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.