Challenger crash at KASE
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people are confusing the registration information easily found online with the operator information. Some of the hints in this thread that the airplane was possibly being operated by a Mexican outfit with a US registration may prove interesting as well as the nationality of the crew.
I'm anxious to learn about the nature of the operation, commercial or private?...if they were not waiting for the passengers in Aspen it smells a bit like a brokered charter operation although we won't know until the NTSB issues a preliminary report. Arizona was a customs stop from Mexico.
The cause of the accident is pretty clear...the nature of the operation will be what interests me and why those pilots were compelled to make such an incredibly poor decision.
As far as the video...it amazes me that pilots post videos of their landings on YouTube in the first place but if it's a sloppy approach and landing like that what on earth are they thinking? We all make sloppy landings once in a while but why brag about it? They must have thought it was a good one.
phollard... That is NOT an example of a good approach and landing at ASE!
I'm anxious to learn about the nature of the operation, commercial or private?...if they were not waiting for the passengers in Aspen it smells a bit like a brokered charter operation although we won't know until the NTSB issues a preliminary report. Arizona was a customs stop from Mexico.
The cause of the accident is pretty clear...the nature of the operation will be what interests me and why those pilots were compelled to make such an incredibly poor decision.
As far as the video...it amazes me that pilots post videos of their landings on YouTube in the first place but if it's a sloppy approach and landing like that what on earth are they thinking? We all make sloppy landings once in a while but why brag about it? They must have thought it was a good one.
phollard... That is NOT an example of a good approach and landing at ASE!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Latte tester
Can't remember Vref, but a flap 20 landing would be easier, depending on runway required for their weight...
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as the video...it amazes me that pilots post videos of their landings on YouTube in the first place but if it's a sloppy approach and landing like that what on earth are they thinking? We all make sloppy landings once in a while but why brag about it? They must have thought it was a good one.
This video was posted in another forum (Mexico) so that other pilots can see what the approach into Aspen looks like, it was never posted to brag about it.
Also the pilots were aware of the 4 red lights and were prepared to execute the missed approach procedure if deem necessary, fortunately for us we had a beautiful calm day.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
windshear
IN one of the earlier posts (I think completely deck made mention of this report, though I am not attacking completely deck at all)a mention of a "GAIN OF 5-20KNOTS"
AS we all know there are increasing performance wind shear and decreasing performance wind shear. There are also incorrect reports on windshear.
I would like to know if it was a loss of 5 to 20 knots of IAS or a GAIN of 5 to 20 knots. Later on during the go around a pilot indicates a loss of 33 knots.
EARLY reports always seem to make us ask even more questions.
AS we all know there are increasing performance wind shear and decreasing performance wind shear. There are also incorrect reports on windshear.
I would like to know if it was a loss of 5 to 20 knots of IAS or a GAIN of 5 to 20 knots. Later on during the go around a pilot indicates a loss of 33 knots.
EARLY reports always seem to make us ask even more questions.
@ glendalegoon...
"I would like to know if it was a loss of 5 to 20 knots of IAS or a GAIN of 5 to 20 knots. Later on during the go around a pilot indicates a loss of 33 knots."
On the ATC audio tape, pilots of various aircrafts were heard telling the tower they had "Windshear" of different strength while on the approach... One of them clearly stated to the tower that they had a -10kts to +20kts Windshear on their approach.
Now the doomed aircraft's pilots stated to ATC they were making a missed approach due to 33 kts "tailwind", no mention of "windshear".
On the ATC audio tape, pilots of various aircrafts were heard telling the tower they had "Windshear" of different strength while on the approach... One of them clearly stated to the tower that they had a -10kts to +20kts Windshear on their approach.
Now the doomed aircraft's pilots stated to ATC they were making a missed approach due to 33 kts "tailwind", no mention of "windshear".
Last edited by Jet Jockey A4; 6th Jan 2014 at 14:46.
@ Latte tester...
"I thought the max tailwind for landing a 601 was/is 10kts... Clearly reported wind at 16kts...with gusts"
You are correct... The aircraft's limitation in the AFM is max tailwind component of 10kts.
On their second approach prior to landing the tower gave them the wind as 320 at 16 kts with peak gust of 28 knots within the last minute.
Given the high TAS because of altitude, increased actual approach speed for turbulence/windshear correction, add to that a high rate of descent to get down from the MDA to the runway and a crew apparently flying into KASE for the first time in less than ideal conditions, the holes were lining up for a disaster to happen.
That Challenger must have been smoking into KASE. The G/S must have been very high!
You are correct... The aircraft's limitation in the AFM is max tailwind component of 10kts.
On their second approach prior to landing the tower gave them the wind as 320 at 16 kts with peak gust of 28 knots within the last minute.
Given the high TAS because of altitude, increased actual approach speed for turbulence/windshear correction, add to that a high rate of descent to get down from the MDA to the runway and a crew apparently flying into KASE for the first time in less than ideal conditions, the holes were lining up for a disaster to happen.
That Challenger must have been smoking into KASE. The G/S must have been very high!
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: CLE
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vref ~ 120kt
+ 5kt
+ Headwind = 0
+ Half gust component = 6
= approach IAS of 131kt
= approach TAS at 8000ft of 148kt
= approach GS (15kt tailwind) = 163kt
6.59deg glideslope... 1200fpm?
(edited-- wrong envelope)
Last edited by asc12; 6th Jan 2014 at 16:00.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That probably underestimates some of the adders : Challenger adds half the steady state plus ALL of the gust, per the OM.
(However, the +5 standard might not be applied, and we don't know enough of the other details to be too accurate. Regardless, it's not a slow number)
(However, the +5 standard might not be applied, and we don't know enough of the other details to be too accurate. Regardless, it's not a slow number)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad (Flt) Scientist
Also not an approved landing configuration for a Challenger...
Where are you getting this info? Nothing in the AFM restricts the PIC from a less than full flap landing if conditions exist/warrant. I've done a few and so have a few of my colleagues. Better controllability especially in the gusts, but that's assuming an into wind landing.
Also not an approved landing configuration for a Challenger...
Where are you getting this info? Nothing in the AFM restricts the PIC from a less than full flap landing if conditions exist/warrant. I've done a few and so have a few of my colleagues. Better controllability especially in the gusts, but that's assuming an into wind landing.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing needs be remember about Aspen operations, nothing is normal, except airspeeds, re. V-speeds for takeoff and landing.
One can have a reported 1,000/2,000 foot overcast with five miles visiblity and never be in IMC from orginal descent from cruise altitude to touch down.
On departure you can have an obscured ceiling of less than 300 feet with a mile visiblity and can make the depatrure and have good visilibity for the takoff and the climb out. They have been a lot of times when we 91 operators can leave ASE, and the 135 and fractional guys and gals could not because of the reported weather. The folks in the tower try to work with them, but there is only so much they can do. In my experience, which is considerable in Aspen, the ATC controllers there are exceptional.
I have neve made a landing at Aspen with less than full flaps for landing, regardless of the aircraft I'm flying, nor the conditions. Maybe Challengers are different, never flew one.
I still don't understand how on Earth, Aspen did not make the list of the most dangerous airports in the world.
One can have a reported 1,000/2,000 foot overcast with five miles visiblity and never be in IMC from orginal descent from cruise altitude to touch down.
On departure you can have an obscured ceiling of less than 300 feet with a mile visiblity and can make the depatrure and have good visilibity for the takoff and the climb out. They have been a lot of times when we 91 operators can leave ASE, and the 135 and fractional guys and gals could not because of the reported weather. The folks in the tower try to work with them, but there is only so much they can do. In my experience, which is considerable in Aspen, the ATC controllers there are exceptional.
I have neve made a landing at Aspen with less than full flaps for landing, regardless of the aircraft I'm flying, nor the conditions. Maybe Challengers are different, never flew one.
I still don't understand how on Earth, Aspen did not make the list of the most dangerous airports in the world.
I've asked that same question at meetings that included many of the movers and shakers in the ski and lodging industry along with the well connected airport director. They seem to have made a concerted effort by means unknown to me to stay off the list. Don't think it helps the fiscal bottom line to have your airport on anyone's conscience mind as being a dangerous one.
I recall after the relatively recent cable channel show about the most dangerous airports that passengers getting on the plane to EGE would ask if it was really that bad. Guess its not just nerdy pilots who watch that type of stuff.
EGE is a challenging airport, but it ain't no ASE.
I recall after the relatively recent cable channel show about the most dangerous airports that passengers getting on the plane to EGE would ask if it was really that bad. Guess its not just nerdy pilots who watch that type of stuff.
EGE is a challenging airport, but it ain't no ASE.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Latte_tester
AFM Chapter 6, Performance, table defining configurations for various flight phases. Only flaps 45 is listed as a landing config. Only operations according to that table has published performance data of the required format. (Other data is intended for abnormal operations only)
Additionally, the Introduction to the Performance Chapter states;
Sorry, anything except flaps 45 for landing is NOT covered by the AFM, is prohibited by that wording and, perhaps most importantly, is not covered by flight testing for certification. That "must" in that quoted sentence is definitive. And it's an "approved" page as well.
AFM Chapter 6, Performance, table defining configurations for various flight phases. Only flaps 45 is listed as a landing config. Only operations according to that table has published performance data of the required format. (Other data is intended for abnormal operations only)
Additionally, the Introduction to the Performance Chapter states;
The airspeeds and airplane configurations for take-off, climb and landing, as presented in this chapter, must be adhered to during the appropriate phase of flight.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cave Creek, Arizona - USA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hate to second guess another flight crew but the ATC audio is pretty consistently reporting sustained winds from the NW above 10kts and gusts as high as 30. Why force it? This should have been an easy decision to divert. In our 605 we would have never even tried to attempt it.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: europe
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a horrific accident, how on earth did this all go so wrong?
Going by some of the (not always trustworthy...) media there were no pax on board, only 3 crew.
KASE was in the news earlier this year as well, albeit a lot less tragic:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvr9x75bdh...ent.010214.pdf
Going by some of the (not always trustworthy...) media there were no pax on board, only 3 crew.
KASE was in the news earlier this year as well, albeit a lot less tragic:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvr9x75bdh...ent.010214.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ mad (flt) scientist
Not to drag this out, but flap settings, speeds and landing distances are calculated in the AFM and also presented in the QRH, yes in the abnormal section.
If in the judgement of the Captain a lesser flap setting will enable a safer approach and landing due to extreme conditions, that would be an abnormal stae which is therefore covered by the wording in the AFM.
I've been in a position where severe gusty winds necessitated a flap 20 landing due to controllability issues. I was with the check Captain and other than, "nicely done", nothing else was mentioned.
Sometimes it's not black and white...
Not to drag this out, but flap settings, speeds and landing distances are calculated in the AFM and also presented in the QRH, yes in the abnormal section.
If in the judgement of the Captain a lesser flap setting will enable a safer approach and landing due to extreme conditions, that would be an abnormal stae which is therefore covered by the wording in the AFM.
I've been in a position where severe gusty winds necessitated a flap 20 landing due to controllability issues. I was with the check Captain and other than, "nicely done", nothing else was mentioned.
Sometimes it's not black and white...
The QRH Abnormals for less than 45 Flap are to address specific flap malfunctions not for the pilot to modify the AFM procedure.
I believe the procedure you are referring to is titled FLAP FAIL (ABNORMAL 8-6). it begins with flaps failure occurred at less than 8 degrees
Please explain where that procedure allows for a less tha 45 flap landing when the flaps are operative. And explain why controllability, tested during certification, was inadequate for the conditions?
One thing for sure, adding another 16-18 knots of true airspeed wouldn't have helped on that day at ASE under that tailwind.
I believe the procedure you are referring to is titled FLAP FAIL (ABNORMAL 8-6). it begins with flaps failure occurred at less than 8 degrees
Please explain where that procedure allows for a less tha 45 flap landing when the flaps are operative. And explain why controllability, tested during certification, was inadequate for the conditions?
One thing for sure, adding another 16-18 knots of true airspeed wouldn't have helped on that day at ASE under that tailwind.
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 7th Jan 2014 at 00:59.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 92
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how on earth did this all go so wrong?
They shot a difficult non precision approach at high DA to a field with a deceptive sight picture (due gradient) and no horizon reference (due mountains) in a type apparently completely new to him with a 30Kt tailwind & reported 20Kt windshear on approach and a touchdown tailwind that was approaching double the type's limit.
What else would you expect the result to be?
How on earth were these guys allowed anywhere near an aeroplane in the first place is perhaps a better question.