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
Challenger 604 off runway in Almaty
- Thread starter hawkerjet
- Start date
- Watchers 19
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
GVFlyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Posts
- 1,461
This mishap occurred on 26 Dec 07.
Kazakhstan - A German-owned business jet exploded on Wednesday during take-off at Kazakhstan's Almaty airport, killing the sole passenger and injuring three crew, officials said.
"The plane left the runway and there was an explosion aboard. The reason for the crash is being investigated," said Jamilla Kaimoldina, spokesperson for the Emergency Situations Ministry.
The passenger, whose nationality was not identified, died.
The pilot and co-pilot, who were German, and the Turkish stewardess were hospitalised but their lives were not in danger, a Health Ministry spokesperson said.
The plane, a Canadair Bombardier Challenger bound for Hong Kong, belonged to German company Jet Connection Business Flight, the Emergencies Ministry said.
Immediately after take-off the aircraft banked right, the wing struck the ground. Then the aircraft deviated to the right, hit the concrete perimeter fence, crashed, broke up and caught fire.
Sounds like another contaminated leading edge accident for the Challenger.
GV
Kazakhstan - A German-owned business jet exploded on Wednesday during take-off at Kazakhstan's Almaty airport, killing the sole passenger and injuring three crew, officials said.
"The plane left the runway and there was an explosion aboard. The reason for the crash is being investigated," said Jamilla Kaimoldina, spokesperson for the Emergency Situations Ministry.
The passenger, whose nationality was not identified, died.
The pilot and co-pilot, who were German, and the Turkish stewardess were hospitalised but their lives were not in danger, a Health Ministry spokesperson said.
The plane, a Canadair Bombardier Challenger bound for Hong Kong, belonged to German company Jet Connection Business Flight, the Emergencies Ministry said.
Immediately after take-off the aircraft banked right, the wing struck the ground. Then the aircraft deviated to the right, hit the concrete perimeter fence, crashed, broke up and caught fire.
Sounds like another contaminated leading edge accident for the Challenger.
GV
AnimalMother
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2004
- Posts
- 91
GVFlyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Posts
- 1,461
Maybe so, but the Challenger and aircraft derived from it have a supercritical hard wing with nasty stall characteristics and this mishap seems very similar to other recent Challenger accidents.
In the previous CL-600-2B16 accident at Birmingham the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the United Kingdom investigated the January 4, 2002 crash of a Bombardier CL-600-2B16 at Birmingham Airport.
The investigation showed that the airplane’s takeoff roll was normal up to the time of liftoff. Immediately after liftoff, however, the airplane rolled to the left despite full-right-aileron and right-rudder application by the flight crew. Within 3.5 seconds after liftoff, the bank angle aural warning and the stickshaker activated, and the airplane struck the ground about 5.5 seconds after liftoff at a bank angle of 111º left-wing down and a pitch angle of 13º airplane-nose down. The AAIB investigation concluded the following:
The roll had resulted from the left wing stalling at an abnormally low angle of attack due to flow disturbance resulting from frost contamination of the wing. A relatively small degree of wing surface roughness had a major adverse effect on the wing stall characteristics and the stall protection system was ineffective in this situation.
At Montrose the findings were similar: “"The National Transportation Safety 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.”
At Wichita the test pilot’s aggressive rotation was all it took to exceed the Challenger’s envelope. "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot’s excessive takeoff rotation, during an aft center of gravity (c.g.) takeoff, a rearward migration of fuel during acceleration and takeoff and consequent shift in the airplane’s aft c.g. to aft of the aft c.g. limit, which caused the airplane to stall at an altitude too low for recovery.”
The natural aerodynamic stall characteristics of the CL-600-2A12 airplane do not inherently meet the airworthiness standards specified under 14 CFR 25.203, “Stall characteristics;” the airplane achieves its airworthiness compliance for stall characteristics under the provisions of 14 CFR 25.21, which allows for “a stability augmentation system or another automatic or power-operated system” to be used.
According to the Bombardier, during natural aerodynamic stall of the CL-600-2A12 airplane, one wing typically stalls before the other once the natural stall angle of attack is exceeded, resulting in asymmetrical lift. Large roll rates and roll angles can then develop, depending upon pilot action.
Add these stall characteristics to the aircraft’s tendency to pitch-up when it stalls and you have a potentially very serious situation.
The least desirable stall characteristic any jet can have is to pitch-up when it stalls, the reason being that the wing can blank out the horizontal stabilizer causing a loss of pitch control and the ability to get the nose down to fly out of the stall. A stall chute, when deployed, gets the nose down to reestablish airflow over the tail and subsequent pitch control. It is then cut away.
During Global Express development while demonstrating recovery from unaccelerated aerodynamic stalls with a FAA test pilot at the controls the jet pitched-up and could not be returned to controlled flight without deploying the stall chute. This is precisely what occurred during Challenger 600 development with the exception that Bombardier test pilots were at both cockpit stations and that they could not get rid of the stall chute after getting the nose down. Subsequently, there was insufficient thrust available for sustained flight and controllability was suspect. Two of the crew were able to bail out and sustained severe injuries. The remaining pilot and flight test engineer perished with their craft. The surviving test pilot now works in the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.
This was the weather:
UAAA 252100Z 01003MPS 0900 R05/2000D SN BR OVC003 M14/M15 Q1038 054/1032 NOSIG RMK QBB110 QFE718/0957=
It was 3:00 AM.
Here are the photos.
http://www.vecher.kz/?S=4-200712251200
GV
In the previous CL-600-2B16 accident at Birmingham the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the United Kingdom investigated the January 4, 2002 crash of a Bombardier CL-600-2B16 at Birmingham Airport.
The investigation showed that the airplane’s takeoff roll was normal up to the time of liftoff. Immediately after liftoff, however, the airplane rolled to the left despite full-right-aileron and right-rudder application by the flight crew. Within 3.5 seconds after liftoff, the bank angle aural warning and the stickshaker activated, and the airplane struck the ground about 5.5 seconds after liftoff at a bank angle of 111º left-wing down and a pitch angle of 13º airplane-nose down. The AAIB investigation concluded the following:
The roll had resulted from the left wing stalling at an abnormally low angle of attack due to flow disturbance resulting from frost contamination of the wing. A relatively small degree of wing surface roughness had a major adverse effect on the wing stall characteristics and the stall protection system was ineffective in this situation.
At Montrose the findings were similar: “"The National Transportation Safety 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.”
At Wichita the test pilot’s aggressive rotation was all it took to exceed the Challenger’s envelope. "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot’s excessive takeoff rotation, during an aft center of gravity (c.g.) takeoff, a rearward migration of fuel during acceleration and takeoff and consequent shift in the airplane’s aft c.g. to aft of the aft c.g. limit, which caused the airplane to stall at an altitude too low for recovery.”
The natural aerodynamic stall characteristics of the CL-600-2A12 airplane do not inherently meet the airworthiness standards specified under 14 CFR 25.203, “Stall characteristics;” the airplane achieves its airworthiness compliance for stall characteristics under the provisions of 14 CFR 25.21, which allows for “a stability augmentation system or another automatic or power-operated system” to be used.
According to the Bombardier, during natural aerodynamic stall of the CL-600-2A12 airplane, one wing typically stalls before the other once the natural stall angle of attack is exceeded, resulting in asymmetrical lift. Large roll rates and roll angles can then develop, depending upon pilot action.
Add these stall characteristics to the aircraft’s tendency to pitch-up when it stalls and you have a potentially very serious situation.
The least desirable stall characteristic any jet can have is to pitch-up when it stalls, the reason being that the wing can blank out the horizontal stabilizer causing a loss of pitch control and the ability to get the nose down to fly out of the stall. A stall chute, when deployed, gets the nose down to reestablish airflow over the tail and subsequent pitch control. It is then cut away.
During Global Express development while demonstrating recovery from unaccelerated aerodynamic stalls with a FAA test pilot at the controls the jet pitched-up and could not be returned to controlled flight without deploying the stall chute. This is precisely what occurred during Challenger 600 development with the exception that Bombardier test pilots were at both cockpit stations and that they could not get rid of the stall chute after getting the nose down. Subsequently, there was insufficient thrust available for sustained flight and controllability was suspect. Two of the crew were able to bail out and sustained severe injuries. The remaining pilot and flight test engineer perished with their craft. The surviving test pilot now works in the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.
This was the weather:
UAAA 252100Z 01003MPS 0900 R05/2000D SN BR OVC003 M14/M15 Q1038 054/1032 NOSIG RMK QBB110 QFE718/0957=
It was 3:00 AM.
Here are the photos.
http://www.vecher.kz/?S=4-200712251200
GV
Last edited:
SN BR OVC003 M14/M15 ................ yep your most probably correct GV.................. i was kinda wishful thinking it wasn't.................. I was flying the cl604 until recently and I saw alot of the messages, alerts, warnings, cajoling etc. etc . and I was doing alot of cajoling to the pilot group and anyone who would listen myself............... and yet it is still happening....and now we have the CL605 being built with the same wing... is there some magic fatality /incident number that has to be reached until a agency steps in and says "hey enough" change the design or get more protection on the damn thing........... another situation where change will eventually be written in blood............... sad
ultrarunner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,322
There is a span of almost TWENTY YEARS between certification of these two airframes. You would THINK the canuks would have used that time wisely to make some changes in how the airplane reacts in a stall.
Marcel would never have done something like this!
landlover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2005
- Posts
- 1,365
that's because he got it right the first time. took a falcon-20 (in the sim mind you) way past the horn. airspeed got down to 80 knots and what happens, you ask? the nose drops straight ahead while i held full back pressure. one less thing to worry about
So, I guess everyone else in the corporate world is O.K. taking off with a little contamination? These posts are absurd.....I don't care what wing you have (yes, this applies to all the Gulfstream drivers) You don't leave without a clean wing....Challengers may be more prone to icing due to the super critical wing, but if you sit in your arm chair and "my airplane could have handled that"....then you, dumbass....are the next statistic!
What would happen if your hero had the sim set to one wing stalling and the other one producing lift....think about it....I don't think you would have been "hi-fiving" in the sim and getting off on the ol' "Francais-poo" engineering.
landlover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2005
- Posts
- 1,365
the conversation changed to certification. specifically, what happens during a clean wing stall. and the fact that the challenger people hadn't corrected a problem after 20 years.
blzr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2002
- Posts
- 1,502
Just get some type I & IV before you taxi out. These accidents don't happen in warm weather.
Count me with Dinger and blzr on this one. Tons of Challengers flying out there. Most pilots follow proper deicing procedures and never have a problem. Can remember 600 Initial at FSI Montreal when the lads stood up there in g/s reiterating numerous times: "This wing hates ice!" Most of us paid attention and behaved accordingly. I've always found the 600/601 to be a good, solid airplane, capable in the weather when the usual SOPs are followed.
Last edited:
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:
