HS 125 reported crashed in Akron
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not much new in the November 11 3 pm NTSB briefing by Dr. Bella Dinh-Zarr.
She gave the aircraft type as a Hawker 125-700A but I did not hear a registration mentioned.
The pilots went from Minneapolis to Moline to St. Louis to Cincinatti on Monday, arriving at 7:40 pm to overnight. They then flew to Dayton and Akron after a departure at about 10 am Tuesday morning.
The left wing hit the ground first and then the plane slid into the building. It was on an instrument approach controlled by ATC at the main Akron airport. The security camera video was being reviewed and another pilot on approach to AKR had been interviewed. The pilot interviewed said there had been no distress call and he was on the same unicom frequency as the accident aircraft.
The CVR is on the way to Washington on the plane that brought the NTSB investigators.
Parties to the investigation are the FAA, Honeywell (engines) and Textron (aircraft manufacturer).
Here is the video of the press conference posted on YouTube: https://youtu.be/LnZv-Z8-VCQ
She gave the aircraft type as a Hawker 125-700A but I did not hear a registration mentioned.
The pilots went from Minneapolis to Moline to St. Louis to Cincinatti on Monday, arriving at 7:40 pm to overnight. They then flew to Dayton and Akron after a departure at about 10 am Tuesday morning.
The left wing hit the ground first and then the plane slid into the building. It was on an instrument approach controlled by ATC at the main Akron airport. The security camera video was being reviewed and another pilot on approach to AKR had been interviewed. The pilot interviewed said there had been no distress call and he was on the same unicom frequency as the accident aircraft.
The CVR is on the way to Washington on the plane that brought the NTSB investigators.
Parties to the investigation are the FAA, Honeywell (engines) and Textron (aircraft manufacturer).
Here is the video of the press conference posted on YouTube: https://youtu.be/LnZv-Z8-VCQ
Last edited by Airbubba; 12th Nov 2015 at 01:34.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New Jersey (USA)
Age: 53
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More details (including tail number) in this AIN story: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...00-crash-akron
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: MSP
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avid browser and rare poster. But this accident caught my eye. I remembered having a conversation with a Hawker pilot a couple of years back at a transit FBO. Conversation was in reference to the Hawker's stall characteristics. More specifically, it was in reference to this article (glad I was able to find it).
Post-maintenance stall tests raise safety concerns | Business Aviation News: Aviation International News
Post-maintenance stall tests raise safety concerns | Business Aviation News: Aviation International News
Stall tests
Not to be picky, but that article referenced an 800A Hawker.
I don't know much about the differences between the 700A (which was involved in the crash) and the 800A.
Can anyone comment on this?
From the video, it would appear they are in a stall situation.
I don't know much about the differences between the 700A (which was involved in the crash) and the 800A.
Can anyone comment on this?
From the video, it would appear they are in a stall situation.
Thank you for posting the link.
Airplanes don't go wing down and nose down ( witness reports ) just because of bad luck.
I'm curious about flap settings in a missed approach situation.
Airplanes don't go wing down and nose down ( witness reports ) just because of bad luck.
I'm curious about flap settings in a missed approach situation.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFO
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A federal source told ABC News on Tuesday that the cause of the crash "appears to be mechanical."
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Los Gatos, CA
Age: 76
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawker 700 stall characteristics
From the aforementioned article:
"While conducting the wing-maintenance stall check in November 2000 in a Hawker 700, he wrote, “I needed six flights to correct the flick [roll at the stall]. An engineer came with us on the second flight to witness the violent flick. He came again when it was nearly fixed to see the improvement. It seems strange to me that [the Lincoln Hawker] stalled so far above the expected stall speed [20 knots]. There must have been something else that caused the roll. I have never used the autopilot and, whatever type of aircraft, have always aimed for a decrease of one knot per second.”
"While conducting the wing-maintenance stall check in November 2000 in a Hawker 700, he wrote, “I needed six flights to correct the flick [roll at the stall]. An engineer came with us on the second flight to witness the violent flick. He came again when it was nearly fixed to see the improvement. It seems strange to me that [the Lincoln Hawker] stalled so far above the expected stall speed [20 knots]. There must have been something else that caused the roll. I have never used the autopilot and, whatever type of aircraft, have always aimed for a decrease of one knot per second.”
Memory fades, but there were significant differences between the 700 and 800 wings. The latter had a ‘high-speed’ outer section and a reverse-profile aileron. Although both retained the inboard section stall-breaker strips, there were differences in vortex generator number and location; the 800 also had ‘underwing’ vortilons.
The 125 stall characteristics were often challenging, particularly if wingtip panels were slightly misaligned or with gaps between the TKS strip / leading edge panel and the wing ahead of the aileron (800’s had laser drilled leading edges?).
The stall breakers would require fine tuning if moved, but any error did not primarily cause roll problems, more likely with the stall speed and stick push relationship.
The stall characteristics of a well set up aircraft were generally benign, but some were sensitive to lat / dir trim condition. Stalls were never flown with the autopilot or yaw damper engaged which could lead to interesting results (also there were differences between avionic vendors).
A mis-set aircraft would in general not ‘flick’, but often suffered a rapid wing drop more likely due to aileron ‘snatch’, including movement the rams-horn control sufficient to break a lightly help grip or rap the knuckles of a free hand.
Did this aircraft have wing tip extensions?
AFAIR the type designer never approved winglets – the Hatfield design view was that they would only improve a bad wing – "Hatfield does not design bad wings" (although latterly the Airbus wing had ‘winglets’).
Winglet stall certification appears to be subject to localised approval – FAA, which could be via a DER where I suspect that the extent of any investigation of stall characteristics was limited by test instrumentation and safety devices; - any one able to clarify this?
Did the aircraft descend through an icing layer?
The 125 stall characteristics were often challenging, particularly if wingtip panels were slightly misaligned or with gaps between the TKS strip / leading edge panel and the wing ahead of the aileron (800’s had laser drilled leading edges?).
The stall breakers would require fine tuning if moved, but any error did not primarily cause roll problems, more likely with the stall speed and stick push relationship.
The stall characteristics of a well set up aircraft were generally benign, but some were sensitive to lat / dir trim condition. Stalls were never flown with the autopilot or yaw damper engaged which could lead to interesting results (also there were differences between avionic vendors).
A mis-set aircraft would in general not ‘flick’, but often suffered a rapid wing drop more likely due to aileron ‘snatch’, including movement the rams-horn control sufficient to break a lightly help grip or rap the knuckles of a free hand.
Did this aircraft have wing tip extensions?
AFAIR the type designer never approved winglets – the Hatfield design view was that they would only improve a bad wing – "Hatfield does not design bad wings" (although latterly the Airbus wing had ‘winglets’).
Winglet stall certification appears to be subject to localised approval – FAA, which could be via a DER where I suspect that the extent of any investigation of stall characteristics was limited by test instrumentation and safety devices; - any one able to clarify this?
Did the aircraft descend through an icing layer?
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: On the Ocean
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 700 has a very different wing than an 800. Length is different. 700 has a "stall fence" on top of wing. 800 has vortelons on bottom fwd section as well as "stall strips".
I don't know much about the differences between the 700A (which was involved in the crash) and the 800A.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This re the 700
Sounds scary:
"While conducting the wing-maintenance stall check in November 2000 in a Hawker 700, he wrote, “I needed six flights to correct the flick [roll at the stall]. An engineer came with us on the second flight to witness the violent flick.
Violent flick roll at stall? Yikes.
"While conducting the wing-maintenance stall check in November 2000 in a Hawker 700, he wrote, “I needed six flights to correct the flick [roll at the stall]. An engineer came with us on the second flight to witness the violent flick.
Violent flick roll at stall? Yikes.
Sounds scary:
"While conducting the wing-maintenance stall check in November 2000 in a Hawker 700, he wrote, “I needed six flights to correct the flick [roll at the stall]. An engineer came with us on the second flight to witness the violent flick.
Violent flick roll at stall? Yikes.
"While conducting the wing-maintenance stall check in November 2000 in a Hawker 700, he wrote, “I needed six flights to correct the flick [roll at the stall]. An engineer came with us on the second flight to witness the violent flick.
Violent flick roll at stall? Yikes.
It might be useful to look into what updates have been done to the maintenance manual for that type to see if the repair procedures got an change.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Another NTSB presser today by vice chairman Dinh-Zarr.
Today she described the aircraft as a Hawker 700 built in 1979. Was it actually a -700A as I believe she said yesterday? And what is the difference?
The plane hit a four unit apartment, it does look like a house.
There was no evidence that the plane was not intact upon impact. All 'four corners' were found at the accident scene.
Gear and flaps were down. Flight control continuity was established in the wreckage.
Cockpit voice recorder was a Fairchild GA100. 30 minutes of 'poor quality audio' on the tape was initially downloaded last night at NTSB headquarters in DC. The pilots discussed setting up for the LOC 25 approach and weather on the CVR was 240/8 1 1/2 miles and 6 OVC. Slightly different weather was given in today's brief for the time of the accident. Altimeter setting 29.95
There is no FDR and the NTSB is searching for data modules from the digital engine controls to see if they yield further information. Both engines have been removed from the accident site.
Both pilots were rated in the plane with ATP's. Captain had over 5000 hours total time, FO over 4500 hours.
The pilots were talking with Cleveland Center, received a vector to intercept the LOC 25, when established they switched to unicom (or whatever it's called these days, it's been a while since I've flown into an uncontrolled airport).
Today she described the aircraft as a Hawker 700 built in 1979. Was it actually a -700A as I believe she said yesterday? And what is the difference?
Cant see any apartment complex there. Just a house.
There was no evidence that the plane was not intact upon impact. All 'four corners' were found at the accident scene.
Gear and flaps were down. Flight control continuity was established in the wreckage.
Cockpit voice recorder was a Fairchild GA100. 30 minutes of 'poor quality audio' on the tape was initially downloaded last night at NTSB headquarters in DC. The pilots discussed setting up for the LOC 25 approach and weather on the CVR was 240/8 1 1/2 miles and 6 OVC. Slightly different weather was given in today's brief for the time of the accident. Altimeter setting 29.95
There is no FDR and the NTSB is searching for data modules from the digital engine controls to see if they yield further information. Both engines have been removed from the accident site.
Both pilots were rated in the plane with ATP's. Captain had over 5000 hours total time, FO over 4500 hours.
The pilots were talking with Cleveland Center, received a vector to intercept the LOC 25, when established they switched to unicom (or whatever it's called these days, it's been a while since I've flown into an uncontrolled airport).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
They got the YouTube video up very quickly this time. 
Dr. Vinh-Zarr refers to the aircraft as a -700A at :16 in the clip, and as a -700 at 1:53.
It caught my attention but may just be a minor slip of the tongue.
And perhaps both designations are present in the various aircraft type documents involved in the maintenance and certification records.
Were any of the stall fences or stall strips different on the 700A to comply with FAA requirements?
Dr. Vinh-Zarr refers to the aircraft as a -700A at :16 in the clip, and as a -700 at 1:53.It caught my attention but may just be a minor slip of the tongue.
And perhaps both designations are present in the various aircraft type documents involved in the maintenance and certification records.
The A signifies for the North American marketplace.
As Evanelpus said - the 700A aircraft were built at Chester for the North American market and were mostly(though not always) ferried to the US in "green" state - i.e. unpainted and unfurnished for completion.
700B aircraft were delivered from the factory complete painted and fully furnished for the rest of the world (even to the lengths of stocking the liquor cabinet and soap in the toilet).
No such animal as a Hawker 700 existed during production. It is likely a convenient tag to group the lineage following the Hawker 800/850XP/900XP/750
marketing tags adopted by Raytheon then Hawker-Beechcraft.
My recollection is of standard wing configuration between 700A/700B models.
AS
700B aircraft were delivered from the factory complete painted and fully furnished for the rest of the world (even to the lengths of stocking the liquor cabinet and soap in the toilet).
No such animal as a Hawker 700 existed during production. It is likely a convenient tag to group the lineage following the Hawker 800/850XP/900XP/750
marketing tags adopted by Raytheon then Hawker-Beechcraft.
My recollection is of standard wing configuration between 700A/700B models.
AS
I'd be surprised if any of the differences between the -700A and -700B turn out to be relevant to the NTSB's investigation, so referring to the aircraft as a generic -700 to differentiate it from earlier and later series seems perfectly reasonable to me.