PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc. (https://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc-36/)
-   -   Dale Earnhardt, Jr, Cessna Citation C680 Latitude Crash (https://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/624645-dale-earnhardt-jr-cessna-citation-c680-latitude-crash.html)

733driver 16th Aug 2019 18:25

In fact I used 2000 feet pressure altitude, 30 degrees temperature. Zero slope. A 1% down slope requires a factor of 1.17. Still not tight. 24 has a 0.8 down slope.

Airbubba 16th Aug 2019 18:30

NTSB Senior Investigator Ralph Hicks just finished a media briefing at the accident site. His crew will be at the scene two to three days collecting perishable evidence. A preliminary report will be issued in about a week. The wreckage will be moved to Griffin, Georgia (possibly by Atlanta Air Recovery - Welcome!) for further analysis.

He said the plane was arriving at the non-tower controlled airport after a short 20 minute flight from North Carolina. Weather was good, wind calm.

Surveillance video showed that the plane touched down somewhere near the threshold, bounced twice and the right main gear collapsed. The initial landing was described as firm by the pilots and pax interviews were consistent with the video evidence.

There is a CVR which will be sent to the lab in DC. No FDR but non-volatile avionics data will give insight to the final flight path.

His dudeness 16th Aug 2019 18:31

LDR without factoring C680A from the FPG
2000ft elevation / 0 Wind
MLM 27000 26000 25000 24000 22000 20000 19000lbs
35° C/ 95°F 2,740 2,700 2,630 2,570 2,500 2,350 2,200 2,120 ft

4100/1,67 = 2456 ft - > so anything below 23000lbs ish would be okay even if 135

I have just one landing in the Latitude, but about 2000 in the Sovereign who shares the same gear. The Sovereigns numbers are about 200ft LONGER than that of the Latitude, even at the MLM which is 475 lower in the Sov. The longer wings of the Latitude bring the Vref down a little (2-3 knots) and the aircraft has tremendous stopping power. We are homebased at a 3323ft LDA runway and we never had any issue regarding stopping - even at high weights.
That said, I thought the Latitude floats a tad more than the Sov on flare.

If there is a jet that is not a jet in this respect, its the C680 family. (although the Legacy 450/500 and the Challenger 300 don´t use a lot of runway...)
I sometimes fly a CJ3 into our homebase - it uses way more runway...

atakacs 16th Aug 2019 18:41

No FDR ? Even if not required it seems surprising in such a high end aircraft.

Airbubba 16th Aug 2019 18:54

A link to today's NTSB briefing: https://www.pscp.tv/w/1dRKZmYPydVxB

Airbubba 16th Aug 2019 19:17


Originally Posted by atakacs (Post 10546996)
No FDR ? Even if not required it seems surprising in such a high end aircraft.



The Latitude has 9 pax seats, FDR's are required with 10 or more seats under § 91.609(c)(1) so it's indeed not required.


§ 91.609(c)

(1) No person may operate a U.S. civil registered, multiengine, turbine-powered airplane or rotorcraft having a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seats of 10 or more that has been manufactured after October 11, 1991, unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight recorders that utilize a digital method of recording and storing data and a method of readily retrieving that data from the storage medium, that are capable of recording the data specified in appendix E to this part, for an airplane, or appendix F to this part, for a rotorcraft, of this part within the range, accuracy, and recording interval specified, and that are capable of retaining no less than 8 hours of aircraft operation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.609

His dudeness 16th Aug 2019 19:28


Originally Posted by atakacs (Post 10546996)
No FDR ? Even if not required it seems surprising in such a high end aircraft.

Private ops -> not required. Saves a lot of money not to have to buy and maintain it.

733driver 16th Aug 2019 19:29


Originally Posted by His dudeness (Post 10546995)
LDR without factoring C680A from the FPG
2000ft elevation / 0 Wind
MLM 27000 26000 25000 24000 22000 20000 19000lbs
35° C/ 95°F 2,740 2,700 2,630 2,570 2,500 2,350 2,200 2,120 ft

4100/1,67 = 2456 ft - > so anything below 23000lbs ish would be okay even if 135

I have just on e landing with the Latitude, but about 2000 in t he Sovereign who shares the same gear. The Sovereigns numbers are about 200ft LONGER than that of the Latitude, even at the MLM which is 475 lower in the Sov. The longer wings of the Latitude bring the Vref down a little (2-3 knots) and the aircraft has tremendous stopping power. We are homebased at a 3323ft LDA runway and we never had any issue regarding stopping - even at high weights.

If there is a jet that is not a jet in this respect, its the C680 family. I sometimes fly a CJ3 into our homebase - it uses way more runway...

Yes, the Latitude has the same wing as the Sovereign+ which should have comparable landing performance.

One small correction, though: The FAR landing field length (factored) is a dispatch requirement and is typically not as limiting as actual conditions times 1.67. There is a specific supplement for it and it typically works out to about 1.5 times actual distance. This is because (I was told at FSI) Cessna used a slightly steeper approach and a firmer touchdown to come up with the raw landing distance for these numbers (which are not published unfactored) then applied a 1.67 factor but the total number is typically less than 1.67 times the published unfactored numbers. On other Citations this method and the respective AFM supplements was/were called parametric landing data. All this to say: Even more than 23000 pounds would have been ok under part 135. And certainly under part 91/91k there would have been no limit other than the structural MLW.

Hedge36 16th Aug 2019 20:23


Originally Posted by 787PIC (Post 10546849)

A redneck worshiped by millions of NASCAR crazies with MAGA hats!😎
Perhaps intimidated his pilots to take this brand new high performance jet into an airport (0A9) that is barely OK for a small prop aircraft.
(1600’ altitude and about 4500’ long runway, surrounded by high terrain.)
Not sure if he owned this jet or chartered?
Either way, a lot of low time inexperienced 135/91 pilots are intimidated to fly into these small airports because it is convenient for the owner or renter!

Right. Let's blame the passenger now.

His dudeness 16th Aug 2019 20:34


Originally Posted by 733driver (Post 10547036)
Yes, the Latitude has the same wing as the Sovereign+ which should have comparable landing performance.

Actually, the Sov+ is (acc. to the FPG´s) a tad worse than the Latitude...

For 200ft Elevation

Latitude 2,740 2,700 2,630 2,570 2,500 2,350 2,200 2,120 ft
Sovereign+ 2,860 2,820 2,750 2,680 2,610 2,530 2,450 2,290 ft
Sovereign 2,920 2,840 2,770 2,690 2,620 2,540 2,450 2,370

Vrefs on the + are 1 Knot higher than the Latitudes.

But all that is just academic I think, the question seems to be: why the bounce to a gear failure. The Sovereign is easy to fly IMHO, but: it runs out of elevator control close to Vref. Can´t say if that is the same with the Latitude.

capngrog 16th Aug 2019 21:21


Originally Posted by 733driver (Post 10546989)
In fact I used 2000 feet pressure altitude, 30 degrees temperature. Zero slope. A 1% down slope requires a factor of 1.17. Still not tight. 24 has a 0.8 down slope.

I appreciate the information. It seems that operating in and out of Elizabethton (OA9) should have been a "piece of cake" for this airplane, and weather conditions at the time of the accident were pretty good and apparently not a factor. This also makes my theory about landing at the wrong airport pretty far-fetched. I think that I'll just be quiet, go sit in a corner and drink my beer.

Cheers,
Grog

ironbutt57 17th Aug 2019 00:16


Originally Posted by 787PIC (Post 10546849)

A redneck worshiped by millions of NASCAR crazies with MAGA hats!😎
Perhaps intimidated his pilots to take this brand new high performance jet into an airport (0A9) that is barely OK for a small prop aircraft.
(1600’ altitude and about 4500’ long runway, with a displaced threshold, surrounded by high terrain.)
Not sure if he owned this jet or chartered?
Either way, a lot of low time inexperienced 135/91 pilots are intimidated to fly into these small airports because it is convenient for the owner or renter!

fortunately people from both sides of the fence enjoy NASCAR...even the "crazies" from the Lib camp...but nice try anyway....

ThreeThreeMike 17th Aug 2019 03:31


Originally Posted by 787PIC (Post 10546849)

A redneck worshiped by millions of NASCAR crazies with MAGA hats!��
Perhaps intimidated his pilots to take this brand new high performance jet into an airport (0A9) that is barely OK for a small prop aircraft.
(1600’ altitude and about 4500’ long runway, with a displaced threshold, surrounded by high terrain.)
Not sure if he owned this jet or chartered?
Either way, a lot of low time inexperienced 135/91 pilots are intimidated to fly into these small airports because it is convenient for the owner or renter!

That "redneck" owns several businesses with hundreds of employees, and has a personal net worth near $200 million.

Are you actually a pilot? A 4,500' runway is more than adequate for a Latitude and all midsize business jets at 1,600' elevation, the DA at the accident time, and landing weight a 20 minute flight with three pax and a dog implies.. A "small prop aircraft" uses less than 1,500' of runway including 50' obstacle clearance in virtually all conditions.

The "brand new high performance jet" was four years old, and it's performance is not much more or less than all jets in its class.

Earnhardt's JR Motorsports flight department is affiliated with Hendrick Motorsports flight ops, and their fleet includes a GV, (2) ERJ 145s, and a Bell 430. Its professional standards are second to none.

The reasons for the hard landing and overrun will be like all such incidents, a combination of events that conspired to cause the mishap. One of them will not be "low time inexperienced pilots". How, exactly, are you privy to information that "a lot" of such pilots exist in 135/91 flight ops?

atakacs 17th Aug 2019 10:12


Originally Posted by ThreeThreeMike (Post 10547271)
The reasons for the hard landing and overrun will be like all such incidents, a combination of events that conspired to cause the mishap. One of them will not be "low time inexperienced pilots". How, exactly, are you privy to information that "a lot" of such pilots exist in 135/91 flight ops?

Well shall wait for the report but this being PPRUNE can anyone come up with a reasonable scenario except for a terribly botched landing job?

jecuk 17th Aug 2019 10:40

And there is a permanent NOTAM that rwy is actually 5000ft.

Kenpilot 17th Aug 2019 13:47

Stick to 787’s please
 

Originally Posted by 787PIC (Post 10546849)

A redneck worshiped by millions of NASCAR crazies with MAGA hats!😎
Perhaps intimidated his pilots to take this brand new high performance jet into an airport (0A9) that is barely OK for a small prop aircraft.
(1600’ altitude and about 4500’ long runway, with a displaced threshold, surrounded by high terrain.)
Not sure if he owned this jet or chartered?
Either way, a lot of low time inexperienced 135/91 pilots are intimidated to fly into these small airports because it is convenient for the owner or renter!

The 680 is a great short field aircraft. The runway was plenty long and wide enough for this mission. Please stick to facts and next time do some research prior to making statements like this.

atakacs 17th Aug 2019 16:26


Originally Posted by jimtx (Post 10547680)
Last data point on flight aware:

Thu 03:10:48 PM36.3681-82.1792↗ 58°119 137 1,600-426 https://e0.flightcdn.com/images/live/arrow_down.gif

Looks like 119 knots pretty close to field elevation and earlier points show non stable airspeeds, 135, 131.

no access to the "pro" version but what kind of reading do we have for previous landings (maybe not that aircraft but I'm sure other c680 have landed here)?

havick 18th Aug 2019 00:11

NTSB saying bounced landing and on the 3rd pounding into the ground wheel collapsed. They have CCTV footage.

sprag47 18th Aug 2019 00:39

I hope the CCTV shows how far down the runway they were when the airplane stopped bouncing. This appears to be a really f..ked-up landing in a really nice, capable airplane on a dry runway in pretty decent VFR. And for all we know this crew and airplane may have landed at this airport before for other races. **** happens.

Bobby G 18th Aug 2019 01:00

733 driver - you're putting too much effort into the analysis. Who cares which runway. The wind was calm (no good) it's a marginally long enough runway and every semi-smart corporate driver knows exactly what happened. They pranged it.


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:14.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.