Teterboro Accident - CL600

[avbug]

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"

Amid all the wild speculation, seems to me that nobody said the controls wouldn't move...more implied that they wouldn't move the airplane. The issue of the former Challenger overrun at TEB was brought up, which involved an aircraft with a forward CG and being operated over gross. In that case, the pilot indicated directly following the overrun that he was unable to raise the nose...though that turned out to be only because he was loaded too far forward and too heavy.

I won't begin to speculate on what applies here, but what I'm hearing are folks running away with an out of context idea that may, or may not, apply.

 

[A Squared]

Amid all the wild speculation, seems to me that nobody said the controls wouldn't move...more implied that they wouldn't move the airplane. The issue of the former Challenger overrun at TEB was brought up, which involved an aircraft with a forward CG and being operated over gross. In that case, the pilot indicated directly following the overrun that he was unable to raise the nose...though that turned out to be only because he was loaded too far forward and too heavy.

The account that I read did specifically refer to not being able to move the control yoke the normal amount of travel. Of course this is a quote on Avweb from a new york times article quoting hte NTSB quoting the pilot, so who knowswhat the pilot *actually* said.

"According to The New York Times, the pilot in Wednesday's crash, John Kimberling, told NTSB investigators that with the airplane at takeoff speed on the runway, he could only pull back the yoke about an inch instead of the normal three to four inches of travel."

But you're right, it doesn't help to draw parallels with an incident which the NTSB believes was caused by being overweight and having cg forward of the forward limit.

 

[Gatorman]

"According to The New York Times, the pilot in Wednesday's crash, John Kimberling, told NTSB investigators that with the airplane at takeoff speed on the runway, he could only pull back the yoke about an inch instead of the normal three to four inches of travel."
QUOTE]

I find that actually hard to believe. The design is set up with an anti-jam mechanism in the PCU. If the yoke was not moving back all the way.......

I think it was an earlier post where someone talked about an object between the yoke and the seat preventing the yoke from freedom of movement.


.....the yoke will move, even if there is something restraining the elevator phisically.

P.S. The anti-jam is checked every 300 or 600 hours as a part of the Chapt. 5 inspections.

 

[Bandit60]

"According to The New York Times, the pilot in Wednesday's crash, John Kimberling, told NTSB investigators that with the airplane at takeoff speed on the runway, he could only pull back the yoke about an inch instead of the normal three to four inches of travel."
QUOTE]

I find that actually hard to believe. The design is set up with an anti-jam mechanism in the PCU. If the yoke was not moving back all the way.......

I think it was an earlier post where someone talked about an object between the yoke and the seat preventing the yoke from freedom of movement.


.....the yoke will move, even if there is something restraining the elevator phisically.

P.S. The anti-jam is checked every 300 or 600 hours as a part of the Chapt. 5 inspections.

Will the yoke move if the auto pilot is engaged accidently? I was told from a few guys that have lots of time in a CL600 that this is possible as there is not much indication that the autopilot is engaged.

 

[Gatorman]

No, the auto pilot cannot engage on the ground.

Unless it is in the ground test mode

 

[Alchemy]

Did anyone see the Flight Attendant's interview on CNN? Hot **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**....

 

[Bandit60]

No, the auto pilot cannot engage on the ground.

Unless it is in the ground test mode

Are you 100percent sure. I got this information for a couple of guys that I work with that have thousands of hours in a CL600. They made sure before every takeoff that the autopilot was not engaged. They said the switch is on the pedastal and is very easy to hit by accident.

 

[LXJ31]

This doesn't plausible to me either. I don't know much about the CL600, but if I were in that situation, unable to rotate, I would try rolling nose-up trim on the yoke trim switch which would disconnect any autopilot, assuming it was working.

 

[Bandit60]

This doesn't plausible to me either. I don't know much about the CL600, but if I were in that situation, unable to rotate, I would try rolling nose-up trim on the yoke trim switch which would disconnect any autopilot, assuming it was working.

I would agree with you too,but it is easy to be monday morning pilots. It would be hard to say what any of us would have really done in the heat of the moment.

 

[Ty Webb]

Glad I'm not flying corporate/charter anymore.

When I flew charter or Part 91, it was every bit as safe as 121, maybe even safer. Why? Because I was in an environment where I could increase the level of safety above and beyond the FAR's and SOP's, if I thought it prudent, and that was that. All you had to do was be able to convey that to the owners/passengers in an articulate manner, and that was it. I never had anyone complain when the obvious reason for the delay/added cost/inconvience was safety, but a little pre-planning to minimize the delay sure helps.

Sure, there are some scum-bag operators out there, but if someone is at one of those, do whatever you have to do to get out of that environment ASAP. Those are usually the crappiest places to work, anyway . . . . so what are you waiting for?

As for the guy advocating flying the airplane off the runway using trim- I think that most of us are so conditioned to abort the takeoff if you have a control problem that the first instinct would be to follow your training and abort . . . who wants to get airborne with a jammed stab, anyway?

They all lived, so what he did worked, I guess.

 

[LXJ31]

I guess if I had to choose between blasting into a brick building that says "Strawberry" on the side at a 100kts or taking an undetermined problem into the air, I'd go with the one that would keep me alive in the near term. I'm somewhat shocked and pleasantly suprised there weren't any fatalities, although the occupants of the car that got T-boned aren't out of the woods yet. It depends on the situation; if you are at a smallish airport with densely packed buildings across the street a la Midway, its a different scenario than say Omaha where there is plenty of runway and not much around it. There are too many variables that come into play: what kind of control issue? Is it frozen? Do you have some movement? Are you getting full movement but no pitch up? Does the trim even work? What kind of aircraft, takeoff distance calculated etc? So no, I wouldn't agree to abort under all circumstances past rotation with a perceived control problem.

Bandit 60 is right, it is Monday morning quarterbacking and I shouldn't even be speculating.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

This doesn't plausible to me either. I don't know much about the CL600, but if I were in that situation, unable to rotate, I would try rolling nose-up trim on the yoke trim switch which would disconnect any autopilot, assuming it was working.

Nose up trim on an aircraft with a trim tab would actually make the aircraft go down more if the control was stuck. Also, at Vr, you are over V1 and any abort is going to be in the 'test pilot' arena (no data is available for accel / stop above V1). If you really think that you would take the time to roll in trim, you would only be making matters worse. Every second in that situation would result in hundreds of extra feet of overrun.

Ace

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

When I flew charter or Part 91, it was every bit as safe as 121, maybe even safer. Why? Because I was in an environment where I could increase the level of safety above and beyond the FAR's and SOP's, if I thought it prudent, and that was that. All you had to do was be able to convey that to the owners/passengers in an articulate manner, and that was it. I never had anyone complain when the obvious reason for the delay/added cost/inconvience was safety, but a little pre-planning to minimize the delay sure helps.

Sure, there are some scum-bag operators out there, but if someone is at one of those, do whatever you have to do to get out of that environment ASAP. Those are usually the crappiest places to work, anyway . . . . so what are you waiting for?

As for the guy advocating flying the airplane off the runway using trim- I think that most of us are so conditioned to abort the takeoff if you have a control problem that the first instinct would be to follow your training and abort . . . who wants to get airborne with a jammed stab, anyway?

They all lived, so what he did worked, I guess.

Good points. I flew charter for some years and was always safe. Part 135 is MORE regulated and restrictive than part 91. So, if a pilot wants to be safe, fly 135 or 91 and FLY SAFE. It IS that simple.

Ace

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Not sure...


I have HEARD of more than one Challenger and DA900 that have been trimmed into the air after they were possibly out of CG. At VR the aircraft would not get into the air, even full aft...a few bursts of trim were able to get it flying...

test pilot area for sure...but I have seen it!

Ill take that over a 160KT abort anyday...

Nose up trim on an aircraft with a trim tab would actually make the aircraft go down more if the control was stuck. Also, at Vr, you are over V1 and any abort is going to be in the 'test pilot' arena (no data is available for accel / stop above V1). If you really think that you would take the time to roll in trim, you would only be making matters worse. Every second in that situation would result in hundreds of extra feet of overrun.

Ace

 

[LXJ31]

Nose up trim on an aircraft with a trim tab would actually make the aircraft go down more if the control was stuck. Also, at Vr, you are over V1 and any abort is going to be in the 'test pilot' arena (no data is available for accel / stop above V1). If you really think that you would take the time to roll in trim, you would only be making matters worse. Every second in that situation would result in hundreds of extra feet of overrun.

Ace

Again, it depends on the situation. In this case, we do not know if the yoke was stuck, unresponsive, or limited in travel. The fact that we are way past rotation speed puts you in that situation I described: the accelerate/stop calculation is out the window and you have no idea how far off the airport you are going to run. Perhaps you'll get lucky and hit a pillow factory, but in some circumstances I'll take my chances in the air. Each situation is unique.

 

[Ty Webb]

There is a big difference between an abort at V1 and 165 KIAS. Don;t know about the Challenger, but VR with dry runway numbers is only a knot or two over V1 in my airplane, and using wet runway numbers it is still only five knots.

If I hear "V1, VR" and pull back on the yoke, and it is stuck or the plane is not responding, the abort is happening. . . . and a few knots north of V1 may result in a low speed departure from the runway, but to me that's much better than being airborn with a primary control surface jammed, for crying out loud.

You want to go playing around with a stab problem, knock yourself out. Suggest you re-read the NTSB report on the AK MD80 flight first, if you're feeling like Bob Hoover.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

There is a big difference between an abort at V1 and 165 KIAS. Don;t know about the Challenger, but VR with dry runway numbers is only a knot or two over V1 in my airplane, and using wet runway numbers it is still only five knots.

If I hear "V1, VR" and pull back on the yoke, and it is stuck or the plane is not responding, the abort is happening. . . . and a few knots north of V1 may result in a low speed departure from the runway, but to me that's much better than being airborn with a primary control surface jammed, for crying out loud.

You want to go playing around with a stab problem, knock yourself out. Suggest you re-read the NTSB report on the AK MD80 flight first, if you're feeling like Bob Hoover.

Agreed! I would much rather be skidding off the end of the runway than taking a plane into the air with a primary flight control not working. But, opinions are like you-know-whats...everyone's got one.

Intentionally flying with a stuck elevator...sheeesh!

Ace

 

[LXJ31]

There is a big difference between an abort at V1 and 165 KIAS. Don;t know about the Challenger, but VR with dry runway numbers is only a knot or two over V1 in my airplane, and using wet runway numbers it is still only five knots.

I don't know either.

If I hear "V1, VR" and pull back on the yoke, and it is stuck or the plane is not responding, the abort is happening. . . . and a few knots north of V1 may result in a low speed departure from the runway, but to me that's much better than being airborn with a primary control surface jammed, for crying out loud.

We're not that far apart on this. In a perfect world you have plenty of runway, plenty of clearway and in that case I'd opt for the highspeed abort as well. But there are instances, and I see some of them from rotation to rotation, where the runways are short (calculating T/O distance down to the gnat's arse or using airport analysis,) unattended airports (forget about ARFF,) with substantially lethal obstacles (buildings, forests, rising terrain) such that assuming we survive the collision, we probably wouldn't survive the fire. In cases like these, the calculated V speeds and takeoff distance means very much and little extra padding exists. I'll say it again, each situation is unique so a one-size-fits-all approach to problem solving may not work.

You want to go playing around with a stab problem, knock yourself out. Suggest you re-read the NTSB report on the AK MD80 flight first, if you're feeling like Bob Hoover.

I don't want to play around with a stab problem or high speed aborts any more than I want to choose between getting lung cancer or having a stroke. I don't understand the adversarial tone of your posts...

 

[LXJ31]

Agreed! I would much rather be skidding off the end of the runway than taking a plane into the air with a primary flight control not working. But, opinions are like you-know-whats...everyone's got one.

Intentionally flying with a stuck elevator...sheeesh!

Ace

See my previous post. When you say "Intentionally flying with a stuck elevator....sheeesh!," its minimizing what actually is occuring. Its not a simple choice, in some cases, of deciding that I'd enjoy the death-defying challenge of flying a malfunctioning airplane, or that I think aborted takeoffs are for quitters, but rather using one's head to analyze the situation before you even leave the chocks. In some cases, and I've given a couple of examples, a test-pilot RTO above VR (how far above? who knows...the TEB Challenger aborted more than a few knots above rotate, somewhere around 160) with a stand of old-growth pines at the end of a slick runway ready to shred a moderately moving aircraft loaded with Jet-A, it may be preferable to try things that go against conventional wisdom.

So, we are talking about an extremely unlikely occurence of almost lottery-winner odds, but it could happen. Would you take a sick airplane into the air, or abort into an object that may end up killing you. Each situation is unique.

 

[Ty Webb]

So, we are talking about an extremely unlikely occurence of almost lottery-winner odds, but it could happen. Would you take a sick airplane into the air, or abort into an object that may end up killing you. Each situation is unique.

Amen, and well-put. Evidently, what they did worked- a worst-case scenario and everyone lived. Hope they don't turn around and hang him in the court of public opinion. After all, he did "miss the runway on takeoff", you know.