Light Aircraft crash at Blackbushe.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was established that the aircraft had joined the visual circuit for runway 25 at Blackbushe on the crosswind leg and had subsequently, when at approximately 1000 feet aal late on the downwind leg, overtaken a microlight aircraft before beginning a climb to pass ahead of and above that aircraft. Almost immediately, a TCAS RA to Descend had occurred "to resolve a confliction with the microlight". This RA was then followed by another to 'Maintain Vertical Speed' and then by one to 'Adjust Vertical Speed' which it was suspected may have been in respect of proximity to another aircraft above. After ceasing the climb, the accident aircraft had then "descended at up to 3000 fpm towards the threshold of runway 25" with TCAS 'Clear of Conflict' annunciated with 1.1nm to run to the threshold, at which point the aircraft was passing 1200 feet aal at 146 KIAS with the gear down and flap 3 selected. The approach was then continued at an average rate of descent of around 3000 fpm at approximately 150 KIAS to 500 feet aal, during which time six successive TAWS 'PULL UP' Warnings were generated. Below 500 feet aal, the rate of descent was reduced but the airspeed remained around 150 KIAS, at which speed the runway threshold was crossed at approximately 50 feet aal. "The operator estimated that the landing weight was 6,522 kg" and "the aircraft manufacturer calculated that at this weight the target threshold speed was 108 KIAS."
Touchdown was found from tyre marks on the runway to have occurred 710 metres beyond the displaced runway threshold at 134 KIAS (135 knots groundspeed) from which position, it was estimated that the landing ground roll required to stop the aircraft would have been at least 616 metres when only 349 metres of the promulgated landing distance remained.
Touchdown was found from tyre marks on the runway to have occurred 710 metres beyond the displaced runway threshold at 134 KIAS (135 knots groundspeed) from which position, it was estimated that the landing ground roll required to stop the aircraft would have been at least 616 metres when only 349 metres of the promulgated landing distance remained.
He appears to have crossed the numbers at 150 KTS and touched down at 135 KTS with 349 meters left.I read an interesting article on Brain overload where too much is going on for the visual portion of the brain and it freezes a bit like the Graphics card memory on a computer trying to deal with a graphics intense game. The screen stutters and eventually freezes.The brain goes into slow motion, normal numbers mean nothing, memory items go blank! ask someone in that state for their name and they will be hard pushed to tell you
I saw this right seating a fairly new twin pilot on a missed approach due weather in a Seneca twin. The first miss was fine. On the second miss when I said go around at minima the pilot forgot all the normal actions and froze on the controls.
His only action was to pitch the nose up for a go around no attempt to add power raise the gear clean up flaps control the pitch/speed. The aircraft fast approaching a stall I took over from the right as the other pilot had lost the plot.
Whether this will cast the light on single pilot operations in fast jets I don't know but failing further evidence you cannot discount that as contributing factor in this case
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 10th Aug 2015 at 09:54.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,429
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what you meant there. I have crossed said airspace [Special] VFR routinely, no problem at all. In a light aircraft, not a bizjet, but same principle, surely.
My old IFR FI said once: if it were for me to separate real pilots from the wannabees, Iīd put them in a Supercub with a stopwatch, altimeter and compass and made them fly from Lake Constance to Hamburg on a marginal weather day - the ones not hitting anything or any airspace without clearance would be the winners.
Most Business jet jockeys donīt fly VFR often. I was way more competent in that department when I mainly flew KingAirs, we would do a lot of VFR flights. In jets I fly a VFR cross country maybe each 2 or 3 years. (depends on the ops of course)
That is why airlines have strictly defined stable approach criteria & touchdown zone requirements & demand a go-around if outside these at defined points during the approach & landing.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
One "fact" has been repeated incorrectly several times in this thread. The Vref was not 135 kts, it was 108 kts. He was not at Vref as he crossed the runway threshold, he was 27 kts above it. This is a subtle but very important difference that up and coming pilots need to understand.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JO
His VREF was whatever he used to land at in this case way above the correct VREF of 108 KTS that has been made clear in my posts.
The true VREF can change depending on a number of factors including flaps of course he was VREF (TRUE) plus whatever he was using maybe I was using the term in a flippant way and should have said his chosen speed
But he did not use the correct VREF but one way over the correct VREF but that was his reference speed wrongly used as he decided to land from that and decided to do so with less than 400 meters left to him to stop.
Had it been with an FO onto a short runway there would have been calls VREF plus 40, plus 30,plus 20, not stable go around. Had I or most pilots been right seat and he had continued to attempt to land with 400 meters left I would assume he was mentally incapacitated and taken command absolutely no doubt
But yes you are correct he was VREF plus 27 KTS
Pace
His VREF was whatever he used to land at in this case way above the correct VREF of 108 KTS that has been made clear in my posts.
The true VREF can change depending on a number of factors including flaps of course he was VREF (TRUE) plus whatever he was using maybe I was using the term in a flippant way and should have said his chosen speed
But he did not use the correct VREF but one way over the correct VREF but that was his reference speed wrongly used as he decided to land from that and decided to do so with less than 400 meters left to him to stop.
Had it been with an FO onto a short runway there would have been calls VREF plus 40, plus 30,plus 20, not stable go around. Had I or most pilots been right seat and he had continued to attempt to land with 400 meters left I would assume he was mentally incapacitated and taken command absolutely no doubt
But yes you are correct he was VREF plus 27 KTS
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 10th Aug 2015 at 10:47.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Blighty & Germania.
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something is just not right!
This accident just seems a bit too odd for a high time pilot to cause in good weather with a fully serviceable jet.
We must be missing something, like lack of fuel, wrong glasses, bug flying into the pitot or an ill pilot. Lots of other possibilities, but it just seems that until we get the full report we might not know why he approached hot and high and then failed to comprehend that landing near the end of the runway in an aircraft that is not exactly designed for crashes was not a good idea.
We must be missing something, like lack of fuel, wrong glasses, bug flying into the pitot or an ill pilot. Lots of other possibilities, but it just seems that until we get the full report we might not know why he approached hot and high and then failed to comprehend that landing near the end of the runway in an aircraft that is not exactly designed for crashes was not a good idea.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFIS constraints
The air traffic service being provided on the day was AFIS, therefore advisory in nature. I have worked in this environment before as an ATCA and air ground operator at another southern UK airport earlier in my career.
Implicitly, under no circumstances were we permitted to issue clearances or instructions to any aircraft in contact with our a/g operation.
I believe that there are circumstances under which it may be appropriate for an instruction to be issued, and that eventuality should be addressed within the scope of legislation governing the operation of an AFIS.
That caveat might be along the lines of the those promulgated in the ANO rule 5 (low flying) "Nothing in this rule shall prohibit an aircraft from flying in such a manner as is necessary for the purpose of saving life."
An instruction to go-around in this instance may well have saved the day.
Implicitly, under no circumstances were we permitted to issue clearances or instructions to any aircraft in contact with our a/g operation.
I believe that there are circumstances under which it may be appropriate for an instruction to be issued, and that eventuality should be addressed within the scope of legislation governing the operation of an AFIS.
That caveat might be along the lines of the those promulgated in the ANO rule 5 (low flying) "Nothing in this rule shall prohibit an aircraft from flying in such a manner as is necessary for the purpose of saving life."
An instruction to go-around in this instance may well have saved the day.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Axminster Devon
Age: 83
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
something is not quite right
Skyship007 #211 says something is not quite right while considering only the minor ways in which the performance of the pilot in command might have been degraded.
Many of us agree that that performance was not just not quite right but actually inconceivable in a professional pilot. I do not buy Paces experience of such a pilot freezing at the controls as an explanation in this case.
My preferred hypothesis is that the professional pilot was, for whatever reason, out of the loop. Another person, knowing too much and too little, could have been flying instead. In that case, the performance was entirely conceivable in someone, like any of my students on a bad day, under pressure to do something. One of the incidental symptoms of excess stress is a tunnel vision of which they are quite unaware. If I, the instructor, am providing the pressure no problem. I have known at least one student, relieved of that guidance, of whom tunnel vision seems to have been the killer. Tunnel vision once threatened to kill me, a quite experienced pilot at the time, just airborne at MTOW after a long Christmas lay-off.
If whoever was flying saw R/T, Air Traffic or any English voice as alien, everything that happened in the circuit and landing becomes conceivable. The memory of what a proper pilot would have done might have guided the actual pilot in his predicament. If so it probably included no experience of overshooting from finals.
Many of us agree that that performance was not just not quite right but actually inconceivable in a professional pilot. I do not buy Paces experience of such a pilot freezing at the controls as an explanation in this case.
My preferred hypothesis is that the professional pilot was, for whatever reason, out of the loop. Another person, knowing too much and too little, could have been flying instead. In that case, the performance was entirely conceivable in someone, like any of my students on a bad day, under pressure to do something. One of the incidental symptoms of excess stress is a tunnel vision of which they are quite unaware. If I, the instructor, am providing the pressure no problem. I have known at least one student, relieved of that guidance, of whom tunnel vision seems to have been the killer. Tunnel vision once threatened to kill me, a quite experienced pilot at the time, just airborne at MTOW after a long Christmas lay-off.
If whoever was flying saw R/T, Air Traffic or any English voice as alien, everything that happened in the circuit and landing becomes conceivable. The memory of what a proper pilot would have done might have guided the actual pilot in his predicament. If so it probably included no experience of overshooting from finals.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Axminster Devon
Age: 83
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS downwind
I never flew and never will fly with TCAS and TAWS. I would just ask any who are used to those aids this:
if your environment tells you of unseen traffic when you are stable downwind or on finals, would you not first look for the conflicting traffic and make whatever minimum adjustment is sufficient to deconflict ?
Would not a big correction, dictated by a machine, be unreasonable or, if accepted, be reason enough to go round again ?
if your environment tells you of unseen traffic when you are stable downwind or on finals, would you not first look for the conflicting traffic and make whatever minimum adjustment is sufficient to deconflict ?
Would not a big correction, dictated by a machine, be unreasonable or, if accepted, be reason enough to go round again ?
No, you respond to the TCAS Resolution Advisory without question as it will save your life. Warnings are normally inhibited below 1000ft though. There was an incident last year at Istanbul where a departing aircraft avoided visually on the aircraft the capt could see, contrary to the TCAS instruction. He had a nasty Airprox with the one he didn't see.
And you definitely respond to a TAWS alert immediately. Go around first, ask questions later. That system has saved more lives by preventing CFIT accidents than we will ever know.
And you definitely respond to a TAWS alert immediately. Go around first, ask questions later. That system has saved more lives by preventing CFIT accidents than we will ever know.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skyship & Rlsb - there are dozens of cases of people , normally of sound mind and with years of experince, crashing business aircraft
NORMALLY they don't - but it can be distraction, a bad night's sleep, or just poor judgement that does for them
If you read the "Aftermath" column every month in "Flying" magazine you don't need to start theories about other , unqualified people at the controls - professional pilots screw up all by themselves - luckily not all that often
NORMALLY they don't - but it can be distraction, a bad night's sleep, or just poor judgement that does for them
If you read the "Aftermath" column every month in "Flying" magazine you don't need to start theories about other , unqualified people at the controls - professional pilots screw up all by themselves - luckily not all that often
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This aircraft have a speed tape with bugs and variations from speed or good old dial?
Be very easy if its a speed tape and the wrong vref to look for that and it's indications from the speed and not the actual speed you are flying, especially if you have been distracted by the micro-light an other warnings..
Be very easy if its a speed tape and the wrong vref to look for that and it's indications from the speed and not the actual speed you are flying, especially if you have been distracted by the micro-light an other warnings..
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortissimo
In an IFR environment yes I agree in a busy VFR circuit where you are visual like any other aircraft the thing is going off all the time as it will if your not flying a standard glide so many pilots will override the instructions and rely on their visual senses
it would be interesting to know his circuit and approach speeds? Did he go in there like a bat out of hell or bring the speeds right back with approach flap to twin piston speeds? That will all be on the radar traces
Pace
In an IFR environment yes I agree in a busy VFR circuit where you are visual like any other aircraft the thing is going off all the time as it will if your not flying a standard glide so many pilots will override the instructions and rely on their visual senses
it would be interesting to know his circuit and approach speeds? Did he go in there like a bat out of hell or bring the speeds right back with approach flap to twin piston speeds? That will all be on the radar traces
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 10th Aug 2015 at 12:44.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jammed Stab
Just look at the reality of what you are saying? If it was this experienced pilot landing and we are not 100% that he landed lets go through your scenario,
Accepting that he went high to clear slow traffic and then dived to regain the correct glide that would have resulted in him being far to fast.
He sails over the numbers with a VREF of 135 KTS not 108.
Having landed there many times he knows that the runway is limited but happily holds off bleeding off speed while the aircraft eats up the remaining runway.
With just 400 meters left he touches down and thinks he can stop?
Being of sound mind he would know that if he continued this landing he and his Pax would be dead.
As a sound minded experienced pilot he would be fully aware that his jet could not stop in 400 meters and was signing his own death warrant by attempting to do so.
There has to be more to this than is apparent it is the touch down point which is more relevent and concerning over his mental state than the too fast at the numbers
Had he flown it onto the numbers at 135KTS and as a cowboy gung-ho pilot tried to stop from that speed with the whole runway available OK i buy your theory but to land with 400 meters remaining ? NO that is not the actions of a sane pilot or who knows maybe he thought the hand of Bin Laden would reach from the skies and stop his jet in 400 meters ?
Pace
Just look at the reality of what you are saying? If it was this experienced pilot landing and we are not 100% that he landed lets go through your scenario,
Accepting that he went high to clear slow traffic and then dived to regain the correct glide that would have resulted in him being far to fast.
He sails over the numbers with a VREF of 135 KTS not 108.
Having landed there many times he knows that the runway is limited but happily holds off bleeding off speed while the aircraft eats up the remaining runway.
With just 400 meters left he touches down and thinks he can stop?
Being of sound mind he would know that if he continued this landing he and his Pax would be dead.
As a sound minded experienced pilot he would be fully aware that his jet could not stop in 400 meters and was signing his own death warrant by attempting to do so.
There has to be more to this than is apparent it is the touch down point which is more relevent and concerning over his mental state than the too fast at the numbers
Had he flown it onto the numbers at 135KTS and as a cowboy gung-ho pilot tried to stop from that speed with the whole runway available OK i buy your theory but to land with 400 meters remaining ? NO that is not the actions of a sane pilot or who knows maybe he thought the hand of Bin Laden would reach from the skies and stop his jet in 400 meters ?
Pace
I'm sure that there are those who feel that it is always incapacitation at just the wrong moment, but I highly doubt it. Otherwise these "unlikely" things are happening a little too frequently.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all bear in mind that performing a go-around at some private operators in the region may result in termination of the pilots if the pax are frightened....not the norm, but not unheard of
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iron butt
That is crazy statement everyone performs a go around even the holiday Easy Jet.
What do you do if a truck pulls onto the runway and ATC tell you to go around do you say sorry my PAX might get nervous and upset and run them into the truck at 100 KTS instead and kill them What do you do on an approach when you are not visual at minima? carry on down regardless because your PAX maybe upset ?
It is a standard and normal practice and one every pilot should be ready to perform if anything is not right in the approach and landing
Sadly for whatever reason this pilot did not go around with the result that they are all dead and burnt to a crisp
Pace
That is crazy statement everyone performs a go around even the holiday Easy Jet.
What do you do if a truck pulls onto the runway and ATC tell you to go around do you say sorry my PAX might get nervous and upset and run them into the truck at 100 KTS instead and kill them
What do you do on an approach when you are not visual at minima? carry on down regardless because your PAX maybe upset ?It is a standard and normal practice and one every pilot should be ready to perform if anything is not right in the approach and landing
Sadly for whatever reason this pilot did not go around with the result that they are all dead and burnt to a crisp
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 10th Aug 2015 at 15:00.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well Pace...you may not be as familiar as I am with certain operators..I'm not inferring this was true in this case, but it is not a "crazy" statement..and Easy Jet is a commercial operator, not a private aircraft operator...prime example the crash involving the President of Poland...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IronButt
That crash as far as I remember was a pile of coverups and scapegoats and in no way indicating the pilots being forbidden to go around.
There were even suggestions that the crew were drunk?
Regardless it is a slightly different matter where a pilot decides to fly below minima. I have had fun sim sessions where the fuel was dropped to 300 ibs per side and fog added at 200 meters. that proved to me that at a push you can fly the jet to the ground using a height call out for a flare point.
That is slightly different to a pilot refusing to go around and more a pilot on a stabilised approach making a bravado decision to go below minima because he could and then messing up. There are suicidal decisions like this one and I can get away with it decisions like the polish president one
Regardless I am sure if ATC had told him that there was a broken down truck parked on the runway he would have gone around
Pace
That crash as far as I remember was a pile of coverups and scapegoats and in no way indicating the pilots being forbidden to go around.
There were even suggestions that the crew were drunk?
Regardless it is a slightly different matter where a pilot decides to fly below minima. I have had fun sim sessions where the fuel was dropped to 300 ibs per side and fog added at 200 meters. that proved to me that at a push you can fly the jet to the ground using a height call out for a flare point.
That is slightly different to a pilot refusing to go around and more a pilot on a stabilised approach making a bravado decision to go below minima because he could and then messing up. There are suicidal decisions like this one and I can get away with it decisions like the polish president one
Regardless I am sure if ATC had told him that there was a broken down truck parked on the runway he would have gone around
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 10th Aug 2015 at 15:48.
