That video, and the profile flown by the G3 in 2001, demonstrates all that is wrong with Dive and Drive. No pre-planned profile, bouncing off steps (or going through them) ... a recipe for disaster.

It wasn't unusual for chartered business jets to have only one set of approach plates to share with both pilots.

It wasn't just about being cheap and not paying for an extra set. A set of Jepps for the entire USA takes up about seven or eight fully packed volumes. Add to that your nearby countries...Canada, Latin America, Caribbean and regs. Now you're looking at a pretty huge collection of charts to carry around all day in a small jet with limited space. Then think about all the updates!

Most companies now use EFBs anyway and are required to have two.

Wow, that seems like a well-standardized operation!:}

atan((11700-7680+55)/(5.7*6076))=6.71 degrees.

atan((11700-7680+55)/((3.15+2.65)*6080))=6.59 degrees.

The published 6.59 degrees probably eliminates cumulative rounding errors.

So, with the 3.5 degree VGSI also at a TCH of 55 feet, it seems to me you'd be seeing a lot of white lights all the way from DOYPE to the threshold unless you push over into a far steeper descent angle somewhere in between.

Using the same logic, in order to intercept the VGSI 55 feet over the threshold, you would need descent angles of 7.59, 8.23, and 8.94 from the MAP (CEYAG) for Categories A, B, and C, respectively.

In fact, assuming the TDZ is 1000 feet down the runway and TDZE is 20 feet higher than the threshold, from CEYAG it's a 7.26 degree descent angle to the TDZ for Category A.

atan((9840-(7680+20))/((2.6*6076)+1000))=7.26 degrees.

Speculation Alert: Perhaps they maintained MDA all the all the way to CEYAG and then attempted VGSI intercept before reaching the threshold, resulting in excessive speed and a very steep descent angle.

it's pretty standard to be "too high at the MAP" in a non precision approach… the MAP is not the end of the approach, it's the commencement of the missed approach! Big difference...

I doubt that there is anybody reading this who hasn't seen the runway at the MAP on a non-precision approach but been too high to land. That was the point of a previous poster in this thread. 6.59 degrees from the FAF to the MAP in a jet at +25 tailwind is a problem. Turboprop, doable. Piston doable.

This is a circling approach. If you get Visual far enough out to duck down to the PAPI, well and good, but as physicus points out, considering the angles from the MAPt to the threshold is purely academic and a bit meaningless.

But the Challenger is Category D, so there are no circling minimums.

Is it academic and meaningless if it convinces the pilot not to try the maneuver?

From the Approach Plate: Paraphrased - "From DOYPE 6.59 degree descent angle to TCH 55". Exact quote - "VGSI and descent angles not coincident (VGSI Angle 3.50/TCH 55)."

Certainly that information is not intended to be ignored as "purely academic and a bit meaningless."

I no longer fly myself around; but I hope that the pilots in whose hands I place my life, seeing information such as cited above, fully analyze its implications before flying an approach. I always did.

I agree, but you were talking about angles from the Mapt (CEYAG) to the threshold. That is purely academic. If a pilot needs to get out his calculator to work out the approach angle for 2400ft AGL at 2.6nm from the threshold I strongly suggest you keep away from him.

So I assume all those nice shiny Cat D speed machines shown parked on Goooogle Earth landed there with VMC below the MSA... :D :ok:

As I said, I threw out a speculation, a hypothesis, a possible explanation for what witnesses described. The investigation will show whether there is any truth to it.

I guess I don't understand the point of your comments. What are you trying to accomplish with them?

Easy
 

Well, I've just watched Space Cowboys for the 3rd time and I reckon Clint Eastwood could grease it in. :E

I plotted the Flightaware times on the map and as far as I can tell they did a big lazy orbit at high altitude over the area, then did one proper straight-in approach, missed approach at the charted Mapt then did another proper instrument approach. All looks "proper" from what I can see from Flightaware (notwithstanding the cloud and Cat D operation...). No pirouettes or low-level wiffodils...

No training with less than full flaps??
 

MFS,

Very interesting. Is there any relief for training situations? I know of a large outfit that for years practiced even flapless landings in the 600 and 601. (Maybe they were only touch and go's for flapless). So would factory pilots be unable to allow in aircraft training for a landing with less that full flap?

I realize most training is accomplished in the sim now, but for years that was not the case.

Can anyone remember Canadair (bombardier) training pilots allowing less than full flap landings?

No, of course you can't fly outside the AFM limitations during training or for any reason other than a test pilot doing certification flights or to handle an emergency.

If you figure out some way to creatively second guess the manufacturer and invent your own techniques that are outside the recommended operating procedures but not directly exceeding any published limitations you will likely still be faulted for an accident if you have one. It won't matter that half the other operators are doing this. If your training center is teaching such practices they may be faulted as well.

Just because people may have done something in the past doesn't mean it's legal or safe, even if it was considered normal behavior at one time.

Lawyers love this kind of crap because it makes them rich...so don't do it.

I assume that they shot the LOC DME approach without a 25+ knot tailwind and landed straight in.

acroguy:

That approach doesn't have straight-in minimums for any approach category nor does it have circling minimums for approach category D. So an approach category D airplane cannot legally even begin that approach.

What about a type rating checkride in the airplane? IIRC a no flap landing is a required element of a type rating ride. Seems like there's a few other things which would be required in a check ride which may not be approved for normal, non-emergency operations, like OEI maneuvers.

I agree that it appears the AFM would expressly forbid partial flap landings on a normal flight, but there's a lot of non-normal stuff that goes on on a checkride, often with the FAA on board.

Is there an abnormal procedure in the Challenger book for doing a no flap landing, or will they always come down? Hard to believe there isn't an additive schedule for at least partial flaps.

There is of course an abnormal procedure, the issue is that it for a failure case, not for a "selected" partial flap landing. For some training scenarios there is wording in the AFM to allow for deviation from the "normal operating" AFM limitations and procedures, but I don't know from memory if partial flaps is one such case. Often such things are in a "supplementary procedures" section with explicit permission stated to do the specific task.

edit: the only specific references to training appear to be related to the speed limits, where flight above VMO/MMO or below min speed is allowable under specific training conditions, and a change to the ADG speed limit for testing deployment cases. I don't see anything to allow for intentional reduced flap landings, for training or any other purpose.

Never flown the Challenger itself, but have flown three of its derivatives (CRJ-200/700/900). For all three of them, partial or no-flap landings were practiced in the simulator regularly. Just as well, because the -100/200, for example, had a habit of experiencing flap failures, while on the -900 I had one case of a slat failure. Furthermore, for all of those aircraft single-engine landings are made with Flaps 20, which is also the case for landings with a pitch trim failure.

ATERPSTER makes a fine point. APCH N/A cat D.

But I really don't know what the Challenger is classed at. I realize it doesn't have slats/leds.

BUT I am sure that the actual AFM will declare this plane to be class "?".

Anyone have the book?

I remember a crash at Grand Juction in a Challenger. Famous NBC sports guy and family. Cause was something like ice on the wings during takeoff.

DOES that ring a bell?

You are close.
I believe you are referring to NBC exec Dick Ebersol and family.
However, it was at Montrose, CO KMJT

All this discussion is still academic concerning this accident. If (and it's a pretty likely if) the captain was found to have knowingly and deliberately exceeded the aircraft's published limitations (and by a significant margin) to land there he is guilty of reckless operation. Since he killed someone as a result and endangered the lives of others he is criminally liable. Whether he will be charged is another issue but I'm betting he will. The international aspect will add a wrinkle.

The authorities will not jump quickly on this issue because of the time it takes to complete an investigation and because of the serious implications involved in charging a pilot with a crime, especially a foreign pilot. There are still many factors that have to be explored such as the possibility of an undeclared emergency and an inability to recall details which is about the only thing I can think of that could save this guy.

Self-Reported ceiling of 1043ft, 1400-odd ft below the MDA?

I can't hear the audio very clearly, but I don't hear anyone state "runway in sight, continue", or whatever the equivalent statement is in your ops, yet the descent is not arrested at MDA… evidence for a self built pseudo GS being flown?

glendalegoon:

Montrose, Colorado. They probably would have been okay had they taxied to the long runway. Accidents like that one are pathetic and inexcusable.

Doesn't look like a circling approach...:rolleyes:

Anyone willing to help me understand exactly what "Circle to Land" means these days?

http://www.ce560xl.com/files/Chartin...le_to_Land.pdf

Over the past 5 years we've had 3 separate instances of commuter CRJ-200s having to make no-flap landings at my local upstate New York airport. All had non-eventful outcomes, though emergencies were declared in each case, with fire and rescue equipment standing by.

All three flights originated in Detroit, and all the flap failures occurred in winter. Apparently the 200 model had issues with flap position microswitches freezing up due to water/slush ingress into the flap bays - usually on the preceding takeoff, leading to a flap system failure when the crew tried to deploy them during the approach.

The carrier has since retired all of their 200s in favor of CRJ-700s which don't seem to have that particular problem.

As far as I know, all factory Challenger training was primarily in the sim right from the beginning. I was one of the first U.S. pilots typed in the CL 600, since my company put the first one into U.S. service. We trained in the sim at YUL.

That said, I really can't remember whether there was more than one landing flap setting in the book. It seems like we used less than full flaps in gusty crosswind landings, but we were very standardized, so if we did them as a matter of course it would have been in the book.

Years ago Gulfstream brought out an ASC (Aircraft Service Change) for the GIV that allowed the crew to change the aircraft category from D to C. It consisted of a credit card-sized piece of cardboard slotted into the co-pilots instrument panel. One side listed the reduced weight limitations to achieve Cat C performance, the other side; Cat D limits. You simply rotated the card in the slot to change category. The catch was that it had to be declared and recorded prior to take off. Couldn't be done in-flight. It allowed the GIV to get into airports (including KASE) that did not have Cat D minima by operating to Cat C limits with the associated payload/fuel and speed restrictions.

I'm guessing they did the same for the G450/GV/G550. It would explain some of the heavier metal on the ramp as KASE.

For the Challenger drivers; Does the 601/604 have a similar option?

I would like to be enlightened too. :-)

I had always thought that a straight in approach was permissible if the runway was in sight and a normal landing was assured, even if no straight in minimums were published.

aterpster says no, and I would think he would know.

I guess this means a Category D is prohibited from using the LOC/DME-E, period. Correct?

Or was it allowable for a Category D to fly the approach to DOYPE (7.1 DME at 11,700) and proceed if they saw the runway?

Aircraft Approach Categories:

An aircraft's approach category is based on 1.30 VSO or VREF, as defined by the certification rules applicable at the time that the type certificate was issued, computed at the aircraft's maximum certificated landing weight. Transport airplanes type-certificated after December 2002 define final approach speed using the term VREF, which was newly added to the definitions contained in 14 CFR part 1. Prior to December 2002, final approach speed for transport airplanes was defined as 1.30 VSO.

Whether final approach speed is defined as 1.30 VSO or VREF, the aircraft's approach category is always based on maximum certified landing weight. It is never permissible to use a lower approach category based on the aircraft's actual landing weight. Non-standard landing configuration or abnormal procedure speed additives may result in the need to use minima associated with a higher approach category. If these lines of minima are not published, then circling approaches are prohibited.

http://www.ce560xl.com/files/Chartin...le_to_Land.pdf

Aterpster says "That approach doesn't have straight-in minimums for any approach category nor does it have circling minimums for approach category D. So an approach Category D airplane cannot legally even begin that approach" and I believe him. Nor does any other instrument approach for KASE have minimums for Category D, so doesn't that mean that Category D aircraft are prohibited from all but visual approaches to this airport?

And, some aircraft (e.g. the B-757), are in one category for straight in approaches, and a higher one for circling.

Looks to me like the Challenger 601 is Cat C for straight in with an approach speed of 125 knots, is this right? Is it indeed Cat D for circling? :confused:

Crozier,

Not too sure of your question from the link posted.

The training issue is off the track. A TRTO will have authorization to perform maneuvers required for training by the regulator, in the absence of a training device. That authorization is completely unrelated from what an operational crew is authorized to do, as per the AFM. The relevant regulator will impose conditions on the TRTO as to how perform, in this case, partial flap landings for training and evaluation.


It's Cat C for straight-in approaches, Cat D for circling. This oddity has to do with the final approach speed for flaps 45 on straight-in and circling speeds with flaps 30 for circling. Yes, a bit unusual that it falls out this way.

The fact that that most KASE landings are flown "straight in" visually is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that the final approach descent gradient exceeds 400 ft/nm means it is a "circling" approach, not how the plane is aligned with the runway. Some TERPS/PANS-OPS study is in order, perhaps.

From what I see, every approach to KASE except the ROARING FORK VISUAL is Circling and none allow Category D. If that's the case, wouldn't the airport be off-limits to any Category D in IMC?

That's correct.

There is a special approach, the LOC DME 15 that's not a circling approach. It however doesn't have cat D mins either.

Galaxy,

I'm just interested to know if any Category D aircraft can reasonably expect to execute a legal approach to KASE under IMC. It seems that the answer is no.

Thank you and with all due respect, Sir.