• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

LR60 Crash KCAE: Another Angle

LRvsH25B

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Posts
249
Total Time
9K+
There is a great thread on this same subject going on, and it's almost 150+ posts. I wanted to step away from that and look at this accident from another angle.

Since there is so much interest in it, I was hoping we could all put our heads together and say what's on our mind without insults or a lack of professionalism. I'd like to discuss in detail what info we know for a fact at this point, and as more comes out, we can bring that into the mix. Only confirmed data please. Before I start, it's understood that nobody is Monday morning QBing this crew and let all concede that anyone who reads/posts to this topic has the crew/families in their thoughts and prayers. So we can skip all the polite banter and get right down t the meat and potatos of it.

The crew talking on the radio:
I can't seem to get a clear answer on if the crew did or did not tell ATC they had a blown tire and they're aborting. I can't imagine that happened. They clearly had their hands full, so how/why would they get on the radio at that point? It's something I do not think I would do, but if they thought the plane was under control, then I could see that happeneing. Anybody have an answer on that?

Click Here and select tour of the Runway for a decent view of the runway

Sparks:
I think it is safe to say at this point the crew suffered a blown tire about 1/3 way (80 Knots/92 MPH) down the runway, and that is what started all of this. Even with both tires on 1 side gone, why would it take so long to stop this airplane and why would they be traveling so fast several thousand more feet down the runway? I can't seem to figure that out. What scenario am I missing here?

I got this in my email today. What do you all make of this? It seems like we should be reading about this being fatal and not the LJ60.

"NTSB ADVISORY
************************************************************

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

September 22, 2008

************************************************************

NTSB INVESTIGATING RUNWAY INCURSION IN ALLENTOWN, PA.

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board is
investigating a runway incursion Friday evening in
Allentown, Pennsylvania involving a general aviation
aircraft and a Chicago-bound regional jet airliner.

At 7:45 p.m. on September 19, a Cessna R172K (N736GV)
was on a landing roll on runway 6 at the Lehigh Valley
International Airport when the pilot was instructed to exit
the runway at taxiway A4. Mesa Airlines flight 7138, a CRJ-
700 (N506MJ), already instructed to position and hold on the
same runway, was then given clearance by the same controller
to take off.

During the takeoff roll, the Mesa crew heard the
Cessna pilot say that he'd missed the taxiway A4 turnoff and
ask to exit at taxiway B. The Mesa crew saw the Cessna
ahead on the runway and aborted the takeoff at about 120
knots, swerving around the Cessna. The Mesa crew estimated
that they missed colliding with the Cessna by about 10 feet.

Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and
there were no reported injuries to the 60 persons aboard the
jet or those aboard the Cessna."

Are airline crews (regional or Not) trained to a different standard or level of skill than we are as corporate pilots?

Looking forward to hearing back from you all.
 

skiandsurf

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Posts
1,066
Total Time
--
Are airline crews (regional or Not) trained to a different standard or level of skill than we are as corporate pilots?

Looking forward to hearing back from you all.

Your kidding. Right?


But for a real answer......I would think that the airlines have a much better CRM (or CLR) training program that at the corporate level. (guys flying with guys they dont know on a daily basis).
 

kf4amu

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Posts
3,074
Total Time
250
Night VFR, I would think you would still see a Cessna on the runway as long as his lights were on.

Theres gotta be more to that story. Besides Mesa sucks of course.
 

snow-back

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Posts
329
Total Time
13000
"Are airline crews (regional or Not) trained to a different standard or level of skill than we are as corporate pilots?"

Yes. Without a doubt.
 

LR60BOY

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Posts
143
Total Time
7000
OK back to the 60 accident...................

Let me start by saying that this crew had their hands full for sure! Also, it's been a while since I've been in a 60, so some of my thinking may be fuzzy.

I also have a hard time with the fact that the crew notified the tower however, I watched an NTSB briefing tonight that said that they had based on the tower tapes.

Let's talk about T/R's for a second. I am almost positive that it takes both squat switches in, ground mode, to get the T/R's to deploy. If one fails, i.e. breached due to the tire failure, the T/R's should stow. Having said that, if the pilot has a hand full of piggybacks and the T/R's stow, I think the FADEC's will command thrust. In this case forward thrust. I've had this happen in the sim.

Somebody brought up whether or not the T/R's might have been MEL'd..........possible, in which case they get strapped.

Another thing that is confusing..........directional control. Nosewheel steering (amount of) is based on groundspeed. Coming from the speed transducers on the main gear. Going back to the NTSB briefing, apparently the CVR had the 80 knot call followed by a noise and the abort. Well, if I remember correctly, the PTM states that the NWS system disengages at 88-90 knots. It's all aerodynamic at that point. Vmcg is somewhere in the 98 knot range, I think. Based on the pictures that i saw, the airplane went right thru the center of the localizer array. I'm not seeing directional control problems unless they were able to correct. Did they lose one tire or two. Is this another repeat of the Concorde?

I am also thinking about the Emergency brake air. Was it used? Gotta be careful with it if you do. Kinda doubt that I would think of it in that situation. All of the scenarios that I've had in the sim it was used for landings.

Long story short, we lost four fine people in this accident. We all need to keep them and their families in our prayers as well as the two stil in the hospital. And, I hope that the investigators will be able to find the cause of this accident so we can all learn from it.

'Careful y'all!
 

Quimby

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Posts
1,577
Total Time
matter
Night VFR, I would think you would still see a Cessna on the runway as long as his lights were on.

Theres gotta be more to that story. Besides Mesa sucks of course.

Trying to see a C-172 from behind, several thousand feet down the runway..........it's gonna be tough to see.....especially if the runway has any sort of crown to it.
 
Last edited:

NYG-Flyer

Active member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Posts
33
Total Time
4000
OK back to the 60 accident...................

Let me start by saying that this crew had their hands full for sure! Also, it's been a while since I've been in a 60, so some of my thinking may be fuzzy.

I also have a hard time with the fact that the crew notified the tower however, I watched an NTSB briefing tonight that said that they had based on the tower tapes.

Umm..the copilot pressed the push to talk button? since the radio was already tuned to tower its a simple task of pushing the button.. plus you want them to get emergency equipment out..plus you want them to not land another airplane on the runway..?


Let's talk about T/R's for a second. I am almost positive that it takes both squat switches in, ground mode, to get the T/R's to deploy. If one fails, i.e. breached due to the tire failure, the T/R's should stow. Having said that, if the pilot has a hand full of piggybacks and the T/R's stow, I think the FADEC's will command thrust. In this case forward thrust. I've had this happen in the sim.

Somebody brought up whether or not the T/R's might have been MEL'd..........possible, in which case they get strapped.

Another thing that is confusing..........directional control. Nosewheel steering (amount of) is based on groundspeed. Coming from the speed transducers on the main gear. Going back to the NTSB briefing, apparently the CVR had the 80 knot call followed by a noise and the abort. Well, if I remember correctly, the PTM states that the NWS system disengages at 88-90 knots. It's all aerodynamic at that point. Vmcg is somewhere in the 98 knot range, I think. Based on the pictures that i saw, the airplane went right thru the center of the localizer array. I'm not seeing directional control problems unless they were able to correct. Did they lose one tire or two. Is this another repeat of the Concorde?



If you lose a tire, you lose a wheel.. you lose the brakes (metal doesn't stop as well along the pavement, thats if you even had brakes anymore)..one side has rubber making contact with the pavement and the other side has metal.. different friction levels airplane may very well move off center line.. say you react and abort.. Apply brakes and the wheels with rubber begin to stop and the other side doesn't.. and if the tire blew out the transducer wires the system thinks, turn off antiskid on the other side. now you don't have antiskid on the other rubber side and those tires heat and possibly blow..Now your all over the runway....at that point does the nose wheel really matter much? and as you slow the aircraft reengages the nose wheel steering..



I am also thinking about the Emergency brake air.

wouldn't that do the same as the brakes but no antiskid? no wheels still.

Was it used? Gotta be careful with it if you do. Kinda doubt that I would think of it in that situation. All of the scenarios that I've had in the sim it was used for landings.

Long story short, we lost four fine people in this accident. We all need to keep them and their families in our prayers as well as the two stil in the hospital. And, I hope that the investigators will be able to find the cause of this accident so we can all learn from it.

'Careful y'all!

definitely we all need to learn from it.. and keep those in this terrible tragedy in our thoughts.
 

LRvsH25B

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Posts
249
Total Time
9K+
Umm..the copilot pressed the push to talk button? since the radio was already tuned to tower its a simple task of pushing the button.. plus you want them to get emergency equipment out..plus you want them to not land another airplane on the runway..?

Instead of focusing on the problem at hand, and a big problem it was, one of the pilots is jaw-jacking on the radio? What do you think the pilot telling the tower what was clear and obvious ultimately costs him/her? I just don't agree with the line of thought where someone gets on the radio where, quite frankly, their help and attention is needed elsewhere. In the sim, during a V1 cut, when the plane is still on the runway looking for Vr, are you on the radio before you get airborne?

I landed an 800XP in MSP a few winters ago on a contaminated runway with a X-Wind, and as soon as I got the nose wheel on, the plane immediately cocked into the wind, but it was tracking right down the centerline; essentially, the airplane was 10 or 20 degrees sideways, but it was stable and tracking straight. Non-Event.

I wrongly assumed the F/O, as a professional courtesy, would give me airspeed call outs as we slowed while I focused on the outside and played the rudder pedals like a Mozart crescendo. Stupid Me; she immediately jumps on the radio telling the tower we were losing control of the aircraft and to standby for her call to roll the equipment. WTF? Nit-wit, shut it and get over here and get back to work is what I wanted to tell her. She had no business on the radio at that point when her skill and expertise was more benificial to the situation at hand instead of talking on the radio. I feel the same way about the CAE accident crew. Do you see where I am coming from?
 

say again

I love her ARSE!!!!
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Posts
4,006
Total Time
5500
Night VFR, I would think you would still see a Cessna on the runway as long as his lights were on.

Theres gotta be more to that story. Besides Mesa sucks of course.


Yes you should, if you were actively looking, but that is not always the case. NO CREW anywhere would start a T/O roll knowing there was someone on the runway. My guess is that they assumed the runway was clear when tower cleared them for T/O. 1st lesson is to never assume anything you are told. Always visually verify that the direction you are going is clear. At night time especially, as it can be more confusing. Verify by visually seeing, or confirming with ATC. This goes for T/O and landing (and all aspects of flights).
 

Fly91

Registered Pilot
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Posts
635
Total Time
lots
The video shows nothing, but until I see a clear path from the end of the runway, through the grass to the position where the plane came to rest.....that thing may have been airborne and slammed into that birm. I see no trail through the grass and I see antennas still standing all the way to that road where the plane would have taken them out.

Hmmmmmmmmm!!!!

IF it didn't get airborne: As far as the possible radio call, I see no reason why they couldn't have made a call after they heard the FIRST tire blow as they began to abort. Then when they lost the other tire is when things would get real nutty.

I think they were airborne, I don't see how they could have kept it that straight with TWO blown tires and metal grinding into the ground making sparks. If there was no radio call, the crew may have started an abort, the other tire then blew and the tower probably saw the sparks, then the crew changed their mind to go after they lost the other tire and realized they knew they could not stop by the end. The plane would limp into the air, then settle back down, especially that damn heavy.

Speculation of course.....but I want to see the runway after the spraks started and the path through the grass to the resting position. I saw nothing on that video.
 
Last edited:

filejw

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Posts
1,135
Total Time
25000
As you mention airlines..it would be pretty much standard to advise the tower you are aborting. This is the job of the PM..
 

starcheckdriver

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2004
Posts
365
Total Time
Enough
As you mention airlines..it would be pretty much standard to advise the tower you are aborting. This is the job of the PM..

It is the job of the PM to advise of the abort ONLY when the situation is under control, i.e. no more speed callouts or runway remaining callouts are necessary. I've aborted a couple of times and did not advise tower until we began the turn off the runway. It goes back to the old adage of aviate, navigate, communicate. That applies to two-pilot crews as well.
 

NYG-Flyer

Active member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Posts
33
Total Time
4000
Instead of focusing on the problem at hand, and a big problem it was, one of the pilots is jaw-jacking on the radio? What do you think the pilot telling the tower what was clear and obvious ultimately costs him/her? I just don't agree with the line of thought where someone gets on the radio where, quite frankly, their help and attention is needed elsewhere. In the sim, during a V1 cut, when the plane is still on the runway looking for Vr, are you on the radio before you get airborne?

I landed an 800XP in MSP a few winters ago on a contaminated runway with a X-Wind, and as soon as I got the nose wheel on, the plane immediately cocked into the wind, but it was tracking right down the centerline; essentially, the airplane was 10 or 20 degrees sideways, but it was stable and tracking straight. Non-Event.

I wrongly assumed the F/O, as a professional courtesy, would give me airspeed call outs as we slowed while I focused on the outside and played the rudder pedals like a Mozart crescendo. Stupid Me; she immediately jumps on the radio telling the tower we were losing control of the aircraft and to standby for her call to roll the equipment. WTF? Nit-wit, shut it and get over here and get back to work is what I wanted to tell her. She had no business on the radio at that point when her skill and expertise was more benificial to the situation at hand instead of talking on the radio. I feel the same way about the CAE accident crew. Do you see where I am coming from?


OK as I've stated before, what appears to have happened here happened to me... So lets take the logic a step further. We are not talking about a V1 cut.. definitely the Aviate, navigate, Communicate come into play with the V1 Cut.. But you hear and feel the tire blow and you begin the abort process.. Your PM gives out an airspeed call and position relative to centerline while Monitoring, he/She simply pushes the PTT and announces we have a Tire blowout.. No one said, He/She was waiting to have a conversation. Logic has a place in aviaiton sometimes.. If the PM is monitoring He/She can actually do two things at once. If your PM announces your losing control of the airplane then you and the PM may need to work on CRM. As I understand this situation, the PM simply stated to the tower we have a blown tire and are aborting TO.
 

starcheckdriver

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2004
Posts
365
Total Time
Enough
OK as I've stated before, what appears to have happened here happened to me... So lets take the logic a step further. We are not talking about a V1 cut.. definitely the Aviate, navigate, Communicate come into play with the V1 Cut.. But you hear and feel the tire blow and you begin the abort process.. Your PM gives out an airspeed call and position relative to centerline while Monitoring, he/She simply pushes the PTT and announces we have a Tire blowout.. No one said, He/She was waiting to have a conversation. Logic has a place in aviaiton sometimes.. If the PM is monitoring He/She can actually do two things at once. If your PM announces your losing control of the airplane then you and the PM may need to work on CRM. As I understand this situation, the PM simply stated to the tower we have a blown tire and are aborting TO.

You may be correct in your assumption about what the PM stated to the tower. At this point it is all speculation and I am not hear to second guess the crew and the decisions they made. I hope to never face what they did on that fateful day.

I stand by my personal procedure of not communicating until the situation is under control and the PF directs me to talk to ATC. The reason for this is because if I take the 1-2 seconds to transmit to ATC, it may be the same 1-2 seconds the PF tells me something critical and I miss what he/she said. In a takeoff situation or some other critical situation, that 1-2 seconds may be the difference between flying, stopping, or crashing.

All that said, I still don't think aborting for a blown tire is a good decision, especially in a Lear 60. One blown tire on any airplane already reduces brake effectivness. Furthermore, in the 60 a blown tire followed by an abort will most likely yield more blown tires resulting in less braking ability. As stated before, this is due to the anti-skid system on the aircraft. I would much rather be in the air with a blown tire on fire knowing I can make a quick return to the airport than risk aborting and not stopping on the available runway.
 

GCD

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Posts
476
Total Time
>1500
I don't meant to dishonor or disrespect the pilots in this case.

However, why would one attempt to abort a takeoff in the high-speed regime for a blown tire?

There is not the same amount a rubber on the runway as with all tires and not near enough braking friction to stop before the end of the runway, even below V1. This has been proven time, after time in successful takeoffs and unsuccessful aborts.

There are a couple of good articles on this subject. We have been training to not abort for blown tires in the high-speed regime for well over a decade.
 

Daytonaflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Posts
1,383
Total Time
000000
I think they were airborne, I don't see how they could have kept it that straight with TWO blown tires and metal grinding into the ground making sparks. If there was no radio call, the crew may have started an abort, the other tire then blew and the tower probably saw the sparks, then the crew changed their mind to go after they lost the other tire and realized they knew they could not stop by the end. The plane would limp into the air, then settle back down, especially that damn heavy.

Speculation of course.....but I want to see the runway after the spraks started and the path through the grass to the resting position. I saw nothing on that video.

This is actually a common misconception. When metal contacts the runway at high speed (like with a blown tire or a single main gear failure) there is actually less friction then when a tire contacts the runway. Metal is not a good conductor of friction. This loss in friction causes the object to continue tracking in the direction that it is going, not jerk to one side like most think would happen.
This is often seen in videos where an airplane lands with one main gear up and it is forced to skid along on the engine cowl. The airplane generally continues a straight forward track and is somewhat controllable.
Only when the airplane slows down does the friction of the metal surface contact increase and overcome that of the tire, which often causes it to turn at low speed.
I think it would have to be something more than just a blown tire to cause it to slide off the runway. Exceeding the VMCg limitation comes to mind.

Here is a video of a 737 landing with a collapsed main gear. You can see it continues to track forward in a straight line until at slow speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnGgMSCpu2A
 
Last edited:

DAS at 10/250

Coffee, captain?
Joined
Apr 16, 2003
Posts
884
Total Time
3500+
You may be correct in your assumption about what the PM stated to the tower. At this point it is all speculation and I am not hear to second guess the crew and the decisions they made. I hope to never face what they did on that fateful day.

I stand by my personal procedure of not communicating until the situation is under control and the PF directs me to talk to ATC. The reason for this is because if I take the 1-2 seconds to transmit to ATC, it may be the same 1-2 seconds the PF tells me something critical and I miss what he/she said. In a takeoff situation or some other critical situation, that 1-2 seconds may be the difference between flying, stopping, or crashing.

All that said, I still don't think aborting for a blown tire is a good decision, especially in a Lear 60. One blown tire on any airplane already reduces brake effectivness. Furthermore, in the 60 a blown tire followed by an abort will most likely yield more blown tires resulting in less braking ability. As stated before, this is due to the anti-skid system on the aircraft. I would much rather be in the air with a blown tire on fire knowing I can make a quick return to the airport than risk aborting and not stopping on the available runway.

Starcheck:

I agree with you 110%. Talking on the radio to someone who can't do a dang thing about the aircraft that my 6 is strapped into is the least of my concerns.
 

Fly91

Registered Pilot
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Posts
635
Total Time
lots
This is actually a common misconception. When metal contacts the runway at high speed (like with a blown tire or a single main gear failure) there is actually less friction then when a tire contacts the runway. Metal is not a good conductor of friction. This loss in friction causes the object to continue tracking in the direction that it is going, not jerk to one side like most think would happen.
This is often seen in videos where an airplane lands with one main gear up and it is forced to skid along on the engine cowl. The airplane generally continues a straight forward track and is somewhat controllable.
Only when the airplane slows down does the friction of the metal surface contact increase and overcome that of the tire, which often causes it to turn at low speed.
I think it would have to be something more than just a blown tire to cause it to slide off the runway. Exceeding the VMCg limitation comes to mind.

Here is a video of a 737 landing with a collapsed main gear. You can see it continues to track forward in a straight line until at slow speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnGgMSCpu2A

But if both RIGHT main gear tires are lost, and the brakes are just depressed somewhat strong and not full force.....That plane is going to immediately pull like a freight train towards the LEFT because of the full traction the left tires are getting with the pavement. Also, at 80 kts, there's still a ton of weight bearing down on the main gear in the LR 60 at that heavy take-off weight. The sparks tell me that there was still alot of weight on them. I could see if they were closer to V1 and alot more weight was taken off the main gear from increasing lift, that metal touching the pavement would not have much effect, including the increased rudder effectiveness from that increased speed helping out.

But back to the point of my post, which has nothing to do with a debate about friction of metal on pavement.....there is no path that I can see from the end of the runway to where the plane stopped. And there are antennas all the way to that road that are untouched.

It looks like the plane was airborne before impact.

I think the abort was attempted very briefly, the pilot could not keep it on the runway from the braking required and the rudder didn't have enough authority to help enough, coupled with the end of the runway coming. Then the pilot decided to take-off, and well, that didn't work either.

Until a clear path is shown, thats what I think happened.
 
Last edited:

LJPilot

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2006
Posts
36
Total Time
+4000
I wouldn't call during an abort, but I'll defend it. He may of wanted to get tower's attention to the problem at hand. Tower can do something about it. They can get rescue vehicles heading their way. Remember in the Lexington Comair crash that the tower did not see what happened. In the midst of doing everything possible, he took 2 seconds to alert tower.
 

Fly91

Registered Pilot
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Posts
635
Total Time
lots
I wouldn't call during an abort, but I'll defend it. He may of wanted to get tower's attention to the problem at hand. Tower can do something about it. They can get rescue vehicles heading their way. Remember in the Lexington Comair crash that the tower did not see what happened. In the midst of doing everything possible, he took 2 seconds to alert tower.

This whole debate on whether to call or not is really just dependant on about a million things. Making the call certainly has its place and should be briefed depending on the situation at the time of take-off. If you're told to make an immediate departure because you have another jet on short final and the abort is at slow speed, make the call, give everyone involved a heads up. If you're aborting because you have smoke pouring into the cockpit at 80 kts, you better get the trucks rolling and let the PF stop the plane. Not making that call immediately could mean your life. Only one pilot can do the AVIATING and NAVIGATING, an abort is a visual event. So why not COMMUNICATE while the PNF is doing nothing....but still it depends on whats going on. I'm sure if the plane is agressively going off the runway at 80 kts, neither pilots' brain is going to think about a radio call.

Crews choice...there is no right and wrong.
 
Top