Dale Earnhardt, Jr, Cessna Citation C680 Latitude Crash
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did I mention no checklists? I trained a few years ago with another knuckleheads who didn't use checklists...imagine my shock when it turns out his flight department was involved in a somewhat high profile multi-fatality accodent?! It boggles my mind...how lazy and unprofessional do you have to be to not read & respond for 5-10 seconds?!
Did they forget ANY ITEM required and covered by the CL ? Flaps, Gear ?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- Scud running when there is an appropriate IFR approach available
- Behind the airplane
- No go around on approach when high/fast (when initially spoken about it)
- No checklists
- No (apparent) crew briefing for landing (would have included risk factors such as high landing weight, short runway, weather, etc.)
- Non-standard landing procedure (immediate deployment of T/Rs before speedbrakes and established ground mode)
- Flat landing with no apparent flare (likely due to speed) causing bounce
- Horrible bounce recovery and subsequent ambiguity about 2nd bounce recovery
- Attempted go-around without power (due to T/Rs not stowed) and inappropriate response to it (although airborne T/R deployment may have caused pitch up)
- Absolute lack of appropriate use of speedbrakes
- Lack of appropriate use of T/Rs throughout the event, both in deployment and (lack of) retraction
Anyway, reading that was downright scary. Collision with the ditch at the end had to hurt but more importantly looking at the pictures it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how the cyclone fence could have also blocked all exit from the aircraft. This could have been way worse.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Airspeed management was a significant issue..."
Doesn't the Textron/Garmin data show that at approximately 500' AGL, the airspeed was 170 KIAS?
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/64000-64...015/637211.pdf
Anyone think that Vref +60 with throttles still at idle is stabilized?
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/64000-64...015/637211.pdf
Anyone think that Vref +60 with throttles still at idle is stabilized?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impressive review and summary:
Engineering Review of Data
Vref+19; throttles at idle during entire approach; time at idle 1:52; no speed-brake deployment at touchdown; bounce lasted 9.4 seconds.
Engineering Review of Data
Vref+19; throttles at idle during entire approach; time at idle 1:52; no speed-brake deployment at touchdown; bounce lasted 9.4 seconds.
So he entered high 'total energy' condition. To avoid and/or exit that condition, he has few options:
- Plan the final approach with reduced speed. The report suggests 160 KIAS.
- Interrupt descent to reach gear and flap speed. After intercept glide path from above.
- perform a 360' to reduce total energy and reach the stabilised condition
- if unsuccessfully notice a non stabilised approach, perform a go-around
In my opinion, after the flare, some confusion arrived. Firstly let me highlight, the report proofs; at Vref=119 the available runway was sufficient to stop the aircraft with brakes only that day.
The first touchdown was at 3 wheels simultaneous, with 1,4 G and at a relatively low angle of attack. Under that condition, the aircraft likely bounces immediately. I learned it that way:
-the PM considering: on the ground, then extend the speed brake.
-the PF considers stable on the ground, then activate reverser.
No rush needed. I miss the call outs from PM. His first call was about the CAS-message, 9 seconds after bounce? I haven't read the transcript yet.
The pilot was in doubt about the position of the TR but I reckon his problem was the proper handling of a bounce. I learned it that way:
If push the airplane down, it will bounce again, likely to higher. In a subsequent bounce, structural limits are easy exceeded.
So, stabilize the airplane, execute a second landing. Flare normal. If in doubt, do a go-around.
Of course, as long as the AFM prohibits TR in the air and speed-brakes with full flaps, the position needs to be checked and set to the stored position.
After the 3. bounce, airplane condition has to assumed as not airworthy, an emergency stop has to apply.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't the Textron/Garmin data show that at approximately 500' AGL, the airspeed was 170 KIAS?
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/64000-64...015/637211.pdf
Anyone think that Vref +60 with throttles still at idle is stabilized?
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/64000-64...015/637211.pdf
Anyone think that Vref +60 with throttles still at idle is stabilized?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...The first touchdown was at 3 wheels simultaneous, with 1,4 G and at a relatively low angle of attack. Under that condition, the aircraft likely bounces immediately. I learned it that way:
-the PM considering: on the ground, then extend the speed brake.
-the PF considers stable on the ground, then activate reverser..
-the PM considering: on the ground, then extend the speed brake.
-the PF considers stable on the ground, then activate reverser..
The C680 cockpit layout doesn't accommodate operation of the speedbrake lever from the RH seat particularly well.
The lever would be fully forward at touchdown - requiring the right seat occupant to reach around the throttles to pull the lever aft.
Yes, the bounce recovery was botched and made far more difficult by the T/R deployment.
The extraordinarily high energy state throughout the approach was the core issue; the decision not to take it around was unprofessional; the mishandling of the speedbrakes and T/Rs assured a very bad result.
Crew and pax were lucky; this one could have turned out far worse.
More photos here:
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/64000-64...015/637208.pdf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pergatory
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I don't. Those are called memory items, and those also were not done. Either way, there were no checklists done. Are you really going on record here that checklists are not necessary? Or professional? Or prudent?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pergatory
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you read the CVR transcript? Seems like far too much talk about clouds and terrain...I suppose it is subjective, but when there is a perfectly useful GPS approach available it seems at best completely unnecessary, at worst soft scud running.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
NTSB Final Accident Report: https://t.co/CmmCiUTM7g?amp=1
