Global 5000 Lands short in Carribean??

[CALDC9]

From AIN:

Another Global 5000 Lands Just Short of Runway

By Jennifer Harrington

December 20, 2007
Accidents


A Bombardier Global 5000 landed short of a runway in the Caribbean islands on December 12 and sustained damage after hitting an airport perimeter fence. Eastern Caribbean Civil Aviation Authority (ECCAA) flight ops inspector Paul Delisle told AIN that the accident occurred at Vance W. Armory Airport on the island of Nevis and said there were no injuries to crew or passengers. A spokeswoman for the NTSB confirmed that the Safety Board “was aware of a situation…involving an airplane with the registration number N50DS.” She added that although the ECCAA has jurisdiction, the NTSB has offered to assist in the investigation. A spokesman for the FAA yesterday said that the owner of the airplane, Tampa, Fla.-based First Southeast Aviation, had not yet notified the FAA of the incident although the company is required to do so because it is a U.S.-registered airplane. An employee of First Southeast Aviation confirmed to AIN that the Global 5000 is registered to the company, but would not comment further. This is the second incident of a Global 5000 landing short of a runway since November. On November 11, a Global 5000 owned by Tim Hortons cofounder Ron Joyce landed short in Nova Scotia, Canada.

 

[Spooky 2]

No excuse. You have only 20 hours in the airplane and you do a max performance (at or near X-wind limits AND minimum runway length...) landing?

FSI can teach you systems but they can't teach judgement. TC

TC a lot of what you say is true but I'll bet a new Capt. over there at AA would be more than capable and willing to land the Mad Dog at some airports that may be in your system under similar conditions and circumstances. The fact that he/she had the benefit of a thorough IOE might have made the difference between and accident such as this and an otherwise safe landing under less than desireable conditions.

 

[kilroy]

No excuse. You have only 20 hours in the airplane and you do a max performance (at or near X-wind limits AND minimum runway length...) landing?

FSI can teach you systems but they can't teach judgement. TC

I have always been amazed that you can go thru a Sim school get a rating never see the airplane in the time you are being trained but as soon as you get the little piece of paper in hand you are set to go and fly the aircraft.

I wonder if there is any data on incidents and accidents with low time in type crews

 

[Spooky 2]

I have always been amazed that you can go thru a Sim school get a rating never see the airplane in the time you are being trained but as soon as you get the little piece of paper in hand you are set to go and fly the aircraft.

I wonder if there is any data on incidents and accidents with low time in type crews

I'm sure there is data somewhere but the fact is that the number must be extremely small if not ifintesimal. Properly trained pilots in Level D simulators typically are turned to line ops without the benefit of any real aircraft time. Then with a thorough IOE of twent-five hours or a reduced hours and a certain number of landings the pilot is released to high mins, ect. Usually if it is the pilots first Capt. slot, in a turbojet, he needs to be observed by the FAA. Various operational theaters can add time to the whole package, but the bottom line is minimum training, maximum effort, and good judgement need to be applied by all.

 

[AA717driver]

TC a lot of what you say is true but I'll bet a new Capt. over there at AA would be more than capable and willing to land the Mad Dog at some airports that may be in your system under similar conditions and circumstances. The fact that he/she had the benefit of a thorough IOE might have made the difference between and accident such as this and an otherwise safe landing under less than desireable conditions.

Spooky--I've always felt that the 25 hour IOE was wholly inadequate for someone with zero time in type. Even with the 70-100 hours required for CA upgrade at TWA, I had a couple of captains new to the DC9 let me do the landing (when I was over the 2,000 hour mark).

Even when I had over 500 hours in the GV, I never felt comfortable going into or out of CRQ (4800' w/ no overrun). All it takes is one thing to go wrong...

I'm guessing these guys might have fared better with less stacked against them. Just five-hundred feet more runway or ten knots less wind. Who knows. Hope they aren't hurt too bad and recover fully. TC

 

[kilroy]

I'm sure there is data somewhere but the fact is that the number must be extremely small if not ifintesimal. Properly trained pilots in Level D simulators typically are turned to line ops without the benefit of any real aircraft time. Then with a thorough IOE of twent-five hours or a reduced hours and a certain number of landings the pilot is released to high mins, ect. Usually if it is the pilots first Capt. slot, in a turbojet, he needs to be observed by the FAA. Various operational theaters can add time to the whole package, but the bottom line is minimum training, maximum effort, and good judgement need to be applied by all.

The big problem is the guys with Turbo-Jet time are not getting the proper supervision because of prior experience.
In my tiny little mind my thought process is that years ago there were not alot people that were transitioning with from average corporate size aircraft to large prvt aircraft such as a Global. Most people that do go to that size of aircraft are probably under a highly supervised 121 program not a Part-91 2 low time in type guys running around the country in there first large size cabin aircraft.

I have never flown something that big but could only imaging the difference from a 26000# Astra with the mains 10 feet behind me to a 80000# + aircraft with the mains 100 feet behind. There has to be a bigger learning curve then 25 hours supervised flying can ever cover in such a big transition. But then were do you draw the line.

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[murfdawg998]

And what would this have to do with a global 5000. this isn't a big airplane and St. Kitts isn't a small airfield.

you're an idiot

 

[Capt1124]

There was some good technical discussion about this, about TCHs and the like, on the NBAA list. I think the thing to take from this is if you're landing on a short runway touching down at the very beginning is not the answer. Somebody quoted 2300 ft landing distance over a 50 ft. obstacle for the Global. If you're used to trying to make soft landings with smooth rollouts you start to think an airplane needs a lot of runway, and then when you do a high performance landing you see 2500 ft. is enough.

 

[Kingairrick]

The Nevis accident was a guy named Grey Gibbs. He is the owner of Elite Air. He is also the one who had the taxiing accident mentioned above in the G4. He's a bonehead...

 

[tracearabians]

3200 hrs explains it !

 

[Fedora]

I was standing just abeam the threshold of the runway, because I knew the plane was coming in, and wanted to see this landing up close (not the
brightest thing I have ever done). Very windy day, ceiling about 600 to 900 feet.

You don't supose that you might have been a distraction to a pilot who already had his hands full? What were you thinking? Anytime I've ever seen people or animals near the landing zone, I've taken it around, as you never know what they might do. You might be patting yourself on the back for your post incident actions, but you might look back and ask yourself if you didn't contribute to the cause.
My 2 cents.

 

[ruhroa]

fedora no disrespect or flame bait......... i guess you have not been to st maarteen.......................

 

[Fedora]

Point well taken, Ruhroa. Thanks.
BTW. Great handle! Scooby was one of my favorites growing up!
I'll back out and leave the thread to you guys who really know what's going on. Glad there was no loss of life, and hopefully everyone will make full recoveries.
H.N.Y. to all!

 

[Balou]

Hey Pair of Pratts !
Nice job helping those guys !!

 

[pair_of_pratts]

Sorry guys, I was not anywhere near this incident. If you read my post and go to the link I provided, you will see that I was only passing along the information third or fourth-hand. So I can't accept the kudos or defend the 'attack'.