Bizjet Crash at Teterboro, New Jersey
KTEB Approach
Have been to KTEB many times. Unless KEWR is landing north, you usually get a VOR/DME-B, circle to 19. (Sometimes 24)
Here is a link to a security camera video of the actual impact.
https://youtu.be/QhNrAjgXTe0
I assume it's OK to post. If not, apologies.
Here is a link to a security camera video of the actual impact.
https://youtu.be/QhNrAjgXTe0
I assume it's OK to post. If not, apologies.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From this afternoon's NTSB brief it appears that the plane had a CVR which was recovered. It did not have an FDR and was not required to have one.
The Lear was shooting the ILS Runway 6, circle to land runway 1.
More in this article:
Pilots in deadly Teterboro crash wanted to stay in New York instead of Philly
The Lear was shooting the ILS Runway 6, circle to land runway 1.
More in this article:
Pilots in deadly Teterboro crash wanted to stay in New York instead of Philly
Abbott Koloff , James M. O'Neill and Steve Janoski , NorthJersey Published 6:57 a.m. ET May 16, 2017 | Updated 11 minutes ago
Federal investigators said on Tuesday that they had recovered a cockpit voice recorder from the Learjet that crashed in Carlstadt as it approached Teterboro Airport, killing both crew members, and that wind conditions at the time were difficult.
Jim Silliman, a National Transportation Safety Board investigator, said at an afternoon press conference that the plane left a debris field that was 440 feet long and 100 feet wide.The crash and resulting fire damaged three buildings and 16 cars, he said, adding that there were cross winds and gusting winds when the plane plunged from the sky at about 3:30 p.m. Monday.
“Airplanes land in cross winds every day,” he said. “Gusts make it harder, and the gusts were high.”
The twin-engine plane, a 1981 Learjet 35, was registered to a company called A&C Big Sky Aviation, of Billings, Mont., according to an FAA database.
The owners of the company are Amy Smith and Chandra Hanson of Billings, according to Montana state records. The owners did not respond to requests for comment on Monday and Tuesday.
The owners, when not using the plane themselves, leased the jet to a charter company, Trans-Pacific Jets, which began operating in 2013 and is based in Honolulu.
A spokesman for the charter company said the pilot, who had been with the company for about a year, and co-pilot had decided to spend the night at a hotel they were familiar with in New York rather than stay overnight in Philadelphia.
They were bringing the plane to Teterboro to reposition it for additional charter flights scheduled for later in the week. He declined to identify the pilot or co-pilot.
The captain, he said, had at least 20 years of experience as a pilot with various charter operators in the western United States, and flew that particular plane quite a bit. The co-pilot had about four years of piloting experience with charter companies that operated mainly in New Mexico and Arizona, the spokesman said.
He said the plane was last inspected in February at a large independent maintenance facility and had been flown without issues. It is a common practice in the industry for private jet owners to lease their planes out to charter companies to generate extra revenue when not using it, he said.
Silliman, who is in charge of the NTSB investigation, said investigators believe they know the identity of the pilots but declined to reveal their identities during the press conference. Bergen County authorities said that Medical Examiner’s Office was still working to make positive identifications.
Surveillance video from local businesses shows the plane’s right wing was at a sharp low angle and the nose was down as it hit the ground, Silliman said.
“The aircraft was out of control,” he said.
He said it appeared that the plane glanced off one building just before crashing into the borough’s DPW parking lot. The last DPW worker left the building and closed the gate to the parking lot just 15 minutes before the crash.
The NTSB is working with the FAA, as well as Bombardier, the plane’s manufacturer, and Honeywell, which made the engines, Silliman said.
On approach while talking to the control tower, the pilots did not express any sense of having an emergency or a problem with the aircraft, Silliman said. They were cleared to land, and then there was no further communication.
Air traffic in the area around Teterboro was moderate and not out of the ordinary at the time of the crash, Silliman said.
However, just minutes before the Learjet plunged from the sky, another pilot taking off from runway 24 reported wind shear to the Teterboro tower after taking off Monday.
Eyewitnesses on Monday said the Learjet appeared to be coming in low and struck power lines before clipping buildings in an industrial area of the borough that often bustles with activity in the afternoon.
The Port Authority had reopened Teterboro Airport for outbound flights by 7 p.m. Monday, and for incoming flights by 8:30 p.m., according to an agency spokesperson.
Abbott Koloff , James M. O'Neill and Steve Janoski , NorthJersey Published 6:57 a.m. ET May 16, 2017 | Updated 11 minutes ago
Federal investigators said on Tuesday that they had recovered a cockpit voice recorder from the Learjet that crashed in Carlstadt as it approached Teterboro Airport, killing both crew members, and that wind conditions at the time were difficult.
Jim Silliman, a National Transportation Safety Board investigator, said at an afternoon press conference that the plane left a debris field that was 440 feet long and 100 feet wide.The crash and resulting fire damaged three buildings and 16 cars, he said, adding that there were cross winds and gusting winds when the plane plunged from the sky at about 3:30 p.m. Monday.
“Airplanes land in cross winds every day,” he said. “Gusts make it harder, and the gusts were high.”
The twin-engine plane, a 1981 Learjet 35, was registered to a company called A&C Big Sky Aviation, of Billings, Mont., according to an FAA database.
The owners of the company are Amy Smith and Chandra Hanson of Billings, according to Montana state records. The owners did not respond to requests for comment on Monday and Tuesday.
The owners, when not using the plane themselves, leased the jet to a charter company, Trans-Pacific Jets, which began operating in 2013 and is based in Honolulu.
A spokesman for the charter company said the pilot, who had been with the company for about a year, and co-pilot had decided to spend the night at a hotel they were familiar with in New York rather than stay overnight in Philadelphia.
They were bringing the plane to Teterboro to reposition it for additional charter flights scheduled for later in the week. He declined to identify the pilot or co-pilot.
The captain, he said, had at least 20 years of experience as a pilot with various charter operators in the western United States, and flew that particular plane quite a bit. The co-pilot had about four years of piloting experience with charter companies that operated mainly in New Mexico and Arizona, the spokesman said.
He said the plane was last inspected in February at a large independent maintenance facility and had been flown without issues. It is a common practice in the industry for private jet owners to lease their planes out to charter companies to generate extra revenue when not using it, he said.
Silliman, who is in charge of the NTSB investigation, said investigators believe they know the identity of the pilots but declined to reveal their identities during the press conference. Bergen County authorities said that Medical Examiner’s Office was still working to make positive identifications.
Surveillance video from local businesses shows the plane’s right wing was at a sharp low angle and the nose was down as it hit the ground, Silliman said.
“The aircraft was out of control,” he said.
He said it appeared that the plane glanced off one building just before crashing into the borough’s DPW parking lot. The last DPW worker left the building and closed the gate to the parking lot just 15 minutes before the crash.
The NTSB is working with the FAA, as well as Bombardier, the plane’s manufacturer, and Honeywell, which made the engines, Silliman said.
On approach while talking to the control tower, the pilots did not express any sense of having an emergency or a problem with the aircraft, Silliman said. They were cleared to land, and then there was no further communication.
Air traffic in the area around Teterboro was moderate and not out of the ordinary at the time of the crash, Silliman said.
However, just minutes before the Learjet plunged from the sky, another pilot taking off from runway 24 reported wind shear to the Teterboro tower after taking off Monday.
Eyewitnesses on Monday said the Learjet appeared to be coming in low and struck power lines before clipping buildings in an industrial area of the borough that often bustles with activity in the afternoon.
The Port Authority had reopened Teterboro Airport for outbound flights by 7 p.m. Monday, and for incoming flights by 8:30 p.m., according to an agency spokesperson.
I should have known
I should have known with the winds as they were that it would probably been an approach to 06 with the circle to 01.
I wonder how they got so out of position. Lots of wind that day. The crash was on the centerline of 01.
Maybe an overshoot with too much correction and all eyes outside the cockpit?
I wonder how they got so out of position. Lots of wind that day. The crash was on the centerline of 01.
Maybe an overshoot with too much correction and all eyes outside the cockpit?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Western US
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flew this a hundred times over the years. Typical TEB ILS6 circle approach instructions have you start circling at TORBY (1284'msl on the glide slope of ILS 6) at 3.8nm from the rwy 6 threshold. Even when you initiate the circle in a timely manner, with strong NW winds, this maneuver is very challenging. The rwy 1 threshold is also displaced closer to the circling radius.
KTEB 151952Z 34016G30KT 10SM SCT045 19/04 A2976
KTEB 151952Z 34016G30KT 10SM SCT045 19/04 A2976
TORBY
I wonder if they were a bit inside of TORBY and that's why the tower controller asked if they were going to start their turn.
Would Flightaware show any of the track that close in?
Would Flightaware show any of the track that close in?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It appears that the plane did not have working ADS-B equipment, at least I can't find an ADS-B or MLAT plot on any of the usual sources.
The FlightAware data has a final point at 150 knots and 600 feet from New York TRACON:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/.../KTEB/tracklog
The Port Authrority has one of those nimby noise tracking pages that sometimes yields another plot but I'm not sure I see the Lear at about 1530 local on 15 May:
WebTrak
I've done airliner sidestep maneuvers at places like Mexico City and Atlanta where you shoot an approach to one runway and then swing over to land on a parallel runway with a closer threshold. You are instantly high on path, have to pull off power while judging the bank and rate of descent to remain stable.
Pulling off power to get on the VGSI while wrapping up the turn for a late transition to runway 1 might have been the setup for this seemingly experienced crew. Although the CVR readout and transcript publication normally take a while, there is often a gist of the contents released within a few days stating whether there were indications of an abnormal situation in the voice recording.
The FlightAware data has a final point at 150 knots and 600 feet from New York TRACON:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/.../KTEB/tracklog
The Port Authrority has one of those nimby noise tracking pages that sometimes yields another plot but I'm not sure I see the Lear at about 1530 local on 15 May:
WebTrak
Pulling off power to get on the VGSI while wrapping up the turn for a late transition to runway 1 might have been the setup for this seemingly experienced crew. Although the CVR readout and transcript publication normally take a while, there is often a gist of the contents released within a few days stating whether there were indications of an abnormal situation in the voice recording.
Yaw coupling can bite in this type at low speeds. High bank, low speed, turbulence and low level shear not the place to be.
IIRC any spoileron problem causing an uncommanded roll will also only appear after selection of landing flaps.
There are also several massive transmission towers south east of KTEB.
IIRC any spoileron problem causing an uncommanded roll will also only appear after selection of landing flaps.
There are also several massive transmission towers south east of KTEB.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Novice here with a question, at Tererboro on a RWY1 circle to land from the ILS6 when you break off at TORBAY do you turn right putting you on a modified LEFT base for RWY1 or do you overfly 1 and join midfield on a RIGHT downwind for RWY1? . I understand that circling is not allowed to the NW but given the 2 choices above where in the plate does it say which visual join method on a circling approach to RWY1 is the correct one?
Last edited by piperboy84; 18th May 2017 at 17:37.
@ piperboy
You turn right at TORBY and then you're on a left base for 01.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWodeB26I3s Lear 35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuHiGajt1Dg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWodeB26I3s Lear 35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuHiGajt1Dg
Last edited by Old Boeing Driver; 18th May 2017 at 17:51.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
NTSB preliminary report, the turn for the circle to runway 1 was indeed late as earlier surmised by a couple of posts on this thread:
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...15X80533&key=1
NTSB Identification: CEN17FA183
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, May 15, 2017 in Teterboro, NJ
Aircraft: GATES LEARJET 35A, registration: N452DA
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
On May 15, 2017, at 1529 eastern daylight time, a Gates Learjet 35A, N452DA, operated by Trans-Pacific Jets, departed controlled flight while on a circling approach to runway 1 at the Teterboro Airport (TEB), Teterboro, New Jersey, and impacted a commercial building and parking. The captain and first officer died; no one on the ground was injured. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and postcrash fire. The airplane was registered to A&C Big Sky Aviation LLC and operated by Trans-Pacific Air Charter LLC under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a positioning flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed. The flight departed from the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, about 1504 and was destined for TEB.
The accident flight was the crewmembers' third flight of the day. The first flight departed TEB about 0732 on a Part 91 positioning flight and landed about 0815 at the Laurence G. Hanscom Field (BED), Bedford, Massachusetts, where they refueled and boarded a passenger. They departed BED about 1009 on a Part 135 on-demand charter flight and landed at PHL about 1104.
The captain filed an IFR flight plan to TEB planning a 28-minute flight at a cruising altitude of flight level 270 (27,000 feet) with a cruise speed of 441 knots and a departure time of 1430. After departure about 1504, the flight was cleared to climb to 4,000 feet above mean sea level (msl). The flight reached a maximum altitude of 4,000 feet msl. About 1515, the flight was cleared to descend to 3,000 ft msl. The New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) cleared the flight for the TEB ILS Runway 6 Approach, circle to land runway 1. TRACON instructed the flight to switch frequencies and contact TEB air traffic control (ATC) about 9 miles from the airport; however, the flight did not check onto the ATC's frequency until 4 miles from the airport. ATC cleared the flight to land on runway 1 and issued the TEB winds of 320 degrees at 16 knots, gusting to 32 knots.
Radar track data indicated that the flight did not start its right circling turn until it was less than 1 mile from the approach end of runway 6. According to TEB ATC, aircraft typically start the right turn at the final approach fix for runway 6, which is located 3.8 nm from the approach end of runway 6.
A TEB ATC controller reported that he observed the airplane bank hard to the right and he could see the belly of the airplane with the wings almost perpendicular to the ground. The airplane then appeared to level out for just a second or two before the left wing dropped, showing the entire top of the airplane. Other ground witnesses also reported that they observed the airplane in a right turn with the wings in a high angle of bank. Some witnesses described seeing the airplane's wings "wobbling" before the left wing dropped and the airplane descended to the ground. Security video cameras installed at numerous commercial buildings also captured the last moments of the flight, showing the airplane at high angles of bank. One security camera showed the airplane in a steep right wing low, nose down attitude at impact.
The accident site was located on a 180-degree bearing about 1/2 nautical miles from the threshold of runway 1 at TEB. The main wreckage was distributed in the parking lots of commercial businesses. The wreckage path and debris field was about 440 ft. long on a 135-degree heading, and 3 buildings and 16 vehicles were damaged by impact or fire. Although impact forces and postcrash fire destroyed and consumed much of the airplane, the examination of the wreckage revealed that all components of the airplane were located at the accident site.
The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was located in the wreckage and was sent to the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) Vehicle Recorder Laboratory. The CVR was auditioned by NTSB senior management staff and found to be operating at the time of the accident. A CVR Group will be formed and a transcript of the flight will be produced.
Four other airplane components that store non-volatile memory (NVM) and an iPhone were collected and sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Laboratory for examination. All 4 components and the iPhone exhibited impact and fire damage. The 4 components were: 2 Honeywell N1 Digital Electronic Engine Controls (DEEC); 1 Flight Management System (FMS); and 1 Honeywell KGP-56 Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS).
At 1452, the surface weather observation at TEB was: wind 350 degrees at 20 knots gusting to 30 knots; 10 miles visibility; scattered clouds at 4,500 ft; temperature 19 degrees C; dew point 6 degrees C; altimeter 29.75 inches of mercury.
The TEB automated terminal information services (ATIS) Z was in effect at the time of the accident. The 1451 ATIS Information Z stated that the current weather was: wind 350 degrees at 18 knots gusting to 29 knots; visibility 10; light rain, 5,500 ft scattered; temperature 18 degrees C; dew point 6 degrees C; altimeter 29.74 inches of mercury. ILS Runway 6 circle approach in use…Low level wind shear advisory in effect… ."
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, May 15, 2017 in Teterboro, NJ
Aircraft: GATES LEARJET 35A, registration: N452DA
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
On May 15, 2017, at 1529 eastern daylight time, a Gates Learjet 35A, N452DA, operated by Trans-Pacific Jets, departed controlled flight while on a circling approach to runway 1 at the Teterboro Airport (TEB), Teterboro, New Jersey, and impacted a commercial building and parking. The captain and first officer died; no one on the ground was injured. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and postcrash fire. The airplane was registered to A&C Big Sky Aviation LLC and operated by Trans-Pacific Air Charter LLC under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a positioning flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed. The flight departed from the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, about 1504 and was destined for TEB.
The accident flight was the crewmembers' third flight of the day. The first flight departed TEB about 0732 on a Part 91 positioning flight and landed about 0815 at the Laurence G. Hanscom Field (BED), Bedford, Massachusetts, where they refueled and boarded a passenger. They departed BED about 1009 on a Part 135 on-demand charter flight and landed at PHL about 1104.
The captain filed an IFR flight plan to TEB planning a 28-minute flight at a cruising altitude of flight level 270 (27,000 feet) with a cruise speed of 441 knots and a departure time of 1430. After departure about 1504, the flight was cleared to climb to 4,000 feet above mean sea level (msl). The flight reached a maximum altitude of 4,000 feet msl. About 1515, the flight was cleared to descend to 3,000 ft msl. The New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) cleared the flight for the TEB ILS Runway 6 Approach, circle to land runway 1. TRACON instructed the flight to switch frequencies and contact TEB air traffic control (ATC) about 9 miles from the airport; however, the flight did not check onto the ATC's frequency until 4 miles from the airport. ATC cleared the flight to land on runway 1 and issued the TEB winds of 320 degrees at 16 knots, gusting to 32 knots.
Radar track data indicated that the flight did not start its right circling turn until it was less than 1 mile from the approach end of runway 6. According to TEB ATC, aircraft typically start the right turn at the final approach fix for runway 6, which is located 3.8 nm from the approach end of runway 6.
A TEB ATC controller reported that he observed the airplane bank hard to the right and he could see the belly of the airplane with the wings almost perpendicular to the ground. The airplane then appeared to level out for just a second or two before the left wing dropped, showing the entire top of the airplane. Other ground witnesses also reported that they observed the airplane in a right turn with the wings in a high angle of bank. Some witnesses described seeing the airplane's wings "wobbling" before the left wing dropped and the airplane descended to the ground. Security video cameras installed at numerous commercial buildings also captured the last moments of the flight, showing the airplane at high angles of bank. One security camera showed the airplane in a steep right wing low, nose down attitude at impact.
The accident site was located on a 180-degree bearing about 1/2 nautical miles from the threshold of runway 1 at TEB. The main wreckage was distributed in the parking lots of commercial businesses. The wreckage path and debris field was about 440 ft. long on a 135-degree heading, and 3 buildings and 16 vehicles were damaged by impact or fire. Although impact forces and postcrash fire destroyed and consumed much of the airplane, the examination of the wreckage revealed that all components of the airplane were located at the accident site.
The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was located in the wreckage and was sent to the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) Vehicle Recorder Laboratory. The CVR was auditioned by NTSB senior management staff and found to be operating at the time of the accident. A CVR Group will be formed and a transcript of the flight will be produced.
Four other airplane components that store non-volatile memory (NVM) and an iPhone were collected and sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Laboratory for examination. All 4 components and the iPhone exhibited impact and fire damage. The 4 components were: 2 Honeywell N1 Digital Electronic Engine Controls (DEEC); 1 Flight Management System (FMS); and 1 Honeywell KGP-56 Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS).
At 1452, the surface weather observation at TEB was: wind 350 degrees at 20 knots gusting to 30 knots; 10 miles visibility; scattered clouds at 4,500 ft; temperature 19 degrees C; dew point 6 degrees C; altimeter 29.75 inches of mercury.
The TEB automated terminal information services (ATIS) Z was in effect at the time of the accident. The 1451 ATIS Information Z stated that the current weather was: wind 350 degrees at 18 knots gusting to 29 knots; visibility 10; light rain, 5,500 ft scattered; temperature 18 degrees C; dew point 6 degrees C; altimeter 29.74 inches of mercury. ILS Runway 6 circle approach in use…Low level wind shear advisory in effect… ."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The CVR is released here:
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/60000-60...373/611541.pdf
A quick reading seems to me to indicate a very sloppy approach with a first officer at the controls who was behind the aircraft and getting a cockpit GCA from the captain.
Not much in the way of an approach briefing, confusion about distance to the field, maybe forgot to arm the approach. Flaps 20 were set, don't think they did a landing checklist. Never got flaps 40, slowed to v-ref, stalled turning to final on the ILS 6 circle to land runway 1.
The FO gave the controls to the captain and a stall was called less than fifteen seconds later.
Rest of the accident docket here:
https://go.usa.gov/xnsUu
Today's media release:
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/60000-60...373/611541.pdf
A quick reading seems to me to indicate a very sloppy approach with a first officer at the controls who was behind the aircraft and getting a cockpit GCA from the captain.
Not much in the way of an approach briefing, confusion about distance to the field, maybe forgot to arm the approach. Flaps 20 were set, don't think they did a landing checklist. Never got flaps 40, slowed to v-ref, stalled turning to final on the ILS 6 circle to land runway 1.
The FO gave the controls to the captain and a stall was called less than fifteen seconds later.
Rest of the accident docket here:
https://go.usa.gov/xnsUu
Today's media release:
NTSB Opens Docket on Teterboro Aviation Accident Investigation
2/7/2018
WASHINGTON (Feb. 7, 2018) — The National Transportation Safety Board opened the public docket Wednesday on its ongoing investigation of a Gates Learjet 35A crash that occurred during a circling approach to a runway at Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey, killing both crewmembers.
The docket contains over 900 pages of factual information including: investigative group reports, witness statements, interview summaries and a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder. It does not provide analysis, findings, recommendations or probable cause determinations. No conclusions about how or why an accident occurred should be drawn from the docket.
The docket opening marks a transition in the investigative process where the majority of facts needed for the investigation have been gathered and the NTSB can move ahead with analysis of those facts. Opening the docket affords those with a need and desire for its contents the opportunity to review what factual information has been gathered about the accident. Any analysis, findings, recommendations, or probable cause determinations related to the accident will be issued by the Board at a later date.
2/7/2018
WASHINGTON (Feb. 7, 2018) — The National Transportation Safety Board opened the public docket Wednesday on its ongoing investigation of a Gates Learjet 35A crash that occurred during a circling approach to a runway at Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey, killing both crewmembers.
The docket contains over 900 pages of factual information including: investigative group reports, witness statements, interview summaries and a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder. It does not provide analysis, findings, recommendations or probable cause determinations. No conclusions about how or why an accident occurred should be drawn from the docket.
The docket opening marks a transition in the investigative process where the majority of facts needed for the investigation have been gathered and the NTSB can move ahead with analysis of those facts. Opening the docket affords those with a need and desire for its contents the opportunity to review what factual information has been gathered about the accident. Any analysis, findings, recommendations, or probable cause determinations related to the accident will be issued by the Board at a later date.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Dallas
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like a very disjointed operation with no SOPs, and the pilot spent much of his time coaching the copilot (and saying f***).
As said above, no approach briefing, and the flight appeared to be a make-it-up-as-we-go affair.
As said above, no approach briefing, and the flight appeared to be a make-it-up-as-we-go affair.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Confusion over whether the 1500 feet restriction was at DANDY or TORBY. Told to circle at TORBY but chasing the glideslope from above and missed the turn until prompted by the tower it seems.
From the wreckage it appears that the flaps were set to 40 after all at some point but I don't see it verbalized on the CVR transcript.
From the wreckage it appears that the flaps were set to 40 after all at some point but I don't see it verbalized on the CVR transcript.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
...Cockpit voice recorder data indicated that the SIC was the pilot flying (PF) from PHL to TEB, despite a company policy prohibiting the SIC from acting as PF based on his level of experience. Although the accident flight was likely not the first time that the SIC acted as PF (based on comments made during the flight), the PIC regularly coached the SIC (primarily on checklist initiation and airplane control) from before takeoff to the final seconds of the flight. The extensive coaching likely distracted the PIC from his duties as PIC and pilot monitoring, such as executing checklists and entering approach waypoints into the flight management system.
Collectively, procedural deviations and errors resulted in the flight crew’s lack of situational awareness throughout the flight and approach to TEB. Because neither pilot realized that the airplane’s navigation equipment had not been properly set for the instrument approach clearance that the flight crew received, the crew improperly executed the vertical profile of the approach, crossing an intermediate fix and the final approach fix hundreds of feet above the altitudes specified by the approach procedure...
Probable Cause
The NTSB determines that the probable cause of this accident was the PIC’s attempt to salvage an unstabilized visual approach, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall at low altitude. Contributing to the accident was the PIC’s decision to allow an unapproved SIC to act as PF, the PIC’s inadequate and incomplete preflight planning, and the flight crew’s lack of an approach briefing. Also contributing to the accident were Trans-Pacific’s lack of safety programs that would have enabled the company to identify and correct patterns of poor performance and procedural noncompliance and the FAA’s ineffective SAS procedures, which failed to identify these company oversight deficiencies.
Collectively, procedural deviations and errors resulted in the flight crew’s lack of situational awareness throughout the flight and approach to TEB. Because neither pilot realized that the airplane’s navigation equipment had not been properly set for the instrument approach clearance that the flight crew received, the crew improperly executed the vertical profile of the approach, crossing an intermediate fix and the final approach fix hundreds of feet above the altitudes specified by the approach procedure...
Probable Cause
The NTSB determines that the probable cause of this accident was the PIC’s attempt to salvage an unstabilized visual approach, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall at low altitude. Contributing to the accident was the PIC’s decision to allow an unapproved SIC to act as PF, the PIC’s inadequate and incomplete preflight planning, and the flight crew’s lack of an approach briefing. Also contributing to the accident were Trans-Pacific’s lack of safety programs that would have enabled the company to identify and correct patterns of poor performance and procedural noncompliance and the FAA’s ineffective SAS procedures, which failed to identify these company oversight deficiencies.
https://ntsb.gov/news/events/Documen...o-20190312.pdf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
