Citation; dry tanks 4th approach gear up

[SNAFU22]

Amazing, its 2009 and we still have s#$t like this going on.

2009 and so on...Unfortunately there will always be knuckle heads who will continue to scratch up the jet doing the same dumb sh!t, over and over and over again.

 

[getonit]

2009 and so on...Unfortunately there will always be knuckle heads who will continue to scratch up the jet doing the same dumb sh!t, over and over and over again.

I disagree with your statement, this is a whole new level of dumb sh!t. I have read a reasonable number of accident reports and this takes dumb to a different level. Not different dumb, but dumb dumb.
Just give it time someone will do something dumber.

 

[Gear Up!]

Agreed

 

[bizjet800]

I disagree with your statement, this is a whole new level of dumb sh!t. I have read a reasonable number of accident reports and this takes dumb to a different level. Not different dumb, but dumb dumb.
Just give it time someone will do something dumber.

He probably said, "I am only human Harry!" That after limo driver Lloyd drove them 1/6 the distance in the wrong direction.

 

[LJ45]

this is from the NTSB report...WOW !!!

The airplane was examined by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector who responded to the accident site. The airplane received skin damage to the underside of the fuselage and several puncture holes into the pressure vessel. The pilot reported to the FAA inspector on scene, as well as to a National Transportation Safety Board investigator, that they had "ran out of fuel." They had attempted three instrument landing system (ILS) approaches to runway 24, however due to the fog at the airport they were unable to see the runway environment. On the third missed approach the No. 1 engine shut down and the pilots requested a vector from air traffic control (ATC) for another approach to KILM. The pilot stated to ATC that they were low on fuel. While being vectored for the fourth approach, the No. 2 engine shut down and the pilots requested an immediate turn to the airport; they were able to locate the center of the airport on their global positioning system (GPS) and "aimed the airplane at the intersection of the runways." Approximately 50 feet above ground level (agl), the pilots saw a row of lights, paralleled the lights, landed gear up on the departure end of runway 6, overran the runway, and impacted several light stands for runway 24, coming to rest 2,242 feet past the point of the initial touchdown.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Holy SHEEET!

Talk about consideration for those on the ground.

 

[CelticCitation]

Just over 1000NM, with 7 people (with crew), had to be pretty close to max range in a Cit. II. Three aproaches? they had to have the low fuel lights on for two of them.

 

[ultrarunner]

That trip is a no-brainer at normal altitudes. Had that plane been RVSM equipped, they likely could have shot 10 more approaches before they bellied it in!

 

[CelticCitation]

Was this a Bravo, or an older Cit. II? An older II would have been max range with 5 pax.

Max TO- 13,300
Empty wt ~9,000
7 people ~1300

Leaves 3000 for fuel, about 3 hours worth at 370kts. Flightaware shows the leg took almost six hours to tanks dry. Can a Bravo fly that long with that many people, assuming less fuel because of the pax, or did it depart with full fuel? Either way, it seems like more endurance than I would have guessed for any C-550.

 

[BoilerUP]

No way we could do 1000nm with 7 passengers in our C-II unless we had a monster tailwind...then again, we don't have the gross weight mod and do have a fairly heavy BOW.

 

[CelticCitation]

Here is a picture of the bird from Flightaware-

http://flightaware.com/photos/view/...1775a1185273d46e26925563f0f3b;tail=N815MA;o=0

Since it is not trailing link, it is not a Bravo. If it never was above FL280, the whole thing sounds impossible to me. There must be something I'm missing from Flightaware, but I wouldn't have thought they would have even three hours of fuel, even with full tanks, at that altitude.

 

[ultrarunner]

I think someone posted on another thread that this bird, which is an older straight 550, that it had the Branson mod. If so, the I suspect they were topped off...

Branson gives you 14,500 take-off if I recall. And the typical BOW's of those vintage 550's is around 8300 lbs.

So topping it off with 5 pax is a no-brainer with the Branson mod.

 

[CelticCitation]

It's been a couple of years since I've flown a II. If I remember right, full tanks was 5000 lbs. What would fuel burn be at 280, ~1400/hr. maybe a little less? Either way, they used all of it.

 

[ultrarunner]

Yep, 5 grand on the fuel, which is why the Branson mod was necessary on the older 550's. Later 550's had 14,300 right from Cessna to correct the problem.

Burn would have been every bit of 700 a side at 270 I'm sure.

 

[CelticCitation]

Pretty ambitious flight planning, even in good weather.

 

[BoilerUP]

...too bad that Branson/Newflight gross weight mod makes a Citation a bastard stepchild in the eyes of Mother Cessna...

 

[Publishers]

How many other airports in 90 miles???

 

[blzr]

Have you ever had the weather at your alternate get really bad, really quickly? It happens. Just wait for the report to come out. There's got to be a piece of the puzzle missing.

There has to be 100 airports within a 50 mile radius of ILM. One of them had to have good viz.

I have actually diverted to my alternalt, when the alt had worse ceiling and vis that the destination...However, the alternate was 10000 ft big airpost and the primary was a 4200 ft strip with a tornado bearing down on it.. It is a good interview story..if anyone was interviewing...