Challenger crash at KASE
NTSB preliminary report:
Bouncing back into the air at midfield seems an awful lot like a few long landings I've witnessed where the airplane was forced onto the runway at excessive speed and landed on the nose wheels first. I saw a Challenger do that once before, but it went around before the nose wheels contacted the runway again. Even at normal touchdown speed it doesn't usually appear that the nose wheels are very far off the runway surface when the mains touch down. Probably not allot of margin for error it looks like to me. Someday when the FDR traces are available for viewing, it will be interesting to see what the indicated airspeed was during the sequence and compare it to the ref speed.
Can any Challenger drivers confirm whether Vref is higher for a given weight at 8,000 PA than it is at SL on the 601? It's not on the types I've flown but I seem to remember hearing something about that once...
NTSB Identification: CEN14FA099
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, January 05, 2014 in Aspen, CO
Aircraft: CANADAIR LTD CL 600 2B16, registration: N115WF
Injuries: 1 Fatal,2 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On January 5, 2014, at 1222 mountain standard time, a Bombardier CL-600-2B16, N115WF, impacted the runway while attempting to land on Runway 15 at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport/Sardy Field (KASE), Aspen, Colorado. There were two crewmembers and a passenger onboard. One crewmember was fatally injured; the other crewmember and passenger received serious injuries. The airplane was destroyed. The airplane was registered to the Bank of Utah Trustee and operated by Vineland Corporation Company, Panama, South America under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan. The flight originated from Tucson International Airport (KTUS), Tucson, Arizona, at 1004.
According to preliminary information from the Federal Aviation Administration, the flight was in radio contact with ASE air traffic control (ATC). At 1210, N115WF utilized the localizer DME-E approach into KASE. ASE ATC reported winds as 290º at 19 knots, with winds gusting to 25 knots to the crew before landing. The crew executed a missed approach, and then requested to be vectored for a second attempt. On the second landing attempt N115WF briefly touched down on the runway, then bounced into the air and descended rapidly impacting with the ground at midfield. No further communications were received by ASE ATC from the accident airplane.
At 1220, the KASE automated surface observation system (ASOS) reported the following weather conditions: wind from 320° true at 14 knots gusting to 25 knots, wind variable from 280° to 360, visibility 10 miles in haze, scattered clouds at 4,700 feet above ground level, ceiling broken at 6,000 feet, temperature -12° Celsius (C), dew point temperature -21° C, altimeter 30.07 inches of mercury. The remarks indicated a peak wind from 320° at 26 knots occurred at 1204.
The KASE ASOS one-minute data at the time of the accident reported the wind at 333º true at 14 knots gusting to 17 knots.
The cockpit voice recorder, flight data recorder, and Enhanced Ground Proximity System were recovered.Index for Jan2014 | Index of months
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, January 05, 2014 in Aspen, CO
Aircraft: CANADAIR LTD CL 600 2B16, registration: N115WF
Injuries: 1 Fatal,2 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On January 5, 2014, at 1222 mountain standard time, a Bombardier CL-600-2B16, N115WF, impacted the runway while attempting to land on Runway 15 at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport/Sardy Field (KASE), Aspen, Colorado. There were two crewmembers and a passenger onboard. One crewmember was fatally injured; the other crewmember and passenger received serious injuries. The airplane was destroyed. The airplane was registered to the Bank of Utah Trustee and operated by Vineland Corporation Company, Panama, South America under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan. The flight originated from Tucson International Airport (KTUS), Tucson, Arizona, at 1004.
According to preliminary information from the Federal Aviation Administration, the flight was in radio contact with ASE air traffic control (ATC). At 1210, N115WF utilized the localizer DME-E approach into KASE. ASE ATC reported winds as 290º at 19 knots, with winds gusting to 25 knots to the crew before landing. The crew executed a missed approach, and then requested to be vectored for a second attempt. On the second landing attempt N115WF briefly touched down on the runway, then bounced into the air and descended rapidly impacting with the ground at midfield. No further communications were received by ASE ATC from the accident airplane.
At 1220, the KASE automated surface observation system (ASOS) reported the following weather conditions: wind from 320° true at 14 knots gusting to 25 knots, wind variable from 280° to 360, visibility 10 miles in haze, scattered clouds at 4,700 feet above ground level, ceiling broken at 6,000 feet, temperature -12° Celsius (C), dew point temperature -21° C, altimeter 30.07 inches of mercury. The remarks indicated a peak wind from 320° at 26 knots occurred at 1204.
The KASE ASOS one-minute data at the time of the accident reported the wind at 333º true at 14 knots gusting to 17 knots.
The cockpit voice recorder, flight data recorder, and Enhanced Ground Proximity System were recovered.Index for Jan2014 | Index of months
Can any Challenger drivers confirm whether Vref is higher for a given weight at 8,000 PA than it is at SL on the 601? It's not on the types I've flown but I seem to remember hearing something about that once...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAS @ 10,000 = 149 for 128kias vs 153 for 132.
So the difference due to the change in Vref is still only 4 knots, and even less significant than at sl!
So the difference due to the change in Vref is still only 4 knots, and even less significant than at sl!
Thanks for the info BizJetJock.
4 knots isn't much by itself, but is still extra airspeed. A few knots incorporated into the AFM derived Vref, a few more for gusts, a few for the home folks and pretty soon you're talking too much airspeed to to touch the mains down without touching the nose too. Add the effect of a pilot pushing the nose down and forcing the airplane onto the runway due to diminishing runway remaining and you have a scenario similar to what occurred in ASE. In hindsight a diversion to RIL or GJT and an hour ride with Mountain Limo don't look so inconvenient now...
Like I said, it will be interesting to see the FDR traces when or if they become publicly viewable.
4 knots isn't much by itself, but is still extra airspeed. A few knots incorporated into the AFM derived Vref, a few more for gusts, a few for the home folks and pretty soon you're talking too much airspeed to to touch the mains down without touching the nose too. Add the effect of a pilot pushing the nose down and forcing the airplane onto the runway due to diminishing runway remaining and you have a scenario similar to what occurred in ASE. In hindsight a diversion to RIL or GJT and an hour ride with Mountain Limo don't look so inconvenient now...
Like I said, it will be interesting to see the FDR traces when or if they become publicly viewable.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surveillance video of the crash released:
Video from Aspen airport infrared cameras of Jan. 5, 2014 jet crash
Video from Aspen airport infrared cameras of Jan. 5, 2014 jet crash
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash was captured on CCTV and released today;
https://twitter.com/bizjet101/status/425822200285757440
https://twitter.com/bizjet101/status/425822200285757440
Camera 4
The sobering - blowing snow on the ramp shows just how fierce the gusts/tailwinds were.
The piquant - the onlooker (left) who kicks out at a piece of equipment in anger/frustration/sickness over what he just saw happen.
Mother Nature was in a surly mood that day, and not to be trifled with....
The sobering - blowing snow on the ramp shows just how fierce the gusts/tailwinds were.
The piquant - the onlooker (left) who kicks out at a piece of equipment in anger/frustration/sickness over what he just saw happen.
Mother Nature was in a surly mood that day, and not to be trifled with....
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: us
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watching camera 5 it was hard to distinguish from the background but it looked like they made a couple of nose down push overs in succession dropping about 10ft at a time before they made the first contact with the runway.
Not sure I have ever seen that technique before.
Not sure I have ever seen that technique before.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watching camera 5 it was hard to distinguish from the background but it looked like they made a couple of nose down push overs in succession dropping about 10ft at a time before they made the first contact with the runway.
Not sure I have ever seen that technique before.
Not sure I have ever seen that technique before.
But I have to admit, I think I can see the tail moving up and down in the attempted flare before the bounce and ugly pushover. Must have been ~ 20 degrees nose down.
Could they have broken something in the controls in the bounce immediately prior that would cause that? Otherwise it had to be a panic response to the high nose bounce attitude.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The final snap nose over does look like a stall - but I'm not sure I'd call it a touch and go; There was at least one prior bounce, and even the first bounce seemed to create some sparks from the nose gear.
Very noticable the tailwind from the spindrift and the speed with which the smoke cloud drifts away.
Very noticable the tailwind from the spindrift and the speed with which the smoke cloud drifts away.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen the technique mentioned by vfd.
i call it fishing for the ground or pumping the yoke.
I do not encourage it for anything.
ONE OF THE GREAT visual miscues of mountain flying is the apparent location of the horizon (visual horizon)>
IT IS NOT at the top of the mountains, it is at the base of the mountains.
AS bad as it would have been to just level off to lose some speed and then go off the end, it would have been better than the result.
i call it fishing for the ground or pumping the yoke.
I do not encourage it for anything.
ONE OF THE GREAT visual miscues of mountain flying is the apparent location of the horizon (visual horizon)>
IT IS NOT at the top of the mountains, it is at the base of the mountains.
AS bad as it would have been to just level off to lose some speed and then go off the end, it would have been better than the result.
WOW! That was a very hard hit.
For sure there are two instances of a push over. It will be interesting to see if these were totally pilot induced or the wx conditions (tailwind/windshear) had something to do with it.
For sure there are two instances of a push over. It will be interesting to see if these were totally pilot induced or the wx conditions (tailwind/windshear) had something to do with it.