Travis Barker - 4 killed, 2 hurt as rock star's jet crashes

[Club ORD FO]

any 60 drivers care to figure out the fuel required for TEB-TUL minus time in air and landing weight back at TEB?

Hmmm... BOW would be about 15,200, Max landing is 19500

little over 1000 miles direct, I'd guess 2.75 hours block. Thats about 3800 lbs burn (does that sound about right to anybody else?) add in a 1200 reserve, and their takeoff weight would have been about 20,200. Thats not counting any pax or bags.

 

[HawkerF/O]

Look HS125 F/O, I am not about to get into some arguemnt with you about all of this.

Dohhhh! was that a swipe at me?

Either way, I am trying to figure out what this aviateme is talking about too and why he blew up like he did. It's as though he didnt even read his own link or really does think reccomend and require mean the same thing. Either way, I doubt he writes manuals. For that matter, since he writes manuals, so do I!

You spelled it out pretty clearly, so hopefully he comes back and realizes he is wayyyyyy off here, and you know if I am saying it, then he really is wayyyyyy off. The know it all insult was a nice catch expecially when it comes back on someone like this.

 

[LJ45]

If you can keep track of when you are 5nm Horiz and 2000 ft vert of of the other then you are my heroe. Here it is:

RECOMMENDED OPERATING PRACTICES. The following aircraft operating practices recommended for RVSM operations with Version 6.04 should be continued when operating with Change 7:

a. TCAS should be operated in the TA/RA mode during all operations in RVSM airspace and Transition Areas.

b. Climb and descent rates in RVSM airspace and Transition areas should be limited to 1,000 fpm when operating within five (5) nm and 2,000 ft of other aircraft to minimize the generation of TAs and RAs.

When and If I forget, I get the TA caution and adjust my rate quicker while looking for traffic. Not a big deal if you forget, happens every day in our airspace, and you shouldn't get a RA warning unless you bust your altitude.

Also, ATC expects more than 1000 fpm in decents most of the time when you are flying Jets.

 

[BoilerUP]

"Should be" and "Must be" are two VERY different things...

 

[HawkerF/O]

If you can keep track of when you are 5nm Horiz and 2000 ft vert of of the other then you are my heroe. Here it is:

RECOMMENDED OPERATING PRACTICES. The following aircraft operating practices recommended for RVSM operations with Version 6.04 should be continued when operating with Change 7:

a. TCAS should be operated in the TA/RA mode during all operations in RVSM airspace and Transition Areas.

b. Climb and descent rates in RVSM airspace and Transition areas should be limited to 1,000 fpm when operating within five (5) nm and 2,000 ft of other aircraft to minimize the generation of TAs and RAs.

Idiot, when you are within 5NM 2000Ft of another aircraft, it's sitting there right in front of you on your TCAS display. You can't help but to see him! You don't even fly in RVSM airpace, do you? Riding on Delta does not count.

 

[LJ45]

I think this thread is getting hijacked...lets get back to the subject...

Thanks!

 

[LJ45]

Hmmm... BOW would be about 15,200, Max landing is 19500

little over 1000 miles direct, I'd guess 2.75 hours block. Thats about 3800 lbs burn (does that sound about right to anybody else?) add in a 1200 reserve, and their takeoff weight would have been about 20,200. Thats not counting any pax or bags.

So, just guessing at least close to Max landing weight.

 

[filejw]

LJ25. Right. I'd like to know what is taught to corp types as far as a reason for a high speed abort.

 

[AviateYou]

When and If I forget, I get the TA caution and adjust my rate quicker while looking for traffic. Not a big deal if you forget, happens every day in our airspace, and you shouldn't get a RA warning unless you bust your altitude.

Also, ATC expects more than 1000 fpm in decents most of the time when you are flying Jets.

That's fine, true about descents, never a perfect world, and they are ATC. I didn't write the FAA document. See how much we learned today? It's just there to try and prevent and/or minimize false T/A's or more importantly false R/A's from the sound of it - but then it's just a recommendation right?

 

[say again]

LJ25. Right. I'd like to know what is taught to corp types as far as a reason for a high speed abort.

Engine failure, fire, loss of directional control, T/R deployment are the ones I go with. If it was a tire blow out and directional control was lost (as someone earlier said it happened to them), then that would qualify for a high-speed abort.

 

[LJ45]

I would say the general consensus is not to abort for tire failure above 80kts unless directional control cannot be maintained. Although, this is not always spelled out this way in training, I guess for liability reasons, they tend to go with what the aircraft or pilot manual recommends.

 

[AviateYou]

Idiot, when you are within 5NM 2000Ft of another aircraft, it's sitting there right in front of you on your TCAS display. You can't help but to see him! You don't even fly in RVSM airpace, do you? Riding on Delta does not count.

Mature response there F/O. You actually sit there and fixate on your TCAS? Is that what you do when the autopilot is on besides pick your boogers? I feel sorry for your passengers. That just shows how ignorant you are. Not all TCAS's are in the same place as yours. Not a smart answer - not at all. Hey everyone Hawker F/O is an expert on TCAS he/she no longer needs to look out the window.

 

[AviateYou]

"Should be" and "Must be" are two VERY different things...

Who cares what you think? Seriously in context explain the difference when dealing with the FAA?

 

[LJ45]

I guess everyone didn't agree to stay on subject when I was trying to be very diplomatic

This is a terrible accident and we should be trying to learn from it and prevent another from happening.

 

[AviateYou]

I guess everyone didn't agree to stay on subject when I was trying to be very diplomatic

This is a terrible accident and we should be trying to learn from it and prevent another from happening.

I apologize - you are exactly right back on the subject. The pictures on TMZ are telling much more than the previous photos.

 

[LRvsH25B]

LJ25. Right. I'd like to know what is taught to corp types as far as a reason for a high speed abort.

Say Again and LJ45 spell it out for what I would say is the corporate industry standard, and it seems to wok well. Typically abort for anything below 80, and Engine Fire, T/R deployment, engine failure, and Loss of directional control 80 to V1 in most airplanes; 80 is the variable. Where that can get you is a situation like we are discussing now. A blown tire can be a non event at 81 knots, but as speed (and Heat) increase and the tire shreds itself apart, the rubber can take other tiires, lines, components with it, and now you cannot maintain directional control. What are you options now? Slim, as you left them on the runway behind you when the decision to continue was made.

When the F/Os/CoCapts let the "old man" fly, I command in my brief that we will not abort for a HYD failure of any kind above 80knots as that's a great way to go rolling off the end of a runway. Additionally, "No fast Hands" is the statements that ends my brief. Do nothing and do it slowly.

Apart from a couple of minor interruptions, this is agreat thread; nobody pointing the fiinger, just pros putting their heads together and thinking. I've really enjoyed this and hope it continues! Kudos to you all.

 

[400A]

Let me preface his by saying I am not second guessing the crew for a second.

Someone earlier mentioned the Cowboys 60 Losing the squat switch. Could a blown tire take out the squat switch? and would that then prevent the speed brakes and T/R's? From what was left they appear stowed. The speed brakes could have bled back down, but I do not believe the T/R's would. That would be a horrible scenario. The flaps appear to have been burned off in the photos.

 

[LRvsH25B]

Let me preface his by saying I am not second guessing the crew for a second.

Someone earlier mentioned the Cowboys 60 Losing the squat switch. Could a blown tire take out the squat switch? and would that then prevent the speed brakes and T/R's? From what was left they appear stowed. The speed brakes could have bled back down, but I do not believe the T/R's would. That would be a horrible scenario. The flaps appear to have been burned off in the photos.

A tire shredding itself apart at 100+ miles an hour ca nput a hole in the fuselage, desrtoy all the hyd lines to the gear, etc. The LR tires are so small, their RPM is much greater than it would be say on your Hawker. Because of where a squat switched is placed, taking it out would just be getting started. No problem at all. Look what happened to the Concorde with a blown tire. It tore a hole through the airplane into the fuel tank.

With the Squat switch out, the plane could think it is now in the air (Weight Off Wheels), and it could stop the T/Rs from deploying as well as stop the boards for extending, or at least extending as far as the should on the ground. Take the Life dump of your Hawker for example. With the flaps in the #3 position and WOW, the lift dump further extends not only the flaps as you know, but the boards as well. A squat switch telling the airplane it's in "air" mode would be the same you not having flaps in Pos. #3. The boards and flpas would not extend any further. Does that make sense?

 

[say again]

Are Lears more susceptible to a loss of directional control after a tire blow compared w/ other aircraft? Do they make a point of this in training, or I am over analyzing what people are saying?

 

[starcheckdriver]

Regarding aborts in the Learjet 60....Bombardier Customer Training teaches the call when rolling down the runway for low-speed to high-speed regime is 90 KIAS. This is because at 90 KIAS, the nose wheel steering is supposed to disengage. My company still makes the call at 80 KIAS because conventional wisdom and several studies have shown 80 KIAS is the speed at which the aircraft enters a high-speed regime and bad things happening due to an abort dramatically increase above 80 KIAS, not 90 KIAS. In addition, would you really abort at 90 KIAS if your nose steering didn't disengage? I wouldn't so I am not sure why Bombardier feels you should even be checking for steering disengagement on a takeoff roll.

All that being said, this operator may use the 90 KIAS call in their SOPs. If they do, they may very well have been above 80 KIAS when an abort was started and thus in the high-speed regime for aircraft speed. However, they would still have been within the proper speed range to abort for any problem, according to their SOPs.

 

[400A]

A tire shredding itself apart at 100+ miles an hour ca nput a hole in the fuselage, desrtoy all the hyd lines to the gear, etc. The LR tires are so small, their RPM is much greater than it would be say on your Hawker. Because of where a squat switched is placed, taking it out would just be getting started. No problem at all. Look what happened to the Concorde with a blown tire. It tore a hole through the airplane into the fuel tank.

With the Squat switch out, the plane could think it is now in the air (Weight Off Wheels), and it could stop the T/Rs from deploying as well as stop the boards for extending, or at least extending as far as the should on the ground. Take the Life dump of your Hawker for example. With the flaps in the #3 position and WOW, the lift dump further extends not only the flaps as you know, but the boards as well. A squat switch telling the airplane it's in "air" mode would be the same you not having flaps in Pos. #3. The boards and flpas would not extend any further. Does that make sense?

Oh yeah, that is exactly what I was afraid of. I Just knowing nothing about the 60.

That would be a sick feeling. Blown Tires and now in Air Mode. Yikes.

 

[starcheckdriver]

Are Lears more susceptible to a loss of directional control after a tire blow compared w/ other aircraft? Do they make a point of this in training, or I am over analyzing what people are saying?

I have flown the Lear 60 for a few years and blown tires have never been said to cause a directional control problem. I had a tire blow in a 60 on takeoff at 105-110 KIAS. We continued the takeoff with no issues or directional control problems. We also landed 2 hours later without incident.

Blown tires in the 60, or any aircraft, are known to severaly impede brake effectiveness. Other possibilities in the 60 after a blown tire are flap damage, hydraulic brake line rupture, squat switch damage (causing spoiler, T/R, and anti-skid braking problems). Any number of things could happen.

After my blown tire incident, I concluded aborting after 80 KIAS for a blown tire is a bad idea in almost every case. Everything I have read that has data on the matter would agree.

 

[deadstick]

Didn't a witness report sparks going down the runway? Would both tires on one side have to blow to get this? Wouldn't one carry the load without dropping the wheel? Looking at the tmz pics, #5 specifically, it looks like they split the localizer (4 L and 6 R) -- if only one side failed, wouldn't it pull hard left or right (the loss of directional control)?

 

[400A]

I have flown the Lear 60 for a few years and blown tires have never been said to cause a directional control problem. I had a tire blow in a 60 on takeoff at 105-110 KIAS. We continued the takeoff with no issues or directional control problems. We also landed 2 hours later without incident.

Blown tires in the 60, or any aircraft, are known to severaly impede brake effectiveness. Other possibilities in the 60 after a blown tire are flap damage, hydraulic brake line rupture, squat switch damage (causing spoiler, T/R, and anti-skid braking problems). Any number of things could happen.

After my blown tire incident, I concluded aborting after 80 KIAS for a blown tire is a bad idea in almost every case. Everything I have read that has data on the matter would agree.

I am curious. When you blew the tire, did you fold the gear?

 

[Hung Start]

I head back for recurrent in a couple of weeks. i'm sure this accident will be discussed at great length.

Just so sad. Looks as if that berm wasn't there, if it was a flat overun, this would be a minor discussion. Once they plowed into that, the fusalage tank just dumped into the cabin. A miracle that anyone got out.

RIP

Hung

 

[BoilerUP]

Who cares what you think? Seriously in context explain the difference when dealing with the FAA?

You obviously care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't have written such a thoughtful response...

But you're right, what do I know...my wife is just a legal professional who specializes in FAA enforcement actions. I guess I foolishly let her professional experience help form my judgement on the legal differences between a recommendation and a requirement, or "should be" and "must be".

 

[mx284]

Just did a scenario like this 2 weeks ago in recurrent at ATL. Tire blew just around V1 which put a hole in the wing tank. Wonder if one tire let go, took out the other tire and squat switch, as well as put a hole in the the wing tank. Spark from rims ignited fuel from wing tank and no brakes or t/r's from squat switch being destroyed and not enought time to react to use the emer brakes. JUST A THEORY. Not sure if the wheel spin up kit would prevent the lack of brakes and t/r's or if thats just for the auto spoilers??
Amazing how much you forget in 2 weeks....
Had an antiskid controller not work about a month ago which locked up right outboard main which blew, didnt feel a thing on roll out of taxi in. Flight check guys made us aware as they were taxiing by that a tire was locked up. I hate to think about a tire going at anywhere near v1.

 

[embpic1]

I don't believe they lost directional control. They ran right through the middle of the localizer antenna. Unless they lost it and then regained the centerline before departing the runway.

Truly sad,
RIP

 

[Club ORD FO]

looking at the pictures, pieces of the gear (or at least what the news folks say is the gear) was left behind away from the main wreckage. almost as if the gear sheared off after the blown tires. but if that happened you'd think that the plane would not keep on a straight line.

I also find it odd that all 4 in the back did not get out. they would have been sitting in the club seats probably, and all would have seen what the others were doing, so if 2 headed for the door I'd guess the other 2 would be right behind them. Major bummer

 

[AirplanesSuck]

Just did a scenario like this 2 weeks ago in recurrent at ATL. Tire blew just around V1 which put a hole in the wing tank. Wonder if one tire let go, took out the other tire and squat switch, as well as put a hole in the the wing tank. Spark from rims ignited fuel from wing tank and no brakes or t/r's from squat switch being destroyed and not enought time to react to use the emer brakes. JUST A THEORY. Not sure if the wheel spin up kit would prevent the lack of brakes and t/r's or if thats just for the auto spoilers??
Amazing how much you forget in 2 weeks....
Had an antiskid controller not work about a month ago which locked up right outboard main which blew, didnt feel a thing on roll out of taxi in. Flight check guys made us aware as they were taxiing by that a tire was locked up. I hate to think about a tire going at anywhere near v1.

The anti-skid/brakes should work on either the inboards or outboards as long as one squat switch is in ground mode. Of course your sim scenario just sucks... I hope it didn't happen to these guys.

The autospoilers would only work with one squat switch out if it had a spin-up kit... however with just ONE switch in ground mode you can manually deploy the spoilers.