Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Another overrun at TEB
- Thread starter pilot370
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Freight Dawg
What can Brown do for you
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Posts
- 156
FlyingFisherman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Posts
- 198
sydeseet
Huge Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 575
Oh boy, it would appear that a well-known, much admired flight department from the midwest had a bad day. I'm only going off of the above audio clip but if the tail number indicated is correct than this is the aircraft:
http://www.planespotting.net/R_N973M.html
I'm glad that everyone is okay!
http://www.planespotting.net/R_N973M.html
I'm glad that everyone is okay!
FracCapt
Clown punchers, unite!
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2004
- Posts
- 1,415
FlyingFisherman said:
At 3:25 into the recording, the controller says(or, at least it sounds like) "(unintelligible) 99, airport is now closed, all surfaces are now yours, right side tire of the Falcon is on fire".
Did the aircraft catch fire? If so, what was the end result? I haven't seen anything yet that indicates that everybody was OK...but maybe I'm missing something.
FlyingFisherman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Posts
- 198
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wi...pnewjerseyater
"TETERBORO, N.J. (AP) _ A small airplane became stuck in the mud at Teterboro Airport after landing Friday afternoon."
a small plane?
"TETERBORO, N.J. (AP) _ A small airplane became stuck in the mud at Teterboro Airport after landing Friday afternoon."
a small plane?
LegacyDriver
Moving Target
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,691
FlyingFisherman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Posts
- 198
This is when you really find out why people like Gulfstreams.
Back in the day, when the 900's first came out I was working for a major corp flt dept that had a problem with a 900. It slid off the side of the runway and put one of the mains through the wing. Everyone was fine.
Dassault instantly took the attitude that it was the pilots fault and that was the only possibility, their was no possible way that their product could have been at fault.
They fought tooth and nail, blaming it on the crew. Luckily for the crew the CEO stood behind them.
The CEO went back to Dassault and said, give me the demo. If it turns out to be our fault we will buy a new aircraft (or the demo from you). If it turns out to be your fault, you give the 900 to us. Did I mention that they already were operating 2-900's a 3 F50's.
Dassault said, "no thanks, their is no way this is our fault, it's your crews fault". The CEO replied, "is that your final answer"?
The CEO then called Mr. Paulson and said, "How would you like to have some Falcons"?
The 900 was in TEB (former Dasault maint service center). On jacks getting the wing replaced, when my boss asked me to put the new registration in the cockpit. "Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Savannah Ga." The other F900 was flown to the NBAA and put on demonstration with a sign, "Recently traded in on a new G4". This was back in the late 80's when the 900's were brand new. OUCH! Paulson knew how to market, he had a G4 up to the hanger so fast the French didn't know what hit them and the reason why I am G4G5 and not F50F900.
Long story short, Grumman designed the thrust reverser on the F50 and the French didn't want to have to pay the rights to use it on the 900, so they designed their own. It failed and caused the aircraft to lose control. Not the crew.
I just hope the folks on this 900 have better luck working with Dassault to prove their case. My guess is that it may be even more difficult when you take into account their recent fleet switch.
Let's just be glad that everyone got out safely.
Back in the day, when the 900's first came out I was working for a major corp flt dept that had a problem with a 900. It slid off the side of the runway and put one of the mains through the wing. Everyone was fine.
Dassault instantly took the attitude that it was the pilots fault and that was the only possibility, their was no possible way that their product could have been at fault.
They fought tooth and nail, blaming it on the crew. Luckily for the crew the CEO stood behind them.
The CEO went back to Dassault and said, give me the demo. If it turns out to be our fault we will buy a new aircraft (or the demo from you). If it turns out to be your fault, you give the 900 to us. Did I mention that they already were operating 2-900's a 3 F50's.
Dassault said, "no thanks, their is no way this is our fault, it's your crews fault". The CEO replied, "is that your final answer"?
The CEO then called Mr. Paulson and said, "How would you like to have some Falcons"?
The 900 was in TEB (former Dasault maint service center). On jacks getting the wing replaced, when my boss asked me to put the new registration in the cockpit. "Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Savannah Ga." The other F900 was flown to the NBAA and put on demonstration with a sign, "Recently traded in on a new G4". This was back in the late 80's when the 900's were brand new. OUCH! Paulson knew how to market, he had a G4 up to the hanger so fast the French didn't know what hit them and the reason why I am G4G5 and not F50F900.
Long story short, Grumman designed the thrust reverser on the F50 and the French didn't want to have to pay the rights to use it on the 900, so they designed their own. It failed and caused the aircraft to lose control. Not the crew.
I just hope the folks on this 900 have better luck working with Dassault to prove their case. My guess is that it may be even more difficult when you take into account their recent fleet switch.
Let's just be glad that everyone got out safely.
The original F50 design had the cockpit TR indication based upon the actual position of the door. Since this was designed by Grumman, Dassault could not copy it. They moved the indication to the bell crank on the TR actuator. This gave TR actuator position based upon bell crank position and not the direct indication of the TR door's positions.
The eye bolt on the TR bell crank, which connects the TR actuator bell crank to the TR door linkage failed. One TR door snapped free and the other was in it's normal position. The crew still had the green TR light in the cockpit so they added max reverse. Their logic was the same as yours,we have a Green light and center line reverse, so the TR can't be the problem. With one door open and one TR door closed the aircraft slid and departed the side of the runway. FYI it was raining and the runway was wet.
Dassault in turn had to change the position of the indicator switch locations. FYI on a F50 (Grumman design) the closed door (failed door) would have contacted the switch and put out the green light.
I believe it's F900 AD 90-10-10. This happened in the late 80's when the 900 first came out and it took a couple of years and lots of the companies money to find Dassault at fault, and the AD to come out.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/922D8562ACD8148386256A1F006A57E3?OpenDocument
The bottom line was, Dassault had the failed part in hand. It was quite obvious from the pictures that the part had failed. They still blamed the crew. The company still had to spend big bucks to defend their pilots and prove that pilot technique or pilot error did not cause the part to fail. The French spent years fighting them. They lost a 5+ Falcon operator, one of the first to put down money on the 900's. IMHO, over ego.
That was the point of my story, these poor guys may have done everything correctly but Dassault will be on the defensive to screw them to the wall to protect their product. Even if they are wrong.
The eye bolt on the TR bell crank, which connects the TR actuator bell crank to the TR door linkage failed. One TR door snapped free and the other was in it's normal position. The crew still had the green TR light in the cockpit so they added max reverse. Their logic was the same as yours,we have a Green light and center line reverse, so the TR can't be the problem. With one door open and one TR door closed the aircraft slid and departed the side of the runway. FYI it was raining and the runway was wet.
Dassault in turn had to change the position of the indicator switch locations. FYI on a F50 (Grumman design) the closed door (failed door) would have contacted the switch and put out the green light.
I believe it's F900 AD 90-10-10. This happened in the late 80's when the 900 first came out and it took a couple of years and lots of the companies money to find Dassault at fault, and the AD to come out.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/922D8562ACD8148386256A1F006A57E3?OpenDocument
The bottom line was, Dassault had the failed part in hand. It was quite obvious from the pictures that the part had failed. They still blamed the crew. The company still had to spend big bucks to defend their pilots and prove that pilot technique or pilot error did not cause the part to fail. The French spent years fighting them. They lost a 5+ Falcon operator, one of the first to put down money on the 900's. IMHO, over ego.
That was the point of my story, these poor guys may have done everything correctly but Dassault will be on the defensive to screw them to the wall to protect their product. Even if they are wrong.
Last edited:
Gulfstream 200
Database Expert
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Posts
- 4,574
not that anyone knows exactly what happened at TEB (Im not even guessing)....
IMHO ( I stress that), the 900EX has the poorest brakes I have ever used....and the "TR" is fairly useless.
great airplane, very reliable...but the brakes are downright awful. I simply dont trust it on a shorter, contaminated runway, especially with some wind.
YMMV.
IMHO ( I stress that), the 900EX has the poorest brakes I have ever used....and the "TR" is fairly useless.
great airplane, very reliable...but the brakes are downright awful. I simply dont trust it on a shorter, contaminated runway, especially with some wind.
YMMV.
Last edited:
400A
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 26, 2003
- Posts
- 1,760
kilroy
http://www.filecabi.net/v
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Posts
- 439
Change of runway
Listening to the ATC tape its interesting that the Falcon crew were the only crew that requested a different runway in the 30 minute clip I listened to then were asked to keep it in tight.
I heard over a NBAA site a crew waiting to take off observed the Falcon on approach actually considered evasive action on the ground as the falcon approach was making the nervous and they weren't sure if the aircraft was going to make the runway. Keep in mind except for ATC tapes this is third hand information
Listening to the ATC tape its interesting that the Falcon crew were the only crew that requested a different runway in the 30 minute clip I listened to then were asked to keep it in tight.
I heard over a NBAA site a crew waiting to take off observed the Falcon on approach actually considered evasive action on the ground as the falcon approach was making the nervous and they weren't sure if the aircraft was going to make the runway. Keep in mind except for ATC tapes this is third hand information
kilroy
http://www.filecabi.net/v
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Posts
- 439
LegacyDriver
Moving Target
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,691
Falcon Operator: "Sir, we have a broken (fill in the blank). We were in cruise and started a descent when it went 'POW'. We got (associated warning and indication. It os broken."
Dassault Rep: "But misseur zet iz imposseeebuhhl."
Falcon Operator: "Impossible? The damned thing is broken!"
Dassault Rep: "But misseur zee airplen eez not deeeezigned to break zeees way!"
Dassault Rep: "But misseur zet iz imposseeebuhhl."
Falcon Operator: "Impossible? The damned thing is broken!"
Dassault Rep: "But misseur zee airplen eez not deeeezigned to break zeees way!"
Lear Wanna Be
Presidentin' is hard
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Posts
- 599
sydeseet said:Oh boy, it would appear that a well-known, much admired flight department from the midwest had a bad day. I'm only going off of the above audio clip but if the tail number indicated is correct than this is the aircraft:
http://www.planespotting.net/R_N973M.html
I'm glad that everyone is okay!
Yep, you are correct. Motorola's Falcon 900.
Regis#: 973M
Make/Model: F900 Description: FALCON 900, MYSTÈRE 900
Date: 03/03/2006
Time: 1910
Event Type: Incident
Highest Injury: None
Mid Air: N
Missing: N
Damage: Unknown
LOCATION City: TETERBORO State: NJ Country:
USDESCRIPTION ACFT ON LANDING, VEERED OFF THE END OF THE RUNWAY, TETERBORO, NJ
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0 # Crew: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
Last edited:
jetdriverbr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Posts
- 1
NTSB Identification: NYC06IA075
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Incident occurred Friday, March 03, 2006 in Teterboro, NJ
Aircraft: Dassault Aviation Falcon 900EX, registration: N973M
Injuries: 3 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On March 3, 2006, about 1415 eastern standard time, a Dassault Aviation Falcon 900EX, N973M, sustained minor damage during a landing overrun at Teterboro Airport (TEB), Teterboro, New Jersey. The certificated airline transport rated flight crew and one passenger were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for the flight that departed Palwaukee Municipal Airport (PWK), Wheeling, Illinois. The business flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
According to the flight crew, the airplane departed and proceeded to TEB uneventfully. The airplane was initially cleared for the instrument landing system approach to runway 6. However, after a wind check reported winds from 290 degrees at 10 knots. The flight crew requested and received clearance to land on runway 24, a 6,013-foot-long, 150-foot-wide, asphalt runway. Due to the wind conditions, the flight crew added 10 knots, to their landing approach speed of 120 knots. Shortly prior to touchdown, the control tower reported the winds from 290 degrees at 15 knots, gusting to 20 knots. Both pilots reported that the airplane touched down on the runway centerline, "close to" or "within" the touchdown landing zone. The thrust reverser was deployed and the flight crew initially felt the sensation of braking; however, as the airplane continued down the runway, the braking action seemed less effective.
The airplane departed the end of the runway, and came to rest in mud, about 330 feet from the end of the runway. Tire marks consistent with the airplane's tires were observed to begin about 1,000 feet prior to the end of the runway. The airplane sustained damage to the landing gear assemblies, and the right outboard slat.
Examination of the airplane did not reveal any pre-incident mechanical malfunctions. Nor did the pilots report any.
Post-incident friction tests conducted on runway 24, by airport personnel, revealed friction levels above the threshold, which would have required the issue of a notice to airmen.
The pilot flying, who was seated in the left seat, estimated that he had accumulated about 6,500 hours of total flight experience, which included about 1,200 combined hours in the Falcon 50 and 900EX airplanes.
The pilot seated in the right seat, was the designated pilot-in-command for the flight. He estimated that he had accumulated about 11,000 hours of total flight experience, which included about 2,000 hours in the Falcon 900EX.
Several witnesses at the airport reported that they observed the airplane touch down about halfway down runway 24.
The airplane was equipped with a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR), which were retained and forwarded to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia. Preliminary information from the FDR revealed that the airplane's airspeed just prior to touchdown was about 130 knots, and the ground speed just after touchdown was about 120 knots. The airplane's ground roll was about 2,900 feet from the main landing gear weight-on-wheel switch activation, until it came to rest.
A weather observation taken after the incident reported the winds from 330 degrees, at 19 knots, gusting to 26 knots.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Incident occurred Friday, March 03, 2006 in Teterboro, NJ
Aircraft: Dassault Aviation Falcon 900EX, registration: N973M
Injuries: 3 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On March 3, 2006, about 1415 eastern standard time, a Dassault Aviation Falcon 900EX, N973M, sustained minor damage during a landing overrun at Teterboro Airport (TEB), Teterboro, New Jersey. The certificated airline transport rated flight crew and one passenger were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for the flight that departed Palwaukee Municipal Airport (PWK), Wheeling, Illinois. The business flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
According to the flight crew, the airplane departed and proceeded to TEB uneventfully. The airplane was initially cleared for the instrument landing system approach to runway 6. However, after a wind check reported winds from 290 degrees at 10 knots. The flight crew requested and received clearance to land on runway 24, a 6,013-foot-long, 150-foot-wide, asphalt runway. Due to the wind conditions, the flight crew added 10 knots, to their landing approach speed of 120 knots. Shortly prior to touchdown, the control tower reported the winds from 290 degrees at 15 knots, gusting to 20 knots. Both pilots reported that the airplane touched down on the runway centerline, "close to" or "within" the touchdown landing zone. The thrust reverser was deployed and the flight crew initially felt the sensation of braking; however, as the airplane continued down the runway, the braking action seemed less effective.
The airplane departed the end of the runway, and came to rest in mud, about 330 feet from the end of the runway. Tire marks consistent with the airplane's tires were observed to begin about 1,000 feet prior to the end of the runway. The airplane sustained damage to the landing gear assemblies, and the right outboard slat.
Examination of the airplane did not reveal any pre-incident mechanical malfunctions. Nor did the pilots report any.
Post-incident friction tests conducted on runway 24, by airport personnel, revealed friction levels above the threshold, which would have required the issue of a notice to airmen.
The pilot flying, who was seated in the left seat, estimated that he had accumulated about 6,500 hours of total flight experience, which included about 1,200 combined hours in the Falcon 50 and 900EX airplanes.
The pilot seated in the right seat, was the designated pilot-in-command for the flight. He estimated that he had accumulated about 11,000 hours of total flight experience, which included about 2,000 hours in the Falcon 900EX.
Several witnesses at the airport reported that they observed the airplane touch down about halfway down runway 24.
The airplane was equipped with a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR), which were retained and forwarded to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia. Preliminary information from the FDR revealed that the airplane's airspeed just prior to touchdown was about 130 knots, and the ground speed just after touchdown was about 120 knots. The airplane's ground roll was about 2,900 feet from the main landing gear weight-on-wheel switch activation, until it came to rest.
A weather observation taken after the incident reported the winds from 330 degrees, at 19 knots, gusting to 26 knots.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
