MN crash

[Fly91]

While there are many issues G200 is wrong on and I am right on, this is an issue where he is correct and I agree with him 100%. Sounds like he has been doing this awhile.

CX880 (post #61) equated this to having lots to live for and and not wanting to throw it all away over a trip. It's just not that simple. The people riding in the back of these business tools sit in meetings/boardrooms all week long making decisions and having people follow thier instructions without delay; literally asking how high can they jump. And now, here is some employee of theirs TELLING him what he can and cannot do with his own aircraft. Phuleazzzzzzze. That will never go over well. It has nothing to do with what they have to live for, it has to do with ego, who is going to make the final decisions here, and just give Mr. Bigbuck a reason to get into your a$$ and see how quickly that happens.

Look at what G200 says, "acceptable alternatives". What he is saying is that he gives them their options based on what he is willing to do, then lets them make the final decision based on the choices he presented and since he presented the options, he is obviously comfortable with any of them. By doing it this way, the CEO thinks he made the decision when all along, G200 made it. See how that works?

Its pretty obvious how the order of events should go before putting your foot down firmly to anyone in the back. This is the internet so the real discussion always gets lost.

Typical.

 

[HawkerF/O]

Its pretty obvious how the order of events should go before putting your foot down firmly to anyone in the back.

Clearly that is not the case with you (RE: your post and 400a having to have you come correct- post #76).

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Now G200, you got time to help a fella change out some brakes? Trying to save the boss some $. Seriously, how have you been?

LOL....nah, we got a crack team of mechanics who do all that in the 12hrs planes seem to sit each month! -

All is great this summer - kids, lake, fishing, a good amount of partying (I have been accused of that on forums as if its a bad thing - lol) and a little work are keeping me very busy. Thats good though, it keeps me out of trouble!

Hope all is well on your end.


PS - Contrary to your previous post, I have never been wrong.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Touched down and tried to get back into the air.....




startribune.com

OWATONNA, Minn. - National Transportation Safety Board investigators are looking at all scenarios as to why a corporate jet crashed and killed eight people aboard, a board member said Saturday.

"We are looking at everything," said board member Steven Chealander. "There is no single focus at this point. It is a multiple focus accident investigation."

The jet was carrying six casino and construction executives and two pilots when it went down Thursday, killing all aboard. The executives were coming to Owatonna to meet with representatives of a local glass company called Viracon to discuss a $2 billion hotel-casino complex being built in Atlantic City by Revel Entertainment.

The charter jet went down in a cornfield northwest of Degner Regional Airport. Seven people were found dead at the site. One died at a hospital.

Investigators plan to interview witnesses as well as people in Pennsylvania where the flight originated and in Atlantic City where it stopped, Chealander said.

They are also looking at runway conditions and plane mechanics. A thunderstorm also moved through the area before the crash so investigators were studying whether that contributed to the incident, Chealander said.

Investigators planned to listen to the cockpit voice recorder, the only recording device on the plane, he said. But they have also recovered the flight management computer and enhanced ground proximity warning system and officials hope those have memory that might be helpful.

Chealander said the plane attempted to land and touched down on the runway but then witnesses heard the engines power up again as the pilots tried to get back in the air. The plane traveled about 1,000 feet through a grass field before it hit a runway-wide antenna about eight-feet high.

"That's where the airplane lost control," he said.

The plane then rolled into the cornfield and started coming apart, he said.

Investigators hope to find out why the pilots tried to get back into the air, Chealander said.

 

[Hawker800]

Wonder if the airbrakes were deployed while attempting to lift off. The thing will go with full flaps but not with lift dump deployed. As far as passengers go they pay your bills. G200 had some very good advice in his previous post. Respect their wishes and keep it safe. Both can be accomlished at the same time. Rare is the occasion that I have had to put my foot down. Have a good evening everyone.

 

[400A]

Wonder if the airbrakes were deployed while attempting to lift off. The thing will go with full flaps but not with lift dump deployed. As far as passengers go they pay your bills. G200 had some very good advice in his previous post. Respect their wishes and keep it safe. Both can be accomlished at the same time. Rare is the occasion that I have had to put my foot down. Have a good evening everyone.

A go around in a Hawker in post touchdown configuration can be a very busy event.

 

[Fly91]

Wonder if the airbrakes were deployed while attempting to lift off. The thing will go with full flaps but not with lift dump deployed. As far as passengers go they pay your bills. G200 had some very good advice in his previous post. Respect their wishes and keep it safe. Both can be accomlished at the same time. Rare is the occasion that I have had to put my foot down. Have a good evening everyone.

Well said. I think rare is my maybe 10-12 times in 12 years of flying. I guess when you don't explain in deep detail and just make an open statement like I did someone will always jump on it and take the statement out of control. Welcome to the "intraweb".

My guess is they landed long due to the shear and tried to go around because they knew they couldn't stop in time.

But we'll learn soon enough, hopefully.

 

[Bandit60]

Well said. I think rare is my maybe 10-12 times in 12 years of flying. I guess when you don't explain in deep detail and just make an open statement like I did someone will always jump on it and take the statement out of control. Welcome to the "intraweb".

My guess is they landed long due to the shear and tried to go around because they knew they couldn't stop in time.

But we'll learn soon enough, hopefully.

You keep mentioning "shear". I have yet to hear about any shear at this airport at the time of the landing. I'm not saying there wasnt any but there is evidence of a tailwind.

 

[400A]

http://www.startribune.com/local/26208409.html?location_refer=Business

Has a video of witness interview, and NTSB briefing.

One report says the right wing hit the localizer antenna during the go around attempt.

I hoped that the witness was wrong and heard reverse thrust, but after seeing pictures of the aircraft before the crash, It did not have T/R's.

 

[HawkerF/O]

PS - Contrary to your previous post, I have never been wrong.

Well, you've got one up on me; I was wrong once............That time I thought I was wrong but I was actually right!

 

[jetwash]

From the recording the pilots were expecting to have a head wind of 8 kts. From the weather given to them by the controller that was 20 minutes old.

From the ASOS they actually had a 6 kts tail wind at the time of landing.



http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/02_818MV.txt

 

[Bronco Buster]

They had about 5 knots of tailwind, a downsloping runway, and a wet runway with probable standing water. The one observer said they touched down in the first 500 to 1000 feet. Perhaps they forgot to deploy the spoilers and hydroplaned. It would appear they made a late decision to do a touch and go when runway available seemed inadequate. From the eyewitness account it appears that they might have lifted off with inadequate speed and could not climb or accelerate. With 20/20 hindsight it would have been better to go off the end of the runway at 30 to 40 knots. Of course this is all speculation and we will have to wait until the NTSB puts out its final report.

 

[Raskal]

A go around in a Hawker in post touchdown configuration can be a very busy event.

Indeed. This is not something I would be eager to try, the sequence post-lift dump is pretty intensive and time consuming. I would be pretty curious as to what the reason would be to attempt it on a 5500 foot runway. I seriously doubt any experienced hawker driver would try it with so little pavement-seems pretty strange.

 

[cjdriver]

One thing this brings to mind from an operational standpoint; when considering landing down wind, one should consider performance in the event of a balked landing or touch and go. Either of these events would be exacerbated by a tail wind, especially when you consider that the wind may increase significantly above ground effect, possibly making a successful outcome impossible.
In other words, maybe there are situations where even a 5-9 kt tailwind is unacceptable. You may find you can get off the runway, but can't climb.
Maybe good SOP would be no tailwind accepted at all if the runway is contaminated and less than X000', X= dependent on your operation.

 

[Raskal]

No, actually, the more I think about it a touch and go makes no sense at all. If I had to guess (and that's exactly what I'm doing) I have a much easier time believing that a substantial enough amount of shear was detected on short final that a recovery/go-around was initiated and that the mains touching the runway was incidental to the recovery. The performance was a result of an 'unsurvivable' microburst.

Since the plane didn't have an FDR, only CVR we might never know exactly what was going on with the aircraft configuration-wise.

 

[cjdriver]

No, actually, the more I think about it a touch and go makes no sense at all. If I had to guess (and that's exactly what I'm doing) I have a much easier time believing that a substantial enough amount of shear was detected on short final that a recovery/go-around was initiated and that the mains touching the runway was incidental to the recovery. The performance was a result of an 'unsurvivable' microburst.

Since the plane didn't have an FDR, only CVR we might never know exactly what was going on with the aircraft configuration-wise.

This is absolutely a possibility I have considered as well. I've been given unsurvivable wind shear in the sim, it's sobering. It does instill in you the need to react immediately and aggressively to the first signs of wind shear.

 

[NCherches]

All I know is that I was up in that neck of the woods unfortunatley and that was one nasty day in Central/South MN!

 

[timmay]

This is absolutely a possibility I have considered as well. I've been given unsurvivable wind shear in the sim, it's sobering. It does instill in you the need to react immediately and aggressively to the first signs of wind shear.

There is also a wind shear profile in the sim based on an event at JFK that you must fly perfectly our you dont make it. 5 kts fast or 3 kts slow and you red screen, now that is sobering.

 

[ultrarunner]

Maybe good SOP would be no tailwind accepted at all if the runway is contaminated...

That is what we do. We can't accept the double-hit. Nor would I want to.

I think it was the same at the 121 outfit if my memory servers....there were several things that became more restrictive if there were tailwinds/contamination combo's...no flex TO's comes to mind...stuff like that.

Margins for error just become too thin....

 

[SLUF4]

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/02_818MV.txt

preliminary data with metar shows weather wasn't that bad-of course a microburst still could have existed