Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5963020/

Topic: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: BigSaabowski
Posted 2014-01-05 11:45:52 and read 36905 times.

Just happened 20 minutes ago. According to LIVEATC, N115WF was cleared to land on runway 15 with a wind report of 330/16. The accident happened on landing.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: BigSaabowski
Posted 2014-01-05 11:49:21 and read 37052 times.

Doesn't look good:

https://twitter.com/StarshipFriends/status/419914264782962688/photo/1

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: sandyb123
Posted 2014-01-05 11:54:43 and read 36936 times.

Here she is at my home airport EDI:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lawrence Smith

Photo from aircraft in the line up to take off.

Eye witness reporting 'engine explosion'.

Hoping for the best for all involved.

Sandyb123

[Edited 2014-01-05 11:55:36]

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2014-01-05 11:57:15 and read 36841 times.

The jet went belly up.

http://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/419919979450859520

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: g500
Posted 2014-01-05 12:00:51 and read 36680 times.

Aspen is a very tough approach if you're not familiar....

I'm not talking about this accident because i don't know what happened but if get behind, you'll be high and fast, and the Trust-reversers are not as efficient at a altitude

[Edited 2014-01-05 12:05:27]

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: jetpixx
Posted 2014-01-05 12:04:41 and read 36603 times.

Interesting tweets from celebrity Kevin Nealon, and LeAnn Rimes, who witnessed the crash. Social media is amazing sometimes...

http://twitchy.com/2014/01/05/horrib...sive-plane-crash-at-aspen-airport/

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: uwbadger0509
Posted 2014-01-05 12:10:44 and read 36416 times.

I am not familiar with ASE...is 33 not used for landing because of terrain? That's a strong tailwind to be dealing with on landing.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rduco
Posted 2014-01-05 12:13:23 and read 36363 times.

some a/c info

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N115WF

inbound from TUS

http://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N115WF

hope everyone is ok

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: MesaFlyGuy
Posted 2014-01-05 12:15:32 and read 36276 times.

Just saw it on CNN. Doesn't look good but the aftermath without the flames looks more survivable than I originally thought.

My prayers go out to the passengers and their families. I hope everybody is okay.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: bnatraveler
Posted 2014-01-05 12:17:03 and read 36235 times.

Very familiar with ASE - it's a hard airport to land on. Looks like the flight circled quite a bit on inbound waiting for either traffic or favorable winds to arrive.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...F/history/20140105/1615Z/KTUS/KASE

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: mach2is2slowaz
Posted 2014-01-05 12:35:30 and read 35799 times.

Looks like they were having issues on approach based on the flight aware track. visibility maybe? I pray that everyone is ok. Aspen is currently closed due to the accident. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...F/history/20140105/1615Z/KTUS/KASE

Flightaware track of aircraft before accident in Aspin CO.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: Sligo
Posted 2014-01-05 12:37:59 and read 35725 times.

Quoting bnatraveler (Reply 9):
Very familiar with ASE - it's a hard airport to land on. Looks like the flight circled quite a bit on inbound waiting for either traffic or favorable winds to arrive.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...F/history/20140105/1615Z/KTUS/KASE

Their circling looked like it was directly into the landing pattern. Pure speculation, but perhaps a missed approach or two?

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: Dwcontroller
Posted 2014-01-05 12:47:06 and read 35377 times.

The Aspen Times reporting 3 souls on board; 1 deceased, 1 in critical condition and 1 with minor injuries.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2014-01-05 13:07:29 and read 34730 times.

Quoting uwbadger0509 (Reply 6):
I am not familiar with ASE...is 33 not used for landing because of terrain? That's a strong tailwind to be dealing with on landing.

Yes, terrain is a major issue.

Almost always landings are on 15 - especially if a jet aircraft. Takeoffs are almost always on 33.

After takeoff aircraft turn left and use a localizer to direct them out of the valley away from incoming traffic and rising terrain.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: bristolflyer
Posted 2014-01-05 13:40:59 and read 33143 times.

Quoting rduco (Reply 7):

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N115WF

Any ideas on what the 360 deg turn was for part way through the flight?

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: N766UA
Posted 2014-01-05 13:46:15 and read 32847 times.

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 14):
Any ideas on what the 360 deg turn was for part way through the flight?

Holding/vector for traffic inbound to ASE, most likely.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: N243NW
Posted 2014-01-05 14:17:01 and read 31697 times.

Quoting uwbadger0509 (Reply 6):
I am not familiar with ASE...is 33 not used for landing because of terrain?

Yes. For all intensive purposes, ASE is a "one way in, one way out" airport. 16 knots of direct tailwind is huge. Would this be beyond the limits in the AFM?

I sure hope that all the holding didn't mean that the crew no longer had enough fuel to divert elsewhere and therefore were pressured into making the approach in marginal conditions.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: runner13
Posted 2014-01-05 14:20:09 and read 31561 times.

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 14):
Any ideas on what the 360 deg turn was for part way through the flight?

Just listened to the archive on liveatc. They went around due to a 30 knot tailwind. The falcon that landed before them reported a gain of 20 knots on landing. I would speculate wind had a lot to do with this tragic accident.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2014-01-05 14:25:49 and read 31381 times.

Quoting mach2is2slowaz (Reply 10):
Looks like they were having issues on approach based on the flight aware track. visibility maybe?

There is one missed approach or 'look see' - down to 12,500 ft 3.5 miles out from the runway before climbing back and turning. That's almost 5,000 ft above the runway at 3.5 miles.

11 minutes later they went back to the runway and were almost 1,000 ft lower at 4.7 miles from the runway.

The first two loops where all too high to be an approach - where likely circling for other traffic.

ASE is a head to head runway. They have to sequence departure aircraft to go out to avoid incoming aircraft.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: JOshu
Posted 2014-01-05 14:45:01 and read 30715 times.

One heck of an image here:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdP8DfmCcAA5FVH.jpg:large

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: enilria
Posted 2014-01-05 14:58:02 and read 30207 times.

Quoting JOshu (Reply 19):
One heck of an image here:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdP8DfmCcAA5FVH.jpg:large

:o Wow

The ski lift is so close to the runway that it is visible in the photo???

[Edited 2014-01-05 14:59:05]

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: doug_Or
Posted 2014-01-05 15:09:03 and read 29825 times.

Quoting N243NW (Reply 16):
Yes. For all intensive purposes

Intents and purposes. While we're at it, moot point, not mute.

That is all.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: suseJ772
Posted 2014-01-05 15:26:08 and read 29192 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 20):
The ski lift is so close to the runway that it is visible in the photo???

Yes it is. I have never flown into ASE, but skied there many times. This is arguably the toughest approach in the US. I can't imagine doing it with a 16kts tailwind.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: jetjeanes
Posted 2014-01-05 15:41:11 and read 28773 times.

Wasnt it Sandra Bullock involved in one of the last Private jets that crashed there and she got out ok,,,

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: mesaflyguy
Posted 2014-01-05 15:42:25 and read 28769 times.

Quoting jetjeanes (Reply 23):
Wasnt it Sandra Bullock involved in one of the last Private jets that crashed there and she got out ok,,,

I believe that was JAC, when the plane she was on overran the runway. Nothing to this caliber.  

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2014-01-05 15:58:06 and read 30124 times.

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 22):
This is arguably the toughest approach in the US. I can't imagine doing it with a 16kts tailwind.

And just in case anyone is wondering, air carriers flying to ASE wouldn't have been attempting an approach with that much tailwind as it exceeded operating limitations.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: jetjeanes
Posted 2014-01-05 16:11:18 and read 29850 times.

Ive heard it was difficult to get in there,, but do they shutdown at dusk ??

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2014-01-05 16:12:58 and read 30969 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 20):
The ski lift is so close to the runway that it is visible in the photo???

The ski lift start is about 1/2 mile past the end of the runway to the south. You can see where it starts on Google Earth/ Maps.

That is completely out of the flight path. A missed approach/ go around on that runway has to be initiated 2 or 3 miles north of the runway with a 150 degree turn to the right.

Do not overfly the runway climbing - there is an 11,000 foot ridge south of the runway - over 3,000 higher than the runway.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: mach92
Posted 2014-01-05 16:25:12 and read 30754 times.

Having flown into here many times. My company has a 10 knot tailwind MAX at any airport. With the winds reported this aircraft was far beyond the limitations. Last report was 340/29 which is a huge tailwind for runway 15. Sorry I would have not even tried to land in that. This smells pilot error or lack of limitations for the aircraft. God speed to everyone.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: suseJ772
Posted 2014-01-05 16:26:07 and read 30513 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 26):
And just in case anyone is wondering, air carriers flying to ASE wouldn't have been attempting an approach with that much tailwind as it exceeded operating limitations.

That's what I thought, but didn't know for sure. I know that ASE flight gets cancelled a good bit more than your average flight. Specifically for this reason.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: trnswrld
Posted 2014-01-05 16:30:19 and read 30313 times.

Prayers with everyone involved. I can't imagine what those rescuers have to go through in cases like this. Just the thought of being the first one to open the door in a badly wrecked plane that's still intact and not knowing what your going to see when you open it.
Based on videos from the terminal area I wouldn't wanna be on any of those planes attempting to land in those conditions. Scary!! I wonder if these private jet pilots ever get pressured from these celebrity/wealthy/VIP passengers to do things they would normally think twice about. I would like to think it doesn't, but who knows what happens when your dealing first hand with those kind of people.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: clickhappy
Posted 2014-01-05 16:39:57 and read 30287 times.

Yes, the pax can, and sometime do, pressure the crew. The GIII that crashed at ASE was, at least partially, a result of the passengers pressuring the crew. More here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2003/AAB0203.pdf

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: Plainplane
Posted 2014-01-05 16:54:03 and read 29849 times.

It's CNN's top story right now, sadly one of the flight crew have perished.  http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/05/us/colorado-plane-crash/index.html

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: CALMSP
Posted 2014-01-05 17:05:03 and read 29977 times.

Here's a pic from a family member who lives in ASE.

ASE air crash Jan 5, 2014

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: n6238p
Posted 2014-01-05 17:26:03 and read 28809 times.

Max tailwind component I believe on the CL601 is 10kts. While preliminary, the wind checks on the ATC recording show the plane attempting to land way above that. Dunno what else to say but thoughts and prayers go out to the people onboard and their families.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: usxguy
Posted 2014-01-05 17:34:32 and read 28502 times.

I believe I read that the max tailwind is 10kts for a CL 600/601

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2014-01-05 17:41:52 and read 28518 times.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 32):
Yes, the pax can, and sometime do, pressure the crew. The GIII that crashed at ASE was, at least partially, a result of the passengers pressuring the crew.

I thought the Aaliyah incident at MHH on August 25, 2001 made pressuring/intimidating the crew to perform unsafe acts illegal. Is that not correct?

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: suseJ772
Posted 2014-01-05 18:07:50 and read 28002 times.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 32):
Yes, the pax can, and sometime do, pressure the crew. The GIII that crashed at ASE was, at least partially, a result of the passengers pressuring the crew. More here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2...3.pdf

I have had two people in my life that have given me access to private jets and turboprops. One sounds EXACTLY like the person in the NTSB report and former boss, another is my current boss and very good friend. Needless to say, there's a reason I don't work for the former guy. Luckily, I never had a situation like this, but I will admit every time I stepped on his plane it made me slightly uncomfortable because the guy was so irrational and demanding. As a private pilot (of Cessnas), I would have never let that guy on my plane. I genuinely feel for the private pilots in that report as I know what it is like around those people and it is sometimes hard to say no in a gray area like that.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 37):
I thought the Aaliyah incident at MHH on August 25, 2001 made pressuring/intimidating the crew to perform unsafe acts illegal. Is that not correct?

It probably is, but what good is that. The only time it really comes into play most of the people are already dead. Admittedly, they should have just said no to the request that he sit in the jump seat.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rcair1
Posted 2014-01-05 18:19:10 and read 27556 times.

Quoting N243NW (Reply 16):
Yes. For all intensive purposes, ASE is a "one way in, one way out" airport. 16 knots of direct tailwind is huge. Would this be beyond the limits in the AFM?

This seems to have changed - I grew up down the valley from Aspen (Carbondale) and I've flown in and landed 33 in Aspen in both private and commercial. Private was a 172/182. Commercial was a United Convair 580. I remember that approach well - coming in and turning over the town. But today - looking at the charts for Aspen - I see only approaches for 15 and departures for 33. There is a note about 'special permission required for 15 departure''. My last flight into Aspen would have been in 1979 or 80.

The ski area in the background is Buttermilk. There are 3 ski areas in Aspen (not counting Snowmass). Buttermilk - beginner - Ajax (that is what we called it in the day - I think most people call it Aspen Mt today) - the one that really comes down into the town, and Aspen-Highlands, a more challenging area. I preferred Highlands because the volume was much less.

[Edited 2014-01-05 18:19:46]

[Edited 2014-01-05 18:22:55]

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: Kaphias
Posted 2014-01-05 18:33:50 and read 27326 times.

More information from: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...fiery-plane-crash-at-aspen-airport

"The man who died was identified as the co-pilot, Sergio Emilio Carranza Barbata, 54, of Mexico, according to the sheriff's office. He was pronounced dead at the scene. The more-seriously injured victim was the pilot. The passenger was described as another pilot, the sheriff's office statement said. Their identities have not yet been released by the NTSB."

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: usxguy
Posted 2014-01-05 19:13:36 and read 26430 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 37):
I thought the Aaliyah incident at MHH on August 25, 2001 made pressuring/intimidating the crew to perform unsafe acts illegal. Is that not correct?

Yes --- they didn't want to separate from their makeup and dresses & the original charter operator didn't quite convey the true passenger weights to the replacement operator - had they done so, the new operator probably would have told them they can only take 6. I'm told that her entourage were all BIG black men.. fairly heavy. The Cessna 402 doesn't have much of a payload, and sometimes the pilots can finagle it a bit by getting a bit more speed and using more flaps to get it off the ground. They were like 800 pounds overweight though.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: F9Animal
Posted 2014-01-05 19:49:35 and read 25654 times.

Wasn't the drummer of Blink 182 in a crash at ASE? IIRC, it was a takeoff in the same type of plane?

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: clickhappy
Posted 2014-01-05 19:56:29 and read 25561 times.

Travis Barker survived a Lear 60 crash at CAE. Four people died in the crash, including his assistant and a body guard.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: timpdx
Posted 2014-01-05 19:58:44 and read 25521 times.

So they were going in to pick someone up, makes sense on Sunday after a holiday, those guys don't sit around for 4-5 days while the celebs/VIPs hang out in Aspen...sorry to hear about the loss of life. (well, at least the gulfstream pilot I know says his company does not have him sit in an Aspen/Telluride/Sun Valley hotel for days, plane idle)

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2014-01-05 20:29:11 and read 25158 times.

Quoting Plainplane (Reply 33):
It's CNN's top story right now, sadly one of the flight crew have perished. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/05/us/col....html

The CNN article has some good pics - including one which shows the wreckage is just to the right of the runway and with several jets in the background - near a full ramp of high dollar jets unable to leave due to the closed runway.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: Acey559
Posted 2014-01-05 21:15:46 and read 24111 times.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 26):

I know our (Eagle) flight into ASE diverted to GJT. Not sure if it was due to the weather or the accident though.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: pecevanne
Posted 2014-01-06 00:43:49 and read 22085 times.

Both pilots apparentely to be Ex MEXICANA PILOTS,
They were brothers

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: CO953
Posted 2014-01-06 03:17:34 and read 20530 times.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 31):
Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 37):

This brought back an old sorrow. A beautiful, young friend of mine and her boyfriend lost their lives in the Gulfstream III accident in 2001. The guy who chartered the plane in L.A. had ordered an expensive dinner that was waiting for the pax in Aspen. When the pilots were leaning toward diverting to Rifle, the charterer sat in the cockpit and pressured them to land anyway at dusk because the plans had been made in Aspen. IIRC, the rules had just changed that week regarding the cutoff time for landings, and add confusion about that new rule to the mix of pressured pilots.....

Sad, sad day.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: skywaymanaz
Posted 2014-01-06 04:31:36 and read 19281 times.

CO953 I'm sorry to hear about your loss in that accident. It was well publicized though and that may have saved lives later. I know I've mentioned it before to fellow pilots adding you can't argue with the sunset.

I was listening to this incident on liveatc.net and noticed Sunday's accident may have provided time to avoid admittedly a minor incident but who knows. One of the jets stuck on the ground by the airport closure out on taxiway A had a wheel chalk frozen to their tire. Not sure how that happened or if it was frozen in a place that allowed the wheel to turn easily. I suppose it is remotely possible the chalk could have caused damage when the gear was retracted. It also might have caused damage on the ground during descent when it would have dropped straight down from a great height when the gear extended.

[Edited 2014-01-06 04:32:23]

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: bristolflyer
Posted 2014-01-06 05:27:39 and read 18204 times.

Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 48):
a wheel chalk frozen to their tire

You mean a chock?

Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 48):
frozen in a place that allowed the wheel to turn easily

I can't see a big, heavy piece of material being stuck to a wheel strong enough to handle the wheel turning quickly.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: skywaymanaz
Posted 2014-01-06 05:46:49 and read 17855 times.

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 49):
You mean a chock?

I fixed the wrong word in my previous edit 

You are correct. I've seen jets run them over before but not sure how you don't feel it. Pilot came back on frequency after inspecting it outside and said it was frozen to the wheel though.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2014-01-06 08:46:13 and read 14571 times.

Here's a better close-up picture:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdP8DfmCcAA5FVH.jpg:large

http://twitter.com/AggieIslander

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: suseJ772
Posted 2014-01-06 09:19:27 and read 13822 times.

Quoting timpdx (Reply 43):
So they were going in to pick someone up, makes sense on Sunday after a holiday, those guys don't sit around for 4-5 days while the celebs/VIPs hang out in Aspen...sorry to hear about the loss of life.

When we have flown, they only sit on the ground if you are in one day and out the next. Otherwise they move on to the next one.

Quoting Acey559 (Reply 45):
I know our (Eagle) flight into ASE diverted to GJT. Not sure if it was due to the weather or the accident though.

They need to build an airport in Glenwood Springs. If nothing else for divert option. This would end all of this.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 47):
A beautiful, young friend of mine and her boyfriend lost their lives in the Gulfstream III accident in 2001. The guy who chartered the plane in L.A. had ordered an expensive dinner that was waiting for the pax in Aspen

That is very, very sad. I am sorry to hear about your loss.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: DashTrash
Posted 2014-01-06 11:36:39 and read 11409 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 38):
This seems to have changed - I grew up down the valley from Aspen (Carbondale) and I've flown in and landed 33 in Aspen in both private and commercial. Private was a 172/182. Commercial was a United Convair 580. I remember that approach well - coming in and turning over the town. But today - looking at the charts for Aspen - I see only approaches for 15 and departures for 33. There is a note about 'special permission required for 15 departure''. My last flight into Aspen would have been in 1979 or 80.

Some aircraft can do it, some can't. Last time I was in there Mesa was landing Dash 8s on 33. It wouldn't be a big deal flying a Dash into 33 and I was envious of those guys being better equipped for the airport than I was in a jet.

I don't think anything short of an F-15 would meet the required climb off 15 though.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: AvSafety46
Posted 2014-01-06 11:39:02 and read 11362 times.

There is an airport in Gelnwood, but a king air 90 is the largest aircraft that can make it work. There is not a lot of room to expand if any and you will still have the same problem with weather. The only airports in the area for commercial flights are EGE & GJT. Usually when ASE is experiencing bad weather or wind, so is EGE. GJT is the normal diversion point for most commercial flights that operate into the mountain airports. The GA operators have the Rifle airport as a option.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: Burchfiel
Posted 2014-01-06 12:04:58 and read 10990 times.

So sorry to hear that the accident was fatal. May he/she rest in peace.   

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2014-01-06 12:28:37 and read 10837 times.

RIL would be a great alternative as it has 7000' runway and sits on a fairly wide plain. About an hourish drive from ASE.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: EMBQA
Posted 2014-01-06 12:53:40 and read 10693 times.

Quoting Burchfiel (Reply 55):

The F/O was a male, 54 and from Mexico

[Edited 2014-01-06 12:58:44]

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2014-01-06 14:55:29 and read 10215 times.

Any word on who they were picking up in Aspen? I haven't seen it mentioned in the media. I've driven by that airport several times doing work in the Aspen area. Challenging airport to fly in and out of as others have pointed out.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: thegreatchecko
Posted 2014-01-06 16:49:02 and read 9916 times.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 53):
Some aircraft can do it, some can't. Last time I was in there Mesa was landing Dash 8s on 33. It wouldn't be a big deal flying a Dash into 33 and I was envious of those guys being better equipped for the airport than I was in a jet.

Lynx and I assume RAH still does it all the time. It's the most fun I've had flying an airplane in my life!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-DydTmjTI

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: usxguy
Posted 2014-01-06 17:05:34 and read 9905 times.

After watching this video, I can see how this approach can fry your nerves.

Just fwd to about 4:30 and listen to all the alarms going off until the plane finally lands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5B6Gtd-QU

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: FlyHossD
Posted 2014-01-06 20:06:28 and read 9526 times.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 56):

RIL would be a great alternative as it has 7000' runway and sits on a fairly wide plain. About an hourish drive from ASE.

In the early 90's, CO Express tried RIL one winter as a the diversion airport for ASE. As I recall, it was mostly unsuccessful due to the relatively lengthy delay in getting passengers to and from Aspen, but I do think RIL has merit as an occasional diversionary airport (just not as a part time airline replacement airport).

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: slcdeltarumd11
Posted 2014-01-06 20:40:01 and read 9427 times.

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 52):
They need to build an airport in Glenwood Springs. If nothing else for divert option. This would end all of this

EGE is an outstanding facility not far away for that area. MUCH better weather location and a 9,000 runway. Its honestly an hour and 15 minutes in normal conditions from downtown Aspen and closer to alot of the Valley. Its located way West of Vail in basically Gypsum. Flights to ASE get cancelled literally constantly, EGE is very reliable. EGE is just so much better location for weather which is worth it being so far from Vail but closer to Aspen. I always recommend EGE for people flying into Aspen during peak winter especially if EGE has a non-stop and you have to connect to get to Aspen.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2014-01-07 00:12:07 and read 9129 times.

EGE is a fine airport but its almost 2 hrs from ASE and in the winter with 'flatlanders' driving through Glenwood Canyon. I dunno.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: SEA
Posted 2014-01-07 06:26:22 and read 8813 times.

Quoting thegreatchecko (Reply 59):
Lynx and I assume RAH still does it all the time. It's the most fun I've had flying an airplane in my life!

Lynx no longer exists and Republic have pulled out as well. It's an OO and American Eagle market now.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: CO953
Posted 2014-01-07 07:38:25 and read 8681 times.

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 52):
Quoting CO953 (Reply 47):
A beautiful, young friend of mine and her boyfriend lost their lives in the Gulfstream III accident in 2001. The guy who chartered the plane in L.A. had ordered an expensive dinner that was waiting for the pax in Aspen

That is very, very sad. I am sorry to hear about your loss.

Thanks. I just wanted to say a bit about it because last week's accident brought back the shock. She was a humble waitress - very poor - who had met a group of up-and-coming artistic friends who traveled in Hollywood circles. It was like a Cinderella story for her.

A sad, spooky touch that was not in the report was that my friend had just gotten off of a flight with her hero, Bono, of U2 and taken photos with him. In her enthusiasm, she turned to her friend and said, "Now I can die happy!" She deplaned, spent the night at her friend's place - boarded the Aspen flight the next evening, while the friend stayed home.

What made the 2001 accident such a sadly important learning accident in CRM was the degree of pressure on the pilots. The unfortunate fellow chartering the flight was used to the world of using "connections" to get things done and threw his weight around to the point of actually calling the pilots' home base and basically threatening their jobs if they didn't make the Aspen landing. The reason that the pilots were fighting dusk was that some of the pax were late in getting to LAX to take the flight. The classic chain of small events that add up to an accident.

I pray that this tragic accident will always remain in the minds of any crew carrying any VIPs, no matter how VVIP.

RIP to the lost and a quick recovery to the injured in this new accident. Aspen can be such a bear....

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2014-01-07 11:58:44 and read 8334 times.

I went through this thread twice but I still don't understand what happened. Of course not a full analysis but how did it crash, did they touchdown and the challenger went belly-up after that?

Second question: I don't find anything on Av. Herald. I thought they are reporting about GA accidents as well?

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2014-01-07 16:20:25 and read 7977 times.

I've seen nothing on the exact mechanics of what happened.

With all the cell phone videos - they are all post crash of the fire - it appears no one actually captured it going down the runway.

From the final resting position near the end of the runway, just a few feet off the centerline and inverted - this is my guess of the sequence of events.

The crew was aware of the G-III accident mentioned above - and how that aircraft impacted short of the runway.

This crew was high on the previous approach with a strong tailwind. Apparently didn't descend quickly enough.

On the second approach, the data says they were lower but still descending in the final minutes at about 2,000 FPM.

I'm guessing the aircraft broke out of the overcast still high and close to the runway. I believe their last reported data was 9,100 ft less than 1 mile from the runway threshold - 1,262 above field elevation.

At that point, they were past the Missed Approach point.
At KASE they cannot simply apply power and go around.
It is very unlikely they will be able to climb over the mountain straight ahead.
They have gotten too close to the airport to execute the Missed Approach procedure turn of 150 degrees to the right.
Attempting a 180+ left turn over somewhat lower terrain would be at a very low energy state and still require a very high climb rate.

So they tried to force the plane down onto the runway.

The plane landed long and fast, and very poor braking action.

Either the crew realized they could not stop on the runway and tried to turn, or
the winds caused the wing to make contact with the runway.

Likely left wing which is still attached though wing tip broken, and overcorrected to the right - which flipped the plane over and sheared off the wing.

Almost all the fire appears external due to the rupture fuel tanks as the wing sheared off.

The wreckage skidded to a stop near the end of the old runway - near where the runway was recently extended.

I doubt there is much fire damage inside the aircraft. I see no signs of internal fire.

At some point in the landing or flip, the aircraft hit hard with the front near the cockpit.

Likely the fatal injuries were from impact forces and possible debris as the cabin deformed.

Again, just a guess from the limited photos and video I've seen on the web. I could be completely wrong.

The wreckage has been moved. The first arrival I see is at 0734 local time this morning (Tuesday) and first departure at 0749. There have been over 70 departures today.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: thegreatchecko
Posted 2014-01-07 17:13:02 and read 7841 times.

Quoting SEA (Reply 64):
Lynx no longer exists

As I'm quite aware. I guess I should have said, it was the most fun I've ever had flying an airplane in my life  

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: skywaymanaz
Posted 2014-01-08 20:59:42 and read 7008 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 65):
The unfortunate fellow chartering the flight was used to the world of using "connections" to get things done and threw his weight around to the point of actually calling the pilots' home base and basically threatening their jobs if they didn't make the Aspen landing.

I'm not sure I'd be charitable enough to call the charter customer unfortunate. The passengers with him certainly but the customer himself bears a lot of responsibility for that accident. Some people get to where they are in life by getting others to do the impossible. They do not always understand the laws of nature can refuse to arrange themselves around their demands. I remember seeing in the media and the NTSB report the pilots were under a lot of pressure not to divert to Rifle. I found it appalling the customer showed up for the flight at a late hour and was still making those demands. There was an expensive dinner party in Aspen that could not wait. Well guess what, you missed it. The airport would not accept arrivals after sunset, which was rapidly approaching their ETA even before they left. When they got there the aircraft ahead of them were all going missed. Like I said earlier you can't argue with the sunset. Someone needed to be firm with the customer about that. Avjet let the customer bully them, people died and the families sued the company.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: clickhappy
Posted 2014-01-08 21:42:36 and read 6950 times.

I think he meant "unfortunate fellow" to mean his persona which, at least in this case, led to poor decisions and ultimately 18 deaths.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: ATCtower
Posted 2014-01-08 22:13:50 and read 6940 times.

I cant comprehend why people are having such a hard time understanding what happened...

The A/C went around 8 mins prior reporting a 35kt tailwind. The CL60 is certified to land with a maximum 10kt tailwind. The crew obviously tried to land above the allocated max for the A/C on a runway which was NOTAM'd to have near NIL breaking action.

The outcome is absolutely unfortunate as someone who was working ASE arrivals when this happened but nevertheless, an asenine idea to try to land that plane at that airport with those winds and under those conditions.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: skywaymanaz
Posted 2014-01-08 23:32:00 and read 6821 times.

In this recent incident I think they wanted to be able to tell the client they made two attempts to land at Aspen before diverting to Rifle or Eagle. I'd hope most clients going into Aspen are advised that diversion is always possible without warning given the difficult conditions there combined with winter weather. That said I don't think it is unreasonable to at least make two attempts to land first before diverting, unless like in 2001 that flight was already past curfew. The crew did the correct thing by going around with the wind shift on their first attempt. I'm not prepared to say they were wrong at this time by trying one more time before diverting. We need more information to know if they tried to push beyond what was safe on the second attempt or if something else went wrong. I think we all have suspicions here but there should be more information soon.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rwessel
Posted 2014-01-09 05:29:01 and read 6585 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 20):
The ski lift is so close to the runway that it is visible in the photo???

There are four ski areas that are part of the Aspen/Snowmass complex. The lift in question is part of Buttermilk, which is immediately south of the airport. Aspen (Ajax) itself is in the town of Aspen three-or-so miles southeast.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: CO953
Posted 2014-01-09 11:21:58 and read 6225 times.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 71):
Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 72):

Your two comments, combined raise a subtle, important, intriguing point.

As I posted above, I do have a bit of an emotional stake, having lost a friend in the 2001 ASE accident. But what I see here with this new accident is that - pending more information - a careful comparison needs to be made with the 2001 accident, and whether the 2001 lesson has been adequately addressed, or even applies in this case.

Instead of giving a specific speculative analysis, let me point out information that seems salient:

1. According to the info that ATCtower presents, on the first attempt the CL60 was far past landing cert for tailwind. Not just a little, but over 200% past. While the wind report at the top of this thread says 16 knots, who knows the actual tailwind on the second attempt.

2. ASE lands a lot of very rich VIPs.

3. Very rich VIPs, overall, have the ability to do things their own way, due to money and influence.

4. Pilots, in general, are revered by the public, including by VIPs, as magical supermen, akin to doctors.

5. Pilots being paid - directly or indirectly - by VIPs answer more directly to their passengers than those pilots being paid to fly the general public.

6. An inconvenienced VIP has more clout than an inconvenienced Average Joe.

7. There were only three aboard the accident aircraft, including crew - indicating a likelihood that the passenger(s) was (were) a VIP of some sort.

I am NOT prematurely saying that anything improper occurred. What I am saying is that the combination of higher-than-average VIP traffic and the unusual difficulty in landing at ASE inherently presents a unique technical/social problem for the flight crew. Thusly, I hope that a very thorough investigation pays adequate attention to this unique problem, in light of what is known about the 2001 accident.

Again, prayers for the lost and injured. In the end, humans who fall short of perfection were still doing a brave thing, in nature's eyes, by attempting to fly at all....

[Edited 2014-01-09 11:23:07]

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: SEA
Posted 2014-01-09 13:42:37 and read 6038 times.

Quoting thegreatchecko (Reply 68):
As I'm quite aware. I guess I should have said, it was the most fun I've ever had flying an airplane in my life  

Shoot! I really enjoyed Lynx. Flew them many times COS-DEN. Much friendlier crew than United Express.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: okie
Posted 2014-01-21 19:54:23 and read 5072 times.

Infrared video of the Challenger crash at ASE

http://aspenjournalism.org/2014/01/2...releases-video-of-jan-5-jet-crash/

Okie

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: JOshu
Posted 2014-01-21 20:10:00 and read 5183 times.

New footage of KASE crash:
http://nation.time.com/2014/01/21/aspen-jet-crash-footage/

Pretty incredible stuff

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: slcdeltarumd11
Posted 2014-01-21 20:16:51 and read 5050 times.

Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 72):
I'd hope most clients going into Aspen are advised that diversion is always possible without warning given the difficult conditions there combined with winter weather.

In an ideal world you are 100% correct. I am sure that they don't say that often though. The charter plane business is extremely cut throat and competitive. If you said that you would loose alot of deals to someone who promises they will land in ASE. Look up blue star jets just one example to see how hard they work sales reps and how rough it is. Its cut throat and super competitive all sales rep making promises. The super rich and kids of super rich parties will book with someone who can get their jet fast and get them in Aspen so i am sure they would never warn against this reality. Thankfully the pilots are highly trained and im sure are not bullied often but im sure still see pressure at times from totally unrealistic passengers.

That jet accident years ago before was rich party kids from LA who i thought were being super mad and applying tons of pressure to get the jet to land in Aspen. The plane crashed on trying to land.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: BreninTW
Posted 2014-01-21 20:24:51 and read 4969 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 74):
7. There were only three aboard the accident aircraft, including crew - indicating a likelihood that the passenger(s) was (were) a VIP of some sort.

From the quote below, it appears that all three persons onboard were pilots.

Quoting Kaphias (Reply 39):
The passenger was described as another pilot, the sheriff's office statement said

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2014-01-22 04:13:14 and read 4485 times.

I can't help but wonder about how hard the plane first hit. That bounce up was higher than the DC-10 that rolled at Narita.

Then the nose down final contact.

Interesting to see the blowing snow in the IR videos.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: B747400ERF
Posted 2014-01-22 06:35:01 and read 4219 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 74):
There were only three aboard the accident aircraft, including crew - indicating a likelihood that the passenger(s) was (were) a VIP of some sort.

No, if there are only 3 people on board it means a positioning flight.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rcair1
Posted 2014-01-22 12:36:20 and read 3872 times.

Quoting okie (Reply 76):
Infrared video of the Challenger crash at ASE

In the video from, camera 3 I think, you can clearly see blowing snow on the apron. Compare it with the size and movement of the people and you will see how much of a tail wind there was.

Camera 5 is shaking in the wind, and again, you can see snow.

In addition, the behaviour of the a/c in Camera 5 after the bound looked like, either a sudden stall or a very heavy nose down input. I'm thinking the later - overcorrection due to nose high attitude, but it could be a stall. In any event, that airplane does not just bounce up and down, that down was a very positive motion.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: okie
Posted 2014-01-22 14:16:41 and read 3668 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 82):
In the video from, camera 3 I think, you can clearly see blowing snow on the apron. Compare it with the size and movement of the people and you will see how much of a tail wind there was.

16 gusting 25. The tail wind limit is 10kt for the Challenger

30 aircraft landed successfully at ASE that morning although I do not know if there were other Challengers.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 82):

In addition, the behaviour of the a/c in Camera 5 after the bound looked like

The issue is if you look at Camera 5 from the beginning the aircraft made at least 3 if not 4 previous dives on approach looking for the ground or a flares before the aircraft made contact with the runway and bounced.

The aircraft was purchased Mid Dec 2013 flights by the new owner/company?
Dec 19 Dallas to TLC (Toluca, Mx)
Dec 21 TLC-TUS-EGE
EGE-TLC
Jan 5 2014 TLC-TUS-(ASE)
That appears to be about 5 landings with the new owner.

The deceased pilot had a special permit issued for the CL-600 in Nov 2013, although all three had plenty of hours since mid 90's

Being unfamiliar with the aircraft may play an important role in landing in challenging conditions at a challenging airport outside the limits of the aircraft.


Okie

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: 26point2
Posted 2014-01-22 14:41:43 and read 3574 times.

I have 1500 hours flying the Challenger and can say one of its oddities is the very flat/nose low attitude during touchdown..Challenger has no leading edge device. Any effort to force the landing with too much speed will likely result in a nose wheel strike. A pilot new to this type distracted by a difficult landing situation could easily forget about this in his effort to force the plane on.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: baw716
Posted 2014-01-22 16:29:15 and read 3391 times.

After reviewing all five camera shots of the accident, ATC recordings and still photos, here is an analysis of what I have seen and heard from the information I've reviewed.

BIG DISCLAIMER: I do not have all the facts. What I am going to describe is what I see and hear from the various reports. This analysis is therefore very much SUBJECTIVE and should be considered as such. I don't claim to have sufficient information to make any conclusions as to causality. In other words, please don't flame me if you disagree with anything I state here.

Camera 1...it appears that the a/c landed long. Looking at the Jepp 19-03 chart (the pictorial) for rwy 15, the touchdown zone is before the first taxiway. In this view, the aircraft is not on the runway as it goes out of view frame left. From this, I can say with a degree of certainty that he landed long.

Camera 2...This view is from much further down rwy 15...just as he flairs, the tail appears to pitch down causing the a/c to bounce... the aircraft rises then a second nose over causes the aircraft to hit hard nose wheel first, then the mains. At this instant, it --appears-- that the pilot is executing a go around, because there is significant thrust visible on infrared coming from the engines that was not as pronounced as on the earlier camera shot.

At the left 1/4 of the frame, the a/c appears to be in a positive climb which again suggests this was a balked landing and attempted go around. However, just as the aircraft goes out of frame, the a/c starts to nose over.

Camera 3...When the a/c comes into view at the right side of the frame, the a/c is already nose down... just before impact the a/c is as much as 10-12 degrees nose down. At the point of impact, the left wing is up, the right is down and the aircraft impacts nose first into the runway, the right wing probably separated causing the aircraft to roll over to the right on its back and continued moving more or less down the runway. It takes approximately 20 seconds to come to a stop. Reviewing the 10-9 chart for ASE, it appears the point of impact was somewhere between taxiway A2and A3 just in front of the control tower.

Camera 4 - This camera angle would suggest where the aircraft came to a stop, which is just after the A4 taxiway in front of the commercial terminal.

Camera 5 - This camera shot shows the entire final approach and subsequent impact. I had a look at the approach plate for the LOC-DME E approach (11-1 page) and the approach angle is a whopping 6.59 degrees. This means at an approach speed of, say, 140 knots, the vertical speed in the descent is as higher than 1600 feet per minute, and if there was any gust component added to the landing speed (max 20kts), the vertical descent could be as high as 1872 feet per minute. Compared to a 3 degree angle and about a 700-800 fpm vertical rate for an average ILS approach, this creates a need to really pull out of the landing at the right moment and would explain a great deal why the aircraft landed long.

Looking at the initial flare, it appears that the aircraft was stable at 50 feet, but then floated for several hundred feet (if you remember Camera 1's view, in which the aircraft seems to just hang over the runway, then start to pitch down just as the aircraft leaves frame left). At 02:12 in the video, the tail appears to rise. At 02:13, the aircraft is more flat as it makes -- I believe -- initial ground contact. At 02:14 in the video, the nose comes down and there is a white flash at the front of the aircraft, which suggests nose wheel contacting the ground, followed by the mains...a hard bounce.

At 02:16 in the video, the aircraft appears to be in positive climb, left wing slightly down. At 02:17, the tail appears to be "picked up" as the nose suddenly drops from 10 degrees up to about 10 degrees down. At 02:18 in the video, the aircraft is at its greatest height above the runway, but the nose is pitched down almost 15 degrees. As the tail rises, the aircraft appears to slip from left wing down to right wing down. At 02:19, the aircraft strikes the runway, right wing down and rolls over to the right on its back and skids down the runway.

The still photographs of the aircraft I have seen support this theory; the wing separated outboard of the right main gear strut and was folded under the overturned fueslage when it came to rest. The reason the aircraft is more or less intact is owed to both the cold weather and the speed of the fire crews to get to the aircraft before the fire could spread beyond the right wing.

So what happened?? At this point....this is pure speculation. However, we know a few things:

1. The maximum demonstrated tailwind for the CL-600 is 10 kts. While the maximum demonstrated tailwind is the "do not exceed number"...it doesn't mean that the aircraft can't land with a higher tailwind.
2. The a/c was cleared for the first landing with winds 320 at 12 gusting 25. This is a mean tailwind of 11.8kts with a right crosswind (RXW) of 2.1kts. Airspeed gains of 20kts on final were reported to the aircraft on the first approach.
3. The aircraft executed a go around, reporting 33kts of tailwind.
4. The wind component given to the pilot by the tower prior to the crash was "330 at 16, runway 15, ... one minute average, 320 at 14 gusts 25". This is a higher mean tailwind than the first approach (XW0, TW 16kts) and the average last hr wind was RXW 2.4kts, mean TW 13.8 kts, with gust, 25kts.
5. The METAR: KASE 051853Z 31009G28KT 270V360 9SM HZ FEW035 BKN046 OVC050 M11/M20 A3007 RMK AO2 PK WND 33028/1851 SLP243 T11111200. The accident occurred roughly 30 minutes later. What I get from this is that there were significant gusts, but what is more important is that the 270V360 suggests that the wind direction was shifting between 270 and 360 degrees, hence the LLWS alerts. That said, the point in number two above is more telling, as this was the last wind report from the tower just two minutes before he landed.
6. The time between first contact on the runway and the final impact (including the second more pronounced bounce) occurred within seven seconds.

It is therefore plausible to conclude the following:
1. The aircraft was exceeding its maximum permitted (demonstrated) tailwind component of 10kts...by a minimum of at least 5-6kts.
2. The float that the aircraft experienced as seen in the Camera 1 view is not unusual in high speed landings, but the sharp pitch downs that were seen on the video are consistent with wind shear.
3. It is not possible to tell from the video if the pilot was stable in a climb after the second bounce or if the action just prior to the bounce was to pull back on the yoke to contain the fall and with the yoke in this same relative position after the bounce. If the aircraft got nose high as a result of back pressure on the yoke and limited increased thrust (remember, it takes a couple of seconds for the engines to spool up to create the needed thrust...a couple of second he didn't have), the result could have been the same --- a stall, probably of the right wing, since it fell first.

Now the hard part....the would have, should have, could have....argument:

Since I dispatch airplanes in the Rockies, I am pretty familiar with these high altitude airports and swirling wind conditions. The TAF (forecast) for that time period:

TAF KASE 051724Z 0518/0618 35010KT P6SM VCSH SCT040 BKN060 FM052100
34012KT P6SM BKN040 OVC060 FM060300 21006KT P6SM FEW050
SCT070 FM060900 19010KT P6SM SCT100

METAR: KASE 051853Z 31009G28KT 270V360 9SM HZ FEW035 BKN046 OVC050 M11/M20 A3007 RMK AO2 PK WND 33028/1851 SLP243 T11111200.

The accident occurred roughly 30 minutes later. What I get from this is that there were significant gusts, but what is more important is that the 270V360 suggests that the wind direction was shifting between 270 and 360 degrees, hence the LLWS alerts.

The forecast winds during the arrival period were 350 at 10kts (Left XW 3.4kts, TW 9.4kts), the approach requires 3SM of visibility and 2400ft ceiling. At 6000 broken (AGL) and P6SM (greater than six miles visibility) and the mean wind in the METAR was less than 10kts (gusts are not considered for dispatch to destination...if there is an alternate airport on the flight plan...and the alternate winds are within aircraft limitations -including the gusts-. Since I haven't seen the release or the filed flight plan, I can't speak to the legality of the flight. Remember, this is for departure. When he gets there, the requirements change from forecast to reported conditions at the time of landing, so the reported conditions by the tower just before he landed and more importantly, what he was experiencing during that last approach; those are the critical considerations. There are facts we just don't know yet.

In conclusion...
I'm only scratching the surface of all the available information. It has taken me several hours to review the infrared video and to be candid, I am aware that infrared can present certain visual anomalies which could lead to improper conclusions, hence my disclaimer at the beginning that this is what I see....it may NOT be what actually happened.

I think it reasonable to conclude that the landing was hot (due to the required decent angle and tailwind) and that the aircraft encountered one or two bounces. The airplane got very high in the after the second bounce, either due to a go-around or some rear pressure on the yoke at the time of the bounce. Impossible to know which at the moment. The aircraft appears to have stalled, diving nose and right wing down into the runway.

There is far too little information available to express an opinion as to causality. There are far too many factors that have not been reviewed to get to why this happened...I have many questions...so does the NTSB.

Let's see what the NTSB says.

In any case, a tragic loss of life...and learning from this accident will prevent us (as aviators) from potentially making the same mistake again.

baw716

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: 26point2
Posted 2014-01-22 17:18:08 and read 3257 times.

Quoting baw716 (Reply 85):
1. The maximum demonstrated tailwind for the CL-600 is 10 kts. While the maximum demonstrated tailwind is the "do not exceed number"...it doesn't mean that the aircraft can't land with a higher tailwind.

Perhaps you are saying the same but to be clear the CL-600 series has a 10 kt Max Tailwind Limitation. Takeoff or landing with any tailwind over 10 kts is prohibited. Typically Max Crosswind speed is of the "demonstrated" variety and is not limiting.

Looks to me the last nose-over likely the stick pusher activating. Stick pusher is very aggressive.

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: baw716
Posted 2014-01-22 17:33:25 and read 3192 times.

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 86):
Perhaps you are saying the same but to be clear the CL-600 series has a 10 kt Max Tailwind Limitation. Takeoff or landing with any tailwind over 10 kts is prohibited. Typically Max Crosswind speed is of the "demonstrated" variety and is not limiting.


It is a tailwind limitation. Takeoff and landing over 10kt tailwind is prohibited on the CL-600...
Sorry that wasn't clear.

baw716

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rcair1
Posted 2014-01-23 14:21:34 and read 2528 times.

Quoting baw716 (Reply 85):
At 02:16 in the video, the aircraft appears to be in positive climb, left wing slightly down. At 02:17, the tail appears to be "picked up" as the nose suddenly drops from 10 degrees up to about 10 degrees down. At 02:18 in the video, the aircraft is at its greatest height above the runway, but the nose is pitched down almost 15 degrees.

Looking at the video - I think the nose down pitch is significantly more than 15 degrees. It is also very sudden. I certainly don't know the stalling characteristics of the Challenger (or any swept wing a/c since I've never flown them), but it is very quick. I think it could be consistent with a power on stall - which can be very abrupt in some aircraft. I've certainly experienced a sudden pitch down in the aircraft I've flown during a power on stall. But that fast?

However, my understanding of how swept wing aircraft stall is somewhat inconsistent with a rapid nose drop like what is seen.

Can somebody who actually knows about stalling in something like the Challenger comment?

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: 26point2
Posted 2014-01-23 14:43:39 and read 2462 times.

Yes. I have 6 years on the CL 601 and 604.

As I said a few post prior to yours it's not a stall you are seeing but the Stick Pusher activating. The Stick Pusher is intended to push the nose over to avoid an aerodynamic stall which could be an unrecoverable situation on the Challenger and other transport category aircraft. Clearly the Stick Pusher is intended to help from losing control when there is some altitude to work with and not while over the runway.

One cannot stall the Challenger in the traditional sense as the Stick Pusher will activate just before the aerodynamic stall occurs. The stick pusher is very aggressive. There is an override switch on the Challenger yoke near the pilot's thumb but most guys would be hard pressed to find it quickly enough in those circumstances.

[Edited 2014-01-23 14:54:15]

Topic: RE: Aircraft Accident At ASE
Username: rcair1
Posted 2014-01-23 16:00:39 and read 2298 times.

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 89):
As I said a few post prior to yours

Sorry- I missed it.

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 89):
but the Stick Pusher activating.
Quoting 26point2 (Reply 89):
Stick Pusher will activate just before the aerodynamic stall occurs.

Thanks for your expertise. This makes perfect sense to me given the T-tail configuration of the Challenger. I knew that the goal in this class aircraft was to avoid a situation that causes loss of pitch control due to blocking of flow over the T-tail - but I did not understand how that was achieved. The only stick pusher in the a/c I fly is me.

Clearly we do not know that happened yet, but the video combined with your expertise does make the following scenario seem credible: a bounce leading to high angle of attack, approaching stall, then hard nose-over due to the stick pusher/pilot input. Do you also get a nose down moment from increasing thrust on the Challenger since the engines are above the wing (opposite of the nose up moment for under wing engines).?

No matter how I stared at it, I was struggling with thinking I was seeing a stall - but more of a nose down input. I stick pusher could certainly do that - particularly if the pilot was, at the same time, applying nose down input due to his awareness of approaching stall. It could be he pushed forward, but the oncoming stall activated the pusher at the same time. In that scenario - a pilot pushing down and the pusher kicking in - given the time available I don't think any pilot could react quickly enough.

Sad.....


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/