Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
wjcandee
Posts: 10657
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:32 am

So I did a little digging myself. TARCO Aircraft Funding isn't some big aircraft lessor, as it's currently the registrant for only this aircraft. It might even be a single-purpose entity to own the aircraft of a wealthy individual. The LLC's business address in Fort Lauderdale, FL, is also the address of a company called SkyPointe Aviation Capital and Consulting Services, which seems a bit aspirational and apparently consults on aircraft acquisition and airport real estate development. It lists two offices, the one used by TARCO and another in Boston.

It's pretty-clear that the TR in the tail number is Todd Ruderman. TARCO is an abbreviation for Todd A. Ruderman Company. Ruderman is a wealthy, philanthropic South Florida real estate investor who owns a buttload of self-storage facilities, primarily in Florida. His primary business is called TARCO Properties; again, using his initials in the name. His extended family apparently is also successful and philanthropic, and seems to come from Boston, where Skypointe is located. The head of the family foundation is Jay Ruderman, who also has a kind of progressive podcast that he does. He posted a bunch of stuff today that's the kind of new-agey stuff he usually posts, so it's a bit hard to believe that anything tragic has happened to a family member; accordingly, that makes it less-likely that TR was aboard that crashed aircraft. Of course, one never knows, and he could have an assistant or whatever who maintains his Twitter feed.

Looking at the aircraft travel history, it looks like private operation, not a charter, although, again, hard to know. Assuming it's a Part 91 operation, it can't carry pax for hire, but it can take people places for free, which could include philanthropic missions. So one need not assume that the owner and/or family is aboard.

So I got pretty-far with a few minutes of internet digging. Interesting that reporters and the like haven't investigated or said much. More interesting will be to see the details as they emerge.

UPDATE: One little bit of digging; there's a Truckee Airport Board meeting going on now by Zoom, in which the incident is being discussed. I checked into it -- open to the public -- but it was mostly NIMBY's bitching about the airport and the dangers to their homes and such, so I bailed.
Last edited by wjcandee on Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
airlinepeanuts
Topic Author
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:16 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:32 am

wjcandee wrote:
Interesting that two days later, a lot of information hasn't appeared. I understand official sources withholding the information, but plainly by now, a lot of people know a lot of information that one would think would have made it into social media somewhere:
(1) Who owned/leased the aircraft? (Name of finance company tells us nothing.)
(2) Who operated the aircraft? Private/corporate/air-taxi? That would let us know what rules it was operating under.
(3) Pilot experience. Plainly, a lot of people knew who they were. Names are none of my business, but some insight into background and experience would be interesting.


They just revealed the total count of souls on board that perished was 6 so maybe they were waiting until notifying family/next of kin as I'm sure the investigation is still in its infancy.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10657
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:35 am

airlinepeanuts wrote:
They just revealed the total count of souls on board that perished was 6 so maybe they were waiting until notifying family/next of kin as I'm sure the investigation is still in its infancy.


Agreed. LIke I said, the official sources are going to be circumspect. However, information typically leaks out, particularly in the days of social media. The pilots have families who may be posting GoFundMe requests or responding to condolences; the business community and the private ownership community and the airport folks who know this aircraft and its crew and its typical pax (assuming, as I do, that it's a private operation for a wealthy individual) all could/can be concerned and trying to get information, which often ends up online in various fora and on the likes of Facebook and Twitter.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15605
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:39 am

wjcandee wrote:
So I did a little digging myself. TARCO Aircraft Funding isn't some big aircraft lessor, as it's currently the registrant for only this aircraft. It might even be a single-purpose entity to own the aircraft of a wealthy individual. The LLC's business address in Fort Lauderdale, FL, is also the address of a company called SkyPointe Aviation Capital and Consulting Services, which seems a bit aspirational and apparently consults on aircraft acquisition and airport real estate development. It lists two offices, the one used by TARCO and another in Boston.

It's pretty-clear that the TR in the tail number is Todd Ruderman. TARCO is an abbreviation for Todd A. Ruderman Company. Ruderman is a wealthy, philanthropic South Florida real estate investor who owns a buttload of self-storage facilities, primarily in Florida. His primary business is called TARCO Properties; again, using his initials in the name. His extended family apparently is also successful and philanthropic, and seems to come from Boston, where Skypointe is located. The head of the family foundation is Jay Ruderman, who also has a kind of progressive podcast that he does. He posted a bunch of stuff today that's the kind of new-agey stuff he usually posts, so it's a bit hard to believe that anything tragic has happened to a family member; accordingly, that makes it less-likely that TR was aboard that crashed aircraft. Of course, one never knows, and he could have an assistant or whatever who maintains his Twitter feed.

Looking at the aircraft travel history, it looks like private operation, not a charter, although, again, hard to know.

So I got pretty-far with a few minutes of internet digging. Interesting that reporters and the like haven't investigated or said much.


Well done wj. You’d be surprised at the myriad threads that can emerge from a single background check. Also you are correct - if wealthy folks are clued in on net security, their social accounts will rest on a handler’s device and be run through that surrogate.

On an unrelated note, does anyone have the METAR from the time of the accident?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10657
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:47 am

Aaron747 wrote:
On an unrelated note, does anyone have the METAR from the time of the accident?


metar ktrk 261945Z auto 09005kt 04sm bkn023 32/06 A3014 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023=

So the official visibility is 4SM, but the remark notes 3.5 variable to 5 miles in smoke.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:25 am

Here’s the METARs on either side of the crash at 2018Z

KTRK 262050Z AUTO 28011G16KT 04SM BKN023 33/08 A3013 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023 ACFT MSHP

KTRK 261945Z AUTO 09005KT 04SM BKN023 32/06 A3014 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023

They were circling, barest of VFR. 500’ below the cloud deck and 3-ism miles in smoke.
Last edited by GalaxyFlyer on Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
graceintheair
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:11 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:34 am

SuseJ772 wrote:
We wouldn’t have Part 121 without Part 135 and Part 91. It’s the necessary “evil” if you will that is the prerequisite for Part 121. Making Part 91 even LESS accessible will dry up the quality pilot pipeline even more than it already is. Also, given the type of aircraft flown, the type of airports flown into, and the experience of the pilots, I’d say the safety record is still pretty damn good.

(Also, don’t read into this saying all Part 135 is bad, or that everyone in Part 135 is just a stepping stone to 121. Only that without 91/135, you wouldn’t have 121)


You make good points. Although I think the mandatory retirement age should be extended to any operation carrying passengers. And I say that as someone much closer to 70 than 40. Age is something we cannot do anything about. And I extend this philosophy to flight attendants as well. Our reflexes are not as good as they once were. Take a bow and enjoy retirement years and let the new generation have a turn. I always loved working with new hires.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:59 am

93Sierra wrote:

Wrong it’s a cat d for circling cat c for straight in


A bit of background here, in the US as you know charts are designed to a standard called TERPS, where the majority of the world uses PAN-OPS. The area around an airport that is assessed for obstacles and terrain under TERPS is smaller than PAN-OPS. As a result operations within TERPS circling areas may require higher angles of bank, which makes circling under this criteria as higher risk.

Under ICAO/PAN-OPS there is only one approach category, for example under ICAO the A320 is Cat C where under TERPS it’s the same as the 605 CAT C straight in and CAT D circling.

If this was an ICAO procedure to the same airport the circling minina would be higher, however the circling area would be larger (lower bank angles), requiring higher vis.

Hopefully this accident will prompt a new RNP(AR) to be developed to improve safety for these larger aircraft.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4604
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:12 am

JasonInRVA wrote:
Longtime lurker -- registered an account here to share an additional video of the actual crash for those who are interested. The visibility is limited, but the aircraft can be observed impacting the canopy and the subsequent fireball is seen. I don't think this video is widespread at this point, but I'm sure it will be soon. https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdv1yWmJ/


How about the school bus?!! Had that driver been 4 seconds slower? Holy smokes!!! It crashed in front of the bus!

https://www.abc10.com/mobile/article/ne ... 6106a1ba12
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15605
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:20 am

F9Animal wrote:
JasonInRVA wrote:
Longtime lurker -- registered an account here to share an additional video of the actual crash for those who are interested. The visibility is limited, but the aircraft can be observed impacting the canopy and the subsequent fireball is seen. I don't think this video is widespread at this point, but I'm sure it will be soon. https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdv1yWmJ/


How about the school bus?!! Had that driver been 4 seconds slower? Holy smokes!!! It crashed in front of the bus!

https://www.abc10.com/mobile/article/ne ... 6106a1ba12


Thorough interview with the school bus driver. Awesome dude

https://youtu.be/0vJbCZ3Z1aE
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15605
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:22 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Here’s the METARs on either side of the crash at 2018Z

KTRK 262050Z AUTO 28011G16KT 04SM BKN023 33/08 A3013 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023 ACFT MSHP

KTRK 261945Z AUTO 09005KT 04SM BKN023 32/06 A3014 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023

They were circling, barest of VFR. 500’ below the cloud deck and 3-ism miles in smoke.


Absolute crap conditions for a field like KTRK.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1197
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:59 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
N766UA wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

In 2018, NTSB showed 7 fatal hull loses causing 16 fatalities for P135 On demand operations.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/dat ... s2018.aspx

Of these types, Falcon 2000, 900, 7x, 8X, G280, G5 & 550, G650, CL300/350, Globals of all varieties, none had a fatal hull loss. Of the 800+ 604/605/650 in service, this is the third fatal hull loss. Turboprops, different story.


Looking at 2012-2018, the fatal accident rate is pretty consistently 4 to 5 times that of part 121 carriers. Does Part 135 do 4 to 5 times as much flying as the airlines? Should we consider this rate to be acceptable?


Apples to oranges, very different operations with very different risk analysis. What would if 121 accident rate be if you flew on-demand charters to any airport in the world? Without the resources of an airline.

Could it be better? Possibly. Are their differences between the best 91/135 operations and the worst ones? Yes, vastly greater than in P121. Does the FAA care? Likely not much from what I’ve seen; it’s much more up to the operator what level of safety that want. The best equal the 121; the worst are an embarrassment.

EDIT: Comparing 121 and 135 fatal accident rates per 100,000 hours in the link I posted; it’s about .16 vs. around .20 per 100,000 hours. Or am I missing something?


The US airlines do around 10 million segments a year. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/

Some years have zero fatal accidents, knock on wood. Some years more than one.

US / safe country style airline flying has around one fatal incident per 10 million segments (say 20 million hours). So around .005 fatal incidents per 100,000 hours.

At times, the USA have had lucky streaks of 10 years without a fatal flying incident on airlines. So the above figure is conservatively high.

Thanks for the high quality thread, all.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1197
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:46 am

LCDFlight wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
N766UA wrote:

Looking at 2012-2018, the fatal accident rate is pretty consistently 4 to 5 times that of part 121 carriers. Does Part 135 do 4 to 5 times as much flying as the airlines? Should we consider this rate to be acceptable?


Apples to oranges, very different operations with very different risk analysis. What would if 121 accident rate be if you flew on-demand charters to any airport in the world? Without the resources of an airline.

Could it be better? Possibly. Are their differences between the best 91/135 operations and the worst ones? Yes, vastly greater than in P121. Does the FAA care? Likely not much from what I’ve seen; it’s much more up to the operator what level of safety that want. The best equal the 121; the worst are an embarrassment.

EDIT: Comparing 121 and 135 fatal accident rates per 100,000 hours in the link I posted; it’s about .16 vs. around .20 per 100,000 hours. Or am I missing something?


The US airlines do around 10 million segments a year. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/

Some years have zero fatal accidents, knock on wood. Some years more than one.

US / safe country style airline flying has around one fatal incident per 10 million segments (say 20 million hours). So around .005 fatal incidents per 100,000 hours.

At times, the USA have had lucky streaks of 10 years without a fatal flying incident on airlines. So the above figure is conservatively high.

Thanks for the high quality thread, all.


Clarification, my above post was about scheduled, fixed wing, passenger airline flights. Freight seems to be more dangerous per flight. There have been a couple of depressurization incidents with 1 fatality each on the passenger side. We rarely lose a whole pax plane in the US these days, knock on wood.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:57 pm

The real difference between the two operations (121 v 91 corporate, 91K, 135) is the airlines have very predictable operations with intense risk analysis all with FAA oversight. FSDO oversight isn’t nearly what the airlines experience. Most airlines now are looking for catastrophic risks at 1 in a billion probability. Little of that type of analysis occurs elsewhere, even in other forms of public transport. An airline at KTRK would have show a risk at less than 1 in a million operations and say no way will we operate there, likely. The small jet operator looks at the problem as “one-offs”; will I succeed this week. It takes a lot of focus and “horsepower” on chief pilots’ to overcome that barrier.

All the said, in any given year there are far fewer fatalities in these non-airline, professionally flown operations than occur on any day on our roads. Not to dismiss their loss, but for the size of 91/135 operations, basically self-regulated, fewer than 30 fatalities a year is pretty remarkable, as is the roughly 3,000 frames without one fatal hull loss. In the last 20 years twice as many current production bizjets have been lost to hail or hangar collapses than lost in accidents.
 
PhilMcCrackin
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:54 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 7:18 pm

airlinepeanuts wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Interesting that two days later, a lot of information hasn't appeared. I understand official sources withholding the information, but plainly by now, a lot of people know a lot of information that one would think would have made it into social media somewhere:
(1) Who owned/leased the aircraft? (Name of finance company tells us nothing.)
(2) Who operated the aircraft? Private/corporate/air-taxi? That would let us know what rules it was operating under.
(3) Pilot experience. Plainly, a lot of people knew who they were. Names are none of my business, but some insight into background and experience would be interesting.


They just revealed the total count of souls on board that perished was 6 so maybe they were waiting until notifying family/next of kin as I'm sure the investigation is still in its infancy.


Six people were on the plane. Two were pilots, three were employees of a commercial real estate firm based out of California, no word on who the fourth was. None of the named have a surname of Ruderman.
 
airlinepeanuts
Topic Author
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:16 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:49 pm

So sad to hear, here's an article naming the pilot and 3 of the passengers: https://kesq.com/news/2021/07/28/coache ... ake-tahoe/
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10657
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:15 pm

PhilMcCrackin wrote:
Six people were on the plane. Two were pilots, three were employees of a commercial real estate firm based out of California, no word on who the fourth was. None of the named have a surname of Ruderman.


Okay, interesting. Plainly the thing had been flying primarily West Coast. Hideaway Properties, where the pax apparently worked, is the real estate sales arm of the Hideaway Country Club in LaQuinta, which is a golf/luxury-housing development of Mike Meldman, who owns Discovery Land Company, which builds these things in places like Hawaii, etc. You build a big golf course ('private country club") with luxury homes on it.

I don't know what if any connection there is between the aircraft registrant, which is a Todd Ruderman company, and Mike Meldman. Maybe Ruderman financed the plane for Meldman, but that doesn't sound likely, as Meldman doesn't need the money. What they can't be doing, if they're Part 91, is chartering it out, I believe, so it's a mystery. One of the pilots was a Coachella Valley guy -- i.e. from right near the Hideaway property -- so it's a bit of a mystery, which I'm sure will be unravelled.

According to his LInkedIn page, the captain was a contract pilot with 2300+ hours in Challengers, and had flown Bombardier aircraft for PSA for 10 years, then went to EOS before it tanked, was a training instructor/examiner on the CRJ for Bombardier, working with Pluna while they transitioned their fleet to CRJ-900s, and a bunch of other stuff. But I guess all this means nothing when one has, perhaps, a momentary lapse in judgment by thinking you can muscle it in unstabilized -- like the WN pilot who said "My fault, my fault, my fault" as the 737 went off the end of the runway and into the gas station. Except this time the outcome was catastrophic. From the radio traffic, it sounded like a very casual cockpit, but I guess we won't know until the CVR comes out.

Also interesting: it doesn't seem from the passenger list like there were any big Machers on board, so hard to see the pax pressure of trying to make TRK instead of diverting to RNO. Maybe momentary overconfidence. Sad.

One observation: the couple who was killed was characterized as "owners and members" of Hideaway CC, which some media have interpreted as meaning they're owners of the real estate agency. I didn't get that from the statement: more like they're members of the club and property owners (i.e. residents) there. We'll see.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:51 pm

Could be a time-sharing arrangement under 91, subpart 501. Contract captain is interesting, usually contractors are fill-in for the company crew, as co-pilot only. Lot of airline flying, maybe not much corporate-135, not used to going into places like KTRK. Certainly experienced, tho. Pax, in my experience in 15 years don’t go forward or tell pilots to “get in or else”. I’ve diverted, cancelled, said “nope” without question dozens of times. They don’t want to die anymore than the pilots.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4604
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:41 pm

wjcandee wrote:
PhilMcCrackin wrote:
Six people were on the plane. Two were pilots, three were employees of a commercial real estate firm based out of California, no word on who the fourth was. None of the named have a surname of Ruderman.


Okay, interesting. Plainly the thing had been flying primarily West Coast. Hideaway Properties, where the pax apparently worked, is the real estate sales arm of the Hideaway Country Club in LaQuinta, which is a golf/luxury-housing development of Mike Meldman, who owns Discovery Land Company, which builds these things in places like Hawaii, etc. You build a big golf course ('private country club") with luxury homes on it.

I don't know what if any connection there is between the aircraft registrant, which is a Todd Ruderman company, and Mike Meldman. Maybe Ruderman financed the plane for Meldman, but that doesn't sound likely, as Meldman doesn't need the money. What they can't be doing, if they're Part 91, is chartering it out, I believe, so it's a mystery. One of the pilots was a Coachella Valley guy -- i.e. from right near the Hideaway property -- so it's a bit of a mystery, which I'm sure will be unravelled.

According to his LInkedIn page, the captain was a contract pilot with 2300+ hours in Challengers, and had flown Bombardier aircraft for PSA for 10 years, then went to EOS before it tanked, was a training instructor/examiner on the CRJ for Bombardier, working with Pluna while they transitioned their fleet to CRJ-900s, and a bunch of other stuff. But I guess all this means nothing when one has, perhaps, a momentary lapse in judgment by thinking you can muscle it in unstabilized -- like the WN pilot who said "My fault, my fault, my fault" as the 737 went off the end of the runway and into the gas station. Except this time the outcome was catastrophic. From the radio traffic, it sounded like a very casual cockpit, but I guess we won't know until the CVR comes out.

Also interesting: it doesn't seem from the passenger list like there were any big Machers on board, so hard to see the pax pressure of trying to make TRK instead of diverting to RNO. Maybe momentary overconfidence. Sad.

One observation: the couple who was killed was characterized as "owners and members" of Hideaway CC, which some media have interpreted as meaning they're owners of the real estate agency. I didn't get that from the statement: more like they're members of the club and property owners (i.e. residents) there. We'll see.


Wow, the PIC sure did have a pretty impressive background on the type. Makes me wonder if something mechanical might have happened? Or, maybe the FO was flying and stalled it? Any info on the FO yet?
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
Canuck600
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:11 am

You can have a impressive background on type, but only takes one stupid decision or lapse of concentration to end up a smoking hole in the ground
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:24 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Contract captain is interesting, usually contractors are fill-in for the company crew, as co-pilot only.


You and I know it takes two to fly these aircraft, the newspapers don't (reference made to "the pilot"). The person named as "the pilot" could have been SIC. Tragic outcome either way.

Can you think of a reason why they didn't fly the RNAV approach for 11 or the published circling approach both of which are more aligned with the runway ?
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
OldB747Driver
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:40 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:02 am

These are the numbers as listed on flightaware for the last 5 minutes of flight - a nearly 4 thousand FPM decent only 5 minutes from landing? Keep following the numbers....
Don't know about this particular model, but the CRJ200 had a flaps 8 speed of 230 KIAS. It is apparent where the rate of descent was adjusted aggressively, my guess - to get the flaps extended fully, which I assume also required the speed brake to have been deployed, likely, since FL200 from the profile (and gear down) which makes it easier to forget about, especially with the distractions of an actual 3sm circling approach in mountainous terrain. What are the chances the investigators find that the spoilers are still in the deployed position?

Mon 04:13:00 PM 39.5949 -120.0311 ↓ 195° 297 342 13,400 -3,865 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KSMF)
Mon 04:13:34 PM 39.5516 -120.0466 ↓ 195° 301 346 11,250 -3,393 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:14:01 PM 39.5148 -120.0596 ↓ 195° 288 331 9,950 -1,856 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:14:33 PM 39.4769 -120.0729 ↓ 195° 239 275 9,425 -1,048 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:15:04 PM 39.4462 -120.0840 ↓ 196° 222 255 8,850 -1,426 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRTS)
Mon 04:15:34 PM 39.4180 -120.0942 ↓ 196° 199 229 7,975 -1,429 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:16:07 PM 39.3895 -120.1043 ↓ 195° 196 226 7,350 -581 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)
Mon 04:17:25 PM 39.3500 -120.1564 ← 264° 138 159 6,900 -484 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)
Mon 04:17:43 PM 39.3435 -120.1687 ↙ 203° 150 173 6,575 -1,103 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)
Mon 04:17:59 PM 39.3333 -120.1686 ↓ 172° 148 170 6,275 -1,125 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)

I see a little back-and-forth about the safety of various type of operations (91 v 135 v 121) - in this case, if I had flown an approach like this I would have been explaining myself in front of my chief pilot even if I had greased the landing. Not so much the operator of a Part 91 flight. I'll not cast the first stone, as I've had my share of "less than prudent" decisions over my career, but the brazenness of this approach infers this wasn't the first time such a maneuver was attempted...
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15605
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:08 am

wjcandee wrote:
PhilMcCrackin wrote:
Six people were on the plane. Two were pilots, three were employees of a commercial real estate firm based out of California, no word on who the fourth was. None of the named have a surname of Ruderman.


Okay, interesting. Plainly the thing had been flying primarily West Coast. Hideaway Properties, where the pax apparently worked, is the real estate sales arm of the Hideaway Country Club in LaQuinta, which is a golf/luxury-housing development of Mike Meldman, who owns Discovery Land Company, which builds these things in places like Hawaii, etc. You build a big golf course ('private country club") with luxury homes on it.

I don't know what if any connection there is between the aircraft registrant, which is a Todd Ruderman company, and Mike Meldman. Maybe Ruderman financed the plane for Meldman, but that doesn't sound likely, as Meldman doesn't need the money. What they can't be doing, if they're Part 91, is chartering it out, I believe, so it's a mystery. One of the pilots was a Coachella Valley guy -- i.e. from right near the Hideaway property -- so it's a bit of a mystery, which I'm sure will be unravelled.

According to his LInkedIn page, the captain was a contract pilot with 2300+ hours in Challengers, and had flown Bombardier aircraft for PSA for 10 years, then went to EOS before it tanked, was a training instructor/examiner on the CRJ for Bombardier, working with Pluna while they transitioned their fleet to CRJ-900s, and a bunch of other stuff. But I guess all this means nothing when one has, perhaps, a momentary lapse in judgment by thinking you can muscle it in unstabilized -- like the WN pilot who said "My fault, my fault, my fault" as the 737 went off the end of the runway and into the gas station. Except this time the outcome was catastrophic. From the radio traffic, it sounded like a very casual cockpit, but I guess we won't know until the CVR comes out.

Also interesting: it doesn't seem from the passenger list like there were any big Machers on board, so hard to see the pax pressure of trying to make TRK instead of diverting to RNO. Maybe momentary overconfidence. Sad.

One observation: the couple who was killed was characterized as "owners and members" of Hideaway CC, which some media have interpreted as meaning they're owners of the real estate agency. I didn't get that from the statement: more like they're members of the club and property owners (i.e. residents) there. We'll see.


Someone mentioned KTEB earlier in the thread, and I have to say the radio presented a similarly casual cockpit atmosphere. Hopefully it wasn't the captain telling the other guy 'meh, marginal conditions, but I'm king of this jet'.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1197
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:34 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Could be a time-sharing arrangement under 91, subpart 501. Contract captain is interesting, usually contractors are fill-in for the company crew, as co-pilot only. Lot of airline flying, maybe not much corporate-135, not used to going into places like KTRK. Certainly experienced, tho. Pax, in my experience in 15 years don’t go forward or tell pilots to “get in or else”. I’ve diverted, cancelled, said “nope” without question dozens of times. They don’t want to die anymore than the pilots.


Very fair. Those sound like solid and legit qualifications, but the style of flying is certainly different from scheduled.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:52 am

zeke wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Contract captain is interesting, usually contractors are fill-in for the company crew, as co-pilot only.


You and I know it takes two to fly these aircraft, the newspapers don't (reference made to "the pilot"). The person named as "the pilot" could have been SIC. Tragic outcome either way.

Can you think of a reason why they didn't fly the RNAV approach for 11 or the published circling approach both of which are more aligned with the runway ?


No, I can’t but, again over at PPW, some local pilots say ATC tries to assign the RNAV 20 because the 11 approach causes delays for departures and can interfere with RNO traffic. A previous TRK arrival had to push hard for the 11 approach, taking a delay and making several requests. Not familiar, so can’t assess the validity.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10657
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:01 am

wjcandee wrote:
One observation: the couple who was killed was characterized as "owners and members" of Hideaway CC, which some media have interpreted as meaning they're owners of the real estate agency. I didn't get that from the statement: more like they're members of the club and property owners (i.e. residents) there. We'll see.


The very-well-written and well-researched article in the Desert Sun, a good newspaper, confirms this. The couple were members of the club and building a home on the property. So they and one of the real estate agents for the club's developer, as well as one other pax, were coming back from a trip to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho for some reason. Maybe interesting to see the legalities of that travel under the aircraft's cert.

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/20 ... 410827001/
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:03 am

zeke wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Contract captain is interesting, usually contractors are fill-in for the company crew, as co-pilot only.


You and I know it takes two to fly these aircraft, the newspapers don't (reference made to "the pilot"). The person named as "the pilot" could have been SIC. Tragic outcome either way.

Can you think of a reason why they didn't fly the RNAV approach for 11 or the published circling approach both of which are more aligned with the runway ?


Unconfirmed, but one pilot was newly typed flying with a FSI contractor. Yes, two pilots, only one has been announced.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:07 am

LCDFlight wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Could be a time-sharing arrangement under 91, subpart 501. Contract captain is interesting, usually contractors are fill-in for the company crew, as co-pilot only. Lot of airline flying, maybe not much corporate-135, not used to going into places like KTRK. Certainly experienced, tho. Pax, in my experience in 15 years don’t go forward or tell pilots to “get in or else”. I’ve diverted, cancelled, said “nope” without question dozens of times. They don’t want to die anymore than the pilots.


Very fair. Those sound like solid and legit qualifications, but the style of flying is certainly different from scheduled.



True, lots of mountain airports have lots of strange approaches, high descent rates, high MDAs. KASE is one, Sion, CHE is a good challenge, most 6-ish degrees down until 3 miles. Chambery, FR is another, as is Saanen, CHE, LSGK. FOQA data from these and others are pretty interesting.

The Swiss and French require online training and/or specify flight training. Samaden required it after some accidents. We did sim training, but rarely went due to currency req’ts.
Last edited by GalaxyFlyer on Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
graceintheair
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:11 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:15 am

F9Animal wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
PhilMcCrackin wrote:
Six people were on the plane. Two were pilots, three were employees of a commercial real estate firm based out of California, no word on who the fourth was. None of the named have a surname of Ruderman.


Okay, interesting. Plainly the thing had been flying primarily West Coast. Hideaway Properties, where the pax apparently worked, is the real estate sales arm of the Hideaway Country Club in LaQuinta, which is a golf/luxury-housing development of Mike Meldman, who owns Discovery Land Company, which builds these things in places like Hawaii, etc. You build a big golf course ('private country club") with luxury homes on it.

I don't know what if any connection there is between the aircraft registrant, which is a Todd Ruderman company, and Mike Meldman. Maybe Ruderman financed the plane for Meldman, but that doesn't sound likely, as Meldman doesn't need the money. What they can't be doing, if they're Part 91, is chartering it out, I believe, so it's a mystery. One of the pilots was a Coachella Valley guy -- i.e. from right near the Hideaway property -- so it's a bit of a mystery, which I'm sure will be unravelled.

According to his LInkedIn page, the captain was a contract pilot with 2300+ hours in Challengers, and had flown Bombardier aircraft for PSA for 10 years, then went to EOS before it tanked, was a training instructor/examiner on the CRJ for Bombardier, working with Pluna while they transitioned their fleet to CRJ-900s, and a bunch of other stuff. But I guess all this means nothing when one has, perhaps, a momentary lapse in judgment by thinking you can muscle it in unstabilized -- like the WN pilot who said "My fault, my fault, my fault" as the 737 went off the end of the runway and into the gas station. Except this time the outcome was catastrophic. From the radio traffic, it sounded like a very casual cockpit, but I guess we won't know until the CVR comes out.

Also interesting: it doesn't seem from the passenger list like there were any big Machers on board, so hard to see the pax pressure of trying to make TRK instead of diverting to RNO. Maybe momentary overconfidence. Sad.

One observation: the couple who was killed was characterized as "owners and members" of Hideaway CC, which some media have interpreted as meaning they're owners of the real estate agency. I didn't get that from the statement: more like they're members of the club and property owners (i.e. residents) there. We'll see.


Wow, the PIC sure did have a pretty impressive background on the type. Makes me wonder if something mechanical might have happened? Or, maybe the FO was flying and stalled it? Any info on the FO yet?


That seems like a harsh and perhaps even insulting conclusion to make. Some very bad accidents were caused by captains with thousands of hours.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:52 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

No, I can’t but, again over at PPW, some local pilots say ATC tries to assign the RNAV 20 because the 11 approach causes delays for departures and can interfere with RNO traffic. A previous TRK arrival had to push hard for the 11 approach, taking a delay and making several requests. Not familiar, so can’t assess the validity.


Thanks for the info about the other pilots.

Found this report on the instrument procedures at the airport, https://truckeetahoeairport.com/documen ... 101420-pdf

Surprised how steep some of the approaches are, the proposed new approach for 11 in that report seems well justified.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:10 am

zeke wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

No, I can’t but, again over at PPW, some local pilots say ATC tries to assign the RNAV 20 because the 11 approach causes delays for departures and can interfere with RNO traffic. A previous TRK arrival had to push hard for the 11 approach, taking a delay and making several requests. Not familiar, so can’t assess the validity.


Thanks for the info about the other pilots.

Found this report on the instrument procedures at the airport, https://truckeetahoeairport.com/documen ... 101420-pdf

Surprised how steep some of the approaches are, the proposed new approach for 11 in that report seems well justified.


Interesting read, Zeke. The RNAV to 11 has a 402 ft/nm descent in the f8nal segment, just outside straight-in gradient, but almost 4 degrees. The problem with RNP AR, as much of an improvement as they are, operationally and safety, is that it near impossible for a private operator to be approved. The process is designed for airlines, very few bizjet operators have spent the money and time. Boeing, not surprisingly, is one.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:30 am

It will be interesting to unwind the operational control/ownership stake of this aircraft, along with the crewing relationships.

Unlike a couple of 91/135 bizjet accidents I can think of, at least one of the pilots, if not both of the pilots were immediately qualified.

Mountain flying is unforgiving of careless, neglect or mechanical failure.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15605
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:35 am

zeke wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

No, I can’t but, again over at PPW, some local pilots say ATC tries to assign the RNAV 20 because the 11 approach causes delays for departures and can interfere with RNO traffic. A previous TRK arrival had to push hard for the 11 approach, taking a delay and making several requests. Not familiar, so can’t assess the validity.


Thanks for the info about the other pilots.

Found this report on the instrument procedures at the airport, https://truckeetahoeairport.com/documen ... 101420-pdf

Surprised how steep some of the approaches are, the proposed new approach for 11 in that report seems well justified.


Excellent read, thanks Zeke. It's always amusing how many government authorities publish reports with typos - found a pretty big one in the last paragraph on page 9, and another first paragraph of page 17. I am also confused by the runway 29 departure description on page 22, where they say using I-80 avoids residential areas. I-80 is literally surrounded by residential areas, especially on the north side of Truckee.

They set the standards but make mistakes themselves :spin:
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:54 pm

It was written by an engineering firm, as I see it. Yes, noise abatement tracks can be really stupid, Concorde on departure from JFK was designed to pass over a parking lot at the beach. Los Alamitos AAF had something similar.
 
CanukinUSA
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:37 pm

As stated that report is an engineering report that was done by an engineering firm for the airport authorities of possible approach and departure procedures in the future. It is not a environmental study so noise abatement is only mentioned when it could affect a future procedure like causing the departure procedure to go over I-80 to minimize the noise footprint from aircraft to fewer people. That will likely be a major consideration for any future procedures at this airport so it is mentioned.
This report uses the standards issued by government agencies such as the FAA in designing possible procedures it is not the standards used to design procedures.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15605
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:45 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It was written by an engineering firm, as I see it. Yes, noise abatement tracks can be really stupid, Concorde on departure from JFK was designed to pass over a parking lot at the beach. Los Alamitos AAF had something similar.


According to Zoominfo, FTE are a two employee operation - I guess that explains it. There are also typos and format errors on multiple pages of their website. When the consultants need a consultant...
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:22 pm

OldB747Driver wrote:
These are the numbers as listed on flightaware for the last 5 minutes of flight - a nearly 4 thousand FPM decent only 5 minutes from landing? Keep following the numbers....
Don't know about this particular model, but the CRJ200 had a flaps 8 speed of 230 KIAS. It is apparent where the rate of descent was adjusted aggressively, my guess - to get the flaps extended fully, which I assume also required the speed brake to have been deployed, likely, since FL200 from the profile (and gear down) which makes it easier to forget about, especially with the distractions of an actual 3sm circling approach in mountainous terrain. What are the chances the investigators find that the spoilers are still in the deployed position?

Mon 04:13:00 PM 39.5949 -120.0311 ↓ 195° 297 342 13,400 -3,865 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KSMF)
Mon 04:13:34 PM 39.5516 -120.0466 ↓ 195° 301 346 11,250 -3,393 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:14:01 PM 39.5148 -120.0596 ↓ 195° 288 331 9,950 -1,856 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:14:33 PM 39.4769 -120.0729 ↓ 195° 239 275 9,425 -1,048 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:15:04 PM 39.4462 -120.0840 ↓ 196° 222 255 8,850 -1,426 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRTS)
Mon 04:15:34 PM 39.4180 -120.0942 ↓ 196° 199 229 7,975 -1,429 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:16:07 PM 39.3895 -120.1043 ↓ 195° 196 226 7,350 -581 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)
Mon 04:17:25 PM 39.3500 -120.1564 ← 264° 138 159 6,900 -484 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)
Mon 04:17:43 PM 39.3435 -120.1687 ↙ 203° 150 173 6,575 -1,103 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)
Mon 04:17:59 PM 39.3333 -120.1686 ↓ 172° 148 170 6,275 -1,125 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)

I see a little back-and-forth about the safety of various type of operations (91 v 135 v 121) - in this case, if I had flown an approach like this I would have been explaining myself in front of my chief pilot even if I had greased the landing. Not so much the operator of a Part 91 flight. I'll not cast the first stone, as I've had my share of "less than prudent" decisions over my career, but the brazenness of this approach infers this wasn't the first time such a maneuver was attempted...


Had a look at the numbers, ADS-B transmits GS position, GPS ground speed, and pressure altitude. Looking at the numbers (converting for ISA deviation and QNH), it appears be be very warm day, ISA+30, it looks like they crossed the FAF at 9500 indicated at an IAS of around 190 kts. The approach s 3.5 degrees so it is to be expected to be over 1000 fpm at that sort of approach speed. At YAKYU the appear to be doing around 130-135 indicated based off their TAS/ALT/ISA deviation. They seem to slow down further below 130 KIAS as they maneuver.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15605
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:38 pm

zeke wrote:
OldB747Driver wrote:
These are the numbers as listed on flightaware for the last 5 minutes of flight - a nearly 4 thousand FPM decent only 5 minutes from landing? Keep following the numbers....
Don't know about this particular model, but the CRJ200 had a flaps 8 speed of 230 KIAS. It is apparent where the rate of descent was adjusted aggressively, my guess - to get the flaps extended fully, which I assume also required the speed brake to have been deployed, likely, since FL200 from the profile (and gear down) which makes it easier to forget about, especially with the distractions of an actual 3sm circling approach in mountainous terrain. What are the chances the investigators find that the spoilers are still in the deployed position?

Mon 04:13:00 PM 39.5949 -120.0311 ↓ 195° 297 342 13,400 -3,865 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KSMF)
Mon 04:13:34 PM 39.5516 -120.0466 ↓ 195° 301 346 11,250 -3,393 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:14:01 PM 39.5148 -120.0596 ↓ 195° 288 331 9,950 -1,856 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:14:33 PM 39.4769 -120.0729 ↓ 195° 239 275 9,425 -1,048 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:15:04 PM 39.4462 -120.0840 ↓ 196° 222 255 8,850 -1,426 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRTS)
Mon 04:15:34 PM 39.4180 -120.0942 ↓ 196° 199 229 7,975 -1,429 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KRNO)
Mon 04:16:07 PM 39.3895 -120.1043 ↓ 195° 196 226 7,350 -581 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)
Mon 04:17:25 PM 39.3500 -120.1564 ← 264° 138 159 6,900 -484 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)
Mon 04:17:43 PM 39.3435 -120.1687 ↙ 203° 150 173 6,575 -1,103 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)
Mon 04:17:59 PM 39.3333 -120.1686 ↓ 172° 148 170 6,275 -1,125 Descending FlightAware ADS-B (KTRK)

I see a little back-and-forth about the safety of various type of operations (91 v 135 v 121) - in this case, if I had flown an approach like this I would have been explaining myself in front of my chief pilot even if I had greased the landing. Not so much the operator of a Part 91 flight. I'll not cast the first stone, as I've had my share of "less than prudent" decisions over my career, but the brazenness of this approach infers this wasn't the first time such a maneuver was attempted...


Had a look at the numbers, ADS-B transmits GS position, GPS ground speed, and pressure altitude. Looking at the numbers (converting for ISA deviation and QNH), it appears be be very warm day, ISA+30, it looks like they crossed the FAF at 9500 indicated at an IAS of around 190 kts. The approach s 3.5 degrees so it is to be expected to be over 1000 fpm at that sort of approach speed. At YAKYU the appear to be doing around 130-135 indicated based off their TAS/ALT/ISA deviation. They seem to slow down further below 130 KIAS as they maneuver.


That jives with the crash being at 1318, the warmest time of day up there. 29C is typical for a July day in the area.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:41 pm

If your calculations are good, they were fast at the FAF, I’d have been at 160 KIAS, aiming for about 150-155 KIAS, depending on weight, during the visual pattern. With 190-ish at the FAF and that gradient, they were chasing the speed, likely using the speed brakes on final to the turn. I wouldn’t have been carrying much extra fuel. I’ve been with guys who love tons of extra fuel, which just makes for a lot of problems around the airport at both ends. HUD would have helped, but pilots needs to know how to use it. They broke off the approach course early enough to have enough room to maneuver to base. Winds at these airports can be very squirrelly, the surface might not be the same as at 1000’ especially during the heat of the day.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15605
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:01 pm

Clear day video of an approach to runway 29 at TRK in a PRM1 (and on this approach they also end up a bit hot due to the descent). The area where the accident occurred is at about the 11 o'clock position from where I stamped the video to start:

https://youtu.be/tvTvZgFXC4U?t=2001
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:39 pm

Thanks for the link, I see the golf course. I don’t know much about the Premier other than a 5% hull loss rate, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t fly around the pattern at T-38 speeds. Unless the speed is mph and even then touching down at about 140 is too fast.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4604
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:49 pm

graceintheair wrote:
F9Animal wrote:
wjcandee wrote:

Okay, interesting. Plainly the thing had been flying primarily West Coast. Hideaway Properties, where the pax apparently worked, is the real estate sales arm of the Hideaway Country Club in LaQuinta, which is a golf/luxury-housing development of Mike Meldman, who owns Discovery Land Company, which builds these things in places like Hawaii, etc. You build a big golf course ('private country club") with luxury homes on it.

I don't know what if any connection there is between the aircraft registrant, which is a Todd Ruderman company, and Mike Meldman. Maybe Ruderman financed the plane for Meldman, but that doesn't sound likely, as Meldman doesn't need the money. What they can't be doing, if they're Part 91, is chartering it out, I believe, so it's a mystery. One of the pilots was a Coachella Valley guy -- i.e. from right near the Hideaway property -- so it's a bit of a mystery, which I'm sure will be unravelled.

According to his LInkedIn page, the captain was a contract pilot with 2300+ hours in Challengers, and had flown Bombardier aircraft for PSA for 10 years, then went to EOS before it tanked, was a training instructor/examiner on the CRJ for Bombardier, working with Pluna while they transitioned their fleet to CRJ-900s, and a bunch of other stuff. But I guess all this means nothing when one has, perhaps, a momentary lapse in judgment by thinking you can muscle it in unstabilized -- like the WN pilot who said "My fault, my fault, my fault" as the 737 went off the end of the runway and into the gas station. Except this time the outcome was catastrophic. From the radio traffic, it sounded like a very casual cockpit, but I guess we won't know until the CVR comes out.

Also interesting: it doesn't seem from the passenger list like there were any big Machers on board, so hard to see the pax pressure of trying to make TRK instead of diverting to RNO. Maybe momentary overconfidence. Sad.

One observation: the couple who was killed was characterized as "owners and members" of Hideaway CC, which some media have interpreted as meaning they're owners of the real estate agency. I didn't get that from the statement: more like they're members of the club and property owners (i.e. residents) there. We'll see.


Wow, the PIC sure did have a pretty impressive background on the type. Makes me wonder if something mechanical might have happened? Or, maybe the FO was flying and stalled it? Any info on the FO yet?


That seems like a harsh and perhaps even insulting conclusion to make. Some very bad accidents were caused by captains with thousands of hours.


Not meant to be insulting at all. I'm asking if any info on the FO has been released? I haven't seen anything about the FO. For all we know, he could have been brand new on the type with minimal experience and behind the controls. We have seen countless accidents where a mix of experience and inexperience has resulted in some bad outcomes.

But no, I'm not here to insult.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
OldB747Driver
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:40 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:51 pm

zeke wrote:
Had a look at the numbers, ADS-B transmits GS position, GPS ground speed, and pressure altitude. Looking at the numbers (converting for ISA deviation and QNH), it appears be be very warm day, ISA+30, it looks like they crossed the FAF at 9500 indicated at an IAS of around 190 kts. The approach s 3.5 degrees so it is to be expected to be over 1000 fpm at that sort of approach speed. At YAKYU the appear to be doing around 130-135 indicated based off their TAS/ALT/ISA deviation. They seem to slow down further below 130 KIAS as they maneuver.

I can certainly understand giving a fellow pilot the benefit of the doubt and I can appreciate that bias to your analysis, however...

We can look at the whole of the approach and disect it (which doesn't look good) or maybe the more charitable approach (no pun intended) would be to describe how a Part 121 crew would handle these circumstances?

I would hope that most professional pilots dealing with these circumstances would quickly identify at least 3 "red flags" that needed to be specifically addressed:
  1. This is a steeper than normal approach,
  2. We will be circling in mountainous terrain at the very lowest minimums,
  3. We will be operating within a very narrow airspeed window while circling, bounded on the lower end by the min maneuvering speed and on the upper end by Cat C circling (140 KIAS) Of note here, the CRJ200 Circling speed is 141 KIAS.

The mitigating procedures would be:
  1. Brief the higher than normal descent rate evaluating for both higher TAS for the higher altitude and winds aloft,
  2. Recognition that we will have a VERY brief window with which to evalutate both the visibility as well as position to place us in a landing position for the landing runway,
  3. In order to accomplish all of these issues, we will need to be stabilized inside the FAF

While there are other briefing items for such an approach, I would assume these items would make the "extra briefing" qualifier on your flight deck? If not, I would be interested to hear why or why not.

I don't see where any of these obvious issues were addressed based on the profile/numbers, starting at FL200 and ?cruise speed? all the way down.
 
26point2
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:01 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:02 pm

zeke wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Contract captain is interesting, usually contractors are fill-in for the company crew, as co-pilot only.


You and I know it takes two to fly these aircraft, the newspapers don't (reference made to "the pilot"). The person named as "the pilot" could have been SIC. Tragic outcome either way.

Can you think of a reason why they didn't fly the RNAV approach for 11 or the published circling approach both of which are more aligned with the runway ?


As I mentioned earlier, after 40 years of flying into TRK my minimums are Day VFR. The approaches there are sketchy to begin with and if you need to fly an IFR approach into TRK then you should re evaluate the risk assessment. TRK is a fine airport if the wx is nice. Otherwise it’s not a good idea whether in a Cessna or a Challenger.

Plenty of accidents at TRK, including a few biz jets, can attest. .
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:11 am

OldB747Driver wrote:
zeke wrote:
Had a look at the numbers, ADS-B transmits GS position, GPS ground speed, and pressure altitude. Looking at the numbers (converting for ISA deviation and QNH), it appears be be very warm day, ISA+30, it looks like they crossed the FAF at 9500 indicated at an IAS of around 190 kts. The approach s 3.5 degrees so it is to be expected to be over 1000 fpm at that sort of approach speed. At YAKYU the appear to be doing around 130-135 indicated based off their TAS/ALT/ISA deviation. They seem to slow down further below 130 KIAS as they maneuver.

I can certainly understand giving a fellow pilot the benefit of the doubt and I can appreciate that bias to your analysis, however...

We can look at the whole of the approach and disect it (which doesn't look good) or maybe the more charitable approach (no pun intended) would be to describe how a Part 121 crew would handle these circumstances?

I would hope that most professional pilots dealing with these circumstances would quickly identify at least 3 "red flags" that needed to be specifically addressed:
  1. This is a steeper than normal approach,
  2. We will be circling in mountainous terrain at the very lowest minimums,
  3. We will be operating within a very narrow airspeed window while circling, bounded on the lower end by the min maneuvering speed and on the upper end by Cat C circling (140 KIAS) Of note here, the CRJ200 Circling speed is 141 KIAS.

The mitigating procedures would be:
  1. Brief the higher than normal descent rate evaluating for both higher TAS for the higher altitude and winds aloft,
  2. Recognition that we will have a VERY brief window with which to evalutate both the visibility as well as position to place us in a landing position for the landing runway,
  3. In order to accomplish all of these issues, we will need to be stabilized inside the FAF

While there are other briefing items for such an approach, I would assume these items would make the "extra briefing" qualifier on your flight deck? If not, I would be interested to hear why or why not.

I don't see where any of these obvious issues were addressed based on the profile/numbers, starting at FL200 and ?cruise speed? all the way down.


Part 121 would not circle, straight in only. No circling. I do steeper (5.3 degree) VOR approach’s into mountainous higher elevation airports, I wouldn’t even attempt to circle, go around and do another stable straight in approach.

An important aspect of this event is the density altitude of the airport. The metar posted above was
KTRK 262050Z AUTO 28011G16KT 04SM BKN023 33/08 A3013 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023 ACFT MSHP

Airport elevation is 5904’

pressure height = (standard pressure - QNH) x 1,000 + field elevation = (29.92-30.13)x1000+5904=5694’
density height = pressure altitude + [120 x (OAT - ISA Temp)]= 5694+[120x(33-3.72)]=9208’.

So a 135 KIAS indicated speed would be a 165 kt TAS (ground speed nil wind) at that density height.

My calculations at FL200 they were doing 250 KIAS, and they were stable on path at the FAF doing around 190 KIAS, that is a little quick for CAT C inside the FAF, should have been below 160.

For this 6.1% approach (3.5 degrees),
Ground speed - Required ROD

120 - 741
140 - 865
150 - 927
160 - 988
180 - 1112
200 - 1235
250 - 1544

The rates of descent broadcast by ADS-B inside the FAF would be normal for this aircraft on profile, at 8000 ft pressure they were doing 158 KIAS (where the density height was 11500 ft)
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15605
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:34 am

zeke wrote:
OldB747Driver wrote:
zeke wrote:
Had a look at the numbers, ADS-B transmits GS position, GPS ground speed, and pressure altitude. Looking at the numbers (converting for ISA deviation and QNH), it appears be be very warm day, ISA+30, it looks like they crossed the FAF at 9500 indicated at an IAS of around 190 kts. The approach s 3.5 degrees so it is to be expected to be over 1000 fpm at that sort of approach speed. At YAKYU the appear to be doing around 130-135 indicated based off their TAS/ALT/ISA deviation. They seem to slow down further below 130 KIAS as they maneuver.

I can certainly understand giving a fellow pilot the benefit of the doubt and I can appreciate that bias to your analysis, however...

We can look at the whole of the approach and disect it (which doesn't look good) or maybe the more charitable approach (no pun intended) would be to describe how a Part 121 crew would handle these circumstances?

I would hope that most professional pilots dealing with these circumstances would quickly identify at least 3 "red flags" that needed to be specifically addressed:
  1. This is a steeper than normal approach,
  2. We will be circling in mountainous terrain at the very lowest minimums,
  3. We will be operating within a very narrow airspeed window while circling, bounded on the lower end by the min maneuvering speed and on the upper end by Cat C circling (140 KIAS) Of note here, the CRJ200 Circling speed is 141 KIAS.

The mitigating procedures would be:
  1. Brief the higher than normal descent rate evaluating for both higher TAS for the higher altitude and winds aloft,
  2. Recognition that we will have a VERY brief window with which to evalutate both the visibility as well as position to place us in a landing position for the landing runway,
  3. In order to accomplish all of these issues, we will need to be stabilized inside the FAF

While there are other briefing items for such an approach, I would assume these items would make the "extra briefing" qualifier on your flight deck? If not, I would be interested to hear why or why not.

I don't see where any of these obvious issues were addressed based on the profile/numbers, starting at FL200 and ?cruise speed? all the way down.


Part 121 would not circle, straight in only. No circling. I do steeper (5.3 degree) VOR approach’s into mountainous higher elevation airports, I wouldn’t even attempt to circle, go around and do another stable straight in approach.

An important aspect of this event is the density altitude of the airport. The metar posted above was
KTRK 262050Z AUTO 28011G16KT 04SM BKN023 33/08 A3013 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023 ACFT MSHP

Airport elevation is 5904’

pressure height = (standard pressure - QNH) x 1,000 + field elevation = (29.92-30.13)x1000+5904=5694’
density height = pressure altitude + [120 x (OAT - ISA Temp)]= 5694+[120x(33-3.72)]=9208’.

So a 135 KIAS indicated speed would be a 165 kt TAS (ground speed nil wind) at that density height.

My calculations at FL200 they were doing 250 KIAS, and they were stable on path at the FAF doing around 190 KIAS, that is a little quick for CAT C inside the FAF, should have been below 160.

For this 6.1% approach (3.5 degrees),
Ground speed - Required ROD

120 - 741
140 - 865
150 - 927
160 - 988
180 - 1112
200 - 1235
250 - 1544

The rates of descent broadcast by ADS-B inside the FAF would be normal for this aircraft on profile, at 8000 ft pressure they were doing 158 KIAS (where the density height was 11500 ft)


To drive your point home, there is no circling in airline operation at a field like you're describing (VNKT?). Even so, there is a far more room to maneuver there, 5 NM to the first terrain line on the VOR runway 02 chart. At KTRK, terrain starts less than 1 NM from the field in three quadrants, with several peaks to the west, south, and east in under 2.5 NM.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16313
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:09 am

Aaron747 wrote:
At KTRK, terrain starts less than 1 NM from the field in three quadrants, with several peaks to the west, south, and east in under 2.5 NM.


Circling is prohibited south of 29, and east of 2.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
seat55a
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Sat Jul 31, 2021 2:45 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Unless the speed is mph and even then touching down at about 140 is too fast.

I believe that particular youtuber's speed widget is in fact showing MPH.
 
CanukinUSA
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:48 am

Part 121 Operators are allowed to perform Circling Approaches legally if they meet the proper conditions. I have attached the section from FAA Order 8900.1 "Flight Standards Information Management System". I would assume that because of the risk management (safety) issues (as they are not done often anymore), and additional training involved it would not be feasible for them to perform circling approaches. Not relevant in this accident as my guess is that it is unlikely that this aircraft was operated under Part 121. It may have been operated under Part 135 but does not sound like it. For Part 91 if the Training were completed in an approved flight simulator for circling approaches and/or the aircraft they would be legal.

E. Provisions for Part 121 Certificate Holders to Perform Circle-to-Land Maneuvers. Part 121 certificate holders may conduct circle-to-land maneuvers under two separate provisions within OpSpec C075.
1) Part 121 Operations With Flight Training and Flight Checking. Part 121 certificate holders whose pilots have been trained and checked for the circling maneuver in accordance with part 121 appendices E and F, or in accordance with an Advanced Qualification Program (AQP), may conduct a circle-to-land maneuver:
• At the published circling landing minimums for the instrument approach to be used; or

• At the minimums specified in the chart contained within the OpSpec, whichever is higher.

a) Appendix E does not require a part 121 certificate holder to train a second in command (SIC) in the circling maneuver if the certificate holder prohibits the SIC from performing/conducting (acting as PF) a circling maneuver. However, an SIC must be trained and can be checked in those functions specific to the circle‑to-land maneuver that the SIC is required to perform while acting as pilot monitoring (PM).
b) Any pilot who possesses a pilot certificate restricting circling approaches to visual meteorological conditions (VMC) is not eligible to conduct circle-to-land maneuvers, except as provided in subparagraph E2.
2) Part 121 Operations Without Flight Training and Flight Checking. Certificate holders conducting circle-to-land maneuvers without training and checking must use a minimum descent altitude (MDA) of 1,000 feet height above airport (HAA) or the MDA of the published circling landing minimums for the instrument approach to be used, whichever is higher. Certificate holders that conduct a circle-to-land maneuver under this provision remain under an IFR clearance and must comply with those procedures otherwise required for circle-to-land maneuvers. Certificate holders must ensure that pilots are familiar with those procedures. Part 121 pilots who have not been trained and checked for the circling maneuver in accordance with part 121 appendices E and F, or in accordance with an AQP, may conduct a circle-to-land maneuver when:
• The reported ceiling is at least 1,000 feet and the visibility is at least 3 statute miles (refer to part 121 appendices E and F); or

• The reported weather is at least equal to the published circling landing minimums for the instrument approach to be used, whichever is higher.

F. Circle-to-Land Maneuvers Regarding Part 125. Part 125 certificate holders are not permitted to conduct circle-to-land maneuvers in airplanes without their pilots having been checked in that maneuver.
1) Approach Requirements. Part 125, § 125.291(b) States: “The instrument approach procedure or procedures must include at least one straight in approach, one circling approach, and one missed approach. Each type of approach procedure demonstrated must be conducted to published minimums for that procedure.”
2) Required Part 125 SIC. The SIC must complete the competency check within the preceding 12 calendar-months as required by § 125.287. The circle-to-land maneuver is not part of the § 125.287 competency check. However, each SIC is evaluated for flightcrew coordination.
3) PM Duties. Each crewmember can be checked in those functions specific to the circle-to-land maneuver that the pilot is required to perform while acting as PM.
G. Circle-to-Land Maneuvers Regarding Part 135. Part 135 certificate holders are not permitted to conduct circle-to-land maneuvers in aircraft without their pilots having been checked in that maneuver. (Helicopter IFR circle-to-land maneuvers are authorized in OpSpec H118.)
 
SELMER40
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:07 pm

Re: Bombardier CL 600 down near Truckee, California

Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:55 am

zeke wrote:
An important aspect of this event is the density altitude of the airport. The metar posted above was
KTRK 262050Z AUTO 28011G16KT 04SM BKN023 33/08 A3013 FU RMK VIS 3 1/2/V5 FU BKN023 ACFT MSHP

Airport elevation is 5904’

What is the stall speed of this airplane at this density altitude?
Teaching this old dog a new trick

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos