elevator authority.

thcrozier

23rd Jan 2014, 18:59

So many are looking for airplane problems or uniqueness to account for this accident.

I guess I'm just a nerd. :8

glendalegoon

23rd Jan 2014, 19:37

thcrozier

no offense was meant sir. I've looked at so many crashes for so long. At one time someone could point to a failure in the structure or something really dramatic and come up with a reason for a crash.

BUT more and more its the boys in the front end that do something wrong.

Stick pushers usually have some sort of warning that they will push, eg a stick shaker. One plane I flew had a series of lights that would illuminate when a pusher was going to fire and you could disable (temporarily) the pusher by pushing one of the lights.

The challenger that crashed on takeoff way out of CG was not the plane's fault, it was the pilot's fault for being out of CG.

I had a math teacher in the 9th grade. A quote of his that has stayed with me for decades was/is: DON'T FALL FOR TRAPS.

Landing at a mountain airport with a major tailwind is a trap.

Landing a plane with swept wings and no leading edge device/s may be a trap.

awblain

23rd Jan 2014, 20:01

Glendalegoon, I think you're completely right.

As you say, no obvious airplane problems until landing very fast, on the nose wheel, and seeming to break things off around and about.

After making those sparks, there was a very sharp pull up (I don't think it would bounce off its nose, it would need to be hauled off it), leading to an initial climb - all shown on camera 2 - until presumably a stall or near stall before it appeared on camera 3, leading to a big push into the ground, whether initiated by man or machine, and perhaps helped along by the increasing thrust moment, and bad luck with gusts.

Perhaps streaking to a stop on the nose after the first impact might have ended better too - it certainly doesn't look like that would have smashed the starboard wing and caused that large prompt fire.

thcrozier, It was CA, although no longer.

The pitch did quickly tip down, perhaps by 10 degrees. From an instinctive push to avoid a stall? A stick pusher firing? A pitch-down moment from full power coming on? All work the right way. If you'd been standing between cameras 2 and 3, then I suspect that the pitch down would have been striking, but appear rather less dramatic than it does from camera 5.

thcrozier

23rd Jan 2014, 21:20

No offence taken, Glendalegoon. I agree that in all likelihood the cause of the accident will be placed primarily with the unfortunate crew. Nevertheless, the ballistic events subsequent to the first impact fascinate me.

From awblain:
Perhaps streaking to a stop on the nose after the first impact might have ended better too - it certainly doesn't look like that would have smashed the starboard wing and caused that large prompt fire.

If only we had the luxury of turning the clock back...

Personally, I don't think I would have even tried the second approach after missing the first one some minutes before; but we all like to think that about ourselves, don't we?

pigboat

24th Jan 2014, 00:41

Look familiar?

by4w6sapQ90

nitpicker330

24th Jan 2014, 01:33

Yes that's the crash I referred to earlier.

Seems similar in Piloting "technique"

lifeafteraviation

24th Jan 2014, 02:48

No has mentioned it but it's possible that after that first bounce the pilot was incapacitated by the impact or at least completely disoriented and what the plane did after that was entirely on it's own. The first touchdown was clearly hard enough to cause significant damage to the jet.

In other words, I suspect after the first hit the pilot was just along for the ride.

Machinbird

24th Jan 2014, 03:18

The post crash pictures shows the nose gear and elevators missing. Could the first bounce have been so severe that the nose gear came off, taking out one/both elevator(s)?
The nose gear strut is visible in its normal position after the bounce as the aircraft is in its final dive. You can see it silhouetted against darker background in the slow-mo version.

The rotation nose down is abrupt and it appears that the aircraft is still climbing for a while despite the significant nose down attitude!

Before the abrupt nose down pitch, the attitude is very stable nose up for a few seconds. I'm inclined to believe that this is the stick pusher at work.

Jet Jockey A4

24th Jan 2014, 04:06

"No has mentioned it but it's possible that after that first bounce the pilot was incapacitated by the impact..."

I do mention that possibility in my post (#210) on page 11.

thcrozier

24th Jan 2014, 04:51

The rotation nose down is abrupt and it appears that the aircraft is still climbing for a while despite the significant nose down attitude!

I was thinking the same thing looking at Camera 5, but it doesn't look as dramatic on Camera 2.

lifeafteraviation

24th Jan 2014, 06:08

@ Jet Jockey A4

I do mention that possibility in my post (#210) on page 11.

Yes you did....I see now

You seem to know this aircraft well. Is the pusher inhibited at low altitude (less than maybe 200' AGL or so) like it is in some other jets? Without researching I don't know if this is a certification thing or just a manufacturer option.

A lot of wild speculation here (as usual) but this is one thing that could be dismissed if it's set up like that.

NTSB investigators do sit around and brainstorm throwing crazy theories out there into the mix just like people in this thread. The difference is they do it in private and only one designated person is allowed to funnel information out to the public in a controlled manner. Shooting down a colleagues theory is part of the process to isolate the plausible from the implausible.

In this case I think the details of how they crashed are less important than the fact they were trying to land at all.

deefer dog

24th Jan 2014, 09:43

This was a botched second attempt at landing on an approach that should have never been commenced in a type that the crew were not familiar with, and on a day that precluded them to do it in accordance with the aircraft's limitations.

The stick push theory is nonsense. The aircraft was nowhere close to stalling and I'll bet the ranch that the report makes that clear. We'll see in time but of course you are free to speculate, just as I am.

The Ancient Geek

24th Jan 2014, 11:21

I agree. The landing should not have been attempted.
Getthereitis followed by panic reactions.

SalNichols

24th Jan 2014, 12:39

Looking at camera 5 a few dozen times, it never seems like he has any "real" pitch stability. You can see the glint off of the tops of the wings as the plane kind of steps down. If you look carefully, the last pitch down looked to my aged eyes to be his third bounce, with each pitch oscillation increasing in amplitude. Gusty tailwind wasn't his friend, maybe he just got behind it early on.

awblain

24th Jan 2014, 14:20

SalNicols,

Camera one shows the aircraft floating by - no warm tires.

Camera two shows it doing something deeply bad, with at least one bounce ending with a firm impact on the nose and sparks/hot bits going backwards underneath, before it climbs away out of shot. I think you're right this camera perhaps shows perhaps two bounces, but there's low contrast.

Camera three shows nothing but the impact after the (I think second, perhaps third) bounce.

Camera five shows it all, but from a long way away. I don't see any clear sign of the first bounce there.

The overall picture shown by camera 5 does indeed seem reminiscent of 30 seconds into this video, at higher speed in a different - perhaps less robust - aircraft. I don't think the cause of the events shown here are in doubt VERY HEAVY AND BUMPY EMERGENCY LANDING (L-410) - YouTube