Forward CG at TEB

[GravityHater]

I just read that is what the NTSB is calling the Challenger accident, did you read the report?

 

[Yank McCobb]

They are not "calling" it anything, yet. There is NO final report. Nor will there be for many, many months.

What there was was some news story where there was a reference to the "possibility" of a "nose-heavy" aircraft. At the same time, the news story headline said "Mechanical Failure Cause of Accident".

Again, the NTSB is nowhere near issuing a final report with the probable cause of this accident.

 

[GravityHater]

They are not "calling" it anything, yet. There is NO final report. Nor will there be for many, many months.
What there was was some news story where there was a reference to the "possibility" of a "nose-heavy" aircraft. At the same time, the news story headline said "Mechanical Failure Cause of Accident".
Again, the NTSB is nowhere near issuing a final report with the probable cause of this accident.

I think we could have read different things; the title of the article I read was nothing like "Mechanical Failure....". Here is a verbatim excerpt form the report I read, and I quote directly by cut and paste:

"From the NTSB"......................."The center of gravity (CG) was found to be well forward of the allowable limit."

I will admit my reading comprehension was only 90% in high school but unless someone is flat lying to us with that report, I feel it is reasonable to come to a different conclusion than you, with the info that is available at this time.

Maybe you are nitpicking my use of the verb 'calling'. I can change that as a gesture of goodwill... how about 'strongly suggesting the possibility of'?

 

[banned username 2]

From AINAlerts...

‘Well forward’ C.G. Implicated in TEB Challenger Overrun

“The center of gravity (c.g.) was found to be well forward of the allowable limit,” according to an NTSB update of the investigation into the Challenger 600 that overran Runway 6 on takeoff from Teterboro Airport, N.J., on February 2. Initial findings of the investigation have indicated that the airplane, as configured, would have had a c.g.“well forward of the forward limit based on its cabin interior configuration combined with full or nearly full fuel tanks, including the fuselage tank, and a full or nearly full passenger load and minimum passenger baggage,” the NTSB said. In addition, the horizontal stabilizer trim position was in the middle of the green band (the normal takeoff range). The NTSB said it conducted tests using a simulator to evaluate the airplane’s takeoff characteristics based on the trim settings and weight-and-balance data. “The initial findings of those simulations indicate the airplane would not rotate for takeoff at the defined rotation speed.” The Safety Board also found that on the morning of the accident, icing conditions at Teterboro were “minimal or nonexistent” and there were “no anomalies” of the pitch-control system. A CVR transcript will be released in the near future. Meanwhile, the FAA revoked the Part 135 certificate of Darby Aviation (dba AlphaJet), one of the operators connected with the Challenger flight.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

Meanwhile, the FAA revoked the Part 135 certificate of Darby Aviation (dba AlphaJet), one of the operators connected with the Challenger flight.
[/color]

Kit's side gig? Or just a coincidence?

 

[jimpilot]

Woops

They are not "calling" it anything, yet. There is NO final report. Nor will there be for many, many months.

What there was was some news story where there was a reference to the "possibility" of a "nose-heavy" aircraft. At the same time, the news story headline said "Mechanical Failure Cause of Accident".

Again, the NTSB is nowhere near issuing a final report with the probable cause of this accident.

Looks like Yank McCobb knows not of what he speaks

 

[siucavflight]

As I said in the other post on this subject this was not this pilots first run off of the runway in a Challenger, in fact it was his third. Good old J.K. probably the worst most arrogant pilot I have ever met.

 

[miles otoole]

MS. Challenger preliminary

Bombardier Points to Cause of Tupelo Challenger Overrun

It’s probable that a bent-down microphone jack receptacle near the base of the copilot’s control column prevented aft movement of the yoke, causing a Challenger 600 to overrun the runway during takeoff from Tupelo Regional Airport, Miss., on March 9, according to a Bombardier Advisory Wire sent to operators of 600-series Challengers. "An inspection of the copilot control column revealed that the hand-held microphone jack receptacle (installed with two screws through a bracket on the lower side of the receptacle) mounted on the lower aft side of each control column approximately one inch from the bottom of the column was bent downwards," the March 13 advisory says. "With the receptacle in this position, when the control column was pulled aft, the receptacle contacted the control column cover and prevented further aft movement of the column." Bombardier said it is not yet known how it got bent, but apparently this receptacle is not an OEM installation. The advisory adds, "The origin of the installation is not known at this time." Bombardier recommended that if similar microphone jack receptacles are installed on other Challengers, "pilots should verify the security of the installation" as part of the preflight visual inspection of the cockpit.