Teterboro Accident - CL600

[Groundpounder]

FA didn't say anything too insightful, although I continued to watch because she's pretty easy on the eyes.

She is VERY easy on the eyes. She is also a swimsuit model, and I think she was in either FHM or Stuff at some point.

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

New Jer$ey Aviation Attorney/Pilot Comment$ on Teterboro Cra$h, Corporate Jet $afety
Wedne$day February 2, 6:34 pm ET 'Take off$ and landing$ are the mo$t hazardou$ factor$ of corporate jet flight$, and the frequency of cra$he$ during the$e $egment$ of flight de$erve$ clo$e $crutiny,' $ay$ New Jer$ey Attorney/Pilot at Nation'$ Leading Aviation Law Firm

NEW YORK, Feb. 2 /PRNew$wire/ -- "Pilot$ of $mall jet$ need to be e$pecially aware of the inherent ri$k$ of flight$ (life is the number one cause of death) $uch a$ the one that cra$hed in Teterboro today, e$pecially in winter weather, which often pre$ent$ $ome of the mo$t dangerou$ condition$,"(I guess summer weather and thunderstorms are less risky) $ay$ Brian Alexander, a leading aviation lawyer who re$ide$ in New Jer$ey and i$ a pilot who ha$ flown in and out of Teterboro Airport.

Mr. Alexander, a partner at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, the large$t aviation law firm in the United $tate$, ha$ handled $everal corporate jet cra$h ca$e$. He $ay$ that "careful inve$tigation will determine where the fault for thi$ cra$h lie$, but whether thi$ wa$ a mechanical, pilot or other error, thi$ point$ to how e$$ential it i$ for pilot$ to ob$erve all the rule$ nece$$ary to en$ure $afe travel. (Wow. Thanks for the dual received there. My instructor never told me that.) Further, airport condition$, including the length of runway$, are factor$ that mu$t be $tudied." (So I can plan to use every last inch of the runway to get off the ground?)

Legal expert$ at Kreindler, including $ome of whom are al$o $ea$oned pilot$, (The rest flew 1 hour in spring, 1 hour in summer, 1 hour in fall and 1 hour in winter so they're seasoned too) "are available to media a$ re$ource$ on que$tion$ related to thi$ morning'$ lift-off cra$h of a Challenger CL-600 aircraft in Teterboro, NJ, which re$ulted in at lea$t 14 people injured. (Good. As was pointed out now the NTSB can go home too.)

Kreindler & Kreindler currently repre$ent$ numerou$ (yep corporate jets are fallin' out of the sky everyday) pa$$enger$ and familie$ of corporate jet air cra$he$, (don't jets crash on the ground?) including the family of a New York real e$tate mogul killed in a Teterboro Airport cra$h in 2002, which al$o occurred on takeoff. Attorney$ at the firm are available to offer to media commentary (whether its right or not is for you to verify) about: * Ri$k$ inherent with corporate/charter jet flight$ * Hi$torical account$ of $imilar cra$he$ * Victim$' and victim$' family right$ in air cra$he$ * All other legal i$$ue$ and guideline$ related to air cra$he$ (Legally you can only crash a plane on the 6th Tuesday following the 3rd wednesday of any month so as you can see this clearly was an illegal crash) * Airplane technical and operational matter$ (Pull up- houses get smaller. Push forward- houses get bigger. Continue pushing forward- houses get bigger real fast)* Cra$h inve$tigation, accident recon$truction, role of weather in cra$he$ (Taken primarily from the NTSB website) Expert$ at Kreindler available to media include: Brian Alexander: Kreindler law partner, New Jer$ey re$ident and a graduate of the United $tate$ Military Academy who $erved a$ a helicopter and fixed wing pilot from 1985-1990. He wa$ graduated from the Army Aviation Accident Inve$tigation Cour$e, accruing thou$and$ of hour$ in a variety of rotary and fixed wing aircraft, ha$ more than 1,000 hour$ piloting $mall aircraft, and ha$ $ucce$$fully litigated many commuter and corporate cra$h ca$e$. Marc $. Moller: $enior Kreindler law partner who ha$ repre$ented thou$and$ of victim$ of commercial and general aviation di$a$ter$, ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) and litigated accident$ involving $ingle-engine, multi-engine, helicopter, corporate jet and military equipment for more than 25 year$.($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) He i$ pre$ently the Plaintiff$' Liai$on Coun$el for all tort litigation ari$ing from the $eptember 11, 2001, terrori$t attack$, (with the attack$ $till continuing in the court$)and i$ an internationally recognized expert in aircraft litigation. He ha$ handled $everal ca$e$ involving cra$he$ of corporate jet$.

About Kreindler & Kreindler LLP Founded in 1950, Kreindler & Kreindler LLP (http://www.kreindler.com) i$ nationally recognized a$ the fir$t and mo$t prominent aviation law firm in the nation. The firm ha$ been the leading plaintiff legal coun$el on hundred$ of aviation ca$e$, including major one$ $uch a$ the $eptember 11 terrori$t attack$, Pan Am Lockerbie Flight 103, (terrorists shouldn't be the only one$ to profit from attacks, now should they?) Korean Airline$ Flight 007, and American Airline$ Flight 587, and many ca$e$ of $mall private and commercial cra$he$, including tho$e re$ulting in the death$ of Penn$ylvania $enator John Heinz, Walt Di$ney Company Pre$ident Frank Well$, R&B performing arti$t Aaliyah and ABC New$ executive David Jayne, who peri$hed in a 1979 Learjet cra$h. The leading legal textbook in the aviation field, "Aviation Accident Law," and a $tandard legal treati$e, "New York Law of Tort$," were authored by member$ of the firm.




Shakespear was right......

 

[mayday1]

New Jer$ey Aviation Attorney/Pilot Comment$ on Teterboro Cra$h, Corporate Jet $afety
Wedne$day February 2, 6:34 pm ET 'Take off$ and landing$ are the mo$t hazardou$ factor$ of corporate jet flight$, and the frequency of cra$he$ during the$e $egment$ of flight de$erve$ clo$e $crutiny,' $ay$ New Jer$ey Attorney/Pilot at Nation'$ Leading Aviation Law Firm

NEW YORK, Feb. 2 /PRNew$wire/ -- "Pilot$ of $mall jet$ need to be e$pecially aware of the inherent ri$k$ of flight$ (life is the number one cause of death) $uch a$ the one that cra$hed in Teterboro today, e$pecially in winter weather, which often pre$ent$ $ome of the mo$t dangerou$ condition$,"(I guess summer weather and thunderstorms are less risky) $ay$ Brian Alexander, a leading aviation lawyer who re$ide$ in New Jer$ey and i$ a pilot who ha$ flown in and out of Teterboro Airport.

Mr. Alexander, a partner at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, the large$t aviation law firm in the United $tate$, ha$ handled $everal corporate jet cra$h ca$e$. He $ay$ that "careful inve$tigation will determine where the fault for thi$ cra$h lie$, but whether thi$ wa$ a mechanical, pilot or other error, thi$ point$ to how e$$ential it i$ for pilot$ to ob$erve all the rule$ nece$$ary to en$ure $afe travel. (Wow. Thanks for the dual received there. My instructor never told me that.) Further, airport condition$, including the length of runway$, are factor$ that mu$t be $tudied." (So I can plan to use every last inch of the runway to get off the ground?)

Legal expert$ at Kreindler, including $ome of whom are al$o $ea$oned pilot$, (The rest flew 1 hour in spring, 1 hour in summer, 1 hour in fall and 1 hour in winter so they're seasoned too) "are available to media a$ re$ource$ on que$tion$ related to thi$ morning'$ lift-off cra$h of a Challenger CL-600 aircraft in Teterboro, NJ, which re$ulted in at lea$t 14 people injured. (Good. As was pointed out now the NTSB can go home too.)

Kreindler & Kreindler currently repre$ent$ numerou$ (yep corporate jets are fallin' out of the sky everyday) pa$$enger$ and familie$ of corporate jet air cra$he$, (don't jets crash on the ground?) including the family of a New York real e$tate mogul killed in a Teterboro Airport cra$h in 2002, which al$o occurred on takeoff. Attorney$ at the firm are available to offer to media commentary (whether its right or not is for you to verify) about: * Ri$k$ inherent with corporate/charter jet flight$ * Hi$torical account$ of $imilar cra$he$ * Victim$' and victim$' family right$ in air cra$he$ * All other legal i$$ue$ and guideline$ related to air cra$he$ (Legally you can only crash a plane on the 6th Tuesday following the 3rd wednesday of any month so as you can see this clearly was an illegal crash) * Airplane technical and operational matter$ (Pull up- houses get smaller. Push forward- houses get bigger. Continue pushing forward- houses get bigger real fast)* Cra$h inve$tigation, accident recon$truction, role of weather in cra$he$ (Taken primarily from the NTSB website) Expert$ at Kreindler available to media include: Brian Alexander: Kreindler law partner, New Jer$ey re$ident and a graduate of the United $tate$ Military Academy who $erved a$ a helicopter and fixed wing pilot from 1985-1990. He wa$ graduated from the Army Aviation Accident Inve$tigation Cour$e, accruing thou$and$ of hour$ in a variety of rotary and fixed wing aircraft, ha$ more than 1,000 hour$ piloting $mall aircraft, and ha$ $ucce$$fully litigated many commuter and corporate cra$h ca$e$. Marc $. Moller: $enior Kreindler law partner who ha$ repre$ented thou$and$ of victim$ of commercial and general aviation di$a$ter$, ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) and litigated accident$ involving $ingle-engine, multi-engine, helicopter, corporate jet and military equipment for more than 25 year$.($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) He i$ pre$ently the Plaintiff$' Liai$on Coun$el for all tort litigation ari$ing from the $eptember 11, 2001, terrori$t attack$, (with the attack$ $till continuing in the court$)and i$ an internationally recognized expert in aircraft litigation. He ha$ handled $everal ca$e$ involving cra$he$ of corporate jet$.

About Kreindler & Kreindler LLP Founded in 1950, Kreindler & Kreindler LLP (http://www.kreindler.com) i$ nationally recognized a$ the fir$t and mo$t prominent aviation law firm in the nation. The firm ha$ been the leading plaintiff legal coun$el on hundred$ of aviation ca$e$, including major one$ $uch a$ the $eptember 11 terrori$t attack$, Pan Am Lockerbie Flight 103, (terrorists shouldn't be the only one$ to profit from attacks, now should they?) Korean Airline$ Flight 007, and American Airline$ Flight 587, and many ca$e$ of $mall private and commercial cra$he$, including tho$e re$ulting in the death$ of Penn$ylvania $enator John Heinz, Walt Di$ney Company Pre$ident Frank Well$, R&B performing arti$t Aaliyah and ABC New$ executive David Jayne, who peri$hed in a 1979 Learjet cra$h. The leading legal textbook in the aviation field, "Aviation Accident Law," and a $tandard legal treati$e, "New York Law of Tort$," were authored by member$ of the firm.




Shakespear was right......

is this a subliminal message telling me there is a lot $$ in professional aviation??

: )

 

[VampyreGTX]

Here's the full quote from the article about the 'something broke' comment. Taking it out of context like that is just his attempt to stir up some conflict here. The pilto KNOWS what broke, but doesn't want to mention anything pending the investigation.... Texaskicker, that way you quoted the article makes it sound like the pilot was saying something broke and he had no clue what. Next time you quote something, be specific. And it's NOT a vioaltion of copywright laws. You are clearly, plainly and obviosly giving credit to the original article.

So all the times I quoted studies in all my research papers in college and post, I've violated copyright laws, even though I stated where the quote came from? Gotta love some people here.


"Earlier yesterday, a lawyer for the pilot said that his client had made a valiant effort to stop the plane when he realized that a mechanical problem would prevent it from lifting off.

Michael A. Moulis, a lawyer for Platinum Jet Management, the company that was operating the plane when it rammed into a warehouse on Wednesday morning, said the pilot, John Kimberling, told him that "something broke" as the plane roared toward the end of the runway. As the jet skidded across six lanes of Route 46, a main thoroughfare at the northern end of the airport, Mr. Kimberling and his co-pilot tried to guide it through a break in traffic, Mr. Moulis said the pilot told him.

"He said, 'I think I clipped one,' " meaning a car, Mr. Moulis recounted from Teterboro, where he was meeting with investigators for the safety board. He declined to say what he and Mr. Kimberling thought had malfunctioned, because he said he did not want to interfere with the investigation.

But Mr. Moulis, who said he was representing Mr. Kimberling and Platinum Jet, said he believed that the investigation would rule out pilot error or ice on the wings as a cause of the crash.

Witnesses told investigators that there was no ice on the wings."

 

[Texasskicker]

NEW YORK TIMES



February 4, 2005

First Findings See No Brakes Used in Most Of Jet's Path

[size=-1]By PATRICK McGEEHAN and MICHELLE O'DONNELL [/size]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/t.gifhe National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the crash of a corporate jet at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey on Wednesday, said yesterday that its findings indicated no braking system was in effect until the plane was 5,000 feet along the 6,013-foot runway. Normally, a liftoff takes place around 3,000 feet.

Officials could not say whether the pilots attempted to stop the plane earlier, or whether there had been a mechanical problem.

Earlier yesterday, a lawyer for the pilot said that his client had made a valiant effort to stop the plane when he realized that a mechanical problem would prevent it from lifting off.

Michael A. Moulis, a lawyer for Platinum Jet Management, the company that was operating the plane when it rammed into a warehouse on Wednesday morning, said the pilot, John Kimberling, told him that "something broke" as the plane roared toward the end of the runway. As the jet skidded across six lanes of Route 46, a main thoroughfare at the northern end of the airport, Mr. Kimberling and his co-pilot tried to guide it through a break in traffic, Mr. Moulis said the pilot told him.

"He said, 'I think I clipped one,' " meaning a car, Mr. Moulis recounted from Teterboro, where he was meeting with investigators for the safety board. He declined to say what he and Mr. Kimberling thought had malfunctioned, because he said he did not want to interfere with the investigation.

But Mr. Moulis, who said he was representing Mr. Kimberling and Platinum Jet, said he believed that the investigation would rule out pilot error or ice on the wings as a cause of the crash.

Witnesses told investigators that there was no ice on the wings.

In addition to the findings about the skid marks, Debbie Hersman, a spokeswoman for the safety board, said that a flight data recorder had captured only 10 seconds of the 43 seconds that elapsed between the start of the plane engine's acceleration and the crash. "It's not exactly what we were looking for," Ms. Hersman said. "But we're hopeful that we can get more information from it."

The cockpit voice recorder, which is still being analyzed, indicated that there had been a decision to discontinue the takeoff, the authorities have said. Ms. Hersman said that the jet's reverse thrusters, which are part of the braking system along with conventional brakes, had deployed but that it was unclear whether the brakes had.

Saying a catastrophe had been narrowly avoided, Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey and United States Representative Steven Rothman said they would petition the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt further restrictions on the number and types of flights from Teterboro.

In Wednesday's crash, the plane ripped the roof off one car, a Toyota sedan, seriously wounding its driver and a passenger before smashing through the brick facade of a warehouse across the highway. But none of the eight passengers, a group of financial executives, were seriously hurt, and Mr. Kimberling and the co-pilot, Carlos W. Salaverria, escaped with broken bones in their legs.

Mr. Moulis said that Mr. Kimberling's feet "were injured because he was jamming on the brake so hard."

Both pilots, who had not yet been interviewed by investigators, spent Wednesday night at Hackensack University Medical Center. The third member of their crew, a 22-year-old cabin aide, Angelica Calad, had only scrapes and bruises, said Patrick Rivers, operations manager of the Voodoo Lounge in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where Ms. Calad works part time as a hostess.

After the crash, Mr. Rivers said, Ms. Calad called the club from an undisclosed location where she is being questioned by investigators to tell co-workers of her harrowing experience. She said she was strapped into the jump seat near the cockpit of the small plane when the ride turned "a little bumpy," Mr. Rivers said.

"The next thing she knew she was in a warehouse," he said.

Mr. Moulis told a more heroic tale about Ms. Calad, who, like the two pilots, was working for Platinum Jet, a charter company based in Fort Lauderdale, on a freelance basis. Despite being soaked in jet fuel and fearing that the plane would explode, she instructed the passengers to help her kick open the main cabin door, then helped them jump out of the smoking wreck, he said.

After the passengers - five employees of Kelso & Company, a private investment firm in Manhattan, and three men from other financial firms in New York - escaped, Mr. Kimberling helped Mr. Salaverria off the plane, then touched each seat to make sure it was empty before he jumped out, Mr. Moulis said.

He said Mr. Kimberling was a veteran pilot who had logged more than 15,000 hours of flight time, including more than 3,000 hours flying planes like the one he was piloting on Wednesday. According to aviation administration records, Mr. Kimberling and Mr. Salaverria have clean records, with no history of accidents or other incidents.

"He's been around the block," Mr. Moulis said, referring to Mr. Kimberling.

The crew arrived at a hotel near the Teterboro Airport around midnight on Tuesday, about seven hours before the failed takeoff, after traveling from Fort Lauderdale to New York, Ms. Hersman said.

Manuel Epelbaum, a Miami lawyer representing Mr. Salaverria, arrived in New Jersey yesterday to meet his client. He said he had not been authorized to talk about him.

In Trenton, Mr. Codey and Mr. Rothman said the accident exposed the potential dangers the airport poses, though Mr. Codey said the federal agency was unlikely to accede to the demands of some area residents and shut the airport.

After meeting with representatives of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the state's economic development authority, Mr. Codey and Mr. Rothman called on the federal agency to ban midsize Stage 2 aircraft from the airport. The federal agency classifies planes by the noise their engines produce. The newest and quietest ones are Stage 3. Most private planes have noisier Stage 2 engines.

The ban would not affect the plane that crashed on Wednesday, a Canadair CL-600 Challenger that was built in 1980 and used by the Canadian military before going into the private sector in March 2001, because it is a Stage 3 craft.

But New Jersey officials say the ban would still reduce the likelihood of a serious crash and reduce the number of daily flights to about 475 from 500. "In time, smaller flights would almost certainly take the place of those larger aircraft," Mr. Rothman said. "But they would generate less noise and we would have a safer airport."

In addition to the restriction on the size of planes using the airport, New Jersey officials are asking the federal agency to provide safety barriers at the end of the runway and improved firefighting equipment that would allow them to cut through a burning plane's fuselage and douse flames with fire retardant foam before they could ignite the fuel tanks.



David Kocieniewski and John Holl contributed reporting for this article. COPYRIGHT 2005 The New York Times

 

[johnny taliban]

But I think we all know in our gut there's a good chance the crew will be culpable here.

But Mr. Moulis, who said he was representing Mr. Kimberling and Platinum Jet, said he believed that the investigation would rule out pilot error or ice on the wings as a cause of the crash.

Witnesses told investigators that there was no ice on the wings."

I think we all know in our gut there's a good chance you should wait until AFTER the Superbowl to monday morning quarterback.

 

[avbug]

Mr. Moulis said that Mr. Kimberling's feet "were injured because he was jamming on the brake so hard."

In the summer when I'm in the Dromader, my knees get to hurting when working that rudder in severe turbulence. So much so that sometimes it's a half hour or more before I can bend my leg at the end of the day to climb out of the airplane. And my feet go numb. It can be hard work.

I've never seen, nor heard of anybody injuring their feet, however, from pushing on the brakes so hard. Must have been some mighty pushing going on there. Sounds like the attorney acting as the mouthpiece might have gone overboard just a tad in the glowing praise of his client. I've no idea what happened there and don't choose to speculate...but the butter and sugar in Mr. Moulis's commentary was a little thick and a touch too sweet.

As for mugs and gimme's at Simuflite and flight safety, I've never had a mug, and apparently I've been fortunate in my training...because instructors at either institution have never failed to challenge me or force me to fly right. As for failures...the last time I was at Simuflite, my "sim buddy" failed and was held back for additional training and a checkride. He wasn't cut any slack or given any breaks. I flew home, he stayed behind.

I've flown for a number of operators in many segments of the industry, and I've never, ever, not once, failed to let the employer or company know when I have believed something to be unsafe...nor have I ever hesitated to refuse to do it. If you think that you've been forced to do something unsafe, then you've failed...not the company, not the employer, not the airplane. If you cave in to pressure then look no farther than your own fingertips. A poor carpenter blames his tools. What do you blame?

Do airlines have some sort of safety net that corporate operators or charter operators do not? If so, I'd certainly like to see it.

The import of 14 CFR 91.3 is that as pilot in command, regardless of weather you fly under Part 91, 121, 125, 135, or 137...YOU are responsible for the safe outcome of the flight as pilot in command. Regardless of the regulation under which you operate, you are ALWAYS beholden and obliged to 91.3.

I showed up at simuflite once for training, and at the end, was told all I needed was a line check. A takeoff and landing at a different location. A mixup had occured between what the chief pilot ordered, and what I needed. I insisted on a full checkride, and asked for the instructor to challenge me. I noted that the company spent a lot of money putting me here, and told him I wanted our money's worth. He obliged. I sweated, I learned, and I earned the ride. I could have gotten away with nothing, with an easy session, but I'm not a passenger. I'm a pilot. I take charge, I don't accept mediocracy, and I answer to a higher standard

If you've been getting easy passes at training facilities, getting pushed by employers, accepted less than acceptable maintenance, and flown into unsafe conditions, then who have you to blame but yourself?

Those to whom these comments are addressed know who they are, and need not reply.

 

[Spooky 1]

In the summer when I'm in the Dromader, my knees get to hurting when working that rudder in severe turbulence. So much so that sometimes it's a half hour or more before I can bend my leg at the end of the day to climb out of the airplane. And my feet go numb. It can be hard work.

I've never seen, nor heard of anybody injuring their feet, however, from pushing on the brakes so hard. Must have been some mighty pushing going on there. Sounds like the attorney acting as the mouthpiece might have gone overboard just a tad in the glowing praise of his client. I've no idea what happened there and don't choose to speculate...but the butter and sugar in Mr. Moulis's commentary was a little thick and a touch too sweet.

As for mugs and gimme's at Simuflite and flight safety, I've never had a mug, and apparently I've been fortunate in my training...because instructors at either institution have never failed to challenge me or force me to fly right. As for failures...the last time I was at Simuflite, my "sim buddy" failed and was held back for additional training and a checkride. He wasn't cut any slack or given any breaks. I flew home, he stayed behind.

I've flown for a number of operators in many segments of the industry, and I've never, ever, not once, failed to let the employer or company know when I have believed something to be unsafe...nor have I ever hesitated to refuse to do it. If you think that you've been forced to do something unsafe, then you've failed...not the company, not the employer, not the airplane. If you cave in to pressure then look no farther than your own fingertips. A poor carpenter blames his tools. What do you blame?

Do airlines have some sort of safety net that corporate operators or charter operators do not? If so, I'd certainly like to see it.

The import of 14 CFR 91.3 is that as pilot in command, regardless of weather you fly under Part 91, 121, 125, 135, or 137...YOU are responsible for the safe outcome of the flight as pilot in command. Regardless of the regulation under which you operate, you are ALWAYS beholden and obliged to 91.3.

I showed up at simuflite once for training, and at the end, was told all I needed was a line check. A takeoff and landing at a different location. A mixup had occured between what the chief pilot ordered, and what I needed. I insisted on a full checkride, and asked for the instructor to challenge me. I noted that the company spent a lot of money putting me here, and told him I wanted our money's worth. He obliged. I sweated, I learned, and I earned the ride. I could have gotten away with nothing, with an easy session, but I'm not a passenger. I'm a pilot. I take charge, I don't accept mediocracy, and I answer to a higher standard

If you've been getting easy passes at training facilities, getting pushed by employers, accepted less than acceptable maintenance, and flown into unsafe conditions, then who have you to blame but yourself?

Those to whom these comments are addressed know who they are, and need not reply.

Not sure what would have caused the foot injuries but in the olden days before flight recorders the investigators could sometimes tell who was actually fling the airplane by viewing the pilots hands that were on the throttles. Frequently there were numerous broken bones attributed to hanging on to the throttles while the airplane, engines and props all disintegrated around the poor fellow and the throttles every which way.

The safety net that you have spoken of often was in the form of the ALPA, APA or some other union that would back up the pilot if he refused an assignment or aircraft that was questionable. Not a real fan of the ALPA but I must give credit where credit is do and they deserve a lot in this area.

Don't know what a Dromader is but if you can (and do) fly it around in severe turbulence a lot then it must be one tough airplane. Care to explain?

 

[rumpletumbler]

Hey Avbug...have you ever gotten motion sickness? Just curious. I don't know if I could handle the kind of flying you do or not.

 

[avbug]

Not sure what would have caused the foot injuries but in the olden days before flight recorders the investigators could sometimes tell who was actually fling the airplane by viewing the pilots hands that were on the throttles. Frequently there were numerous broken bones attributed to hanging on to the throttles while the airplane, engines and props all disintegrated around the poor fellow and the throttles every which way.

Certainly people get banged up in a crash. To that I can only say "duh." Of course people get hurt when hanging onto throttles and control columns, or when their feet get twised up in things under the panel after impact. However, I've certainly never heard of someone who injured themselvs by pressing on the brakes too hard. That statement by the attorney was a little overboard in trying to show clearly how hard the captain had fought to save the day. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't, but that wasn't my point. The statement by the attorney representing the captain, that the captain had hurt his feet by trying to apply the brakes (insinuating that somehow he was exercising a superhuman effort to stop the airplane) is ridiculous and transparent.

A dromader is a relatively ugly eastern block production aircraft built on the Ayers (Rockwell) Thrush. It's about the size of a King Air 200, and carries up to 800 gallons of chemical (depending on the model); mine is used for firefighting exclusively. Dromaders are the most common firefighting airplane internationally; in this country they're operated as SEATs (single engine air tankers). I fly one seasonally on fires in addition to other work with other companies.

Regarding the severity of turbulence, the force that most often drives a fire is wind; fires often start as a result of thunderstorms and are often driven in strong winds, and we generally find them and fight them in very mountainous terrain. The result, much of the time, is severe or stronger turbulence. Add to that the fact that the dromader is not a stable airplane at all, and you find in the cockpit that the controls are constantly in motion. A great deal of rudder work is required; it never sits still, and like most conventional gear aircraft, it's properly flown by pressing on both rudders all the time. The seat isn't adjustable, and the result for me (and most folks I know who fly the same type airplane) is that their knees hurt constantly. On a really rough day, my feet tend to go to sleep, go numb.

I don't recall ever having become motion sick over a fire. There's just too much going on to think about that.

 

[jimpilot]

As for mugs and gimme's at Simuflite and flight safety, I've never had a mug, and apparently I've been fortunate in my training...because instructors at either institution have never failed to challenge me or force me to fly right. As for failures...the last time I was at Simuflite, my "sim buddy" failed and was held back for additional training and a checkride. He wasn't cut any slack or given any breaks. I flew home, he stayed behind.

If you think that you've been forced to do something unsafe, then you've failed...not the company, not the employer, not the airplane. If you cave in to pressure then look no farther than your own fingertips. A poor carpenter blames his tools. What do you blame?

If you've been getting easy passes at training facilities, getting pushed by employers, accepted less than acceptable maintenance, and flown into unsafe conditions, then who have you to blame but yourself?

Those to whom these comments are addressed know who they are, and need not reply.

Avbug - You said it better than I could ever hope to. All I can add is AMEN!

 

[Texasskicker]

Bravo, NY Times!

NEW YORK TIMES

February 5, 2005

Safety Official Says Pilot Told of a Stick That Jammed

[size=-1]By PATRICK McGEEHAN [/size]

he pilot of the corporate jet that crashed on takeoff at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey on Wednesday told investigators yesterday that the control stick jammed when he tried to lift off, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board said.

The pilot, John Kimberling, said that, with the plane moving fast enough to take off, he could pull back the steering yoke only about one inch, said Debbie Hersman, a safety board member. Normally, she said the pilot should be able to pull back the yoke three or four inches at takeoff, causing the nose to lift toward the sky.

Ms. Hersman briefed reporters on an interview that investigators had conducted with Mr. Kimberling at Hackensack University Medical Center. She said investigators had reached no conclusions about what might have caused the accident and had not ruled out any factors.

But Ms. Hersman said a surveillance video from the airport revealed no frost on the windshield of the small plane. She said that the plane's wings were not de-iced before the flight and that only one plane was de-iced at Teterboro that morning, about an hour before Mr. Kimberling tried to take off.

A freelance pilot from South Florida, Mr. Kimberling, 58, commanded a three-person crew that had intended to take eight financial executives to Midway Airport in Chicago. At about 7:20 a.m., they accelerated northward on the shorter of Teterboro's two runways, reaching 153 knots, or 176 miles an hour, which Ms. Hersman said should have been enough to get the plane airborne.

But, according to her description of Mr. Kimberling's account, when the yoke would not pull back enough, he aborted the takeoff, hitting the brakes and deploying the engine thrust reversers. Knowing he could not stop before the plane broke through a metal fence and hopped a drainage ditch, he said he tried to steer across the highway toward the parking lot in front of a warehouse, Ms. Hersman said.

None of the passengers was seriously injured. But two men in a Toyota on Route 46 were seriously injured when the plane sheared the roof off the car. One of those men, James Dinnall, 66, of Paterson, is in critical condition at the medical center in Hackensack; the other, Rohan Foster, 35, of Paterson, was released on Friday from Holy Name Hospital in Teaneck.

Mr. Kimberling broke an ankle and has some other injuries to a leg. His co-pilot, Carlos W. Salaverria, 31, is recovering from multiple leg fractures in Hackensack University Medical Center and has not spoken to investigators.

The safety board's inquiry is complicated by a problem with the flight data recorder that was recovered from the plane. It contains only 10 seconds of data that begins after the plane had reached takeoff speed and ends before it crashed. During that segment the plane slowed from more than 175 miles per hour to less than 105 miles per hour, Ms. Hersman said.

"We're still trying to find out why it started when it did and why it stopped," she said of the data recorder, which she said was installed in the bottom of the plane's baggage compartment. In Washington, analysts will try to sync up that short segment of data with the tape from the cockpit voice recorder to help determine what happened and when, she said.

Investigators also will lift the damaged plane to look underneath for signs of mechanical problems. In addition, they will weigh all the baggage as they remove it and try to determine how much the fuel weighed, to see if the plane was too heavy to take off.

The maximum weight for that type of plane, a Canadair CL-600, is 41,000 pounds, Ms. Hersman said. The two side fuel tanks spilled their contents but the center tank still holds as much as 750 gallons of fuel, which she said may be left in the plane until after it is moved to a nearby storage facility where the investigation will continue.

Another plane of the same type ran off a runway at Teterboro in December 2003 and came to a stop in muddy ground, according to safety board records. The pilot complained afterward that the aircraft did not respond when he pulled back on the control yoke.

Leo Knaapen, a spokesman for Bombardier Aerospace, which makes the planes, said that the investigation into that case concluded that the plane had been overweight.

"That plane was too heavy, sir," Mr. Knaapen said. He said he would not speculate about what might have caused the problem Mr. Kimberling and Mr. Salaverria reported, but he said the company's 600 series of jets is "known throughout the industry as mature, very reliable and remarkably accident-free."

A lawyer representing Mr. Kimberling and the charter company that hired him, Platinum Jet Management of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said that Mr. Salaverria was telling a similar story about the failure to lift off.

Mr. Salaverria's lawyer, Manuel Epelbaum, said last night that the accounts of the two pilots were "almost verbatim." Mr. Salaverria, who was sitting on the right side of the cockpit, said that Mr. Kimberling called for his help and he pulled back on his own yoke, Mr. Epelbaum said.

"When neither one of them could pull it back, they decided to abort," he said Mr. Salaverria told him. Mr. Salaverria turned on the thrust reversers and then, Mr. Epelbaum said, "they did everything they could to keep the plane on a straight path" as it tore across the highway toward the warehouse.

"If they had turned the plane to the left or the right, one of the wings would have hit the ground and that would have been it," Mr. Epelbaum said. "Those wings are full of fuel."

He said his client would cooperate and give a full statement to the investigators next week. But first, he said, Mr. Salaverria, whose right leg shattered, needs to have a missing chunk of his right calf replaced.


Copyright 2005 The New York Times.
____________________________________________________________

I say bravo for findin the previous incident involvin the CL600. This should be a strong hint for those lookin for how and why this could possibly happen. Some history to back it up.

Still too early to be jumpin to conclusions.

Tex.

 

[VA AV8R]

Is the elevator/horizontal stab on the CL600 hydraulic powered? If a pre-takeoff flight control check was accomplished, what could have caused a jam (let's just say it is a jam for argument's sake) so soon thereafter?

 

[avbug]

I say bravo for findin the previous incident involvin the CL600. This should be a strong hint for those lookin for how and why this could possibly happen. Some history to back it up.

Before you start cheering too loud about the previous incident, tex, I believe the previous incident involved an aircraft loaded over gross with a CG beyond the forward limits.

 

[Texasskicker]

Dont miss my point

Avbug, I dont cheer for incidents or accidents. Watch that.

My point is finally the media is lookin around for answers within the history of both the aircraft and this airport.

Dont forget, the P.A.N.Y.N.J. wants to use this event to show their "concern for safety" by "cutting back" on flights at TEB, we all know the Feds are not going to allow that cause of AIP grants. They must keep the airport open and unrestricted. Except for the 100000 pound restriction in place, they cannot illegally restrict flights.

Where were the calls for restrictions when the 2003 incident happened? None, cause it didnt get press. It stopped within the a/p boundary and no one was hurt. Probably didnt make the am radio news. Who knew? Now that we have had this high profile unfortunate event, the politicians are doin their thing.

Point is that, for those who are scratchin their heads, that last incident is one example of how an aircraft can be unable to take off...in almost the same set of circumstances, unknown to the crew until way too late. Post V1 surprises are not what FAA had in mind during certification. No way to plan enough runway for a V1, VR...rotate, ROTATE ROTATE!!!! ABORT!!!!!!!!! scenario. Will they find something to tag on the pilots, of course! Why didnt they choose the longer runway, did they complete their required 135 W&B and leave a copy behind, did they use actual pax weights, how much luggage, did they use actual luggage weights, where were the passengers seated... we all know that they will find some aspect to say the crew was partially responsible. Did they do a control check? Did they perform a static takeoff? I saw the flaps were down from the pics, but .....

So, Ill say again, it is way too soon to jump to conclusions, AVBUG. Thats what i said before, but you told me im cheerin for the incident. Not sayin its the same thing, just that it illustrates how this can happen to THIS aircraft type...after all it was the same CL600 type aircraft, coincidentally at the same airport. That unfortunate event sheds light on this one in more ways than one.

 

[avbug]

did they complete their required 135 W&B and leave a copy behind, did they use actual pax weights,

Leaving a copy behind hasn't been required for a long time now, and actual passenger weights are permissible only where OpSpecs don't specify standard weights. Same for baggage weights.

Thats what i said before, but you told me im cheerin for the incident.

No, mate. I did not. I only quoted YOU! Don't like it? Then be more careful what you say. Only you can do that. I'm not your mother.

Neither did I suggest or state that you are pleased another aircraft had an incident. What I did state is that if you're looking to a previous incident to support this one or provide some positive light, don't get too excited about a previous incident in which the crew operated over gross and with a forward CG outside limits. That does NOT help the present case. It hurts it. Digging it up won't make things better; it can only add fuel to the fire. Think about it.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Is the elevator/horizontal stab on the CL600 hydraulic powered? If a pre-takeoff flight control check was accomplished, what could have caused a jam (let's just say it is a jam for argument's sake) so soon thereafter?

I used to fly with a co-pilot who always had a little soft flight bag with him that he stuck down by his feet. He'd been doing it for a while until I made him stop. He claimed that some captain had showed him there was no way it would interfere with the yoke. I still didn't think it was safe. Pretty stupid to put anything down there in my opinion.

Also, I don't know what kind of control lock the CL has.

Ace

 

[C.Warrior]

I am thinking the trim is electric.


No control lock on hydraulic controls.

 

[Gatorman]

411

Just to answer some questions that were asked in some of the previous post....

Yes, the elevators are hydraulically actuated and no there are no locks on the controls.
Yes, the pitch trim is electric, driven by two motors. I changed that particular unit out of that aircraft for slipping in flight myself two years ago.
And before the next question is asked about the hydraulics, if the engines were running (and they were) system #1 and system #2 hydraulics were operating @ 3000psi. Sys #1 running the left elevator and sys #2 running the right. System #3 runs both elevators and it is highly likely that the crew had that system on as a part of their pre engine start checks.

Something that had me thinking since the news about the information about the brakes not being applied is weather or not they were able to be applied with weight off wheels (which they are not). But, the same senerio would be true for the thrust reversers being weight off wheels.
Since the T/R's were deployed, that means thet the aircraft was weight ON wheels and therefore the pressure to the brakes was available if they were to be applied.

I do find interest in the whole control yoke not moving theroy that is currently running....again, another pre takeoff check, "Flight control freedom of movement"

 

[Bandit60]

Just a thought...what if the auto pilot was engaged accidently before takeoff. I have heard that this is a possiblity on this airplane.

I have no real idea but just a thought.