oops blackbushe bizjet crash
Blackbushe.
TD&H.
Point taken, old chap. Two crew will always be safer.
Makes one wonder whether the manufacturers get them certificated as single crew (surprisingly in IFR. IMHO) to make them appear to the average business user as cheaper to operate.
As far as the present incident is concerned, single crew should still have been sufficient. One could always speculate on the consideration of NO ANTISKID performance data and I'm definitely with Bumz_Rush on whether it would have been more prudent to wheel the Engs.over to Farnboro.
Commercial pressure ?
Rgds, Sleeve.
Point taken, old chap. Two crew will always be safer.
Makes one wonder whether the manufacturers get them certificated as single crew (surprisingly in IFR. IMHO) to make them appear to the average business user as cheaper to operate.
As far as the present incident is concerned, single crew should still have been sufficient. One could always speculate on the consideration of NO ANTISKID performance data and I'm definitely with Bumz_Rush on whether it would have been more prudent to wheel the Engs.over to Farnboro.
Commercial pressure ?
Rgds, Sleeve.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Med
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know the antiskid system used in Premier. MU 300 Diamond had a system that when "panic" braking was applied system went through it cycle and then brakes were released, even that heavy brake pedal pressure was applied. Brakes returned when pedal pressure was released for a split second and then re applied. Quite difficult to remember when other end is approaching in a hurry!
Blues
Blues
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: south of Watford
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps, I’m inclined to agree with Sleeve Wing and Bumz_Rush on their comments. Whilst it’s wholly inappropriate to make any comments before the AAIB report is published on this accident it would seem that perhaps commercial pressure was applied to position the aircraft from Farnbourough to Blackbushe with said Antiskid inoperative.
I used to fly in and out of Blackbushe a bit in a CJ1. According to my Cessna Abnormal Procedures Checklist for Landing with Antiskid System Inoperative, the landing distance has to be multiplied with a factor of 1.4. There’s also a Caution box stating that excessive pressure on the brake pedals may cause wheel brakes to lock, resulting in tyre blowout. Not being familiar with the Premier1 checklist I’d hazard a guess that it has something similar.
LDR for a CJ1 in normal landing configuration at MLW at the conditions prevailing on the day would have been approximately 2760 feet. I doubt if the Premier1 would have been at MLW but I’d imagine its equivalent landing distance required is higher than the CJ1 due to its swept wing design. Now factor in the aforementioned 1.4 and any usual JAR/FAA landing factors and the declared LDA for rwy 26 at Blackbushe of 3415 feet or so starts looking a tad short…
With only a very short flight time from EGLF to EGLK and some configuration changes to go through, it would be fairly simple to get into a situation of a rushed/unstable approach, particularly when operating Single Crew. Get the Vref wrong and/or landing long and kiss goodbye to any remaining extra landing distance, especially under heavy braking and with perhaps a tyre blowout.
Once again, too early to tell before the AAIB publishes its report but my 2 cents worth.
I used to fly in and out of Blackbushe a bit in a CJ1. According to my Cessna Abnormal Procedures Checklist for Landing with Antiskid System Inoperative, the landing distance has to be multiplied with a factor of 1.4. There’s also a Caution box stating that excessive pressure on the brake pedals may cause wheel brakes to lock, resulting in tyre blowout. Not being familiar with the Premier1 checklist I’d hazard a guess that it has something similar.
LDR for a CJ1 in normal landing configuration at MLW at the conditions prevailing on the day would have been approximately 2760 feet. I doubt if the Premier1 would have been at MLW but I’d imagine its equivalent landing distance required is higher than the CJ1 due to its swept wing design. Now factor in the aforementioned 1.4 and any usual JAR/FAA landing factors and the declared LDA for rwy 26 at Blackbushe of 3415 feet or so starts looking a tad short…
With only a very short flight time from EGLF to EGLK and some configuration changes to go through, it would be fairly simple to get into a situation of a rushed/unstable approach, particularly when operating Single Crew. Get the Vref wrong and/or landing long and kiss goodbye to any remaining extra landing distance, especially under heavy braking and with perhaps a tyre blowout.
Once again, too early to tell before the AAIB publishes its report but my 2 cents worth.
Thread Starter
Well spotted LGW vulture- you must have the eyesight of your chosen nickname.
I go past Blackbushe a great deal as I live nearby - there seem to be a fair number of jet ops mixed in with the training and helo stuff. Is the runway length at Blackbushe that marginal and if so why don't the jets use EGLF which is literally walking distance away and much closer to both M3 and rail links while Blackbushe is relatively speaking in the middle of nowhere-is it just $$$
I go past Blackbushe a great deal as I live nearby - there seem to be a fair number of jet ops mixed in with the training and helo stuff. Is the runway length at Blackbushe that marginal and if so why don't the jets use EGLF which is literally walking distance away and much closer to both M3 and rail links while Blackbushe is relatively speaking in the middle of nowhere-is it just $$$
I've lived in the area for many years and can remember the following types operating from the current Rwy 08/26 (actually over 1300m of tarmac, but with displaced thresholds at both ends):
F27/BAe748/SF340/SH360/AT72/CN235/G222
125 (all up to 800srs)/Lear (all variants, although the old noisy ones are now banned)/Falcon (all variants, including 900 and 2000)/Citations (all except for a 750)/CL601
May not prove much but should give some perspective for those not familiar with the airfield.
Runway looks nice and big on approach (it's 46m wide, a legacy from the airfield's military/commercial past).
Oxford, which about the same length (and a lot narrower) has been handling a G5 recently.
F27/BAe748/SF340/SH360/AT72/CN235/G222
125 (all up to 800srs)/Lear (all variants, although the old noisy ones are now banned)/Falcon (all variants, including 900 and 2000)/Citations (all except for a 750)/CL601
May not prove much but should give some perspective for those not familiar with the airfield.
Runway looks nice and big on approach (it's 46m wide, a legacy from the airfield's military/commercial past).
Oxford, which about the same length (and a lot narrower) has been handling a G5 recently.
Last edited by Wycombe; 16th Apr 2004 at 07:54.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys
A bit of info on the Premier I.
I have been flying the Premier (RB-31) for just on 2 years now. I've often heard people express the opinion that single pilot jet ops are risky, and are accidents waiting to happen. I must however let you know that is a marvel of modern technology, designed specifically with the single pilot in mind. The ergonomics are exceptional, and despite appearances has remarkably simple systems. It is equipped with a brilliant auto-flight system, which will maintain control even in the event of engine failure. I have encountered terrible storms, heavy traffic and unexpected ATC requests, and never felt overworked, or that I needed a co-jo.
Ah, but what about real emergency situations you might ask?
Been there done that - complete hydraulic failure due to a ruptured reservoir after takeoff - no gear, no flaps, no brakes, no spoilers, no anti-skid. All single pilot.
The aircraft is 12500lbs, but being lightweight composite means much larger cross-section than its competitors. The cabin is only slightly narrower and lower than the 28,000lb Hawker 800. No contest against the citations and learjets.
41000 feet, up to Mach 0.8 means airliner performance. TCASII and EGPWS mean good situational awareness. A truly remarkable aircraft. I must however mention that I am a professional pilot, and not an owner-flyer. I do agree that the risk of an accident will increase if a high-performance jet is piloted by improperly trained aircrews.
A bit of info on the Premier I.
I have been flying the Premier (RB-31) for just on 2 years now. I've often heard people express the opinion that single pilot jet ops are risky, and are accidents waiting to happen. I must however let you know that is a marvel of modern technology, designed specifically with the single pilot in mind. The ergonomics are exceptional, and despite appearances has remarkably simple systems. It is equipped with a brilliant auto-flight system, which will maintain control even in the event of engine failure. I have encountered terrible storms, heavy traffic and unexpected ATC requests, and never felt overworked, or that I needed a co-jo.
Ah, but what about real emergency situations you might ask?
Been there done that - complete hydraulic failure due to a ruptured reservoir after takeoff - no gear, no flaps, no brakes, no spoilers, no anti-skid. All single pilot.
The aircraft is 12500lbs, but being lightweight composite means much larger cross-section than its competitors. The cabin is only slightly narrower and lower than the 28,000lb Hawker 800. No contest against the citations and learjets.
41000 feet, up to Mach 0.8 means airliner performance. TCASII and EGPWS mean good situational awareness. A truly remarkable aircraft. I must however mention that I am a professional pilot, and not an owner-flyer. I do agree that the risk of an accident will increase if a high-performance jet is piloted by improperly trained aircrews.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Where the Work is
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SP-IFR,
You are a hot shot to handel all that on your own, What would hapen if you died while flying, afcs handel that as well???
O a good aircraft would not rupture its hydraylics after take off.
You are a hot shot to handel all that on your own, What would hapen if you died while flying, afcs handel that as well???
O a good aircraft would not rupture its hydraylics after take off.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Med
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTJDS,
I wouldn't think that it would make much difference if man is dead. Was it one two or three man crew. One is still dead and at the end of the road...
I had hydraulic problems in several different types and don't think that those were all bad.
I do not fly single pilot but I agree that when the cockpit is designed for that it will be a different story. Obviously ultra modern auto pilot system will help a lot.
I sometimes miss my early years in the north with floatplanes alone and without any nav aids! That was flying!
Blues
I wouldn't think that it would make much difference if man is dead. Was it one two or three man crew. One is still dead and at the end of the road...
I had hydraulic problems in several different types and don't think that those were all bad.
I do not fly single pilot but I agree that when the cockpit is designed for that it will be a different story. Obviously ultra modern auto pilot system will help a lot.
I sometimes miss my early years in the north with floatplanes alone and without any nav aids! That was flying!
Blues
