MN crash

[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