Bombardier 605 crash yesterday.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East of There
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KRNV TV report w/ ATC audio and bystander post-crash video:
https://mynews4.com/news/local/small...e-near-truckee
https://mynews4.com/news/local/small...e-near-truckee
There is only one RNAV approach to the longer runway 11, landing 29 or using one of the approaches for the shorter runway would require a circle to land.
They reported LUMMO inbound for the RNAV 20 circle for runway 11.
Circling minima are the same as the MDA for the RNAV 11.
It appears they may have overshot the final for runway 11.
AirNav: KTRK - Truckee-Tahoe Airport
They reported LUMMO inbound for the RNAV 20 circle for runway 11.
Circling minima are the same as the MDA for the RNAV 11.
It appears they may have overshot the final for runway 11.
AirNav: KTRK - Truckee-Tahoe Airport
Last edited by B2N2; 27th Jul 2021 at 14:07.
They probably overshot the final, pulled harder to tighten the turn and the rest became sad news.
In this video you see (a little bit) and predominantly hear the crash, quite sad. Viewer discretion is advised:
Here's the flight track on FlightAware: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N605TR
In this video you see (a little bit) and predominantly hear the crash, quite sad. Viewer discretion is advised:
Here's the flight track on FlightAware: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N605TR
I’ve never been there but a buddy of mine is an experienced biz jet driver and he refuses to go in there unless the weather is clear.
According to my sources two crew and three pax perished.
Sad.
According to my sources two crew and three pax perished.
Sad.
Audio of the plane and ATC shows they were indeed going for the Rwy 20 approach - circle to rwy 11.
Conditions at the time were pretty marginal for circle-to-land, smoke, storms in the area:
METARs at approx. time (2018Z) of crash:
KTRK 262050Z AUTO 28011G16KT 04SM BKN023 33/08 A3013 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023 ACFT MSHP
KTRK 261945Z AUTO 09005KT 04SM BKN023 32/06 A3014 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023
Conditions at the time were pretty marginal for circle-to-land, smoke, storms in the area:
METARs at approx. time (2018Z) of crash:
KTRK 262050Z AUTO 28011G16KT 04SM BKN023 33/08 A3013 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023 ACFT MSHP
KTRK 261945Z AUTO 09005KT 04SM BKN023 32/06 A3014 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023
The flight radar plot is interesting.
Entering the hold at AWEGA didn’t occur until LUMMO.
Speed in the hold is around 370 knots.
Commencing the approach at AWEGA, the aircraft was around 1700 feet too high and too fast (300 knots).
Rate of descent to LUMMO (FAF) was around -2750 feet/min.
Back on 3.5 degree profile at LUMMO (FAF) but speed still too fast (240 knots).
When visual, tracks for left base runway 11.
Speed reduces quickly on base.
Did they deploy the flight spoilers at AWEGA to “get down” and forgot to stow them for landing?
Entering the hold at AWEGA didn’t occur until LUMMO.
Speed in the hold is around 370 knots.
Commencing the approach at AWEGA, the aircraft was around 1700 feet too high and too fast (300 knots).
Rate of descent to LUMMO (FAF) was around -2750 feet/min.
Back on 3.5 degree profile at LUMMO (FAF) but speed still too fast (240 knots).
When visual, tracks for left base runway 11.
Speed reduces quickly on base.
Did they deploy the flight spoilers at AWEGA to “get down” and forgot to stow them for landing?
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: US
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flight radar plot is interesting.
Entering the hold at AWEGA didn’t occur until LUMMO.
Speed in the hold is around 370 knots.
Commencing the approach at AWEGA, the aircraft was around 1700 feet too high and too fast (300 knots).
Rate of descent to LUMMO (FAF) was around -2750 feet/min.
Back on 3.5 degree profile at LUMMO (FAF) but speed still too fast (240 knots).
When visual, tracks for left base runway 11.
Speed reduces quickly on base.
Did they deploy the flight spoilers at AWEGA to “get down” and forgot to stow them for landing?
Entering the hold at AWEGA didn’t occur until LUMMO.
Speed in the hold is around 370 knots.
Commencing the approach at AWEGA, the aircraft was around 1700 feet too high and too fast (300 knots).
Rate of descent to LUMMO (FAF) was around -2750 feet/min.
Back on 3.5 degree profile at LUMMO (FAF) but speed still too fast (240 knots).
When visual, tracks for left base runway 11.
Speed reduces quickly on base.
Did they deploy the flight spoilers at AWEGA to “get down” and forgot to stow them for landing?
Cat D circling is NA for that approach.
High, fast, late instructions, task saturation.
Derived IAS in the overshooting base to final turn would have been in the mid to high 120 range.
Do you have a link to that radar track? Because none of that shows in the Flight Aware track log, granted ADS-B may be different, but FA shows 250 KIAS at 10,000 and slowing.
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: US
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can’t post links yet due to my noobishness, but look up N605TR on Flightradar24. From there, I also created a KML of the 3D flightpath that can be imported to Google Earth.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Challenger jet is not a Cat D aircraft as far as approach category.
Very much possible that 14,000 plus high temperatures created a density altitude of 20,000+
TAS increases over IAS at 2%/1000’ so we could be looking at a TAS which is 40% higher then IAS.
250kts IAS would equate a TAS of 350 plus or minus wind.
A groundspeed of 350kts+ doesn’t mean this was a crew just blazing through the skies.
Lets not get carried away here.
A Challenger jet is not a Cat D aircraft as far as approach category.
Very much possible that 14,000 plus high temperatures created a density altitude of 20,000+
TAS increases over IAS at 2%/1000’ so we could be looking at a TAS which is 40% higher then IAS.
250kts IAS would equate a TAS of 350 plus or minus wind.
A groundspeed of 350kts+ doesn’t mean this was a crew just blazing through the skies.
A Challenger jet is not a Cat D aircraft as far as approach category.
Very much possible that 14,000 plus high temperatures created a density altitude of 20,000+
TAS increases over IAS at 2%/1000’ so we could be looking at a TAS which is 40% higher then IAS.
250kts IAS would equate a TAS of 350 plus or minus wind.
A groundspeed of 350kts+ doesn’t mean this was a crew just blazing through the skies.
Forgot to mention that max holding speed in FAA land is 230 IAS < 14,000’ and 265 IAS > 14,000’ so it would be reasonable to assume they were flying those speeds which would equate to a TAS of 322 or 371 respectively.
Give or take a couple of kts.
Give or take a couple of kts.
With all due respect to those the died, oh boy, here we go:
"We are very fortunate... that the plane went down between areas that were defendable and wouldn’t burn,” he said. “We’re also extremely lucky that plane didn’t hit a school bus full of sixth-graders. Something needs to change. This can’t continue.” (from the msn article posted above.)
"We are very fortunate... that the plane went down between areas that were defendable and wouldn’t burn,” he said. “We’re also extremely lucky that plane didn’t hit a school bus full of sixth-graders. Something needs to change. This can’t continue.” (from the msn article posted above.)
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: US
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not get carried away here.
A Challenger jet is not a Cat D aircraft as far as approach category.
Very much possible that 14,000 plus high temperatures created a density altitude of 20,000+
TAS increases over IAS at 2%/1000’ so we could be looking at a TAS which is 40% higher then IAS.
250kts IAS would equate a TAS of 350 plus or minus wind.
A groundspeed of 350kts+ doesn’t mean this was a crew just blazing through the skies.
A Challenger jet is not a Cat D aircraft as far as approach category.
Very much possible that 14,000 plus high temperatures created a density altitude of 20,000+
TAS increases over IAS at 2%/1000’ so we could be looking at a TAS which is 40% higher then IAS.
250kts IAS would equate a TAS of 350 plus or minus wind.
A groundspeed of 350kts+ doesn’t mean this was a crew just blazing through the skies.
FBUS31 KWNO 261357
FD1US1
DATA BASED ON 261200Z
VALID 261800Z FOR USE 1400-2100Z. TEMPS NEG ABV 24000
FT 3000 6000 9000 12000 18000 24000 30000 34000 39000
RNO 9900 9900+18 1409+12 1411-07 1517-17 182031 192242 212154
FBUS31 KWNO 261958
FD1US1
DATA BASED ON 261800Z
VALID 270000Z FOR USE 2000-0300Z. TEMPS NEG ABV 24000
FT 3000 6000 9000 12000 18000 24000 30000 34000 39000
RNO 2712 3108+21 3606+12 0508-06 1516-17 152231 162441 162553
Can we agree that the temp at 14,000’ was likely around +6C with winds variable but no more than 10kts? PA was likely a little lower given the local altimeter, but even with a 14,000PA, DA would have only been about 16,100. So a TAS of 360 (being conservative) would have produced a CAS of 293.
Based on the ground track, I’m more interested in whether he was set up to hold at ALVVA or AWEGA. I need a better time stamp to match the calls made on the ATC tape, but my initial thought is that he called established when he was within 10° of the reciprocal to a 340 bearing hold to the north, but at AWEGA rather than the assigned ALVVA. Eventually he did track inbound on the 160 to AWEGA for several miles. This also seems to be where the adjustments were made to speed.
Could that just have been an artifact of getting assigned direct AWEGA after calling established passing ALVVA? Sure. Better data will prove either theory.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Challenger jet is not a Cat D aircraft as far as approach category.
So they should not have been even considerin a circling approach.
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: US
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a post earlier showing the FD for RNO on the date in question. Unfortunately, I don’t think it posted for whatever reason. Suffice it to say that at FL200, indeed the IAS may have been below the hold speed limit for that altitude.
However my point was not that the limit was exceeded, rather that due to the ground speed of the aircraft and when the hold instructions arrived, there wasn’t a lot of time to brief, program, and execute the hold, then properly transition to the approach.
Upon receiving instructions to fly to ALVVA and hold north on the 340 bearing. 5TR flew southbound for a few minutes, then executed a right turn toward ALVVA at the same presumed IAS and FL200.
Upon reaching ALVVA, 5TR was cleared to 14,000, a descent which began immediately. 5TR then began a right (!) turn toward AWEGA (versus a course reversal on the west side of the 340 bearing from ALVVA to enter the instructed hold). As 5TR got to within about 10° of an inbound course to AWEGA (!), he reported established in the hold. At this point he was roughly 5.75nm from AWEGA at 16,600’ He then flew approximately a 160 inbound course to AWEGA.
18 seconds later, he was cleared direct AWEGA, cross at or above 12,000. At this point he was roughly 4nm from AWEGA at 16,000’, 311kts GS.
He crossed AWEGA 45 seconds later at 14,000’ and 294kts GS.
My presumption is that the high (not illegal) speed and a relatively late hold clearance led to task saturation, which, after misidentifying and flying the hold at the incorrect fix, led to a slam dunk approach without much time to consider the (lack of) circling minima and execution thereof.
However my point was not that the limit was exceeded, rather that due to the ground speed of the aircraft and when the hold instructions arrived, there wasn’t a lot of time to brief, program, and execute the hold, then properly transition to the approach.
Upon receiving instructions to fly to ALVVA and hold north on the 340 bearing. 5TR flew southbound for a few minutes, then executed a right turn toward ALVVA at the same presumed IAS and FL200.
Upon reaching ALVVA, 5TR was cleared to 14,000, a descent which began immediately. 5TR then began a right (!) turn toward AWEGA (versus a course reversal on the west side of the 340 bearing from ALVVA to enter the instructed hold). As 5TR got to within about 10° of an inbound course to AWEGA (!), he reported established in the hold. At this point he was roughly 5.75nm from AWEGA at 16,600’ He then flew approximately a 160 inbound course to AWEGA.
18 seconds later, he was cleared direct AWEGA, cross at or above 12,000. At this point he was roughly 4nm from AWEGA at 16,000’, 311kts GS.
He crossed AWEGA 45 seconds later at 14,000’ and 294kts GS.
My presumption is that the high (not illegal) speed and a relatively late hold clearance led to task saturation, which, after misidentifying and flying the hold at the incorrect fix, led to a slam dunk approach without much time to consider the (lack of) circling minima and execution thereof.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect to those the died, oh boy, here we go:
"We are very fortunate... that the plane went down between areas that were defendable and wouldn’t burn,” he said. “We’re also extremely lucky that plane didn’t hit a school bus full of sixth-graders. Something needs to change. This can’t continue.” (from the msn article posted above.)
"We are very fortunate... that the plane went down between areas that were defendable and wouldn’t burn,” he said. “We’re also extremely lucky that plane didn’t hit a school bus full of sixth-graders. Something needs to change. This can’t continue.” (from the msn article posted above.)
... concerns about the frequency with which aircraft depart and arrive at the airport, pointing to reports of planes appearing to travel low ...
I don't know how people expect aircraft to get to and from airports without flying "low".... airport NIMBYism jumping straight in after a fatal accident ...
