CL-601 down in Montrose, CO

[MetroSheriff]

Yeah, all about correct. I prefer low-time F/O's with a good education and training backround. Interns are usually the best of the bunch. Because: 1. They're willing to learn. 2. Have a strong training base. 3. Are highly enthusiastic about the new job; and although not overly-knowledgable, can safely use a checklist. 3. Don't have two or three other jobs to juggle, which means they can keep up with the latest revisions, and procedural changes. 4. Take initiative and show up to the airplane early. 5. Don't hang their coat on the only hangar in the cockpit. 6. Don't store their personal luggage on the flight deck. 7. Don't answer questions from support personnel which are clearly directed at the Captain. 8. Can talk on the radio without embarassing himself. 9. Do the safety check BEFORE doing the walk around, even if it's cold. 10. Put on the O2 mask above 250 without prompting. 11. Well this is getting old...

So among other things, a good F/O (interns , of course, being the most preferable) don't really know much but have spent a lot of time in captivity (training), and are willing to learn from you. This lack of knowledge and experience is overcome, however, by their prowess with the checklist.

More importantly they don't crowd the cockpit with personal items, use the the "Captain's Hanger", or attempt to usurp the Captain's authority by answering a question for a ramper or gate agent.

At least you let 'em talk on the radio. Good for you.

All sarcasm aside on my part now, ar y ou pulling my leg with this stuff or are you serious with your list there??

 

[SuperFLUF]

................. Do the safety check BEFORE doing the walk around, even if it's cold. 10. Put on the O2 mask above 250 without prompting. 11. Well this is getting old...

Wow, a 3,000 hr jet captain. You must be great to fly with. I bet you "teach" everybody the "right" way to do things.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

hehe...lets take this thing to 450....hehe...I never been there before...hehe....just put it on pitch mode and get me the USA Today...hehe...what kinds IPOD you got?, what kinda luggaga fits on the CRJ...hehe....HA, that funny stick shaker going off again....hehe...I knew Id get ya on that one dude!!...hehe

 

[lear driver]

this e-mail was forwarded to me by my employer.

The information is still a little sketchy as the FBO and naturally the FAA are not giving out much at this time. The Challenger 604 that landed just ahead of the 601 that was involved in the accident is operated by a mutual friend of xxxx xxxxx and myself. The crew that works for him and who were flying the 604 have given me what information I have. They landed with snow falling as did the 601 and both landed on the 10,000' runway that had been cleared. The crew seemed very anxious to be refueled so they could hurry and depart to make up lost time. They were overheard discussing whether or not to de-ice the airplane and chose to not do so. I do not know, however how much contamination was actually on the wings. Snow continued to fall while they fueled and during their taxi out for take off. We also think they fueled for a planned drop-off in South Bend, Indiana and on to White Plains without refueling. They also chose the runway which was closest to the FBO which afforded them the shortest taxi time, again in a hope to make up time. This runway was only 7,500' long and had not been cleared of contamination. Once again we do not know how much contamination there was. One news station showed a bird's eye view of the aircraft's tracks which indicated it left the runway to the right, veered back across the runway and ended up on the left side destroyed. This could indicate several things including loss of directional control because of the contamination, an attempt to abort that failed, loss of an engine to possibly being fodded by snow or ice. It appears the crew were very anxious to get going and get on schedule to White Plains. We are not sure if the pressure was coming from some management company or from the owner himself. You would think at the very least they would have used the 10,000' runway that was clear and also considered a fuel stop short of South Bend, but that would have only added more time. As to the qualifications, etc. I know nothing about that. If I get any further information, I will pass it on to you.

 

[ultrarunner]

Ok Challenger drivers, since we've got a bit of info to go on...someone run some numbers..

I'm interested in knowing a couple of things...

1. Figure a fuel load Montrose-South Bend-White Plains plus one hour. (well give them the benefit they didn't need alternate fuel in HPN).

2. At that take off weight what would have been the est. BFL based on an Ice on take off. Use contaminated runway figures. Also, would they have met Part 25 OEI climb gradients (had they gotten airborne).

I am still puzzled as to why they didn't de-ice the airplane. They obviously had the time. IMO, no matter how cold soaked the plane was, they were on the gound for every bit of an hour while it was snowing.

Reports were that they seemed to be in a hurry. If so, why so long on the ground? Line at the fuel pump, pax issues?

And in these conditions, why leave 2500 feet of runway unused. Yeah, the report below says 'shoter taxi' to rwy 31, but heck, they had already spent an hour on the gound.

Something just doesn't add up.

Here is the prelim report. I look forward to the data.

On November 28, 2004, at 0955 mountain standard time, a Canadair Ltd, CL-601-2A12, N873G, owned by Hop a Jet, Inc., and operated by Air Castle, was destroyed when it impacted terrain during the take off roll from Montrose Regional Airport (MTJ), Montrose, Colorado. A postimpact fire ensued. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The non-scheduled domestic passenger flight was being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 135. The captain, flight attendant and one passenger were fatally injured. The first officer, and two passengers sustained serious injuries. The flight was departing at the time of the accident and was en route to South Bend, Indiana.

Airport personnel reported that the airplane arrived around 0900 and dropped off one passenger. The airplane remained parked at the fixed base operator for approximately 50 minutes. The FAA stated that the pilot contacted Denver Air Traffic Control to receive his instrument flight rules clearance at 0955. According to a witness at the airport, the airplane taxied out to runway 31, taxied onto the runway and performed a static run-up of a duration of approximately 1 minute. The initial ground roll appeared to be uneventful and then the witness lost sight of the airplane due to the snow and low visibility. Several other witnesses, located towards the departure end of the runway, reported hearing a loud "boom" or "whooshing." The airplane was observed by one witness to yaw to the right, putting the tail of the airplane perpendicular to the runway. The airplane impacted terrain to the right of runway and slid approximately 1,400 feet, through the airport perimeter fence, across a road and through an adjacent fence. The airplane came to rest within 200 feet of a dairy farm.

Weather at the time of the accident was reported as winds calm, visibility 1 1/4 statute miles, light snow and mist, sky condition few 500 feet agl, overcast 900 feet agl, temperature -01 degrees Celsius (C), dewpoint -02 C, altimeter 29.67 inches.

 

[FL000]

NTSB disputes Ebersol jet crash report
Friday, December 10, 2004 Posted: 7:58 PM EST (0058 GMT)

Investigators examine part of the aircraft wreckage near Montrose, Colorado.

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Federal authorities on Friday disputed a newspaper report that included details from the cockpit voice recorder on the private jet that crashed at a Colorado airport, killing the 14-year-old son of NBC Sports chairman Dick Ebersol and two other people.

According to the Rocky Mountain News, National Transportation Safety Board investigator Arnold Scott said the recorder captured a conversation between the captain and co-pilot shortly before takeoff and suggested both had checked the wings for ice.

"Do you see anything on the wings?" Scott quoted the captain as saying.

"The answer was `No,' apparently from the co-pilot," said Scott, who did not return calls Friday from The Associated Press.

The November 28 crash at the Montrose airport as light snow fell killed Ebersol's son Teddy, pilot Luis Alberto Polanco and flight attendant Warren Richardson III. Ebersol and his 21-year-old son, Charlie, were hospitalized and co-pilot Eric Wicksell was critically injured.

NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz said Scott denied giving details about the cockpit voice recorder to the newspaper.

"We've revealed nothing from the CVR, except that it's 31 minutes long and that engine sounds can be heard until impact," said Lopatkiewicz, who added that he did not know what was on the voice recorder.

The newspaper said the story was correct.

"We're standing by the accuracy of our story," said Deborah Goeken, managing editor of the News. "The information was provided to us on the record by Arnold Scott, the NTSB's chief investigator on this crash. The story includes direct quotes from Mr. Scott."

The NTSB has said it is investigating whether ice on the wings of the twin-engine CL-601 Challenger contributed to the crash but has not ruled out other factors. Investigators have said the pilots did not deice the wings despite a temperature of 31 degrees and the snow flurries at the time of takeoff.

In the story, Scott said he was told snow was melting as it hit the ground. The airport's two runways had been plowed just before the jet attempted to take off, he said.

During an interview with Federal Aviation Administration investigators, Charlie Ebersol said he saw clear liquid falling off the plane, Scott said. The investigator added that the liquid was melted snow or precipitation.

 

[lawndart]

Repost from another thread about the MTJ crash.....

As someone who flies a 601 day in and day out, I can tell you that they REALLY don't like any airfoil or tailplane contamination at all. In the many years that I've been in commercial aviation, I've only been scared 5 times.... 4 of those were while in the right seat of a C414 with an owner/operator at the controls... the other one was in a CL601 in ice. The term "supercritical airfoil" doesn't even come close to describing the wing on a 601. The boys in Birmingham, UK proved that. It's kinda funny that an airplane that was built in Canada would be so sensitive to ice...

Some interesting numbers based on the weather around the time of the MTJ crash..... on a slush-covered runway at around 36,000 lb TOW, (which would be around what was needed to make SBN with the pax load that they had) 8060 ft of runway was required.... with V1 being 108...Vr 129, V2 136.

(You gotta love UltraNav!)

Considering that use of the contaminated runway data is mandatory per the AFM, if they were in fact using rwy 31, I find it odd that they even attempted the TO.


But, there but for the grace of God go I...