I was looking for more info. then came across this from the NTSB- about another Flight Options accident. I thought that Flight Options just said in their new materials and web site that they have never had an accident before?
Any information out there?
-RJ
-------------------------------------------------
I fopund this here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020227X00277&key=1
NTSB Identification: NYC02FA059
Accident occurred Sunday, February 10, 2002 at Cleveland, OH
Aircraft:Mitsubishi MU-300, registration: N541CW
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On February 10, 2002, about 2302 eastern standard time, a Mitsubishi MU-300, N541CW, owned and operated by Flight Options Inc., was substantially damaged during an overrun at the Cuyahoga County Airport (CGF), Cleveland, Ohio. The two certificated airline transport pilots were not injured. Night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the positioning flight that originated from the Palwaukee Municipal Airport (PWK), Chicago, Illinois. The flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
According to the pilot-in-command (PIC), prior to the accident flight, company dispatch personnel instructed the flightcrew to fly six passengers from Marquette, Michigan, to PWK. Upon arrival at PWK, the PIC called dispatch and was instructed to reposition the airplane to CGF. The PIC proceeded to order fuel and check the current weather in the Cleveland area. The PIC also called the CGF air traffic control tower to inquire about the current weather and any braking action reports that may have been available. The tower controller stated to the PIC that a Cessna Citation had just landed and reported the braking action as fair to good.
The flight departed PWK about 2152, and proceeded eastbound, with the SIC at the controls. Upon arrival in the Cleveland area, the approach controller advised the flight crew that the current CGF weather was 300 overcast, visibility 1/2-mile in snow, winds from 320 degrees, variable to 350 degrees at 12-15 knots, gusts to 25 knots. The approach in use was to runway 23, a 5,101-foot long, 100-foot wide, asphalt runway. The PIC also recalled that he heard the controller state that Cleveland Hopkins Airport, located about 20 miles west of CGF, was closed due to snow removal, and should reopen in approximately 30 minutes.
While being vectored for the ILS Runway 23 approach, the controller stated that the airplane was "number two" for the approach following a Hawker jet. While the accident airplane was being vectored, it traveled through the final approach course, and had to be re-vectored. The airplane was then given a heading to intercept the final approach course and cleared for the approach. The PIC decided at this point, if the airplane was not stabilized on the approach by 1,900 feet msl, a missed approach would be executed. The airplane was stabilized at 2,000 feet, with the landing gear extended, full flaps, and a "Vref" speed of 106 knots, plus 5 knots. The PIC contacted the tower; advising them that the airplane was on the approach, inbound. The tower controller advised the flightcrew that the runway had been plowed, the Hawker had just landed, and the braking action was poor. The accident airplane was then cleared to land. The PIC visually identified the runway when the airplane was 300-400 feet above the decision height, and the landing was continued. The speed of the airplane as it passed over the threshold of the runway was about 106 knots and touchdown occurred within the first 500-600 feet of the runway. Upon touchdown the speed brakes were deployed and maximum braking was applied. The PIC recalled that although there was "a firm brake pedal," he could not feel the anti-skid pulsating. Deceleration of the airplane was slow and he soon realized the airplane was not going to stop on the runway. Attempting a go-around was not an option due to the amount of runway remaining. The airplane departed the end of the runway at a speed of 20-30 mph, and proceeded onto a down sloping grass overrun area. During the overrun, the flightcrew elected to shut down the engines. As the airplane was about to come to a stop, the nose gear struck a mound, and the nose landing gear assembly collapsed. The flight crew secured the airplane and exited.
According to the second-in-command (SIC), who was flying the airplane from the left seat, the PIC called the tower while they were on the ground at PWK, and stated that a Cessna Citation pilot reported the braking action at CGF as "good". As the flight arrived in the Cleveland area, the controller vectored the airplane for the approach because airport personnel were plowing the runway, and that they were number two for the approach behind a Hawker. The SIC stated that the vector was poor, and that he flew through the localizer course. The airplane was then re-vectored back and became established on the approach at 2,000 feet msl. The flightcrew was then instructed to contact the tower, where they were cleared to land. To the SIC's best recollection, the flightcrew was never given the braking action by the tower controller. The airplane "broke out" about 200-300 feet above the decision height, with the runway in sight, and straight ahead. As the airplane crossed the "numbers," the speed was at "ref," and touchdown occurred about 500-600 feet down the runway. The SIC applied maximum braking and the airplane began to slide to the right. The SIC straightened out the airplane and both flightcrew members felt that there was no antiskid. At that time the SIC determined that there was insufficient remaining runway to abort the landing, and committed himself in trying to slow the airplane down. The airplane then departed the end of the runway, at 30-40 mph, and proceeded into an overrun grassy area. The SIC did recall that the nose gear collapsed prior to the airplane coming to a complete stop.
An airport employee, who was plowing snow on the airport, stated that he was advised by the control tower that two airplanes were inbound, and he was instructed to remain clear of the runway. The employee positioned the plow truck to taxiway intersection A8 and stopped. After the first airplane landed, which was the Hawker, the pilot reported to the control tower that the braking action as poor. When the second airplane arrived, which was the MU-300, the employee observed the airplane touchdown between A5 and A6 taxiway intersections. The employee then noticed that the airplane was not slowing down, and crossed the A8 taxiway intersection at a high rate of speed. The airplane then departed the end of the runway and came to rest in the grass.
At 2245, CGF personnel conducted a runway condition report, which stated that the runway 5/23 condition was "thin layer of snow." The report also stated that the friction meter measurements for runway 23 were "approach end 50, mid point 45, roll out 45." Braking action on runway 23 was, "good" at the approach end, "fair" at the mid point, and "fair" at the roll out. Comments on the report were that the runway had been plowed.
Review of the CGF airport diagram revealed that A5 taxiway intersection was located about 2,868 feet from the approach end of runway 23. A6 taxiway intersection was located about 3,300 feet from the approach end of runway 23.
The weather recorded at CGF, at 2245 was, winds from 330 degrees at 12 knots, gusts to 22 knots; visibility 3/4 statute mile, light snow; overcast clouds at 300 feet.
On February 25, 2002, Safety Board personnel, which included a senior structural engineer, examined the airplane at the operator's CGF maintenance facility. The examination revealed that the damage exhibited on the aircraft was consistent with a nose landing gear failure during the overrun. Additionally, the nose landing gear contacted and damaged the pressure bulkhead.
