... but they don't operate C750s in and out of Egelsbach.

The C750 definitely is not the kind of airplane to be operated into relatively short fields. :=

These pictures though give me the chills. I used to fly this particular one years ago (when it had a different tail number).

Aeroncaman listed several agencies who may be involved in the investigation, one way or another, but did not mention that the investigation will of course be conducted by the BFU.

experts from the NTSB and Cessna are flying in tomorrow, the BFU is of course already there (those guys seen in the pictures above), plus the local police and other authorites (me). :(

It was not a NetJet aircraft.

Sorry, but I can't give out any other (inside) details at this moment.

Um Westwind, should you be posting those photos?

daysleeper, take a look at the German press.... they have been posting much more detailed photos since last night. Should I add some links? Also some of the investigators have given live interviews from the site, with the aircraft still smoking in the background. My photos are harmless compared to those.

Citation crash 1

Citation crash 2

and those are just a small sample...

Yupp. Did work out. Besides, when I file to EDFE and the wx is bad, I´ll go into EDDF which will be my alternate. The only prob you have then is to get out again.

But your reasoning is right and that is what I said for years: putting all that **** onto crews (CFMU/SLOTS/Special regulations) just adds pressure, that can lead to the wrong decisions.
I don´know how many times I had to worry about that stuff in addition to safe conduct of flight - guess you all know that.

As far as i know it was registered for the Company "Asia today" which is located in Honkong.

Fair enough Westwind.

It would be fairly unusual in the UK to have such clear, close pictures so soon after the crash.

And which of these choices has a significantly non-zero chance of killing you? :ugh:

Weather in Egelsbach can be different from the EDDF situation. Especially with banks of fog over the woods.
This is the second accident with an airplane flying in the terrain at nearly the same position (ca. 700ft elevation) under comparable conditions. A King Air crashed there in 2009.

Just learned, that the PAPI @ Egelsbach was working perfectly yesterday night. Any pilot who could either not see or "read" it, must have not attempted to land.

@GarageYears:
From all I know at the moment, the PIC sadly seems to have made the wrong choice yesterday

METARs EDFE/EDDF
 

Edfe 011650z 01005kt 8000 few008 09/08 q1025
edfe 011720z 03003kt 4000 br few008 09/08 q1025
edfe 011750z auto 03003kt //// // /// 08/07 q1025
edfe 011820z auto 06002kt //// r27/p2000n // /// 08/08 q1025
edfe 011850z auto 04004kt //// r27/0275n // /// 08/08 q1025
edfe 011920z 09005kt cavok 08/07 q1017
edfe 011950z auto 01003kt //// r27/1600vp2000u // /// 07/07 q1025

eddf 011650z 03006kt 8000 sct005 09/09 q1025 nosig=
eddf 011720z 01005kt 8000 few004 08/08 q1025 nosig=
eddf 011750z 01005kt 8000 few003 08/08 q1025 nosig=
eddf 011820z 01005kt 8000 few002 08/08 q1025 nosig=
eddf 011850z 01004kt 7000 bcfg mifg few002 07/07 q1025 tempo bkn002=
eddf 011920z 02005kt 0400 r07r/0750vp2000d r07c/0700v1600d r07l/1100vp2000d fg bkn001 07/07 q1025 nosig

***

Another accident that didn't need to happen
 

It is similar to scores of other earlier accidents of the past few years, globally, of the same generic profile, that didn't need to happen. A Citation X could have already been using RNP (as nearly all current production large jet transport airliners already have access to), which could have easily provided a safe path and an excellent instrument approach to both runway ends at EDFE, to minima of 200' HAT or below (if the science and policies are properly applied). And it wouldn't have needed either SBAS or LPV or APV to do it. RNP (as used by Alaska, Qantas, Westjet airlines for over a decade, and many other airlines now) could have wasily provided an entirely safe path for them use all the way to the TDZ, ....and even for safe missed approach extraction from the TDZ, had visual reference been lost below DA(H).

I fail to understand why bizav operators globally do not insist that OEMs provide the RNP capability for their new aircraft avionics, and why ANSPs do not more agressively implement the needed RNP based approach and deaprture procedures, which require NO additional ground infrastructureThis is just one more accident that didn't need to happen.

Tom, that's a bit of "Binsenwahrheit" as the germans call it... a truism. No accident ever since science and engineering started investigating accident causes was necessary, strictly speaking.

And then there are those that happen due to blatant misconduct such as going below minima, switching to VFR in marginal conditions at night! whether the technology for safer operation exists or not is completely irrelevant, sadly.

Every crew has their operational limitations to work with, and the mark of good airmanship is that despite those limitations, you and I never show up in this forum or in an accident report.

I no longer fly commercially, however, I have for a many more years than I care to count and by golly do I understand the commercial pressures put on by management (or the owners)! If a Citation X owner out of convenience (or financial) considerations has a problem flying into EDDF rather than Egelsbach then, well, I hope they were the ones sitting in the back because unlike in airline management it at least killed those responsible for putting on the pressure.

Which, of course, is no excuse for poor decision making on the part of the crew.

It's sad and unnecessary to read such news. Perhaps once pilots are removed from the equation and all airplanes are flown gate to gate on autopilot we will have much safer skies. It's a well known fact that still to this day around 75% of all air accidents are directly caused by human error of one kind or another.

Herr Doktor,

You miss one important fact...

As history tells us, human perception is not perfect. Accidents have occurred in which, despite the difficulties around understanding human performance, investigators have shown that illusory visual cues played a part.

It is far too early to judge that happened at EDFE, and I am sure the investigators will do their best to establish how the accident happened. I hope and trust that they will consider the possibility that the pilots may, legitimately, not have realised the gravity of their situation. This moves the causal factor from the flight deck to the regulations, perhaps.

By the way, I fundamentally disagree with your 75% claim as put. You are mis-stating things. Let's put it another way: all accidents blamed on human factors are proof that regulators and designers have failed in constructing the error-tolerant systems which aviation demands. We have not correctly identified and implemented the 'acceptable error' level...

Tom Imrich is right, technology should help to eliminate all the accidents we see in non-precision and visual approaches, but regulators place VERY high demands on integrity.

Have you ever dreamed of ??
 

.. like a huge Airplane manufacturer that he is capable of producing a Airplane that can fly itself from Gate to Gate on Autopilot with only a System Operating Person in it and not a human error infected Pilot. The nightmare is that if there is no Pilot on Board there will be no paying PAX either.

You see another attempt to have even unmanned vehicles in the skies for military usage and short after the discussion started the ideas switched over that this "systems" could be used for Cargo Planes as well in the future. What :mad: is flying over our heads then ???

To fly without fatal errors is a natural goal and can be achieved usualy if you stay within the legal box. The regulation "chain" is designed that the weakest part is strong enough to keep it together. Part of the trainings is to recognize the chain of events and have the balls and bone to say STOP. That is what we learned from previous unneccessary accidents after investigating them thoroughly.

Let the BFU conduct the investigation, collect the facts and stay away from fiction and then find a conclusion and tell us the details. Maybe some SAFA Checks at EDFE would help in the future to scare the people away from EDFE in marginal conditions and "force" them to a real VFR conditioned field or to a low priced Instrument equipped field, the higher price tag would be the fine or the lost life in worst case scenario, that to avoid is the goal.

It is pretty simple - No system would help any pilot that has made a bad decision.

Close your eyes for just a second and imagine what it would look like if you were in a cockpit. :E:E

The pilots decided to continue the flight into disaster instead of going for the safer option, divert and avoid danger. :ugh::ugh:

If the german press has it right the accident position is 30 m away from the 2009 King Air impact site. Likewise, Egelsbach Airport and the police state that the airplane was clearly visible to the AFIS guy at Egelsbach and "he saw us too" meaning that he allegedly at least at some stage hat the field in sight. That place has PAPI's, so what the heck went wrong there?

Well, having PAPI in place won't prevent a pilot from flying low and impacting terrain. :{

The Citation X has EGPWS that must have warned the pilots about the inappropriate flight envelope in relation to the terrain. The interesting question is, what on-board events derailed pilot awareness and lead to this devastating event? The answer to this question would certainly be answered with the evaluation of the flight recorder and cockpit voice recorder that have been salvaged.

Fact is, there must have been an unusual cyclone of activity surrounding the flight configuration which eventually lead to this disaster.:ok: