UPS contract plane off runway - KCRW
 

Now reporting two killed. This is a hilltop runway at a joint civil-military field.

Cargo plane goes off runway at West Virginia airport - Cincinnati News, FOX19-WXIX TV

background on KCRW
 

Eight years ago - remember the depressurized 733?

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ger+charleston

Air Cargo Carriers Short SD-330

From LiveATC.net, SNC 1260 was cleared for the VOR-A runway 5 at CRW. Wind check 200/5.

Metar from the AvHerald article:

KCRW 051054Z 23003KT 10SM FEW001 OVC005 14/13 A2941 RMK AO2 SLP952 VLY FG T01440133=

VOR-A chart here:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1705/00852VA.PDF

From news photos of the recovery activity it appears that the plane departed the runway to the left near the touchdown zone for runway 5 and the fuselage went down the side of the hill.

From local news report:

More: WV MetroNews | Plane Crash at Yaeger Airport; Yeager Airport closed

Charlie West
 

First time i went in there was at 2am with an engine fire in a twin cessna. (Red sky at night engine's alight..)
Seeing the approach the following morning i'd have just let out burn...
The FAA installed EMAS there a while back; it caught a CRJ 2 aborting due to a takeoff config warning Accident: PSA Airlines CRJ2 at Charleston on Jan 19th 2010, overran runway on takeoff
I believe there was a landslide more recently and the overrun slipped into coal country.
Given the state of the job market here i'm surprised the operators could staff a service like this...

There was a recent thread in Freight Dogs about this carrier, which is basically a feeder from smaller cities to the larger freight hubs. I suppose the predictability of the operation might appeal to some. RIP to the crew.

http://www.pprune.org/freight-dogs/5...ml#post9743582

Press release on company website

N334AC/SH3029 which started its life with Loganair in Glasgow as G-BGNA in 1979.

Also known as "Charlie West."

Here is Bill English's NTSB briefing from Friday evening. He says that two AAIB investigators will come from the UK as parties to the investigation.



It looks like the minimum descent height on the VOR-A is 619 feet above the field with DME to identify FOGAG. The reported 500 foot ceiling would make this approach challenging, to say the least, in my experience.

Bill English gives his second and final onsite briefing about the accident investigation. I am surprised that a large (over 12,500 lbs.) turbine powered aircraft in a scheduled operation is not required to have a CVR or FDR. Is this one of those cargo cutouts in the FAA regs?



Here's the customary NTSB b-roll video that the media splice into their news reports about the crash:



Some pictures of the runway damage and drone mapping of the accident site:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsb/s...7680389042423/

The crew names have been released:

Names of pilot, co-pilot killed in Yeager Airport plane crash released | WVAH

Probably totally fatigued, awful time of morning and a difficult approach in a far from sophisticated aircraft.

I will make this observation, at the risk of over generalizing.... This flight was operated under FAR part 135, (I think), and therefore not subject to the ATP requirement for passenger Part 121 operations in the US.

Here is a positing from Air Cargo Carriers on AirlinePilotCentral.com regarding pilot hiring.
Is Hiring?: Yes Next Estimated FO Hiring Event: July 2017

First Officer Requirements: Commercial MEL Rated/500 TT (preferred)

Starting May 1st, 2017-

If you take a low time pilot, minimal experience and add to that minimal training at the carrier, then we are likely to see more of these accidents. The available pilot pool is very dry now and if have a pulse and license you get hired somewhere. It's great experience, if you don't have an accident like this one. I think airfreight pilots make some of the best pilots out there. It is a very unforgiving type of operation and requires constant vigilance to stay safe. The learning curve is very steep, especially for the inexperienced.

I think we need to get used to seeing more of these, unfortunately.

Looking at the VOR A chart given in post #4 it is indeed a challenging approach. Was it daylight or just dawn, but the low cloud would have made it darker and there are no approach lights. It is 29 degrees off the centreline and a strange profile. There is no published DME/ALT table for the final descent, only MINS at 6nm and MPA at 8nm = threshold. Height loss is 1280' in 6nm. (Normally a 3degree slope would be 1920'.) This is very flat as a CDA, so suggests a dive & drive with a level segment. There you are, level, full landing flap, higher power, nose up, 800/700'AGL, searching for only threshold lights at 2nm (min vis required is also 1-2nm depending on category.) The ROD from 700' to 50' TCHT is about 3 degrees, but from 800' steeper. You see the runways lights late, off to the left; there is a slight delay in transiting to final descent from level flight and end up with high ROD and turning to gain the centre line, all with a tailwind. Someone was giving OVC 005. Good game. Sounds like an accident waiting to happen, to me.
And how can you have a min vis of 1nm with DH 700' if there are no approach lights? Am missing something?

Perhaps there was an issue with the airplane's DME. Otherwise the LOC Rwy 5 would have been a far better choice. Or, with that slight wind, the ILS 23 would have been an even better choice, no DME required.

It's an MDA not a DA (or DH if you prefer). And, the 1 mile is for Approach Categories A and B only. The HAA of an MDA is geometrically permissive for A and B.

Also, these are circle-to-land-only minimums (that's why it's VOR-A, not VOR Rwy 05), which have their own set of traps for the unwary. And, the final approach course radial is 31 degrees different than the runway center-line.

All in all, quite the non-precision IAP.

FWIW, attached are the TERPs CTL minima. These apply when either alignment or descent gradient don't permit straight-in minimums.

The wind, light though it may be, was favoring the ILS 23. Would have been a slight tailwind for landing 05

Correct. The other weather factors favored Runway 23 even more.

We don't know where the flight came on to the TRACON's radar. Perhaps the position favored least remaining track miles to Runway 5. Presumably, we will find that out, or perhaps someone already has.

EDIT: Note the ILS 23 and LOC 05 have a common frequency. Odds are ATC had the ILS 23 configured, which would have made the LOC 05 not readily available.

A couple key questions at this point:

1. There's a report that the aircraft struck trees on final approach. Has this been substantiated?

2. There are witness statements and apparently more than one surveillance video showing the aircraft landing at a "very strange angle". What could be the cause? Sudden gust / windshear? Last minute side-slip? Mechanical trouble?

And, if they didn't have DME, mins for the VOR-A are 120 feet higher at 739 feet above airport elevation. With a reported 500 foot ceiling. :eek:

Visibility was 10 miles so the approach was legal for any category. Is the SD-330 category B (max speed 135 knots) for circling perhaps?

These deadly circling approaches in less than VFR weather have been abandoned in the ops specs by most Part 121 air carriers for many years now. Recent type ratings given by those carriers have the limitation (sometimes called 'training wheels') 'CIRC APCH - VMC ONLY'. And yes, circling is supposed to be a visual maneuver so I'll let others hash out the VMC-VFR definitions.

Piedmont 4825 was departing runway 5 just prior to SNC 1260's arrival. SNC 1260 was told to expect the localizer to runway 5 at 7:20 into this LiveAtc.net clip:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kc...2017-1030Z.mp3

The audio is not great and it sounds like the VOR-A was requested by the SD-330 crew from the context. As aterpster observed, DME is required for the LOC Rwy 5 but not for the VOR-A.

There is indeed a pilot with a name similar to that of the first officer with a commercial license and a current Class I medical listed at a New Hampshire address in the FAA Airmen database.

No mention of any impact prior to the runway in the NTSB videos posted above.

It ended up hitting trees going down the embankment

No gusts in those weather conditions. But, the final course radial is significantly offset from the runway. Lots of ugly possible scenarios there.

Hmm. If there was no impact prior to the threshold, I guess the most "plain" possibility is that the aircraft broke out of clouds significantly high or offset from the runway centerline and impacted while attempting to maneuver back to the centerline? Or alternatively stalled while attempting to go-around, causing a wing drop and subsequent crash.

Those who've seen the videos probably have a good idea of what happened.

The NTSB is limited by the lack of either a CVR or FDR.

No idea about #1, but if they were on the VOR A approach and acquired the runway visually right as they approached MACSA, an attempt to land from there would require a pretty abrupt last minute, low level turn to align with the runway. Pure speculation, but that would be my guess.

Only thought I can add to points already considered is that KCRW is a "tabletop" airport, with a steep upslope rising to meet rwy 5.

A south tailwind could result in an updraft under the approach, that may have interfered with the pilots' planned maneuvering.

Picture also shows the landslide that "ate" part of the EMAS.

http://www.wvgazettemail.com/apps/pb...=1493510400069

Looks even worse on the Google Earth photo :eek::

https://goo.gl/maps/3YGuCXS3PjF2

Yep. Although some of that is the repair work - and raises the question of what effect the on-going repairs (lights? parked equipment?) may have had, sitting right at the runway end. I'm sure no one was probably on the job at 6:53 ayem - but was the site itself a distraction?

Those gouge marks in the runway surface (video 3) look to be 1 or 2 inches deep which means the aircraft hit pretty damn hard. The marks also evidence a touchdown travelling at an angle of 30deg across the runway centreline so the approach was very far from being stable. The debris field appears to indicate airframe break-up started BEFORE the main body went down the ravine.

Considering that the cloud ceiling was 500' above the runway it is difficult to imagine how a stable approach (even one that busted minimums) could have been mishandled enough to result in crossing the runway at 30 degrees with such a rate of descent. It is quite possible this aircraft was stalled at impact.

Also, the angle of the gouges is 'opposite" the misalignment angle of the final approach course of the VOR-A approach.


Possible scenario. They got the runway in sight late and by the time they had turned left to align with runway heading they had overshot the runway centerline considerably, which would necessitate continuing left turn back toward the runway, and then a right turn before touchdown to align with runway heading. Ran out of altitude to complete right turn to runway heading, so impacted in bank, while travelling at angle to runway.

Reminds me of an accident at Newtownards N.I. around 15 years ago where the pilot seeing the runway late (in that case due to limited visibility rather than breaking through low cloud) turned over-sharply towards the runway so that the wing on the inside of the turn stalled with insufficient height to recover.

VOR-A final approach course with missed approach fix MACSA and FAA airport diagram.

If they didn't have an operating DME they would have been required to time the approach.

As long as we're speculating about the operational status of their equipment; If they didn't have an operating localizer receiver, they would have had to take the VOR-A, with a tailwind, and an MDA above the ceiling.

Doubt they would have had VOR but not LOC. They are usually the same receiver, more or less.

I am not speculating that they did not have an operational DME. I am stating what anyone would have to do to fly the VOR-A without DME whether inoperable or not installed.

More "less" than "more". Yeah, they're typically housed in the same box with the same power supply, but the LOC portion is functionally separate, and they have separate antennae. Having VOR but no LOC is quite plausible.

Speculation about which type of approach they were flying...... and how this precipitated the crash is pretty immaterial and will not lead to the 'why'.

Despite this aircraft being flown by two capable guys who were both visual with the field from 500' down to the runway they crashed hard at a steep crossing angle to the centreline. That strongly suggests that the aircraft was not under control when it hit the runway - This is where the focus of the investigation will lie.

No! Ya think???? :}

Au contraire. The fact that they were flying a non precision approach which was more than 30 degrees out of alignment from the runway, with an MDA above the reported ceiling may be *very* material to why they lost control.

As for why they chose that approach, no, that's not terribly relevant, but it's certainly something pilots would tend to wonder.

Circling Approach MDA 800 AGL

KCRW 051054Z 23003KT 10SM FEW001 OVC005 14/13 A2941 RMK AO2 SLP952 VLY FG T01440133=

The speculation is not about which approach they were flying, it was the VOR-A from the ATC tapes and the NTSB press conference cited previously on this thread.

The question is why would they fly that approach to circling mins if the LOC Rwy 5 with runway alignment and lower mins was available? They were told to expect the LOC Rwy 5 on initial contact with CRW approach control.

Nope, the VOR-A at CRW mins are 739 feet above field elevation without DME and 619 above with DME to identify FOGAG intersection. That stuff in parentheses is for military pilots like the C-130 drivers with the WV ANG.

Again, here is the VOR-A chart:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1705/00852VA.PDF