Challenger crash at KASE
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No has mentioned it but it's possible that after that first bounce the pilot was incapacitated by the impact or at least completely disoriented and what the plane did after that was entirely on it's own. The first touchdown was clearly hard enough to cause significant damage to the jet.
In other words, I suspect after the first hit the pilot was just along for the ride.
In other words, I suspect after the first hit the pilot was just along for the ride.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dash8100
The post crash pictures shows the nose gear and elevators missing. Could the first bounce have been so severe that the nose gear came off, taking out one/both elevator(s)?
The rotation nose down is abrupt and it appears that the aircraft is still climbing for a while despite the significant nose down attitude!
Before the abrupt nose down pitch, the attitude is very stable nose up for a few seconds. I'm inclined to believe that this is the stick pusher at work.
@ lifeafteraviation...
"No has mentioned it but it's possible that after that first bounce the pilot was incapacitated by the impact..."
I do mention that possibility in my post (#210) on page 11.
I do mention that possibility in my post (#210) on page 11.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rotation nose down is abrupt and it appears that the aircraft is still climbing for a while despite the significant nose down attitude!
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Jet Jockey A4
Yes you did....I see now
You seem to know this aircraft well. Is the pusher inhibited at low altitude (less than maybe 200' AGL or so) like it is in some other jets? Without researching I don't know if this is a certification thing or just a manufacturer option.
A lot of wild speculation here (as usual) but this is one thing that could be dismissed if it's set up like that.
NTSB investigators do sit around and brainstorm throwing crazy theories out there into the mix just like people in this thread. The difference is they do it in private and only one designated person is allowed to funnel information out to the public in a controlled manner. Shooting down a colleagues theory is part of the process to isolate the plausible from the implausible.
In this case I think the details of how they crashed are less important than the fact they were trying to land at all.
I do mention that possibility in my post (#210) on page 11.
You seem to know this aircraft well. Is the pusher inhibited at low altitude (less than maybe 200' AGL or so) like it is in some other jets? Without researching I don't know if this is a certification thing or just a manufacturer option.
A lot of wild speculation here (as usual) but this is one thing that could be dismissed if it's set up like that.
NTSB investigators do sit around and brainstorm throwing crazy theories out there into the mix just like people in this thread. The difference is they do it in private and only one designated person is allowed to funnel information out to the public in a controlled manner. Shooting down a colleagues theory is part of the process to isolate the plausible from the implausible.
In this case I think the details of how they crashed are less important than the fact they were trying to land at all.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was a botched second attempt at landing on an approach that should have never been commenced in a type that the crew were not familiar with, and on a day that precluded them to do it in accordance with the aircraft's limitations.
The stick push theory is nonsense. The aircraft was nowhere close to stalling and I'll bet the ranch that the report makes that clear. We'll see in time but of course you are free to speculate, just as I am.
The stick push theory is nonsense. The aircraft was nowhere close to stalling and I'll bet the ranch that the report makes that clear. We'll see in time but of course you are free to speculate, just as I am.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Richmond, Ca
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at camera 5 a few dozen times, it never seems like he has any "real" pitch stability. You can see the glint off of the tops of the wings as the plane kind of steps down. If you look carefully, the last pitch down looked to my aged eyes to be his third bounce, with each pitch oscillation increasing in amplitude. Gusty tailwind wasn't his friend, maybe he just got behind it early on.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SalNicols,
Camera one shows the aircraft floating by - no warm tires.
Camera two shows it doing something deeply bad, with at least one bounce ending with a firm impact on the nose and sparks/hot bits going backwards underneath, before it climbs away out of shot. I think you're right this camera perhaps shows perhaps two bounces, but there's low contrast.
Camera three shows nothing but the impact after the (I think second, perhaps third) bounce.
Camera five shows it all, but from a long way away. I don't see any clear sign of the first bounce there.
The overall picture shown by camera 5 does indeed seem reminiscent of 30 seconds into this video, at higher speed in a different - perhaps less robust - aircraft. I don't think the cause of the events shown here are in doubt
Camera one shows the aircraft floating by - no warm tires.
Camera two shows it doing something deeply bad, with at least one bounce ending with a firm impact on the nose and sparks/hot bits going backwards underneath, before it climbs away out of shot. I think you're right this camera perhaps shows perhaps two bounces, but there's low contrast.
Camera three shows nothing but the impact after the (I think second, perhaps third) bounce.
Camera five shows it all, but from a long way away. I don't see any clear sign of the first bounce there.
The overall picture shown by camera 5 does indeed seem reminiscent of 30 seconds into this video, at higher speed in a different - perhaps less robust - aircraft. I don't think the cause of the events shown here are in doubt
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well… while it doesn't seem to have a MAK report, I think there's a very straightforward explanation.
It doesn't prove anything to legal/regulatory levels, but I would be surprised if the same broad processes weren't at work in that L410 on the steppes in 2006 and in Aspen this year.
It doesn't prove anything to legal/regulatory levels, but I would be surprised if the same broad processes weren't at work in that L410 on the steppes in 2006 and in Aspen this year.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we all understand that nose down inputs in the flare are potentially dangerous,
but I would like to again remind of the possibility of large scale chaotic turbulent flows from the adjacent terrain significantly interfering with the flare. I agree that it did not seem to be a good day to be landing at Aspen.
I haven't flown into Aspen enough to be able to characterize the turbulence possibilities, but the flare portion of the video is so busy/unstable that it seems to indicate the presence of significant turbulence. (Lets just say that it put me in mind of one of my prior experiences that resulted in a diversion.)
Perhaps some of those with a lot of trips into Aspen would care to comment on the turbulence possibilities.
but I would like to again remind of the possibility of large scale chaotic turbulent flows from the adjacent terrain significantly interfering with the flare. I agree that it did not seem to be a good day to be landing at Aspen.
I haven't flown into Aspen enough to be able to characterize the turbulence possibilities, but the flare portion of the video is so busy/unstable that it seems to indicate the presence of significant turbulence. (Lets just say that it put me in mind of one of my prior experiences that resulted in a diversion.)
Perhaps some of those with a lot of trips into Aspen would care to comment on the turbulence possibilities.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Machinbird
My experience at Aspen is limited to high DA work with a Twin Otter in a simulator, but mountain flying is a hobby of mine. Anyone with much mountain experience would tell you, that given the terrain around Aspen with the winds that day, the mechanical turbulence would have been at least moderate with downdrafts/updrafts.
Personally, I would not have made that approach with those conditions. As I mentioned in a previous post, Rifle, Eagle, Montrose or Grand Junction would have been viable alternates to consider. Have the pax drive out, or wait until the winds/weather subside, then fly back for the pickup. Love the mountains, but there are limits.
Perhaps some of those with a lot of trips into Aspen would care to comment on the turbulence possibilities.
Personally, I would not have made that approach with those conditions. As I mentioned in a previous post, Rifle, Eagle, Montrose or Grand Junction would have been viable alternates to consider. Have the pax drive out, or wait until the winds/weather subside, then fly back for the pickup. Love the mountains, but there are limits.
@ lifeafteraviation...
You seem to know this aircraft well. Is the pusher inhibited at low altitude (less than maybe 200' AGL or so)
The only way to disable the pusher is to have either one or both pusher switches to the "OFF" position.
You can also deactivate the pusher by pushing and holding the A/P disconnect switch on either control yoke.
The last bounce is high enough that they likely picked up an increased tailwind and lost a chunk of airspeed.
Conversely the decrease in tailwind in the last 20' or so is analogous to an increased headwind and a prolonged float -- presenting the temptation to force it down.
We should also remember that people get caught out finishing low level downwind beatups with steep climbouts into increased tailwind.
Conversely the decrease in tailwind in the last 20' or so is analogous to an increased headwind and a prolonged float -- presenting the temptation to force it down.
We should also remember that people get caught out finishing low level downwind beatups with steep climbouts into increased tailwind.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to add the possibility that one guy flying was being over ridden by one guy monitoring and a brief confusion over who was DRIVING THE FREAKING PLANE ensued.
That is a really nice video of the L410. Either have the will power to hold it off or go around;-)
That is a really nice video of the L410. Either have the will power to hold it off or go around;-)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We landed a Lear jet there one day to pick up the passengers of another Lear that went through the fence on landing off the side. It is not a difficult airport landing many times but you have to pay attention. Do not land fast or with a tailwind.
Are you familiar with ASE wind patterns? Not landing with a tailwind would preclude you landing a large percentage of the day. Early am and night time would be your only windows.
Landing with tailwinds in ASE is fine, I do it weekly. Landing with tailwinds that take you beyond limitations is a problem.
Landing with tailwinds in ASE is fine, I do it weekly. Landing with tailwinds that take you beyond limitations is a problem.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't mean you could not land with TW. One day we arrived with a report of severe turbulence on 2mile final to the south runway so just switched to the north one. That day you could land either direction with the wind report.