Phenom 100 crash in Maryland

[ghunter]

Anyone with any news about this - weather etc?BBC News - Private jet crashes on Maryland home (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30383922)

The Embraer Phenom 100 crashed about one mile (1.6km) from the Montgomery County Airpark, Montgomery county fire department spokesman Pete Piringer told reporters.

Three residents in the home hit by the plane were missing, officials said.

[Aphrican]

N100EQ. Rumours that it was a base to final stall / spin incident trying to make room for the C172 ahead of it. A very sad day.

A challenging question in the skills (type rating) versus ADM (getting that slow in the pattern / circuit rather than going around) debate that I continually have with myself.

[Safe-T]

@Aphrican: Weather at accident time:

15:55 UTC / 10:55 local time:
KGAI 081555Z 05005KT 10SM OVC032 M01/M08 A3060 RMK AO1
Wind: 050 degrees at 5 knots; Visibility: 10+ miles; Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 3200 feet AGL; Temperature: -1°C; Dewpoint: -8°C; Pressure: 1036.3 mb

More here: ASN Aircraft accident Embraer EMB-500 Phenom 100 N100EQ Gaithersburg-Montgomery County Airport, MD (GAI) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20141208-0)

[Aphrican]

@Safe-T. If the rumours are true, any possible icing on the Phenom would have only made things worse when it was low and slow. Temps at the base of the clouds was right around the dew point depending on the lapse rate.

[Aphrican]

The owner of the aircraft (who is likely but not certain to have been the pilot) has a history at KGAI.

ERA10CA155 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100302X80100)

[Eboy]

The BBC story in the first link has been updated as the three residents of the home have been found dead.

[glendalegoon]

there is at least one published report saying the owner was CEO of a research company in north carolina and was the pilot.

sounds like a case of an owner operator of a very light jet, (req only ONE pilot) getting behind the plane.

while icing in descent is an interesting additional factor, you do not slow to an unsafe speed just to follow a C172. You go around, you do S turns, or even a 360 on final.

anyone know the final apch speed for the jet? reports a of a major fire indicate the plane still had fuel on board.

[Aphrican]

He might be a Doc who became a businessman.

This might also be the first fatal, single pilot, VLJ accident.

So very sad no matter what lead up to it.

[Eboy]

Raleigh, North Carolina newspaper account. Yes, a doctor who became a businessman. Also says he was the pilot in the 2010 accident. May all rest in peace.

CHAPEL HILL: Chapel Hill businessman, five others killed when jet crashes in Maryland | Orange County | NewsObserver.com (http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/12/08/4387841_chapel-hill-based-jet-crashes.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1)

[glendalegoon]

eboy

interesting about previous accident , seemingly involving a LOSS OF CONTROL of a turbo prop plane a the same airport. I would think ONE crash would be enough for anyone to give up , if they were not a pro pilot.

sad of course...one report had it that the mother was pregnant, some would say 7 died, not six.

anyone have the report on the previous accident?

[tlbrown350]

My thoughts go out to everyone involved in this accident. Especially the mother and two children who perished on the ground. So easy to get behind the aircraft on approach and fixate on the wrong things. Stuff happens very fast in a jet and if your not monitoring your airspeed on approach it could end up with this result. Not saying this is what happened but it sounds like a single pilot dealing with a lot of distractions. May all rest in peace.

[thcrozier]

Doctor pilots, businessman pilots, anyone whose primary focus is on other than being a pilot pilots. I was one, and at the time I got away with it. About 20 years ago I decided to let the real pro's fly me around so I wouldn't be a danger to myself and others.

I enjoy flying and aviation technology, but being my own corporate pilot - those days are over.

[glendalegoon]

thcrozier...the silicon coast? ventura , nice place.

YOU ARE VERY WISE> I met someone in silicon valley that wanted me to teach them how to fly. I explained it would take some time and dedication on their part, THEY LECTURED ME ON HOW EVERYTHING I DID COULD BE DONE BY A COMPUTER.

I didn't teach them.

They made headlines 25 years later, but not the good kind.

[TowerDog]

What a waste of lifes.
So easy to avoid, same with the Kennedy Jr. accident.
Perfectly good airplanes crash becuase of amateur pilots loose control. :sad:

[Lima Oscar]

Sad news.

This Phenom 100 was based in Toussus le Noble (France), or at least, it used to be until a few months ago.

[L-38]

N100EQ registration history suggests that it's owner had recently acquired the
aircraft (May 02, 2014).

[neilki]

Probably this:-

ERA10CA155 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100302X80100&key=1)

The pilot of the single-engine turboprop was on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight and cancelled his IFR flight plan after being cleared for a visual approach to the destination airport. He flew a left traffic pattern for runway 32, a 4,202-foot-long, 75-foot-wide, asphalt runway. The pilot reported that the airplane crossed the runway threshold at 81 knots and touched down normally, with the stall warning horn sounding. The airplane subsequently drifted left and the pilot attempted to correct with right rudder input; however, the airplane continued to drift to the left side of the runway. The pilot then initiated a go-around and cognizant of risk of torque roll at low speeds did not apply full power. The airplane climbed to about 10 feet above the ground. At that time, the airplane was in a 20-degree left bank and the pilot applied full right aileron input to correct. The airplane then descended in a left turn, the pilot retarded the throttle, and braced for impact. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector reported that the airplane traveled about 100 feet off the left side of the runway, nosed down in mud, and came to rest in trees. Examination of the wreckage by the inspector did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions, nor did the pilot report any. The reported wind, about the time of the accident, was from 310 degrees at 10 knots, gusting to 15 knots.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

The pilot’s failure to maintain aircraft control while performing a go-around.

A not dissimilar LoC accident.

[Feathered]

N100EQ. Rumours that it was a base to final stall / spin incident trying to make room for the C172 ahead of it. A very sad day.


The NTSB is reporting that the accident aircraft was flying straight in to Rwy 14 (executing the RNAV GPS 14 approach). There would have been no base leg or base to final turn. It is very possible the aircraft got too slow; the latest NTSB release seems to indicate this. It also states the aircraft pitched up and down prior to a stall.

Question: How responsive are the engines to throttle commands on the Embraer Phenom 100?

[glendalegoon]

ABC news just reported that NO, repeat NO BIRDS were found in the engines.

pilot error seems about right on this one.

[armchairpilot94116]

Plane nearly stalled before crash that killed 6 - SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Mother-2-young-sons-among-6-dead-in-plane-crash-5944344.php)

[L-38]

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?

[Feathered]

Phenoms have no reverse thrust.

VMC landing (icing) is listed as 97 KIAS, VMC landing no icing: 86 KIAS. I assume these numbers are for max landing weight.

[L-38]

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.

[MotCap]

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

[Vzlet]

For what it's worth, KGAI is home to a Premier, an Astra SPX, and a Falcon 2000.

[glendalegoon]

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.

[CW5301]

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.

[hr2pilot]

"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.....

[glendalegoon]

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.

[tlbrown350]

"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.

[MarcK]

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.

[glendalegoon]

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?

[MarcK]

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.

[BFSGrad]

Public Docket Opened in Gaithersburg, Md., Crash

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20160120.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."

[eelb]

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.

[galaxy flyer]

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

[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.

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."