Any word on the C560 that crashed in Carlsbad?

[flyboydk]

Wondering if they got anything off the CVR or figured out what actually happened?

 

[stratman560]

Last I head they said speed they believed to be the contributing factor....last groundspeed readout on radar was 200 kts+ somewhere around 500 feet. Not really sure.....AIN has been pretty quiet about it and havent heard much else since it was on TV. Were taking a 560 in there next month.....ill see what I find out. Until then, stay safe my corporate brothers.

 

[LegacyDriver]

I missed this one.

Was based in CNM with an air ambulance company for awhile... Wow.

 

[HMR]

Just wondering?

I missed this one.

Was based in CNM with an air ambulance company for awhile... Wow.

What's CNM have to do with a plane from SUN crashing @ CRQ?

 

[LegacyDriver]

What's CNM have to do with a plane from SUN crashing @ CRQ?

I guess nothing. I was thinking Carlsbad, NM.

Sorry about that.

(I was out of the loop on this accident. I thought it was something that just happened--like yesterday. I'm retarded...)

 

[XLDaddy]

Has anyone confirmed if it was an owner flown aircraft? That was the rumor the day it happened.

 

[Prof. ATP]

Has anyone confirmed if it was an owner flown aircraft? That was the rumor the day it happened.

The PIC was a very experienced and well regarded charter operator, although I believe that this was a Part 91 flight.

 

[GIVDrvr]

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060202X00149&key=1

NTSB prelim


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060202X00149&key=1

 

[GIVDrvr]

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060202X00149&key=1

NTSB prelim


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060202X00149&key=1

 

[satpak77]

4600 feet landing available on 24

prob not the best place to be a little fast on the approach

 

[turbulence]

Came in fast, had tail wind because of Santa Ana winds, landed mid field, decided to go around the last minute, rotated and the left wheel caught the ILS Box to 24 and it turned the airplane straight for the warehouse. This info, is from the FBO..

 

[xdrvr]

Last I heard was both Captains were well respected sticks, the SIC on that leg had just been thru recurrent about 1 month prior. Some are speculating mx trouble. CVR didn't reflect any distress. The SIC was a strong personality and as one instructor at recurrent said, he was the type that wouldnt be cornered into a bad position - he would've taken the plane if he felt the PIC was in error.
RIP... I hate the thought of my last moments here on earth being under such scrutiny...

 

[AbOvo]

From what I understand the GPWS could be heard in the background on their last radio transmission. Winds aloft were about 20kts out of the east near pattern altitude and 3kts on the ground.

I hate to hear about these sort of things, RIP.

 

[100-1/2]

No offense, but that statement is a bit of a stretch and adds little value to the thread. Exactly what would the GPWS be 'audibly' doing?

woop... woop... localizer tower... woop... woop... pull up... pull up... woop...

Not with the gear down unless there was a high rate of descent. To accomplish this, there would have to have been fairly aggressive and abnormal maneuvering causing substantial discomfort to the pax. From initial reports, this flight crew's caliber of professionalism would HIGHLY discount such claims.

I would believe what occurred was that a typical human nature response to try something that has worked previously, ended up in a momentary hesitation to abandon the attempt and unintentionally pushed the situation beyond the point of no return. Many of us have ourselves experienced this situation firsthand. Unfortunately for these guys and their pax, lady luck was outside puffing on a cancer stick at the time their request was submitted.

I don't know what company this was or what their CRM SOP's are. I will be suprised to learn after transcripts of the CVR are released that a briefing of the approach and landing occurred with an acknowledgement of the wind conditions and expectations for flap positions or Vref targets necessary to continue the approach to a landing. These don't seem like the type of guys to go through that kind of trouble and then forsake the 'plan' for pride and petroleum.

Incidentally, knock 30 Kts of wind off that 200KIAS groundspeed and you get 170KIAS. 170KIAS @ 1000' to 2000' AGL (where most radar facilities' data can report an accurate GS) doesn't seem all that far off Vref (+20 - ? I think, it has been awhile and a few aircraft ago) for that segment of the approach. Ya'll put way too, much weight into tertiary information with little or no relevance. Probably high and close-in thanks to ATC or late descent into a feeder segment, they simply floated and failed to abandon the approach.

It is a sad and terrible loss for us all. Good time to revisit SWA and the Burbank overrun. Aparently, not enough info was disseminated to the flying public to recognize the precursers and disrupt the chain to prevent the loss of life and/or another hull.

100-1/2

 

[HawkerF/O]

No offense, but that statement is a bit of a stretch and adds little value to the thread. Exactly what would the GPWS be 'audibly' doing?

woop... woop... localizer tower... woop... woop... pull up... pull up... woop...

Not with the gear down unless there was a high rate of descent. To accomplish this, there would have to have been fairly aggressive and abnormal maneuvering causing substantial discomfort to the pax. From initial reports, this flight crew's caliber of professionalism would HIGHLY discount such claims.

That's what makes this accident so interesting. Everyone talks about what great pilots these guys were, by the book all the time, etc, but from what data is known, that was not the case here, and who knows the reason why. There are only 2 possible scenarios here. I have not seen the CVR data:

1) They had an emergency they did not tell ATC about requiring they get on the ground ASAP
2) The F#ucked up

As for the TAWS: Lets not forget that the TAWS does not always work like it should. I think there have been instances when we have all been surprised to hear the TAWS go off on nice VMC days when all is normal. Some systems are a bit more sensitive than others, and especially when doing visual approaches with the LOC tuned it, you drop a little below the G/S (1/2 dot) so you dont eat up 1000ft of pavement or you manuver off the G/S and onto the VASI, that thing can start going nuts.

Incidentally, knock 30 Kts of wind off that 200KIAS groundspeed and you get 170KIAS. 170KIAS @ 1000' to 2000' AGL (where most radar facilities' data can report an accurate GS) doesn't seem all that far off Vref (+20 - ? I think, it has been awhile and a few aircraft ago) for that segment of the approach. Ya'll put way too, much weight into tertiary information with little or no relevance. Probably high and close-in thanks to ATC or late descent into a feeder segment, they simply floated and failed to abandon the approach.

The airport is at 331 MSL. The radar will work well below 1000 AGL. The aircraft was at 200+Knots across the ground at 300ft according to the flightaware program the day of the crash. Looking up other aircraft that same day going to the same airport, their speeds all appeared normal, so I don't think the radar broke when they came into land, then fixed itself after the airport reopened. If conditions are normal (A/C is operating normally) and that is your G/S at 300ft you should not attempt to land in an aircraft that has REF speeds 70-100 Knots slower than what you are flying going into a 4600ft strip! Even with no G/S readout, the rate of decent required to maintain the Glideslope and/or VASI (1000FPM as opposed to 570FPM) would have been a big clue that something is not on the up and up.

Here is a return from a C560 (N68CK) tonight that went into this same airport and it is the same type of aircraft. The data is accurate for this type of aircraft.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N68CK/tracklog
That is a link for the same type of aircraft that had the accident. It flew into CRQ tonight, and the link will be good for 24Hours as long as it does not take off again. At 900ft (600 AGL) the speed is 112. At 1500 feet they were down to 138.

 

[falcon20driver]

That's what makes this accident so interesting. Everyone talks about what great pilots these guys were, by the book all the time, etc, but from what data is known, that was not the case here, and who knows the reason why. There are only 2 possible scenarios here. I have not seen the CVR data:

1) They had an emergency they did not tell ATC about requiring they get on the ground ASAP
2) The F#ucked up

As for the TAWS: Lets not forget that the TAWS does not always work like it should. I think there have been instances when we have all been surprised to hear the TAWS go off on nice VMC days when all is normal. Some systems are a bit more sensitive than others, and especially when doing visual approaches with the LOC tuned it, you drop a little below the G/S (1/2 dot) so you dont eat up 1000ft of pavement or you manuver off the G/S and onto the VASI, that thing can start going nuts.
The airport is at 331 MSL. The radar will work well below 1000 AGL. The aircraft was at 200+Knots across the ground at 300ft according to the flightaware program the day of the crash. Looking up other aircraft that same day going to the same airport, their speeds all appeared normal, so I don't think the radar broke when they came into land, then fixed itself after the airport reopened. If conditions are normal (A/C is operating normally) and that is your G/S at 300ft you should not attempt to land in an aircraft that has REF speeds 70-100 Knots slower than what you are flying going into a 4600ft strip! Even with no G/S readout, the rate of decent required to maintain the Glideslope and/or VASI (1000FPM as opposed to 570FPM) would have been a big clue that something is not on the up and up.

Here is a return from a C560 (N68CK) tonight that went into this same airport and it is the same type of aircraft. The data is accurate for this type of aircraft.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N68CK/tracklog
That is a link for the same type of aircraft that had the accident. It flew into CRQ tonight, and the link will be good for 24Hours as long as it does not take off again. At 900ft (600 AGL) the speed is 112. At 1500 feet they were down to 138.

That 300' and 227 groundspeed is not on final, it's while they're smashing into the building. Field elevation is 331' and those altitudes are radar which are MSL, if you plot the coordinates it is southwest of the field 1 mile.

Radar info from the FAA, the coordinates are next to the speed/altitude on http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N86CE/tracklog

09:33AM 33 12N 117 00W 295 10000'
09:34AM 33 10N 117 04W 314 8100'
09:34AM 33 10N 117 05W 304 7100'
09:35AM 33 08N 117 09W 307 5600'
09:35AM 33 09N 117 11W 262 4100'
09:36AM 33 08N 117 15W 277 2300'
09:36AM 33 08N 117 15W 209 1200'
09:37AM 33 07N 117 18W 227 300'


Those coordinates show a 7 mile final at 4100' MSL (3800' AGL) and 262 kts groundspeed, a two mile final at 2300' MSL (2000' AGL) doing 277 kts over the ground, and a one mile final at 1200' MSL (900' AGL) doing 209 over the ground, and the next and last fix is at field elevation doing 227 kts over the ground a mile southwest of the field still on radar while they are crashing. Mighty smart to continue that approach, a mile final at 900' agl doing 200 knots on a 4000' runway, what were they thinking.

Enter the above coordinates in the site below and it shows the picture of where they were.
http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/smartchart.cfm

 

[Going2Baja]

I've talked personally to two people that were on the radio and one that saw the crash. One in the air departing CRQ said he heard ATC ask if they wanted a few turns to get down as they were 10k at 7 nm and they said "nope - field in sight, C-ya" The other was a Brasilia on the ground that heard the traffic call and the GPWS in the background and he watched them fly past at an ungodly speed while they were holding short.
The CVR will be the answer - but it really looks like bad CRM/SOP Cowboy flying.

RIP guys.

Baja.

 

[100-1/2]

Sorry, hawker and falcon.

Apples and oranges when you step away from the kool-aid and look deeper into your links. Everyone is 10 times more cautious and conservative when going into an airport within days of an accident, fresh in and on our minds.

Also,
You cannot compare one C550 coming down out of flight levels and Mach against that of another in cruise at 10k and 250KIAS as they leave a groundtrack on flightaware.com. Also, notice: they were clearly approaching in close proximity to the primary (likely only) radar site. Flightaware data is compiled from the radar info from the sector responsible from the flight. It does not take into account other primary radar returns at other sites/sectors. As they got closer, they went from one radar sweep per minute to two in the final moments of the flights. Close to and down low near a single radar site is where the computers have the greatest trouble digesting the data and reporting GS and descent rates particularly when the speed is trasnsitioning. It is basic trig. The (dated) FAA computers rely upon multiple radar returns to collect and disseminate the most accurate data reported to a single sector. The NTSB will not be gathering their data from Flightaware.com There will be tapes from other radar sites likely revising this initial data considerably. Did you notice that twice a FL380 return was reported in the descent? Transponder or Radar? Who knows. Other radar tracks from preceding flights will represent a pattern of operation by the flight crew in that plane and address the "cowboy" claim.

I am not sure that I have defended these guys or agreed with the "stand-up" character of their skill or professionalism. I believe I have posed a potential for possible deferral of the prelanding checks and approach briefings or deviation from said procedures completely. Don't know that I know the crew or have ever met them. Can't say one way or the other as to their pilot types.

Here was an idea for the Brasilia crew. Key mike and repeatedly say, "GO AROUND"!!! The pax' front row seat to the fireball could have possibly been avoided?

100-1/2

 

[Going2Baja]

The crash was during a go-around then they hit the ILS. Call it what you want, they were hot & high WITH a tailwind! They easily could have entered left downwind for 6 and made the entire approach look planned and land with a headwind. Bad planning and poor CRM. They paid for it and now so do their families. RIP...Baja.

 

[HawkerF/O]

Here was an idea for the Brasilia crew. Key mike and repeatedly say, "GO AROUND"!!! The pax' front row seat to the fireball could have possibly been avoided?

100-1/2

Had the EMB-120 crew done that, they would have been listed as a mitigating factor to the accident by the NTSB. The airline would have gotten sued and the pilot(s) would be unemployed. They did the right thing by not getting involved.

A basic understanding of Theromodynamics and physics (high school level of understanding) would tell you that touching the brakes at a speed well above the tire speed limit is going to cause the brakes to fade quickly then failure of the entire system.

500 Series Citations are kittens, and when they are operating correctly (system wise), a pilot would really have to work to create a situation like the oe these guys created.

At the end of the day, this accident will be used for years as a great example of what not to do.

Finally 100-1/2, I know you said you have not vested interest in the outcome of this investigation, but are you really being honest with yourself about how these events played out?