A little note regarding the 737-200. Followig was published many years ago:

Since 1970 there have been a number of reports by operators of B-737 aircraft who have experienced an aircraft pitchup or rolloff immediately after takeoff in weather conditions which were conducive to the formation of ice or frost on the wing leading edges.

As a result of incidents involving B-737 aircraft which experienced a sudden
roll after takeoff, The Boeing Co. on October 24, 1974, issued Operations Manual Bulletin
No. 74-8.

The continuation of reports of pitchup/rolloff occurrences prompted The
Boeing Co. to examine further the B-737 aircraft sensitivity to leading, edge contamination. In 1977 plans were formulated for wind tunnel and flight tests. Even before conducting these tests, The Boeing Co. on February 23, 1979, issued Operations Manual Bulletin 79-2 to advise flightcrews of a possible inadvertent pitchup/rolloff after takeoff due to ice accumulation on leading edge devices

As part of its investigation of the reported incidents, The Boeing Co. flight
tested a B-737-200 advanced airplane in the fall of 1980 to quantify the aerodynamic effects of contaminated leading edge slats. The leading edge slats were coated with an epoxy potting compound and the surface was roughened with a paint roller to simulate a coating with corn ice. A series of stalls was conducted with flaps up, and at flap positions of 1, 15, and 40. The stall characteristics with both symmetric and asymmetric leading
edge contaminations were characterized by a very apparent pitchup, yaw rate, and rolloff. These characteristics were more pronounced at flap settings less than 5 when the slats were sealed, that is, when there was no gap between the leading edge slat and the basic
wing such as that which occurs when the slats are fully extended coincident with flap settings between 10 and 40. The Boeing Co. concluded that takeoffs are executed during suspected icing conditions or adverse weather conditions, sound operational techniques must be employed.

The Boeing Co. internal memoranda showed that it was considering an engineering change to the wing thermal anti-ice system to permit the use of that system on the ground to assure a clear leading edge.

For those interested, more details can be found in the Air Florida Flight 90 accident report.

Pilot or God
 

Sorry but what I don't understand is the proud of a pilot. Is it to much to perform a correct de-icing of a aircraft. So many accidents are happen cause the guys fwd left and right are to proud. STOP it and many peole will live

@mechanic

How do you know if icing played a role in this accident?

Who Knows if icing was involved.
But will we ever learn?
Off thread, but a coleague who went for an interview with a certain low cost carrier was asked by the human resources type person. What he would do if he found ice on his a/c in the morning. He replied de-ice it! Answer from human resources Do you know how much it costs to de-ice a 737, why not wait untill the sun comes up and melts the ice. His comment I know how much it costs to de-ice a 747 and whats that got to do with it? He got up and walked out.
So whilst company's are actively promoting this kind of thing accidents will still be happening due to ice contamination.
:ugh:

Does somebody has the METAR from the time the crash happened from UTTT and UAFM? Would be interesting.

http://english.wunderground.com/hist...theprefvalue=1

http://english.wunderground.com/hist...q_statename=NA

http://english.wunderground.com/hist...q_statename=NA

Rotation Technique
 

Bravo the poster who mentioned the "JERKOFF" instead of a smooth rotation into a takeoff.

It is also called a "snatch" rotation. And except for certain, almost test flight situations, shouldn't be used.

And this goes for all planes , not just the Challenger.

I wish the FAA had observers at the end of all runways to perform an external wing check prior to takeoff, and if no good, no takeoff clearance. Same for other ICAO nations.

Feeling the plane's lift, sensing it, the heft in the stick, whatever you want to call it...is a lost art.

quote
It is also called a "snatch" rotation. And except for certain, almost test flight situations, shouldn't be used.
unqoute
That is not entirely correct, certain types of airplanes need to be (strongly) "pulled" ( into a "snatch" rotation) ...there is a special "pull" call @ v1 when icing conditions are given and the aircraft has been de iced before.... ( fluid in the area of the elevator which requires higher rudder forces ) , however at the CL 604 that´s not the case:8

weather that evening was nearer -15, probably lower. It was -17 at 0800 on 26th.

UAAA authorities are meeting this morning to discuss incident

doubleu-anker:
The information and the knowledge regarding this aircraft is widely available. I posted the link to the Canadian TSB's report on the Air Canada CRJ accident at Fredericton, New Brunswick because it addresses this question, in part, in Appendix C of the report and is entitled:

Appendix C -

Computed Versus Expected CL-Alpha Curve


I will not reproduce the graph here as it is under copyright protection but the report is freely available to all at the link provided.

While there are undoubted design similarities between the CL-604 and the CRJ-100/200 (the former being the subject of the accident to which this thread relates, the latter being the Fredericton aircraft), with the two types sharing a common type certificate and a common ancestor (the CL-601) there are of course also some important differences, so one must be careful in attempting to draw conclusions which apply to both variants.

Additionally, Frederiction was a landing accident, with the aircraft essentially in the landing configuration at the time of the stall (the call had been made for flaps, per the TSB report, but would hardly have had time to move from the flaps 45 position). Almaty is by all accounts a takeoff accident, which means flaps 20 for the CL-604. So the graph in the TSB report can only be of fairly general use.

Thanks for the important clarifications M(F)S.

A spate of Montrose - Almaty - to be continued
 

PROBABLE CAUSE
The Board concludes that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crew's failure
to ensure that the airplane’s wings were free of ice or snow contamination that accumulated
while the airplane was on the ground, which resulted in an attempted takeoff with upper wing
contamination that induced the subsequent stall and collision with the ground. A factor
contributing to the accident was the pilots’ lack of experience flying during winter weather
conditions.

This happened Montrose, Colorado, November 28, 2004

The next thing, it was a fuel stop. We have low temp. and the aircraft is refueled with "warm" fuel, so everybody knows what will happen (condensed water), special on the upper wing skin.

Simular accidents happened 3 times before, what will be with estimated number of unreported cases, will say, what was close to the accident but godspeed, nothing happened.

to be continued.....sadly

Holdover times
 

Holdover time for type 1 fluid 75/25 in snow 6 - 15 mins with a lower temp limit of -14 for application
Holdover time for type 11 fluid 75/25 in snow 15 - 30 mins lower limit of -14 for 75/25 mix
I am not speculating, just thought I would check the conditions that have been posted on prune regarding this sad accident as an exercise (for my benefit) from the tables provided as a guide found in most ops manuals and the UK CAA AIC's. No one seems to have highlighted this point yet and its pertinant to all ops not just the Challenger. Food for thought when considering fatigue and commercial pressure.
Regarding the 850 accident at Moscow didnt that have some problem with its nosewheel steering??? On a contaminated runway???
Safe flying to all for 2008

I still wonder how they wanted to manage their flightdutytimes.
Maybe someone can help.
The operator is from Frankfurt Germany and T/O was from Hannover.
They must have been in Hannover already and rested at least 10hours.
The distance is approx. 6000NM ( exact 5971NM ) and that is HAJ-direct-ALA-direct overfly Lanzhou-direct HKG. No approaches included and every distance great circle. You never fly ALA-Lanzhou direct but it was easier to calculate. This leg is much longer.
Cruise speed is 0.80 459kt
or long range is .74 425kt
http://www.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_2..._factsheet.pdf
No wind this means: 6000/459= 13h 04 minutes.
Max dutytime is only 14hours for a two man cockpit.
Considering 30minutes preparation ( min. by german law ) and 15 min. after work ( also min. by german law ) You got the 14h max duty time almost full.
But there is the chance to max it out by the commander under special circumstances to an additional 2 hours.
But in these two hours you got add the following:
You got taxitime out at HAJ and refueling ground time at ALA. De-icing, taxi in and out of ALA, approach into HKG and taxi at HKG and your 16hours are more then full.
Pretty sharp calculated timetable.

The destination was Bangkok, not Hong Kong, according to information from www.procuror.kz. This makes only a slight difference in distance:

EDDV - UAAA: 2739 NM
UAAA - VHHH: 2384 NM
UAAA - VTBD: 2408 NM

All distances are calculated via airway routings.

The total distance is 5123 NM or 5147 NM. This is still a huge distance for a crew of two pilots - during night and without any rest time between the legs.

Sorry, for the wrong distances.
Got it from this website..

Never trust the internet :)

http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/calculate-distance.html

Still a very long flight.

How do we actually know if it was a private or for hire flight?

I was flying from yerevan that night to Bishkek where we scraped in.It was indeed an auful night with vis right down to 800m in moderate snow.Winter in this part of the world can be terrible with very few options for diversions.

"Because once you hold an AOC (commercial carrier) in Europe, JAR OPS 1 applies for each single flight- even if the owner is on board. Unless you temporarily remove this particular A/C from your AOC- which is a very time consuming paper work. So i assume it was "for hire"."

Not necessarily true. Some operators do have exemptions for owner flights. (in Germany).
Some authorities do accept a simple "P" instead of "C" in the techlog and you´re private. (Luxembourg for example) [I know that JAROPS is actually saying something different, but thats how it works in real life]
BTW. D-A RWE would suggest another owner than Mr.Windhorst?

But then, does it really matter? At the time of the accident, they should not have been anywhere near the FDT limits. And if you regularly operate as an AOC pilot, you don´t "switch" your habits just because this one flight is privately operated. At least not regarding DeIcing, IMO.
_____

"Holdover time for type 1 fluid 75/25 in snow 6 - 15 mins with a lower temp limit of -14 for application"
"They actually deiced the a/c with type I fluid."

Mhhhh. May I ask how reliable your information is? I´ve heard all sorts of info on de-icing ranging from not deiced to your post...I do know that the surviving pilot said that they deiced.

I've just compared the enormity of this scheduled duty with one that I look back on as a right cracker: MAN-TLV-MAN in a 737-200ADV with an aux tank. It was a daylight flight, max scheduled FDP 13 hours 15 minutes, round-trip distance approximately 4200 n.m. i.e. some 900 n.m. less. My logbook shows a total block time of 11 hours 10 minutes, and I remember filing a captain's discretionary report for exceeding the scheduled FDP. The 737-200's cruise was M0.73, i.e. much the same as previously quoted for the Challenger's long-range cruise.

My goodness, these pilots were given some task.

If max duty time was a factor in this tragic accident, it's another bloody example.

When are authorities going to wake up?

In Germany flight duty time regulations also apply to employed pilots flying without AOC. There is no exemption for that.

If they really used Type I Fluid for anti-icing, they had a holdover time of 2 to 4 minutes (at below -10°C and snow). They also had to consider AEA cautions:

and

That is not working in given conditions unless you anti-ice at the threshold immediately before takeoff.

"In Germany flight duty time regulations also apply to employed pilots flying without AOC. There is no exemption for that"

Granted - but have you ever heard of ANY action regarding FDT against a non-AOC pilot in Germany? I haven´t...I´d guess JAROPS 2 or however it will be called then will change that. Maybe. Or not.

Correct me if I´m wrong, but they were just about to begin their second leg, weren´t they? So they just had done some 5,5-6 hrs of flying...or maybe 8 hrs of duty IF they came from EDDF to pick the pax up. Hardly over the FDR. The second leg would have been, granted.

Translation from German newspaper
 

As a simple and humble SLF with interest in aviation I would like to contribute at least something to enlight the facts of Mr. Windhorst's business travel.
I'm not really that good in English, but I hope this translation is welcome...

The business man Lars Windhorst, who was severly hurt on 26 of Dezember at a plane accident in Almaty in Kasachstan is being treated at a hospital specialized in trauma treatment in Berlin Marzahn. This was reported by a hospital spokesman.

The 31-year-old had been brought by an ambulance from Schönefeld airport at three a.m. Windhorst had crashed with a German business aircraft. One of the two pilots died, the other was severely injured. As was confirmed by aviation insiders, this was a police detective who was performing an officially licensed second activity in piloting business aircraft.

According to the hospital spokesman Detlef Hoffmann, Windhorst had suffered burns as well as injuries of the facial skull and the thorax. He is being supervised in the intensice care unit by physicians of different disciplines. He is said to be stable, awake and reacts when talked to by the physicians, but may not receive visitors. Windhorst as for now does not remember anything about the accident, Hoffmann said.

Windhorst was the only passenger on the flight of the Challenger 604 from Hannover with destination Hong Kong and a stopover to take fuel at Almaty. Soon after take-off, the aircraft, according to reports, had crashed to the ground, had been flung against a wall and had burst into flames.

The Challenger belonged to the enterprise Jet Connection which had been founded in 1997 and is based on the Frankfurt airport, and is specialized in the charter of business aircraft. As manager Georg Biesing told the Tagesspiegel yesterday, no reports of the Kasakh officials had reached him yet. Contrary to first news, there had been no explosion on board. Experts of the State Department for investigation of Aircraft Accidents in Braunschweig yesterday took off for Almaty to participate in the investigations of the cause of the accident.
According to Biesing there had been no technical disorders of the 7 year old aircraft. The same type is also used by the Flugbereitschaft of the German airforce The co-pilot and the cabin crew member also were injured and meanwhile have been brought by rescue aircrafts to German hospitals for further treatment.

Lars Windhorst is said to be one of the most glamorous personalities in the boom times of internet. In the 90ies, the young entrepreneur had come into focus when accompanying Chancelor Helmut Kohl. Windhorst had founded a business for computer equipment when only 16 years old. Kohl made of him role model for the young generation and took him along on trips to Asia to raise publicity.

Windhorst, who succeeded in convincing many investors to entrust him their money, wanted to create a huge economic empire, but finally went bankrupt in a spectacular way. Many asked later how professionals of money business could have mingled with him. Probably they were amazed by his boyish charme.

Later, he had been sued by many disappointed creditors, most of all by Ulrich Marseille, the manager of a big German hosptal chain. Surprisingly, with the aid of the new private insolvency law, Windhorst succeeded to be free from any personal debt within three years.

After his business and privat insolvencies Windhorst is now working for a finance investor.

(Source: Tagesspiegel, Berlin, from dec. 29th, 2007)

Has Bombardier addressed this accident yet in any briefings to operators?

jungle drums

Couldn't agree with you more as regards to your 3rd paragraph. I do that myself.

However "the book" does not state this, so the people who fly by "the book" do not gain from the added advantage of the extra speed gained, to perhaps assist in the handling of any emergency during t/o.

Yes, an Advisory Wire was sent out on 26th December. Challenger operators should have received it, and it's also available via the Bombardier customer website for operators with access. It adds little to the statements in the media and the various news items linked to earlier in the thread (bear in mind it went out within 24h of the accident) but does state that the local authorities have notified TSBC, to whom Bombardier have offered assistance, as is customary for any OEM.

A technique from long ago, JD, used on many older models of the B707, those without full span leading edge devices...limited mostly by tire speeds.
Forgotten now I expect, except by a few older hands...myself included.

When in doubt...accelerate.
Used by Boeing.
Used by Lockheed.

Mostly for improved climb performance.
Wonder in Bombardier have this in their book?
If not, why not?

Regarding post #68
If your dutytime will be excited you are not allowed to T/O to your destination.


Just found some more infos:

Had to translate the text via a website.

Aircraft arrived in the airport of Alma Ata into 2.20 (Tuesday, 23.20 msk). The dispatcher of airport communicated communication about the emergency into the service of rescuing. This occurred into 3.11 local time (0.11 msk).

As they report the media of Kazakhstan with the reference to the representative of MChS [emergency and disaster relief ministry] of republic, emergency occurred soon after the refueling of the aircraft, when it left to the takeoff and landing strip and gained itself speed to [vzlet].[vzorvalsya].
Aircraft burnt completely. At the moment of wreck aboard was situated four people - three crew members and one passenger.

In 3.05 (6.05 msk) for the not established thus far reasons CL60, belonged to German company Jet Of connection Of business Of flight, after passing 400 m, descended from the runway and opened enclosing landing area ferroconcrete fence, after which it exploded.
Aircraft burnt completely. At the moment of wreck aboard was situated four people - three crew members and one passenger.

Infos are not complete and are from this russian website ( local newspaper )
All other infos had been in the previous postings.
http://www.gazeta.ru/social/2007/12/26/2474796.shtml

This means a ground time from only 45 minutes.

That is pretty fast for a turnaround with deicing ( especially in Almaty ) and as final destination I still find the information about HKG in the news. VHHH

The last time in ALA they told me, they only got Type I fluid anyway. Maybe it was only at that special day ?

Does anyone know the Off Block time in HAJ ?
Where does it say BKK as final destination ?

The 400m I found in a different report as well and there it meant:
after 400m from the runway they hit the concretewall

Unless you don't know the winds aloft the data you are requesting are not of any use to you and your magazine.
With a nice tailwind component HAJ-ALA and beyond can be made well within duty time limits.
And there is tailwind most of the time in this direction.
45 minutes is not a fast turnaround for a business jet that needs no loading/unloading.
Keep on searching, maybe better elsewhere.

It may not be in the "book" for T/O, so why not look in the "book" for App/Land with wing anti Ice inoperative , or just use something from stall recovery "book"?!

Speed is Life
 

Up and away there is ample stall margin during maneuvering, but during takeoff there isn't much to begin with. Maneuvering in pitch as the aircraft is lifting off reduces what little stall margin there is, especially at heavy weight when acceleration is slower. A reduced rotation rate and the addition of speed above Vr before lifting off significantly increases stall margins, especially if the wing has been contaminated. An intuitive pilot would reduce his pitch rate and add some speed on takeoff if there were any possibility of a contaminated wing, even after de-icing. This technique seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Pilots tend to fly the way they train, and pilots are typically trained to fly as though the engine were going to fail just after V1 on every takeoff. Speed is life.

threemiles..
Unless you don't know the winds aloft the data you are requesting are not of any use to you and your magazine.

threemiles -- stay with the facts !

who told you I am with a magazine ?

Maybe it is only a newspaper ?

It´s none of it. I am just a little pilot...

( ehh, what are windsaloft ? )

I guess, you are one too...


Besides, landing, taxi-in at Almaty in snowy weather, refueling and taxi out including De-Icing and T/O is pretty fast in 45 minutes.

Take a look at the taxi and the approach chart.
I guess you have not been to Almaty before.

It was snowing that day and there is CAT2 only to RWY 23. If you approach via RWY 05 you got backtrack. Watch out for those two little turnpads, the first one probably pretty slippery, because only the smallest birds make it there.

I do not know your taxispeed in these conditions, but I go very safe. I want to retire without a dent.

If you got inbound traffic wait for the other traffic to clear the runway...
And your time is just passing by..

Almaty is definetely not one of the airports you should underestimate.

Slower rotation
 

Canardnorth:

I do the same thing, when I go to the end of the holdovertime definetely and also make a clear statement for my fellow pilot, that he knows that I will be rotating slower and gain a little extra speed, but of course only if the situation permits it.

In any case of abnormal situation I go to absolute standard ( abnormal ) procedure.

I also try to get higher speeds in my performance computation and take more time for this part with my second pilot.

Speed is life.. amen to that.

Coming from a Lear 60 and now captain on a 604, I have the utmost respect for any sort of wing contamination and any doubts always end in a de-icing.

The techniques for slow rotation and higher speed are mentioned here on the last few posts and I always let the 604 fly itself off the ground when she is ready (rotate at normal rate and let wing fly itself). The rotation forces are wierd in the 604 as they are very light when factory trim settings are used and even more so with a full tail tank. I prefer a slightly heavier feel to the "pull" as having the airplane spring into the air as soon as you unweight the nosewheel is a bit disconcerting at times.

Having operated the last two winters in Reykjavik, I have been at pains to show/tell our new F/O's that rotating at same speed and yanking it up into V2 in any and all situations aint the best idea. Granted the "book" says one thing, but real life nuances come with experience. Also the simulators that alot of us use, dont quite reproduce the feel/look of the airplane in that transient stage.

Sad outcome eitherway... RIP

real life nuances

well done!

I don't know if you guys know about the book "fly the wing" by webb.

he speaks of a takeoff in supsected or possible windshear. he points out that finding out the max weight for takeoff from a particular runway and then using the "NUMBERS" (v1/rotate) for the highest weight allows you to have a reserve of speed at takeoff.

perhaps so too in suspected icing situation?

think about it, read his book, perhaps this is something that can prove the nuance concept expressed above...but in a numerical fashion.

FTL
 

Gentle rotation has always been the answer to most take off problems, get V2 ++ under your belt before commiting aviation. Then a engine failure is a piece of cake, and the margin between the stall of a contaminated wing (singular) is below the flying speed.

As an aside, but still related: Many times I have been over 14hrs, if you look at realistic pre flight duty times and post flight duties, Since when has the trip from the hotel, been included in these calculations.....Also many times sat on the ground in Moscow, or similar cold locations, and waited for deicing, Then depted on a 12hour + flight....All perfecly normal for a Corporate driver. Three Charters in the last week.............And the company insisted the aircraft then ferried back to base, to save a hotel night.
Please do not think that Corportate charter operators actually comply with FTL, and when the real "duty Time" is considered, almost all Gulfstream V and G550 flights are scheduled in to discretion.

Please prove me wrong, by quoting the times your CAA have punished an operator.

Then you are scheduled for Minimum rest...in day time, after waiting for the cabin crew to finish, then the hours drive to the hotel, and then the delays with a morning check in. 20 hoours of real ON DUTY TIME, and 10 hoours rest.

De icing once or even twice is a common need in the RF, and the quality is slightly dubious.

Gfl

I know what you mean. i am using this technic too, but only when there is a danger of a windshear.

First choice of course is to avoid WS and delay a T/O.

The procedure I am using is:

First I calculate the actual weight and use a optimum or lower flap setting.

The MATOW from there I use for a new calculation and use the same flap setting as above.
This way you are safe in regards to your Vmcg.

Now I am using the speeds from the first step and remember the increased Vr speed.( The performance limited Vr speed ) I rotate normal at the increased Vr speed and aim for the increased V2 from the MATOW calculation.


But if the runway is contaminated you got to use Full thrust or use Derated T/O thrust. In either of these cases, you can not use this procedure.




Dutytime regulations.

Good point Gulfstreamaviator

These regulations are made for us pilots and we should stick to them. I know very well how hard it is to say:
Sorry I got to sleep now for 10 hours.:}:}

Better you hide yourself after saying it via PA.
Especially if you got 300 people in your belly already waiting for hours in the a/c.

#2 - Your company is pushing you to fly and you got to explain yourself, why you are not flying. Did happen of course to me too and I already had some discussions about it with my scheduling.

But we shouldn´t forget, if something happens, it is up to us.
Who has to face the judge and explain why people got hurt on that flight.
Good if nothing happens, but better not to challenge our luck.

I think we can give a little, but we still got to stay within a reasonable limit and should not stretch the law to far.

Imagine getting to HKG and someone gets hurt after 16:10h dutytime.
The attorney confronting us, will rip you in pieces at court.

Had a friend at court in the U.S. because a PAX got hurt in turbulence in U.S. airspace and she had her seatbelt not fastened ( Seat Belts Signs ON ).

That really gave him many sleepless nights. But this is a different story.