Bombardier Accident at Teterboro
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.wnbc.com/news/4391300/detail.html
See video interview. Pilot and copilot are adamant that NTSB have got it wrong about CL600 crash at Teterboro. NTSB claim that failure to rotate was related to their fouled up CofG.
Captain and copilot say that yoke would not move in pitch (reason for that was given in the ASW coverage - ASW 07 Feb (last two paras)).
I think that the NTSB will have to eat crow on getting this one wrong in their PR and factual release.
The exact same scenario happened to another CL600 on 09 Mar 05 (see below)
NTSB Identification: ATL05FA061
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, March 09, 2005 in Tupelo, MS
Aircraft: Canadair CL-600, registration: N660RM
Injuries: 7 Uninjured.
On March 9, 2005, at 1312 central standard time, a Canadair CL-600, N660RM, registered to Romeo Mike Aviation Company Inc., operating as a 14 CFR Part 91 business flight, aborted takeoff from runway 36 and went off the departure end of the runway. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. The airplane received substantial damage. The airline transport rated pilot-in-command, (PIC) airline transport rated co-pilot, and five passengers reported no injuries. The flight was departing Tupelo Regional Airport, Tupelo, Mississippi, en route to Teterboro, New Jersey on March 9, 2005.
The PIC stated they were cleared for takeoff from runway 36. The flaps were set at 20-degrees and the trim was set for takeoff. The PIC advanced the thrust levers to 93 percent and started the takeoff roll. The takeoff run and acceleration were normal. The airplane reached V1 (128 knots) and VR (134 knots) and the PIC attempted to rotate the airplane with the control column. The control column would not move aft from the neutral position. The forward movement of the control column was normal. The aft movement beyond the neutral position felt as if it was locked against a stop. The airplane was about 4,000 feet down the runway between 140 to 145 knots. No annunciator's lights were illuminated. The PIC commanded the abort, extended the spoilers, applied maximum braking, and maximum reverse thrust, and maintained centerline down the runway. After the abort was initiated the PIC stated he continued to apply rearward pressure on the control column and he was not sure if he felt or heard a "crunch." He further stated, something may have given and the control column may have moved aft of the neutral position. The PIC stated the "crunch" was felt or heard after or at the abort procedure. The noise or the crunch may have come from below the flight deck. The airplane went off the end of the runway and the nose wheel collapsed in the mud.
link
See video interview. Pilot and copilot are adamant that NTSB have got it wrong about CL600 crash at Teterboro. NTSB claim that failure to rotate was related to their fouled up CofG.
Captain and copilot say that yoke would not move in pitch (reason for that was given in the ASW coverage - ASW 07 Feb (last two paras)).
I think that the NTSB will have to eat crow on getting this one wrong in their PR and factual release.
The exact same scenario happened to another CL600 on 09 Mar 05 (see below)
NTSB Identification: ATL05FA061
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, March 09, 2005 in Tupelo, MS
Aircraft: Canadair CL-600, registration: N660RM
Injuries: 7 Uninjured.
On March 9, 2005, at 1312 central standard time, a Canadair CL-600, N660RM, registered to Romeo Mike Aviation Company Inc., operating as a 14 CFR Part 91 business flight, aborted takeoff from runway 36 and went off the departure end of the runway. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. The airplane received substantial damage. The airline transport rated pilot-in-command, (PIC) airline transport rated co-pilot, and five passengers reported no injuries. The flight was departing Tupelo Regional Airport, Tupelo, Mississippi, en route to Teterboro, New Jersey on March 9, 2005.
The PIC stated they were cleared for takeoff from runway 36. The flaps were set at 20-degrees and the trim was set for takeoff. The PIC advanced the thrust levers to 93 percent and started the takeoff roll. The takeoff run and acceleration were normal. The airplane reached V1 (128 knots) and VR (134 knots) and the PIC attempted to rotate the airplane with the control column. The control column would not move aft from the neutral position. The forward movement of the control column was normal. The aft movement beyond the neutral position felt as if it was locked against a stop. The airplane was about 4,000 feet down the runway between 140 to 145 knots. No annunciator's lights were illuminated. The PIC commanded the abort, extended the spoilers, applied maximum braking, and maximum reverse thrust, and maintained centerline down the runway. After the abort was initiated the PIC stated he continued to apply rearward pressure on the control column and he was not sure if he felt or heard a "crunch." He further stated, something may have given and the control column may have moved aft of the neutral position. The PIC stated the "crunch" was felt or heard after or at the abort procedure. The noise or the crunch may have come from below the flight deck. The airplane went off the end of the runway and the nose wheel collapsed in the mud.
link
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 09 Mar 05 incident is being attributed, afaik, to some kind of radio or microphone installation on the column, which may have been either and STC and/or incorrectly installed. There was an alert of some kind to all CL600 operators to check for that installation.
I would have thought the NTSB have confirmed by now that that installation was not present on the Teterboro aircraft, which would seem to rule out common cause.
I would have thought the NTSB have confirmed by now that that installation was not present on the Teterboro aircraft, which would seem to rule out common cause.
