Just in on the good ol' Tabloid TV

[AerroMatt]

CRQ runway 24 slopes up from 326ft to 330ft. Runway 6 has a down slope. Looks like he attempted to land around sunup. Might he have tried a landing on runway 6 into the sun and on a downslope? I can see where he could have gotten into a lot of trouble there.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

HP Jepps are 4000 and above hard surface. Used to operate a C650 out of KFWQ/P53 part 91, CII out of 3200 ft.

 

[AerroMatt]

Hunh. I just looked at the news report and answered my own question. He ran off rwy 24. This makes no sense.

 

[XLDaddy]

I'm based out of CRQ. Buddy of mine saw it happen this morning and told me they looked like they landed a bit hot and long. Very sad.

 

[501261]

Only Runway is 6/24. It's 4897 feet long, but only 4600 is available for landing. Not a lot of runway, but more than enough for a 560. Under normal operation, as long as the nose wheel is on the ground, the T/Rs would be available.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0601/05310AD.PDF

Lots of GV's and GLEX's operate out of CRQ, and everything smaller. Skywest (EMB120's) and Mesa (Dash8's) also fly in there. It's the most popular "corporate" airport for the San Diego area, due to its proximity to the "high end" housing.

The runway is short, but usually with the sea breeze and up slope it's never a problem operating out of CRQ.

From a speculation standpoint, I was in San Diego yesterday, and the Santa Ana Winds were kicking, the surface wind was calm, but as low as 1000' AGL, the FMS was showing a 22 knot wind out of the east (tailwind for a landing on CRQ's 24).

 

[Propnose]

Did you just hear that jack a$$ CNN interviewed? He was describing the fire after the crash, and said with a smirk "it was a good one - not for someone, but..."

RIP - thoughts go out to the families and friends of those on board

 

[RedBehren]

MAKEMODELYEAR MFG
YEAR DLVSERIAL
NUMBERREG
NUMBERCOMPANYLAST CHANGED AFTTENGINE TTSMOHCITATIONULTRA1994
1994560-0265N86CE
Owner - Goship Air, LLC
Ketchum, ID 83340 United States
Aircraft Management Company - Jaxair, LLC
Hailey, ID 83333 United States
Additional Location/Contact - Goship Air, LLC
Ketchum, ID 83340 United States 7/13/2005 [4543] [4430] [4435] [987] [992]

 

[HawkerF/O]

I stand corrected. Those guys are bolder than I am. I wouldn't do it and try going any distance of signifigance. When I was flying Hawkers, I used 5000 feet as a min runway lenght to operate on a regular basis and all the pilots I flew with used the same 5000 feet as a minimun. Landing is not the problem, it's getting out of there that would concern me, but apparently not many others share my concern I guess. I'll be honest, we don't see a lot of that here in the Midwest and I guess I have been fortunate that the people I have flown for and fly for currently understand that they don't need to be anywhere bad enough if 4600feet is the only option. Blow a tire or have to abort for any reason 5 knots below V1 and you've really got a decision to make. I've never been fortunate enough to fly an airplane that outperforms the book. I can see falcons doing that, as anything over 3000 feet is fair games for a 3 hole falcon, and it'll do it all day long. But something without slats, like a Lear, Beechjet, GIII, Challenger 600/601, Hawker, etc, I just can't see it. Once again, my concern would be departing, not landing.

 

[501261]

I stand corrected. Those guys are bolder than I am. I wouldn't do it and try going any distance of signifigance. When I was flying Hawkers, I used 5000 feet as a min runway lenght to operate on a regular basis and all the pilots I flew with used the same 5000 feet as a minimun.

Netjets and FlightOptions run Hawkers out of CRQ all day long.

 

[HawkerF/O]

Netjets and FlightOptions run Hawkers out of CRQ all day long.

I can guarentee you this; the 1st time Netjets or Flops have some incident/accident because of a 4600 foot runway somewhere, tthat practice will come to a screeching halt. That's always how it work, people wil do things they maybe should or should not be doing and until something happens, nobody seems to have a problem with it. Don't misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying those guys are wrong and I am right; it's simply a difference of operational standards/provedures between operators.

 

[smfav8r]

If you think taking a light jet in and out of less then 5000 ft is bold, you haven't been doing this for too long.....727's in and out of less than 5000ft all day long is not uncommon.

 

[h25b]

Pretty tough to just set some arbitrary runway minimum like 5000' ... I'd buy required balanced field length plus some percentage. Everyone has their own comfort zone and every aircraft is different.

 

[Dep676]

I know that Options has certain criteria for the Hawkers to go in there.

 

[HawkerF/O]

If you think taking a light jet in and out of less then 5000 ft is bold, you haven't been doing this for too long.....727's in and out of less than 5000ft all day long is not uncommon.

A Hawker is not a light jet, nor is a Challenger, GIII, etc and those are just a few of the examples I gave. Also, I said it is something I would not do as a common practice. I would appreciate if you actually read what I wrote before you commented on it.

 

[HMR]

Those guys are bolder than I am. I wouldn't do it and try going any distance of signifigance. When I was flying Hawkers, I used 5000 feet as a min runway lenght to operate on a regular basis and all the pilots I flew with used the same 5000 feet as a minimun. Landing is not the problem, it's getting out of there that would concern me, but apparently not many others share my concern I guess.

Using today's conditions @ CRQ we'd be able to take 6 pax with luggage, fly for 3hrs and land with 1hr (2000lbs) of fuel. That's in an Astra.