Challenger crash at KASE
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Your dudeness
does a bank make a pilot trying to land in gusting tailwinds about three times over the limit with a swept wing jet ...? After the first attempt was already unsuccesful ?
The question is then :"who controls actually the aircraft in that letal adventure and how?"
So I first questioned statistics if they could suggest an answer.
It is an old question I had first after the Sainte Odile crash report discovering that the Air Inter A320 belonged to a Japonese society... Creative accounting has limits too. Nobody asked any question.
In another crash (Quiberon Be1900) other garbagge appeared where you ask who has the responsiility and who is the real operator whose responsibility is limited by the Warsavia/Montréal Treaty. The passenger buys a ticket to the operator not to the pilot. I found it strange too that victims went to the Court against pilots instead against these ones who contracted transport with them. If pilots did something stupid the operator not the victims should do a judicial action against pilots if they want it.
Who is Who?
You are right : don't always search another responsibility .
I don't ask more regulation, but respect of the regulation (or perhaps change it if needed by better regulation).
The most important rule to respect is : "The Captain has the decision, he must stay free"
Design, Owner, Operator have to respect that most important rule. When we list the crashes, knowing or not knowing what happened, so many times the Captain was "missing". I would be estonished if Bubbers44 should desagree.
Last edited by roulishollandais; 1st Feb 2014 at 22:39. Reason: spelling,improvment
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
roulishollandais,
what you say is not wrong, but the question WHY they crash is basically what all the accident investigations are about. And they have shifted from mere technicalities to also the stuff going on in the background.
In fact, I agree a 100% to:
And when the captain is an idiot, the F/O has to take responsibility.
In the end - IMHO - it boils down to personality of a pilot, a thing we can´t really measure (at least only to an extend) and we certainly won´t be able to get a clear opinion of what it takes to be a good pilot and a safe operation. Ask 5 pilots, get 6 opinions.
I don´t think I need 3 tonnes of manuals to fly safely, others do.
Thats just human.
what you say is not wrong, but the question WHY they crash is basically what all the accident investigations are about. And they have shifted from mere technicalities to also the stuff going on in the background.
In fact, I agree a 100% to:
The most important rule to respect is : "The Captain has the decision, he must stay free"
Design, Owner, Operator have to respect that most important rule. When we list the crashes, knowing or not knowing what happened, so many times the Captain was "missing"
Design, Owner, Operator have to respect that most important rule. When we list the crashes, knowing or not knowing what happened, so many times the Captain was "missing"
In the end - IMHO - it boils down to personality of a pilot, a thing we can´t really measure (at least only to an extend) and we certainly won´t be able to get a clear opinion of what it takes to be a good pilot and a safe operation. Ask 5 pilots, get 6 opinions.
I don´t think I need 3 tonnes of manuals to fly safely, others do.
Thats just human.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Your dudeness
In the end - IMHO - it boils down to personality of a pilot, a thing we can´t really measure (at least only to an extend) and we certainly won´t be able to get a clear opinion of what it takes to be a good pilot and a safe operation
In France an Airline Instructor does not need to have these basic instruction qualifications and he can sign a type rating on the base of SOPs. The checked pilot may ignore he is not able to analyse his own actions when the flight is no more standard.
Captain/FO : redundancy and generations continuity with experience transmission.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this thread is going in circles.
Most of this has already been said and addressed several times.
The bank isn't the operator, it's simply a financing institution that holds the note to guarantee the funds are paid. The bank that holds the note doesn't have any direct responsibility over the aircraft or any operational control and probably no one from the bank has ever seen the aircraft. They just make money from interest by holding the note. The bank could care less how the plane is flown or if it flies at all. The bank probably doesn't want the plane to crash simply because they get a lump sum payout on the loan from the insurance company and can't collect any more interest...that's it.
Banks own pretty much everything. They probably own your house and your car too...even your iPhone is owned by a bank somewhere unless you paid cash without a contract....even then you only own the shell.
Most of this has already been said and addressed several times.
The bank isn't the operator, it's simply a financing institution that holds the note to guarantee the funds are paid. The bank that holds the note doesn't have any direct responsibility over the aircraft or any operational control and probably no one from the bank has ever seen the aircraft. They just make money from interest by holding the note. The bank could care less how the plane is flown or if it flies at all. The bank probably doesn't want the plane to crash simply because they get a lump sum payout on the loan from the insurance company and can't collect any more interest...that's it.
Banks own pretty much everything. They probably own your house and your car too...even your iPhone is owned by a bank somewhere unless you paid cash without a contract....even then you only own the shell.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bank could care less how the plane is flown
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually not correct: most banks want to make sure their asset is being looked after properly, because how it is operated and maintained makes a huge difference to the resale value.
Maybe it works differently in Europe but I don't think so. You're probably thinking of a different scenario where the bank may have invested heavily in the company as a whole and has financed many aircraft and other assets of the company and may even own a significant stake in the business.
The bottom line is in this case the bank will have no liability or responsibility as to the operation of this aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with discussing anything anonymously is people just have to take your word for what you know. I've said some things in these forums I wouldn't necessarily want employers to be able to identify me for...that's the whole point.
Giving away details of one's background here, while tempting, is not wise. The more diverse and specialized one's background, the more easily that the person is identified.
But you're right, it's a bit off topic to discuss the legal liability of financing companies and lien holders. One could write a book on it. Those with the most money to lose (such as banks) are highly skilled at insulating themselves from such liability.
When it comes to discussing regulations and possible implications of the accident at Aspen, that is very much on topic and has been discussed at length. I feel very strongly that unnecessary knee jerk regulations don't enhance safety rather than diminish safety.
There is no need to regulate against reckless behavior when it's already illegal. When I say illegal I mean criminally illegal. It's a crime to deliberately violate professional codes of conduct, established safety regulations or aircraft limitations when such reckless behavior results in a serious accident with loss of life and or property.
Manslaughter is already a crime, we don't need more civil regulations against it unless you're a lawyer...lawyers always want more regulation to keep them in business.
Criminal charges require a burden of proof beyond the scope of an NTSB accident investigation. Such investigations can, however, be used as evidence in both civil and criminal cases. It will take a while for the NTSB to complete it's investigation. Meanwhile, the aviation civil litigators are anxiously waiting in the "wings."
As far as criminal charges go...the fact that this captain must live his life with the knowledge of having killed his own brother is punishment enough IMO.
Giving away details of one's background here, while tempting, is not wise. The more diverse and specialized one's background, the more easily that the person is identified.
But you're right, it's a bit off topic to discuss the legal liability of financing companies and lien holders. One could write a book on it. Those with the most money to lose (such as banks) are highly skilled at insulating themselves from such liability.
When it comes to discussing regulations and possible implications of the accident at Aspen, that is very much on topic and has been discussed at length. I feel very strongly that unnecessary knee jerk regulations don't enhance safety rather than diminish safety.
There is no need to regulate against reckless behavior when it's already illegal. When I say illegal I mean criminally illegal. It's a crime to deliberately violate professional codes of conduct, established safety regulations or aircraft limitations when such reckless behavior results in a serious accident with loss of life and or property.
Manslaughter is already a crime, we don't need more civil regulations against it unless you're a lawyer...lawyers always want more regulation to keep them in business.
Criminal charges require a burden of proof beyond the scope of an NTSB accident investigation. Such investigations can, however, be used as evidence in both civil and criminal cases. It will take a while for the NTSB to complete it's investigation. Meanwhile, the aviation civil litigators are anxiously waiting in the "wings."
As far as criminal charges go...the fact that this captain must live his life with the knowledge of having killed his own brother is punishment enough IMO.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article on ops into Aspen in AIN Online; it was in their weekly email summary today.
Which seems consistent with most of what was discussed here, namely that it can be done, but shouldn't.
“One clear day I asked the tower if I could circle to 33 [in a Challenger] just to see what it was like,” one pilot said. “It was scary. Steep banking at high altitude introduces the potential for an accelerated stall, for one thing. It’s a risky maneuver under the best conditions in a high-performance jet.”
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how visual circling would work in a plane other than a challenger.
The lack of LEDs must up the thing by at least 20 knots.
correct me if I"m wrong, but adding 10 knots to vref protects you to 30 degrees of bank (approx).
adding 20 knots to vref almost 45 degrees of bank.
fully configured circling in a lightly loaded jet with LEDs must be about what a straight in vref in a challenger is.
I know some circling is done with only partial flaps/leds but I can see the wisdom in fully configured over the airport in a modified teardrop towards the east and coming around to 33 after reversing course over the town.
The lack of LEDs must up the thing by at least 20 knots.
correct me if I"m wrong, but adding 10 knots to vref protects you to 30 degrees of bank (approx).
adding 20 knots to vref almost 45 degrees of bank.
fully configured circling in a lightly loaded jet with LEDs must be about what a straight in vref in a challenger is.
I know some circling is done with only partial flaps/leds but I can see the wisdom in fully configured over the airport in a modified teardrop towards the east and coming around to 33 after reversing course over the town.
Instead of just "having a go" like this twit:
circling at Aspen would require some homework first. A couple of simple plots re turn radius would show whether it was doable or not.
No wonder people prang aeroplanes at places like that...
One clear day I asked the tower if I could circle to 33 [in a Challenger] just to see what it was like,” one pilot said.
No wonder people prang aeroplanes at places like that...
With a Global Express with a low landing weight...
And with a circling procedure that uses full flap (30 degrees) and Vref +10 you could be flying in the very low 120s maybe a bit lower... 122kts is a very possible target speed for circling in that aircraft.
On straight in approaches with low weights and 30 kts of wind, I have seen G/S in the low 80 kts range.
On straight in approaches with low weights and 30 kts of wind, I have seen G/S in the low 80 kts range.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just using google satellite views, I would do a ''circle'' (VMC ONLY, DAY) as follows:
depart the airport between threshold of 15 and midfield on about a 100 degree heading, hugging the mountains to the left, starting a descent * at vref plus 20 fully configured for landing at min spoolup n1/2*
over the town itself reverse course using my best constant radius turn skills, avoiding gondolas and establish myself following the road back to the airport, by this time I would have reduced altitude and though not seeing the airport, knowing the road would take me to the threshold on an angle.
on the satellite image the road is marked as 82.
I would also remember the following, or consider the following:
if circling to 33, I would have a bit of a tailwind while starting my reversal over downtown, so this would be the steepest bank. By the time I was on a heading of about 300 or so my ground speed should be reduced by the headwind associated with a 33 landing.
Yes, there are gondolas/ski lifts, noise concerns, visual miscues from the mountains but pre planning some headings, a good copilot calling airspeed/sink rates and bank/pitch angles would help.
I would also measure the distance from the over the airport fix for the entire turn around back to the threshold and compute (by hand) the mileage and amount of altitude to lose so as to be at the threshold just above field elevation. I would plan my rate of descent accordingly. In some ways this reminds me of the expressway visual to runway 31 at KLGA. But I digress
And the first few times, indeed always, I would be ready to say OH SHIRT and go around with max power.
Don't make the mistake of pitching and banking via total visual references, use instrument/visual scan.
depart the airport between threshold of 15 and midfield on about a 100 degree heading, hugging the mountains to the left, starting a descent * at vref plus 20 fully configured for landing at min spoolup n1/2*
over the town itself reverse course using my best constant radius turn skills, avoiding gondolas and establish myself following the road back to the airport, by this time I would have reduced altitude and though not seeing the airport, knowing the road would take me to the threshold on an angle.
on the satellite image the road is marked as 82.
I would also remember the following, or consider the following:
if circling to 33, I would have a bit of a tailwind while starting my reversal over downtown, so this would be the steepest bank. By the time I was on a heading of about 300 or so my ground speed should be reduced by the headwind associated with a 33 landing.
Yes, there are gondolas/ski lifts, noise concerns, visual miscues from the mountains but pre planning some headings, a good copilot calling airspeed/sink rates and bank/pitch angles would help.
I would also measure the distance from the over the airport fix for the entire turn around back to the threshold and compute (by hand) the mileage and amount of altitude to lose so as to be at the threshold just above field elevation. I would plan my rate of descent accordingly. In some ways this reminds me of the expressway visual to runway 31 at KLGA. But I digress
And the first few times, indeed always, I would be ready to say OH SHIRT and go around with max power.
Don't make the mistake of pitching and banking via total visual references, use instrument/visual scan.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
* descent rate calculated to reach threshold after entire maneuver just above field elevation. based on groundspeed (best guess) throughout maneuver.
* minimum engine speed for quick acceleration and not in the ''unspooled'' range, know your own engine.
* minimum engine speed for quick acceleration and not in the ''unspooled'' range, know your own engine.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and what if ATC asked pilots what winds 'they needed'...? And then reported them as such? (not specifically in the accident aircraft case.)
Just a thought...
Ever heard:" what RVR do you need?" And magically 'gotten it?"
Just a thought...
Ever heard:" what RVR do you need?" And magically 'gotten it?"
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
correct me if I"m wrong, but adding 10 knots to vref protects you to 30 degrees of bank (approx).
adding 20 knots to vref almost 45 degrees of bank.
adding 20 knots to vref almost 45 degrees of bank.
Really? protects you? from what? an accelerated stall? I don't think so!! Please don't go around flying jets with such overly simplified rules of aerodynamics in your head.
if circling to 33, I would have a bit of a tailwind while starting my reversal over downtown, so this would be the steepest bank.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
life
fine, you tell me what speed would protect you and allow maneuvering at 30 and 45 degree bank, landing configuration. in terms of vref plus "X".
you select the jet.
or a series of jets.
and yes it is a simplification, and I don't have the numbers for every corporate jet? come on life, tell me. nice 'tude
fine, you tell me what speed would protect you and allow maneuvering at 30 and 45 degree bank, landing configuration. in terms of vref plus "X".
you select the jet.
or a series of jets.
and yes it is a simplification, and I don't have the numbers for every corporate jet? come on life, tell me. nice 'tude