Challenger crash at KASE
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never flown the Challenger itself, but have flown three of its derivatives (CRJ-200/700/900). For all three of them, partial or no-flap landings were practiced in the simulator regularly. Just as well, because the -100/200, for example, had a habit of experiencing flap failures, while on the -900 I had one case of a slat failure. Furthermore, for all of those aircraft single-engine landings are made with Flaps 20, which is also the case for landings with a pitch trim failure.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATERPSTER makes a fine point. APCH N/A cat D.
But I really don't know what the Challenger is classed at. I realize it doesn't have slats/leds.
BUT I am sure that the actual AFM will declare this plane to be class "?".
Anyone have the book?
I remember a crash at Grand Juction in a Challenger. Famous NBC sports guy and family. Cause was something like ice on the wings during takeoff.
DOES that ring a bell?
But I really don't know what the Challenger is classed at. I realize it doesn't have slats/leds.
BUT I am sure that the actual AFM will declare this plane to be class "?".
Anyone have the book?
I remember a crash at Grand Juction in a Challenger. Famous NBC sports guy and family. Cause was something like ice on the wings during takeoff.
DOES that ring a bell?
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this discussion is still academic concerning this accident. If (and it's a pretty likely if) the captain was found to have knowingly and deliberately exceeded the aircraft's published limitations (and by a significant margin) to land there he is guilty of reckless operation. Since he killed someone as a result and endangered the lives of others he is criminally liable. Whether he will be charged is another issue but I'm betting he will. The international aspect will add a wrinkle.
The authorities will not jump quickly on this issue because of the time it takes to complete an investigation and because of the serious implications involved in charging a pilot with a crime, especially a foreign pilot. There are still many factors that have to be explored such as the possibility of an undeclared emergency and an inability to recall details which is about the only thing I can think of that could save this guy.
The authorities will not jump quickly on this issue because of the time it takes to complete an investigation and because of the serious implications involved in charging a pilot with a crime, especially a foreign pilot. There are still many factors that have to be explored such as the possibility of an undeclared emergency and an inability to recall details which is about the only thing I can think of that could save this guy.
I can't hear the audio very clearly, but I don't hear anyone state "runway in sight, continue", or whatever the equivalent statement is in your ops, yet the descent is not arrested at MDA… evidence for a self built pseudo GS being flown?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glendalegoon:
Montrose, Colorado. They probably would have been okay had they taxied to the long runway. Accidents like that one are pathetic and inexcusable.
I remember a crash at Grand Juction in a Challenger. Famous NBC sports guy and family. Cause was something like ice on the wings during takeoff.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone willing to help me understand exactly what "Circle to Land" means these days?
http://www.ce560xl.com/files/Chartin...le_to_Land.pdf
http://www.ce560xl.com/files/Chartin...le_to_Land.pdf
Never flown the Challenger itself, but have flown three of its derivatives (CRJ-200/700/900). For all three of them, partial or no-flap landings were practiced in the simulator regularly. Just as well, because the -100/200, for example, had a habit of experiencing flap failures, while on the -900 I had one case of a slat failure. Furthermore, for all of those aircraft single-engine landings are made with Flaps 20, which is also the case for landings with a pitch trim failure.
All three flights originated in Detroit, and all the flap failures occurred in winter. Apparently the 200 model had issues with flap position microswitches freezing up due to water/slush ingress into the flap bays - usually on the preceding takeoff, leading to a flap system failure when the crew tried to deploy them during the approach.
The carrier has since retired all of their 200s in favor of CRJ-700s which don't seem to have that particular problem.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realize most training is accomplished in the sim now, but for years that was not the case. Can anyone remember Canadair (bombardier) training pilots allowing less than full flap landings?
That said, I really can't remember whether there was more than one landing flap setting in the book. It seems like we used less than full flaps in gusty crosswind landings, but we were very standardized, so if we did them as a matter of course it would have been in the book.
Last edited by Murexway; 10th Jan 2014 at 01:04.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Elsewhere
Age: 56
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the Challenger is Category D, so there are no circling minimums.
So I assume all those nice shiny Cat D speed machines shown parked on Goooogle Earth landed there with VMC below the MSA...
So I assume all those nice shiny Cat D speed machines shown parked on Goooogle Earth landed there with VMC below the MSA...
I'm guessing they did the same for the G450/GV/G550. It would explain some of the heavier metal on the ramp as KASE.
For the Challenger drivers; Does the 601/604 have a similar option?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Egremont, MA, USA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone willing to help me understand exactly what "Circle to Land" means these days?
http://www.ce560xl.com/files/Chartin...le_to_Land.pdf
http://www.ce560xl.com/files/Chartin...le_to_Land.pdf
I had always thought that a straight in approach was permissible if the runway was in sight and a normal landing was assured, even if no straight in minimums were published.
aterpster says no, and I would think he would know.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess this means a Category D is prohibited from using the LOC/DME-E, period. Correct?
Or was it allowable for a Category D to fly the approach to DOYPE (7.1 DME at 11,700) and proceed if they saw the runway?
Aircraft Approach Categories:
An aircraft's approach category is based on 1.30 VSO or VREF, as defined by the certification rules applicable at the time that the type certificate was issued, computed at the aircraft's maximum certificated landing weight. Transport airplanes type-certificated after December 2002 define final approach speed using the term VREF, which was newly added to the definitions contained in 14 CFR part 1. Prior to December 2002, final approach speed for transport airplanes was defined as 1.30 VSO.
Whether final approach speed is defined as 1.30 VSO or VREF, the aircraft's approach category is always based on maximum certified landing weight. It is never permissible to use a lower approach category based on the aircraft's actual landing weight. Non-standard landing configuration or abnormal procedure speed additives may result in the need to use minima associated with a higher approach category. If these lines of minima are not published, then circling approaches are prohibited.
http://www.ce560xl.com/files/Chartin...le_to_Land.pdf
Aterpster says "That approach doesn't have straight-in minimums for any approach category nor does it have circling minimums for approach category D. So an approach Category D airplane cannot legally even begin that approach" and I believe him. Nor does any other instrument approach for KASE have minimums for Category D, so doesn't that mean that Category D aircraft are prohibited from all but visual approaches to this airport?
Or was it allowable for a Category D to fly the approach to DOYPE (7.1 DME at 11,700) and proceed if they saw the runway?
Aircraft Approach Categories:
An aircraft's approach category is based on 1.30 VSO or VREF, as defined by the certification rules applicable at the time that the type certificate was issued, computed at the aircraft's maximum certificated landing weight. Transport airplanes type-certificated after December 2002 define final approach speed using the term VREF, which was newly added to the definitions contained in 14 CFR part 1. Prior to December 2002, final approach speed for transport airplanes was defined as 1.30 VSO.
Whether final approach speed is defined as 1.30 VSO or VREF, the aircraft's approach category is always based on maximum certified landing weight. It is never permissible to use a lower approach category based on the aircraft's actual landing weight. Non-standard landing configuration or abnormal procedure speed additives may result in the need to use minima associated with a higher approach category. If these lines of minima are not published, then circling approaches are prohibited.
http://www.ce560xl.com/files/Chartin...le_to_Land.pdf
Aterpster says "That approach doesn't have straight-in minimums for any approach category nor does it have circling minimums for approach category D. So an approach Category D airplane cannot legally even begin that approach" and I believe him. Nor does any other instrument approach for KASE have minimums for Category D, so doesn't that mean that Category D aircraft are prohibited from all but visual approaches to this airport?
Last edited by thcrozier; 10th Jan 2014 at 02:38.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And, some aircraft (e.g. the B-757), are in one category for straight in approaches, and a higher one for circling.
Looks to me like the Challenger 601 is Cat C for straight in with an approach speed of 125 knots, is this right? Is it indeed Cat D for circling?
Looks to me like the Challenger 601 is Cat C for straight in with an approach speed of 125 knots, is this right? Is it indeed Cat D for circling?
Crozier,
Not too sure of your question from the link posted.
The training issue is off the track. A TRTO will have authorization to perform maneuvers required for training by the regulator, in the absence of a training device. That authorization is completely unrelated from what an operational crew is authorized to do, as per the AFM. The relevant regulator will impose conditions on the TRTO as to how perform, in this case, partial flap landings for training and evaluation.
It's Cat C for straight-in approaches, Cat D for circling. This oddity has to do with the final approach speed for flaps 45 on straight-in and circling speeds with flaps 30 for circling. Yes, a bit unusual that it falls out this way.
The fact that that most KASE landings are flown "straight in" visually is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that the final approach descent gradient exceeds 400 ft/nm means it is a "circling" approach, not how the plane is aligned with the runway. Some TERPS/PANS-OPS study is in order, perhaps.
Not too sure of your question from the link posted.
The training issue is off the track. A TRTO will have authorization to perform maneuvers required for training by the regulator, in the absence of a training device. That authorization is completely unrelated from what an operational crew is authorized to do, as per the AFM. The relevant regulator will impose conditions on the TRTO as to how perform, in this case, partial flap landings for training and evaluation.
It's Cat C for straight-in approaches, Cat D for circling. This oddity has to do with the final approach speed for flaps 45 on straight-in and circling speeds with flaps 30 for circling. Yes, a bit unusual that it falls out this way.
The fact that that most KASE landings are flown "straight in" visually is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that the final approach descent gradient exceeds 400 ft/nm means it is a "circling" approach, not how the plane is aligned with the runway. Some TERPS/PANS-OPS study is in order, perhaps.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I see, every approach to KASE except the ROARING FORK VISUAL is Circling and none allow Category D. If that's the case, wouldn't the airport be off-limits to any Category D in IMC?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galaxy,
I'm just interested to know if any Category D aircraft can reasonably expect to execute a legal approach to KASE under IMC. It seems that the answer is no.
Thank you and with all due respect, Sir.
I'm just interested to know if any Category D aircraft can reasonably expect to execute a legal approach to KASE under IMC. It seems that the answer is no.
Thank you and with all due respect, Sir.