Just in on the good ol' Tabloid TV

[HawkerF/O]

A friend of mine said an FAA guy told him they crossed ESCON intersection at 12,000 and the final approach fix at 7,000, at some point calling the airport in sight. Supposedly they touched down halfway down the runway, and 3/4s down they decided to go around, adding power but it was too late.

This would square with the high ground speed readouts. I emphasize this is second hand information.

I wondered about that too. From the readouts, they never really got below 250 once they came through 10. There are guys here vouching for this pilot, so it's fair to say he was a professional. I don't think a pro forgets that 250 is the limit below 10, and he was over 300knots across the ground and with the Santa Ana winds blowing to the East and him flying to the WSW, he had the power way up to get the speed he was getting. I don't think the boss running late would make a guy risk the troubles that come along with going 300+knots below 10. Flying into the wind like they were and at that speed they had to be close to the barber pole. Something had them in a big hurry to the airport. A big hurry.

 

[81Horse]

I wondered about that too. From the readouts, they never really got below 250 once they came through 10. There are guys here vouching for this pilot, so it's fair to say he was a professional. I don't think a pro forgets that 250 is the limit below 10, and he was over 300knots across the ground and with the Santa Ana winds blowing to the East and him flying to the WSW, he had the power way up to get the speed he was getting. I don't think the boss running late would make a guy risk the troubles that come along with going 300+knots below 10. Flying into the wind like they were and at that speed they had to be close to the barber pole. Something had them in a big hurry to the airport. A big hurry.

Your whole premise is off; Santa Anas blow downslope, from east to west. The wind (if a Santa Ana was in progress) likely contributed to the too high/too fast scenario -- again, if that report is true.

Was this an owner/pilot situation? That's not clear to me from earlier posts. I'm wondering who will be found in which seat, and/or who was actually the pilot flying.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

A lot of runway for what? Piston twins, singles and KingAirs don't count. I don't know many Jet pilots that would operate anything bigger than a 5xx series Citation (3-hole falcons excluded) out of a 4600 foot strip unless all other options were exhausted. I think HP Jepps are 5000 feet minimum. Just my .02 cents.

size means nothing in terms of performance....in fact, smaller can be worse.

Im more comfortable flying a GLEX or G550 off 4600ft before any citation, hawker, astra, westwind, Lear, or Falcon.

A GLEX has refs of around 105kts and landing distances of 2500ft when light, nevermind great TRS and autobrakes that will put you against your seatbelt on HIGH. you could use less then 2000ft easily if you tried.

Heck, my guess is you can go from that strip to London in a Glex or a 550.

of course snow, ice, winds, ramp surface, all play a part in deciding what to go into...but 4600ft is pretty easy, under most conditions, in bigger corp stuff like a 550 or GLEX

***just dont be afraid to use the bosses brakes***

 

[G100driver]

size means nothing in terms of performance....in fact, smaller can be worse.

Nahhhh that one is way too easy

 

[501261]

size means nothing in terms of performance....in fact, smaller can be worse.

Im more comfortable flying a GLEX or G550 off 4600ft before any citation, hawker, astra, westwind, Lear, or Falcon.

A GLEX has refs of around 105kts and landing distances of 2500ft when light, nevermind great TRS and autobrakes that will put you against your seatbelt on HIGH. you could use less then 2000ft easily if you tried.

Heck, my guess is you can go from that strip to London in a Glex or a 550.

of course snow, ice, winds, ramp surface, all play a part in deciding what to go into...but 4600ft is pretty easy, under most conditions, in bigger corp stuff like a 550 or GLEX

***just dont be afraid to use the bosses brakes***

How true, one of the more impressive things I have seen is a GLEX taking off out of CRQ going to PHOG, on a warm summer day.

Then again I'm sure he was only caring half a bag of gas .

 

[HawkerF/O]

Just my preference, but if I ran off the end of a runway, I'd rather it be in a 4000 pound Dutchess slowing through 60 knots than a 25000 pound jet slowing through 110 knots, but that;s just me. My issue is not with going in and out of those strips. Most of these jets can do. The problem comes when something goes wrong and now the guy flying is expected to outperform the book. The #s in the book are derived from a test pilot flying a brand new aircraft with brand new engines, cool brakes and all the steel on them knowing exactly what engine is about to fail and at what point.

size means nothing in terms of performance....in fact, smaller can be worse.

Im more comfortable flying a GLEX or G550 off 4600ft before any citation, hawker, astra, westwind, Lear, or Falcon.

A GLEX has refs of around 105kts and landing distances of 2500ft when light, nevermind great TRS and autobrakes that will put you against your seatbelt on HIGH. you could use less then 2000ft easily if you tried.

Heck, my guess is you can go from that strip to London in a Glex or a 550.

of course snow, ice, winds, ramp surface, all play a part in deciding what to go into...but 4600ft is pretty easy, under most conditions, in bigger corp stuff like a 550 or GLEX

***just dont be afraid to use the bosses brakes***

 

[FlierDude]

The #s in the book are derived from a test pilot flying a brand new aircraft with brand new engines, cool brakes and all the steel on them knowing exactly what engine is about to fail and at what point.

Let's not beat this horse any further, gents. It was a 560, not a HS125, and could have been stopped in half the runway. I doubt all those going in & out of there are taking any chances. Rest their souls.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Just my preference, but if I ran off the end of a runway, I'd rather it be in a 4000 pound Dutchess slowing through 60 knots than a 25000 pound jet slowing through 110 knots, but that;s just me. My issue is not with going in and out of those strips. Most of these jets can do. The problem comes when something goes wrong and now the guy flying is expected to outperform the book. The #s in the book are derived from a test pilot flying a brand new aircraft with brand new engines, cool brakes and all the steel on them knowing exactly what engine is about to fail and at what point.

why would you be running off the runway at 110kts?

at 60,000 lbs your landing Ref might be 105? landing distance about 2500ft?

at 85,000 lbs takeoff V1 might be 107?

add TRs and autobrakes to the landing and you might cut that 2500ft in half

cant say that for a 4000lb dutchess!

who is talking about test pilots and outperforming the numbers? I dont know anyone who breaks the numbers.


but whatever...just an opinion. I will consider myself confused! (I know...again)

 

[pilotviolin]

Looking at the NTSB report, it listed 1 crew, 3 Pax, which is contrary to what the news has been saying. Has anyone heard that is was indeed single pilot? We were just switch the Socal when it happened, and had to divert. Pretty scarry indeed. Some thought it was us because we were in a 560 also. CRQ is no problem in a 560, but when crossing escon at 12000 it would be darn near impossible to land, unless you were already at vref and everything dragging, and even then I doubt it.

 

[GIVDrvr]

The declared landing distance available is less than the rwy length because the airport operator at CRQ is unable to establish a sterile runway end protection zone beginning at the threshhold.

 

[HawkerF/O]

G200, those were just general #s I published as an example. Not specific to any particular aircraft. Also, reading my previous posts, you'll see that any aircraft I mentioned did not have a Leading edge device. Slats make it a whole other ballgame. The GLEX has a wing the size of Tokyo and a full slat, so yes, it's going to have some inpressive #s. I'd fly a global in and out of there down to mins day after day. Why? Because it has the performance to do it with much reserve. A GIV, GIII, Hawker, Lear, etc does not have a a slat, so it can't get the speed down like a GLEX, but even then, SPrint ran a GLEX off the runway at EGE back in '02 or '03 by being cowboys and coming in too fast and high.

MY original point once again was not about landing, it was about departing and something going wrong.

What about EGE or ASE. If you have a engine failure loaded up are you going to just go do some climbing steep turns down in the valley like all these other guys say they are going to do? You might do 1, but lets call a spade a spade, that good engine is not going to do anything but take you to the scene of the crash.

Get that G200 book out and Riddle me this Batman: Runway 6 IFR min climb out of Carlsbad is 260feet/NM up to 2100 feet. Assuming V2 is between 130 and 160 (I have no idea what it is), can that G200 maintain 564-694 FPM climb up to 2100 feet on 1 Engine? It has P&Ws on it, so I would guess it could, but I am curious to know loaded up what it can do and if you would depart at MATOW with a 200 foot ceiling?

Look, I am not trying to get sideways with you.I was just merely pointing out that not enough consideration is given to departing as should be. Most are worried about getting in and stopping and give little to no thought to the departure until it's time to plan it. In my opinion, not smart at all.

why would you be running off the runway at 110kts?

at 60,000 lbs your landing Ref might be 105? landing distance about 2500ft?

at 85,000 lbs takeoff V1 might be 107?

add TRs and autobrakes to the landing and you might cut that 2500ft in half

cant say that for a 4000lb dutchess!

who is talking about test pilots and outperforming the numbers? I dont know anyone who breaks the numbers.


but whatever...just an opinion. I will consider myself confused! (I know...again)

 

[some_dude]

A few years ago, I was operating in and out of CRQ frequently. I never departed, nor ever saw anyone depart, on runway 6. Not saying it has never happened, but it's certainly uncommon. Anyone doing so would be well advised to figure out their performance beforehand. A G200 at high weights would probably NOT be a good choice for a runway 6 departure.

On runway 24, however, you effectively have an unlimited clearway, and other than annoying some of the beachfront property owners, and maybe kids at LegoLand, you would be fine with any positive gradient at all. Not necessarily legal, but you won't hit anything.

In the case of the accident we are discussing, they were using runway 24, as is, again, almost always the case. And, they were landing! Remind me, what does takeoff performance have to do with this accident?

GIVDrvr: Thanks!

Get that G200 book out and Riddle me this Batman: Runway 6 IFR min climb out of Carlsbad is 260feet/NM up to 2100 feet. Assuming V2 is between 130 and 160 (I have no idea what it is), can that G200 maintain 564-694 FPM climb up to 2100 feet? It has P&Ws on it, so I would guess it could, but I am curious to know loaded up what it can do and if you would depart at MATOW with a 200 foot ceiling?

 

[AerroMatt]

SomeDude,
It seems from data that these guys should have done a 360 over EMCOM. That would have taken care of it. Very sad story all the same. I go into CRQ often too, and there is nothing wrong with the place aside from politics.

 

[HawkerF/O]

And, they were landing! Remind me, what does takeoff performance have to do with this accident?

GIVDrvr: Thanks!

If you go back and red what I have written in previous posts, I have time after time after time distanced my posts from the accident, as you are correct, they were landing, not taking off. In several posts, I mentioned my issue would be with departing, not landing. G200 and I were having another conversation about large vs small aircraft, remember what you quoted? We were not discussing this accident this accident. Did you not read what you quoted in your reply?

My only talk about this accident was yesterday about the excessive speed on final. I do not think you can find anything that I wrote calling this guys judgement into question. With the WX below as stated, and no mechanical issues, 200+ Knots 300 feet off the ground is not a product of the below WX.

KCRQ 241553Z AUTO 08006KT 10SM CLR 14/M07 A2995 RMK AO2 SLP142 T01441072
KCRQ 241453Z AUTO 06006KT 10SM CLR 14/M09 A2993 RMK AO2 SLP133 T01391094 53013 $
KCRQ 241353Z AUTO 08005KT 10SM CLR 10/M08 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP128 T01001078 $

Now, remind me what your post has to do with what you quoted.

 

[AerroMatt]

If you go back and red what I have written in previous posts, I have time after time after time distanced my posts from the accident, as you are correct, they were landing, not taking off. In several posts, I mentioned my issue would be with departing, not landing. G200 and I were having another conversation about large vs small aircraft, remember what you quoted? We were not discussing this accident this accident. Did you not read what you quoted in your reply?

My only talk about this accident was yesterday about the excessive speed on final. I do not think you can find anything that I wrote calling this guys judgement into question. With the WX below as stated, and no mechanical issues, 200+ Knots 300 feet off the ground is not a product of the below WX.

KCRQ 241553Z AUTO 08006KT 10SM CLR 14/M07 A2995 RMK AO2 SLP142 T01441072
KCRQ 241453Z AUTO 06006KT 10SM CLR 14/M09 A2993 RMK AO2 SLP133 T01391094 53013 $
KCRQ 241353Z AUTO 08005KT 10SM CLR 10/M08 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP128 T01001078 $

Now, remind me what your post has to do with what you quoted.

Hawker, you are such a guru of aviation, we unworthies are bowing our heads towards your mightyness! Of course you know exactly what happened in this accident, and we will listen to you more than we will listen to NTSB investigators.

 

[some_dude]

I don't know why I bother <sigh> but what I quoted was something from you about takeoff climb gradient on runway 6, and the G200s ability or lack thereof to meet said requirement.

I then discussed the fact that no one at CRQ takes off on runway 6, that if they ever did take off on runway 6 they had darn well better figure their performance beforehand, and furthermore I will add that I wouldn't want to be in a heavy G200 taking off on runway 6. Happy now?

You never did address my comments regarding the lack of obstacles on runway 24. You could take off on 24 in an Apache and lose an engine and be in fine shape... well, at least as good a shape as you could be in an Apache on one engine!

Maybe you should start a new thread on large aircraft vs. small aircraft performance? Or how about one about hotel accomodations at CRQ-- personally, I like the Hilton Garden on the beach. Either would be equally relevant to the topic of this thread.

If you go back and red what I have written in previous posts, I have time after time after time distanced my posts from the accident, as you are correct, they were landing, not taking off. In several posts, I mentioned my issue would be with departing, not landing. G200 and I were having another conversation about large vs small aircraft, remember what you quoted? We were not discussing this accident this accident. Did you not read what you quoted in your reply?

My only talk about this accident was yesterday about the excessive speed on final. I do not think you can find anything that I wrote calling this guys judgement into question. With the WX below as stated, and no mechanical issues, 200+ Knots 300 feet off the ground is not a product of the below WX.

KCRQ 241553Z AUTO 08006KT 10SM CLR 14/M07 A2995 RMK AO2 SLP142 T01441072
KCRQ 241453Z AUTO 06006KT 10SM CLR 14/M09 A2993 RMK AO2 SLP133 T01391094 53013 $
KCRQ 241353Z AUTO 08005KT 10SM CLR 10/M08 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP128 T01001078 $

Now, remind me what your post has to do with what you quoted.

 

[HawkerF/O]

Hawker, you are such a guru of aviation, we unworthies are bowing our heads towards your mightyness! Of course you know exactly what happened in this accident, and we will listen to you more than we will listen to NTSB investigators.

You know man, I don't get on the tucker sites talking about you, and I don't know where you came from, but please, go back to trucking and get out of here. Nobody asked you and you were not part of this conversation. You don;t even know what we are talking about. What did you write, some crap about doing a 360 over the fix? You think it was that simple? Come on man, quit kissin A$$, pay the skank at the truck stop, put your truck in gear, and think before you get on here popping your mouth off.

 

[HawkerF/O]

I don't know why I bother <sigh> but what I quoted was something from you about takeoff climb gradient on runway 6, and the G200s ability or lack thereof to meet said requirement.

That's the problem here. You don't fu#king read. Where did I say G200 could not meet the gradient? Where did I post that he could not meet the gradient. I'll help you out....

Is the following not what I wrote, WORD FOR WORD???????????

Get that G200 book out and Riddle me this Batman: Runway 6 IFR min climb out of Carlsbad is 260feet/NM up to 2100 feet. Assuming V2 is between 130 and 160 (I have no idea what it is), can that G200 maintain 564-694 FPM climb up to 2100 feet on 1 Engine? It has P&Ws on it, so I would guess it could, but I am curious to know loaded up what it can do and if you would depart at MATOW with a 200 foot ceiling?

Where in there did I say he could not meet the gradient? Not only did I ask him to get out his books and see (because I have no idea just like I wrote!!), I suggested that it probably could. Come on man, do you not know that a "?" coming after a sentence indicated a question and not a statement. Are you really that stupid. Then you get on here and <sigh> because you don;t understand what a question is. Are you kidding me????????? I'm waiting, point out where I said that his aircraft could not make the gradient. What is wrong with you?????????

I then discussed the fact that no one at CRQ takes off on runway 6, that if they ever did take off on runway 6 they had darn well better figure their performance beforehand, and furthermore I will add that I wouldn't want to be in a heavy G200 taking off on runway 6. Happy now?

Happy about what? IS THAT NOT EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING SINCE I 1ST POSTED? MY CONCERN WAS NOT ABOUT LANDING, BUT TAKING OFF AND HAVING SOMETHING HAPPEN. HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO MISS THAT? You jumped in on P5 and didnt bother reading anything previous. If you go back and read what I have been writing, it is exactly what you just said there. My concern, as stated from the start of this thread was departing, not landing. Time after time after time I wrote my concern was not about landing, and how you missed that is beyond me. I honestly can't believe what you wrote. I just can't believe it.

You never did address my comments regarding the lack of obstacles on runway 24. You could take off on 24 in an Apache and lose an engine and be in fine shape... well, at least as good a shape as you could be in an Apache on one engine!

Who cares?? So there is no obstacle on 24. Ok. So what? I was talking about 6, and because you have never seen anyone use it does not mean it goes unused. Me and G200 were not talking about 6. You brought 24 up, not me. It is what it is. What did you want me to say??? There are not obstacles on 24? You already said that. What was there for me to say? It's not like I thought you were lying about it.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Hawker F/O:

I couldn't tell you what a G200 could do anymore, I dont have books or I would check for you. If I recall it could operate out of there pretty easily, possibly with full fuel. It did pretty well (when it was not broken)

All is was confused at is that you said no large jet drivers would operate on 4600ft and that you would rather be in a dutchess under the circumstances. That I found to be a little odd...

and who in the world would operate into a place they could not get out of?

Oh well....