Appears to be a citation down in carlsbad, ca

[Say Again Over]

Hey Avbug, not sure what you mean about carrying extra speed when there is wind, maybe you could explain??

 

[MarineGrunt]

One thing I'd like to know is if the Glide Slope had been fixed yet, when I went in there last Thursday (1/19) the G/S was OTS. Obviously now the entire ILS is OTS.

When I went in there last Thursday, SOCAL on 127.2 cleared me for the ILS 24, I didn't think much of it since I had just gotten the airport in sight (4000' Overcast, clear beneath), but the glideslope clearly was OTS (just as the NOTAM said).

Is there a historical NOTAM

Not sure how long this one has been up, but it's still curent:

Data Current as of: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:15:00 GMT

KCRQ MC CLELLAN-PALOMAR
01/009 - 24 ILS OTS WIE UNTIL UFN

 

[FN FAL]

Hey Avbug, not sure what you mean about carrying extra speed when there is wind, maybe you could explain??

That's that fudge speed you maintain until you're over the "fence".

 

[Hobbes]

slow down internet posters...has anyone given thought they might have been in an emergency descent and it hasn't been released yet? Could they have been on fire....could they have had dual flameouts and they were trying to make sure they reached the runway? If they were engine out the speed adjustment on final could have been trying to make the runway without the ability to go around, etc. etc. ... hey, there are many reasons we can speculate....and I know it is hard not too...but I would give the benefit of the doubt until more comes out. We cannot really speculate on this event realistically until the CVR data...reports from ATC, etc. are released. May they rest in peace.

 

[falcon20driver]

I agree with ya, who knows what the hell happened, emergency maybe, but why go to a 4900' runway when they passed up several 10,000' plus runways, Miramar is 10 miles south with 12,000', the emergency and Palomar doesn't hold.

 

[Hobbes]

again...speculation doesn't do anything...but if the emergency happened in the low teens...and they were very busy handling it...who knows? They already had CRQ programmed in...maybe they already had it in sight...I just don't know. I just hate all the early speculation framing crew error or something...let it come out official...

 

[SKYW Pilot]

When flying down in LA yesterday, there were several times when the winds were being reported on the surface as 3-5 kts. 200 feet off the runway on approach, our FMS was indicating 15-25 kts. Santa Ana winds have prevailed in Socal over the past few days. We landed East in LAX all day yesterday until later on in the evening. That was with the surface winds being reported at no stronger than 5 kts. The winds at Palomar this morning might have been much stronger just a few hundred feet off the runway than what the ASOS was reporting. No room for error with that short runway.

 

[Jim Dandy]

Maybe they crashed due to the winds moving in one direction while they were moving in another direction. Maybe at the last minute the runway moved and that caused the crash, or maybe there was some sort of magnetic anomaly that caused the DGs to swing and therefor they increased speed because one of the pax like to drive fast cars. Maybe the new contract at Netjets had something to do with it.

Maybe the crash was due to the overwhelming number of idiots who post here on flightinfo, thank god you all don't work for the NTSB. Never have I read such stupid assumptions for the cause of a crash. All we know so far is that 4 people have died and you all in your infinite wisdom need to prove your intelligence by determining the cause of the crash within an hour by simply reading news reports.

 

[Chewbacca]

I was in CRQ a few hours after it happend, I checked flightaware.com, looked under their tail number, and saw that their groundspeed at 300 feet was 227 knots. Wanted to make sure data was somewhat reliable, so we completed our flight to Denver, and looked at our data for the flight, 300 feet above the airport, our groundspeed was 103.

From what the people at the FBO said, they were fast high, and landed too far down the runway, attempted to takeoff again, and struck airport stuff.

Very sad.

 

[FlyingToIST]

I did a 4 week long gig down in CRQ at an office facility that is right by the departure end of 24. There is elevation difference but it amazes me that they are putting buildings like mushrooms around that airport.
At the time their website had nothing but NIMBY information.. Airports, regardless of their prime real estate locations have to have some protected zone around them.. But of course, the locals are too greedy because of the real estate taxes..

RIP to the lost ones.

 

[81Horse]

I did a 4 week long gig down in CRQ at an office facility that is right by the departure end of 24. There is elevation difference but it amazes me that they are putting buildings like mushrooms around that airport.
At the time their website had nothing but NIMBY information.. Airports, regardless of their prime real estate locations have to have some protected zone around them.. But of course, the locals are too greedy because of the real estate taxes.

But this is irrelevant to this crash -- the plane hit an ILS equipment shack (presumably the localizer). And they're probably putting commercial/industrial buildings up all around Palomar because it's a great airport with a decent runway, a full ILS, and it's convenient to the I5 corridor (advantages none of the other GA airports in San Diego have). Plus, it's very handy for all the poobahs in Rancho Santa Fe.

 

[Annie]

For clarity:

I was not assuming the pilot was guilty, I was wondering if maybe the owner/pax was somehow involved. Like all of you, I wait for the NTSB. Please excuse my message, if it in anyway suggested pilot error.

 

[81Horse]

I understood your point, Annie; I wondered about the same thing in the other thread about this accident -- is this an owner-pilot situation?

It's a dam*ed tragedy, for sure; my sympathies are with the families.

 

[501261]

Not sure how long this one has been up, but it's still curent:

Data Current as of: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:15:00 GMT

KCRQ MC CLELLAN-PALOMAR
01/009 - 24 ILS OTS WIE UNTIL UFN

Ya the accident Citation took out the ILS shack so it's now obviously OTS.

I was imagining a scenario, where if the G/S where OTS, he was flying along on the approach, waiting for the G/S to come alive when he realized (too late), that the G/S was out OTS and tried to salvage the landing.

But now that I'm hearing reports that he was at ESCON around 12,000' (normal 4,000), and crossing the FAF at 7000' (normal 2100'), the broke G/S don't matter.

 

[ultrarunner]

They skidded off 24, I wonder if they were going missed and didn't retract the speedbrake.

I don't belive the speedbrakes will stay extended with GA/TO power applied. They will auto stow.

The old 500's you could keep extended. But in any event, they are just little panels, and wouldn't prevent the plane from climbing even if they were extended.

 

[501261]

I understood your point, Annie; I wondered about the same thing in the other thread about this accident -- is this an owner-pilot situation?

I was thinking the same thing, since it's hard for me to believe that a "professional" pilot can let himself get that far "out of position". Those flight tracking programs have errors, but not that big (crossing FAF 5000' high, 233 knot ground speed 300 AGL ).

However, I looked up the Pilot's name (according to the newspaper), and he appears to have been flying for quite some time, in addition to his eight type ratings.

 

[FN FAL]

I don't belive the speedbrakes will stay extended with GA/TO power applied. They will auto stow.

The old 500's you could keep extended. But in any event, they are just little panels, and wouldn't prevent the plane from climbing even if they were extended.

No joke, I just read a more recent news article, an eyewitness said that not only did the plane appear to be coming in to land faster than normal, the eye witness also said the landing gear was UP.

 

[falcon20driver]

I was in CRQ a few hours after it happend, I checked flightaware.com, looked under their tail number, and saw that their groundspeed at 300 feet was 227 knots. Wanted to make sure data was somewhat reliable, so we completed our flight to Denver, and looked at our data for the flight, 300 feet above the airport, our groundspeed was 103.

From what the people at the FBO said, they were fast high, and landed too far down the runway, attempted to takeoff again, and struck airport stuff.

Very sad.

That 300' is MSL not AGL, that's radar info from the FAA, so they were at field elevation, the coordinates are next to the speed/altitude on http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N86CE/tracklog the radar position for that fix is 1 mile southwest of the field, still on radar that 227 knots at 300' was while they were going downhill smashing into sh1t.

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 and 262 kts groundspeed, two reports for the same fix of a one to two mile final, the first is 2300' MSL doing 277 kts over the ground and than 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.

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

 

[cheater1239]

However, I looked up the Pilot's name (according to the newspaper), and he appears to have been flying for quite some time, in addition to his eight type ratings.[/quote]

could you provide a link to the database that shows type ratings along with certificate info? regards

 

[falcon20driver]

could you provide a link to the database that shows type ratings along with certificate info? regards

http://faa.gov/licenses_certificates/