Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc.
Reload this Page >

Phenom 100 crash in Maryland

Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc. The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here.

Phenom 100 crash in Maryland

Old 10th Dec 2014, 13:56
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: KLAX
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just curious as to if anyone knows the normal "over-the fence" target speed used by a Phenom, and also as to how "tight" a fit a 4200 ft runway would be for the stubby winged jet.

I would think that less than normal error margin is available with this airplane / runway combo.

Although more useful on a wet runway, is a Phenom normally equipped with thrust reversers?

Last edited by L-38; 10th Dec 2014 at 15:18.
L-38 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 14:11
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Phenoms have no reverse thrust.

VMC landing (icing) is listed as 97 KIAS, V
MC landing no icing: 86 KIAS. I assume these numbers are for max landing weight.
Feathered is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 15:24
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: KLAX
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the info, Feathered. . . . would a 4200 ft runway be somewhat a challenge for an average Phenom pilot?
Like a 601 Aerostar, the Phenom certainly has minimal wing area (although small) for its size.
L-38 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2014, 22:50
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago, IL (ORD) USA
Age: 77
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
L-38

Pilot technique and skill has a lot to do with operating safely out of "short" runways. I've never flown any of these VLJets, but with the light weight of the aircraft with the relatively slow approach speeds, I would think 4,200 ft of pavement would not be a problem in a Phenom 100.

Over the years I have occasionally operated corporate jets in and out of Hilton Head(KHXD)airport, which has 4.300 ft of runway. The ramp would be packed with high performance jets which most probably operated under a Corporate Flight Department Ops Manual requiring a minimum 5,000 ft runway. If most of your jet ops are out of 10-12,000 ft runways I wouldn't recommend attempting 4,300. Our home base airport was 5,000 ft.

My HXD limits were; day, vfr, dry runway.

MotCap
MotCap is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 11:38
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes on 8 Posts
KGAI Jet Ops

For what it's worth, KGAI is home to a Premier, an Astra SPX, and a Falcon 2000.
Vzlet is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 14:15
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FWIW:


My take on what happened:


Jet comes in,pilot sees C172 and slows down based on visual maneuvering behind slower cessna. Commits cardinal sin and is not watching airspeed, but relative or closing speed with C172.

Realizes Plane (jet) is now too slow as plane rocks, rolls and pusher pushes...since Jet Pilot has not felt pusher in flight reacts as if SSOMETHING IS WRONG with plane and FIGHTS pusher, making plane go slower. Now realizes he has screwed up and advances throttles BUT it is too late and the jet is down.


Looking out the windshield , some pilots are flying by the seat of their pants and not watching airspeed. Having two pilots would have a chance of having the OTHER pilot say: HEY DUMMY, YOU ARE GETTING TOO SLOW and if nothing from first pilot, second pilot would take control and get speed back.

SPEED IS LIFE.
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 15:37
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lots of bad speculation

The NTSB preliminary would seem to indicate an approach turn stall. The stall warning horn was sounding for 20 seconds prior to impact.

I don't know what training this pilot had in this aircraft but it would seem that an approach turn stall should have been in the syllabus. "Should" being a very big word.

I studied this event closely because I'm also a small business owner who flies light jets single pilot. While I think there is nothing inherently dangerous about Part 91 single pilot jet ops, I recognize that there is more that can go wrong and more skill is required. Consequently the training requirements, even for someone with lots of experience, are much higher than even for turboprops.

When I saw that it was a likely approach turn stall I thought "I don't think that's a mistake I would make". What I didn't want to hear is that the pilot did everything right and still crashed. I don't fly a Phenom and don't know anything about its stall characteristics but the aircraft I fly (mainly Citations) are pretty hard to stall if you are even remotely clueful.

As for operating light jets from short runways I do it all the time - but you have to be even more careful. If your approach isn't stabilized, go around. There's too many things that can bite you - excessive sink rate being one of the most obvious.

But to say "everyone who flies light jets should have 2 pilots" (which I've seen all over the internet) defeats the whole purpose of having a light jet in the first place. I need to fly by myself for business - I'd switch to a TBM or King Air if I couldn't fly jets single pilot. But the jets provide quite a bit of increased business flexibility and efficiency due to their speed.
CW5301 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 19:53
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Wet Coast, Canuckland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"I need to fly by myself for business - I'd switch to a TBM or King Air if I couldn't fly jets single pilot. But the jets provide quite a bit of increased business flexibility and efficiency due to their speed."

I daresay the pilot of the doomed flight thought the same thing up until the stick started shaking/pushing.....
hr2pilot is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 21:25
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IT MAY BE an over generalization about 2 pilots. BUT when I have seen the average owner operator think more about business than flying, things usually don't go well for flying.

we should also remember that the pilot in this case also managed to crash a turboprop at the same airport.

Doesn't that say something?

IF you crash, maybe you should not have a license anymore. I am trying to think if I have crashed a plane...nope. Some crazy students have pushed it but we are still here.

Generally speaking, crash a plane, lose your license. Some exceptions though.
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 22:12
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"IT MAY BE an over generalization about 2 pilots. BUT when I have seen the average owner operator think more about business than flying, things usually don't go well for flying."

The business fliers that I know take great care in flight operation. Either with a second pilot or have a crew fly a certain leg. They can afford it. You HAVE to know your limitations! It's the over confident personality trait of some successful individuals which get them in trouble.. I don't think we can paint a broad brush. I know most business fliers are very capable and proficient. It just takes a few distractions/problems to throw off some pilots during the busiest time of the flight. Very sad and may all rest in peace.

Last edited by tlbrown350; 11th Dec 2014 at 22:22.
tlbrown350 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 23:02
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Generally speaking, crash a plane, lose your license. Some exceptions though.
That rather a broad brush. Perhaps just if you kill yourself you lose your license.
MarcK is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 23:53
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MarcK

I guess you missed my point...the pilot in this crash, crashed a plane at the same airport 4 years ago. Take his license then, and EVERYONE would have been better off...comprende?
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2014, 00:29
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Yes, I "comprende". But I know lots of folks who have "crashed". Engine failure, blown tires, ground loop, pio, runway overrun, first flight of an experimental, etc. I don't think they are so dangerous as to require having their license taken away. If the FAA didn't require a ride after the first incident, it may not have anything to do with this incident (even taking pilot judgement into account). Show me a pilot who has made no mistakes and I'll show you a pilot who lies a lot. Luckily, not every mistake leads to a crash.
MarcK is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2016, 22:05
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 13 Posts
Public Docket Opened in Gaithersburg, Md., Crash

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-relea...R20160120.aspx

From the Ops Group Factual Report:

"Investigators found ice accretions up to 10 millimeters in thickness on the airplane’s nose, wing leading edges, and horizontal stabilizer. The weather condition at the time of this accident included: Temperature 0 degrees Celsius; Dew point -2 degrees Celsius; Cloud cover 5 to 7 oktas (5/8 to 7/8 cloud coverage), at 1,400 feet above aerodrome level; visibility 4,800 meters with mist. Flight data recorder plots from the interim report indicated that wing and stabilizer de-ice was not used during the landing approach."
BFSGrad is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 23:04
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paducah KY
Age: 71
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One occurrence I've noticed with some of the owner/single pilot jet accidents, is the presence of a non-pilot friend in the right seat, that the pilot is trying to impress or educate. In this case the passenger had been given reign over the radios, and had various ATIS and AWOS competing with ATC for attention. You would think a Phenom would have XM weather and textual METARS.

The worst example was a Premier that went down in Indiana, where the pilot was letting the passenger adjust power during a descent. The pax ended up bringing the levers back into idle cut-off, and the pilot could only get one restarted. It ended with a poorly flown single engine approach.
eelb is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2016, 23:36
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,407
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
BFSGrad,

Did you really read the NTSB Ops Report? The part you reference is from a German investigation of a Phenom accident in icing conditions.

GF
galaxy flyer is online now  
Old 28th Jan 2016, 01:33
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 13 Posts
Did you really read the NTSB Ops Report? The part you reference is from a German investigation of a Phenom accident in icing conditions.
True that. However, I did read all the N100EQ docket documents but did a cut and paste from the wrong PDF. Let's call it clipboard confusion with a touch of proofreading malice.

Here's the paragraph I meant to post from the Aircraft Performance Study PDF:

"The stall characteristics exhibited by N100EQ during the Gaithersburg approach are consistent with an ice-contaminated airplane. The recorded normal load factor shows a stall break at about the same time the aural stall warning sounded, providing no advance warning of the impending stall to the pilot because the wing/stabilizer de-icing switch was not activated. The airplane was 283 ft above the runway threshold. Had the pilot turned on the airplane de-ice system, he likely would have received the aural stall warning about 20 sec sooner and well before the stall break."
BFSGrad is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.