Lismore bizjet
Lismore bizjet
I hear a Citation did a little farming off the end of Lismore at about lunch time today. Initial social media reports were of the breathless "fire, screaming passengers" variety, but it seems to be an overrun on landing, ending up grazing, nose down in the grass.
VIDEO: Corporate passenger jet overshoots runway | Northern Star
VIDEO: Corporate passenger jet overshoots runway | Northern Star
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Owned by a pastoral company. Seems I'm in the wrong business.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 914
Owned by a pastoral company. Seems I'm in the wrong business.
Posts: 914
Owned by a pastoral company. Seems I'm in the wrong business.
Kaz
Historical homestead: Yulgilbar Station a much loved part of Myer dynasty - ABC North Coast NSW - Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Yulgilbar Station is one of the most historic pastoral properties in Australia. Based in the Clarence Valley in the NSW Northern Rivers, it has been in the well known Myer department store family for more than 60 years.
Yulgilbar Station is one of the most historic pastoral properties in Australia. Based in the Clarence Valley in the NSW Northern Rivers, it has been in the well known Myer department store family for more than 60 years.
ATSB
As others have reported, rejected take off, reportedly due to a "control issue". Whether of their making or not, well done that crew for not taking a problem of that nature into the air. I was reading a discussion amongst supposed pros about the MIA 777 and was rather suprised at how many seemed to consider "continue after V1" as an absolute.
Seems the reports of fire came from visible smoke, apparently generated by fairly vigorous braking in the case of the C-550. ATSB on the case; Investigation: AO-2015-114 - Aircraft control issue and runway excursion involving a Cessna 550, VH-FGK, at Lismore Airport, New South Wales, on 25 September 2015
Seems the reports of fire came from visible smoke, apparently generated by fairly vigorous braking in the case of the C-550. ATSB on the case; Investigation: AO-2015-114 - Aircraft control issue and runway excursion involving a Cessna 550, VH-FGK, at Lismore Airport, New South Wales, on 25 September 2015
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Jaba,
Clearly, the pilot's god helped him or her on the day.
You did say pastoral?
Clearly, the pilot's god helped him or her on the day.
You did say pastoral?
It is going to be a fun ATSB report to read seeing as how they have the aircraft details as "turboprop".
I wonder what their findings will be when they can't find any propellers on the aircraft.
Something like " Pilot Error, the crew commenced the take-off without first ensuring that the propellers were correctly fitted to the aircraft!"
From the ATSB website>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Aircraft details
Aircraft manufacturer: Cessna Aircraft Company
Aircraft model: 550
Aircraft registration: VH-FGK
Serial number: 550-0852
Type of operation: Charter
Sector: Turboprop
Damage to aircraft: Minor
Departure point: Lismore, NSW
Destination: Yulgilbar Station, NSW
CC
I wonder what their findings will be when they can't find any propellers on the aircraft.
Something like " Pilot Error, the crew commenced the take-off without first ensuring that the propellers were correctly fitted to the aircraft!"
From the ATSB website>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Aircraft details
Aircraft manufacturer: Cessna Aircraft Company
Aircraft model: 550
Aircraft registration: VH-FGK
Serial number: 550-0852
Type of operation: Charter
Sector: Turboprop
Damage to aircraft: Minor
Departure point: Lismore, NSW
Destination: Yulgilbar Station, NSW
CC
Last edited by Checklist Charlie; 26th Sep 2015 at 03:18. Reason: Add ATSB data.
Not the TAF but...
201509250400 METAR YLIS 250400Z AUTO 17015KT 9999 // SCT043 19/12 Q1020=
201509250300 METAR YLIS 250300Z AUTO 21013KT 9999 -SHRA SCT043 SCT053
18/12 Q1021 RESHRA=
201509250200 METAR YLIS 250200Z AUTO 16014KT 9999 -SHRA BKN043 BKN050
19/10 Q1021=
201509250100 METAR YLIS 250100Z AUTO 20011KT 9999 DZ BKN042 BKN048 18/10
Q1022=
201509250000 METAR YLIS 250000Z AUTO 20015KT 9999 // SCT038 BKN047 19/10
Q1023=
201509250400 METAR YLIS 250400Z AUTO 17015KT 9999 // SCT043 19/12 Q1020=
201509250300 METAR YLIS 250300Z AUTO 21013KT 9999 -SHRA SCT043 SCT053
18/12 Q1021 RESHRA=
201509250200 METAR YLIS 250200Z AUTO 16014KT 9999 -SHRA BKN043 BKN050
19/10 Q1021=
201509250100 METAR YLIS 250100Z AUTO 20011KT 9999 DZ BKN042 BKN048 18/10
Q1022=
201509250000 METAR YLIS 250000Z AUTO 20015KT 9999 // SCT038 BKN047 19/10
Q1023=
Spinex:
Frankly, it would take a very brave man indeed (who could instantly compute just how much runway/overrun was remaining and the aircraft's stopping performance) to ever contemplate stopping after V1. I've discussed this hoary one often with fellow transport pilots in the past and this was always the consensus.
History proves that with rare (and incredibly lucky) exceptions, aborts after V1 simply end in tears.
Yes, you can draw up all sorts of hypotheticals, but in the seconds available to decide (as the aircraft keeps accelerating and thus eating further into whatever stopping distance you have left) - I don't think so.
I was reading a discussion amongst supposed pros about the MIA 777 and was rather suprised at how many seemed to consider "continue after V1" as an absolute.
History proves that with rare (and incredibly lucky) exceptions, aborts after V1 simply end in tears.
Yes, you can draw up all sorts of hypotheticals, but in the seconds available to decide (as the aircraft keeps accelerating and thus eating further into whatever stopping distance you have left) - I don't think so.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: sYDNEY
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed that rejects after V1 rarely go well, especially considering the scale. A C550 at LIS wouldn't have an abundance of spare length Vs SYD 34l. There is always the consideration where the commander doubts the ability of the aircraft to safely fly. Possibly a scenario of large structural damage. Unlikely in this case but perhaps the pull to rotate was the first time they realised the control locks were still in place (I'm not familiar with the type). If so a lightning fast correct decision was made. Sadly, the crew may have to answer some tough questions.
Agreed, it's an exceptional situation, but as happened here, I'd rather take my chances in the overrun at 50kts than potentially meet the scenery at multiples of that, sans working controls.