Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
wjcandee wrote:Don't understand why they didn't just do the RNAV approach to 11 if they needed the length, which would have avoided the need for the circling approach which apparently induced the stall.
N766UA wrote:wjcandee wrote:Don't understand why they didn't just do the RNAV approach to 11 if they needed the length, which would have avoided the need for the circling approach which apparently induced the stall.
Wondering why a crew can't just fly the airplane? Circling approaches aren't a big deal. If that's actually what happened, there's 0 excuse for stalling an otherwise perfectly good jet.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:N766UA wrote:wjcandee wrote:Don't understand why they didn't just do the RNAV approach to 11 if they needed the length, which would have avoided the need for the circling approach which apparently induced the stall.
Wondering why a crew can't just fly the airplane? Circling approaches aren't a big deal. If that's actually what happened, there's 0 excuse for stalling an otherwise perfectly good jet.
No big deal? Just curious when was your last circling approach in a Cat D jet in mountainous terrain in 3 mile visibility?
Yes, the RNP to 11 makes much more sense, but again over at PPW the discussion is ATC was denying that approach to the previous crew who finally insisted long enough for ATC to issue it.
hivue wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:N766UA wrote:
Circling approaches aren't a big deal..
No big deal? Just curious when was your last circling approach in a Cat D jet in mountainous terrain in 3 mile visibility?
According to Blancolirio, consulting the approach plate for TRK, you aren't allowed to do the RNAV 20 approach into TRK in a category D aircraft.
wjcandee wrote:hivue wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:
No big deal? Just curious when was your last circling approach in a Cat D jet in mountainous terrain in 3 mile visibility?
According to Blancolirio, consulting the approach plate for TRK, you aren't allowed to do the RNAV 20 approach into TRK in a category D aircraft.
You can't do any RNAV approach into TRK in a category D aircraft.
However, it appears that the Challenger 605 is actually a Category C aircraft (as defined in 14 CFR Sec. 97.3), at least according to the FAA: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/fsb/cl-604_605_650_rev_5.pdf (See Sec. 13.3 on p. 12 of that link.)
Of course, what GalaxyFlyer says about how challenging a circling approach is in mountainous terrain in smoke and haze in a Category D aircraft would be almost-equally applicable to a Category C aircraft.
There's a reason that Part 121 carriers generally don't do them.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Yes, the RNP to 11 makes much more sense, but again over at PPW the discussion is ATC was denying that approach to the previous crew who finally insisted long enough for ATC to issue it.
93Sierra wrote:Wrong it’s a cat d for circling cat c for straight in
wjcandee wrote:hivue wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:
No big deal? Just curious when was your last circling approach in a Cat D jet in mountainous terrain in 3 mile visibility?
According to Blancolirio, consulting the approach plate for TRK, you aren't allowed to do the RNAV 20 approach into TRK in a category D aircraft.
You can't do any RNAV approach into TRK in a category D aircraft.
However, it appears that the Challenger 605 is actually a Category C aircraft (as defined in 14 CFR Sec. 97.3), at least according to the FAA: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/fsb/cl-604_605_650_rev_5.pdf (See Sec. 13.3 on p. 12 of that link.)
F9Animal wrote:So sad, and so thankful that plane didn't hit anyone on the ground. I assume this plane likey had a CVR?
airlinepeanuts wrote:I’ve seen conflicting reports as to whether 3 or 4 people were on board. 3 would suggest one pilot l, maybe throat had something to do with it?
graceintheair wrote:So sad to hear. It's just my opinion but it seems the FAA doesn't care about safety unless it's the airlines. While airline flying has gotten significantly safer over the decades, general aviation has not. Way too many accidents occurring. Why don't they address this?
CanukinUSA wrote:
Do you mean a straight-in RNAV Rwy 20 would have been legal if not for the runway length?
The circling approach to Runway 11 from Runway 20 would only be legal if the aircraft could be safely maneuvered at speeds at or below 140 Knots (I.e. Category C). If the aircraft had to be maneuvered at speeds above 140 knots it would become a Category D aircraft and since Category D circling approaches as not approved for this airport and the RNAV (GPS) Runway 20 circling approach it would not be legal. That may likely depend on the aircraft landing weight at the time and the airspeed factors added for turning during the circling maneuvering in this case.
93Sierra wrote:wjcandee wrote:hivue wrote:
According to Blancolirio, consulting the approach plate for TRK, you aren't allowed to do the RNAV 20 approach into TRK in a category D aircraft.
You can't do any RNAV approach into TRK in a category D aircraft.
However, it appears that the Challenger 605 is actually a Category C aircraft (as defined in 14 CFR Sec. 97.3), at least according to the FAA: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/fsb/cl-604_605_650_rev_5.pdf (See Sec. 13.3 on p. 12 of that link.)
Of course, what GalaxyFlyer says about how challenging a circling approach is in mountainous terrain in smoke and haze in a Category D aircraft would be almost-equally applicable to a Category C aircraft.
There's a reason that Part 121 carriers generally don't do them.
Wrong it’s a cat d for circling cat c for straight in
26point2 wrote:I have been flying into TRK my entire career in everything from C-172 to Global Express…and several times in a CL-601 too. It’s a fine airport if the weather is good. Mountain weather and wind is unforgiving and it doesn’t take much for me to head to RNO instead. I must say I have never made an IFR approach into TRK….daytime severe clear is my minimum there. Anything less and we head straight to RNO. TRK has been closed to large aircraft like Global all summer due to runway maintenance so we ended up in RNO last weekend again but I’m certain I would have not attempted a TRK landing in 3SM FU While in RNO on Sunday there were many drop in arrivals at Atlantic Aviation after diverting from TRK due to low viz and smoke.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:There is no one “GA accident rate” because there are multiple areas of GA. from a new PPL flying a 152 to a professionally flown Gulfstream to a airline-like Net Jets to one of the finest military air show pilots crashing at Lewiston this past week.
True, the old saw about “superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid needing his superior skills” is for a reason. We don’t know from either recorders what went on in the last minutes of the flight. Was it an over-cooked high energy arrival, was it just a last moment tunnel vision trying to make a square corner, were the pilots very familiar with the type or the airfield or completely flummoxed?
Aquila3 wrote:Very sad news, R.I.P. to the victims.
Since some here speak about a stall, doesn't the CL600 have any envelope protection?y
Or were they already in a situation where it could not kick in?
N766UA wrote:wjcandee wrote:Don't understand why they didn't just do the RNAV approach to 11 if they needed the length, which would have avoided the need for the circling approach which apparently induced the stall.
Wondering why a crew can't just fly the airplane? Circling approaches aren't a big deal. If that's actually what happened, there's 0 excuse for stalling an otherwise perfectly good jet.
FlapOperator wrote:N766UA wrote:wjcandee wrote:Don't understand why they didn't just do the RNAV approach to 11 if they needed the length, which would have avoided the need for the circling approach which apparently induced the stall.
Wondering why a crew can't just fly the airplane? Circling approaches aren't a big deal. If that's actually what happened, there's 0 excuse for stalling an otherwise perfectly good jet.
How many circling approaches do you have in a supercritical wing with no LEDs in mountainous terrain?
At any operator I’ve worked at, this would be a special airport qualification/high risk operation.
N766UA wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:There is no one “GA accident rate” because there are multiple areas of GA. from a new PPL flying a 152 to a professionally flown Gulfstream to a airline-like Net Jets to one of the finest military air show pilots crashing at Lewiston this past week.
True, the old saw about “superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid needing his superior skills” is for a reason. We don’t know from either recorders what went on in the last minutes of the flight. Was it an over-cooked high energy arrival, was it just a last moment tunnel vision trying to make a square corner, were the pilots very familiar with the type or the airfield or completely flummoxed?
For my part, I’m referring to this type of operation: part 135 or part 91 turbojet and turboprop operators who generally fly with N numbered callsigns. Obviously netjets has a stellar safety record.Aquila3 wrote:Very sad news, R.I.P. to the victims.
Since some here speak about a stall, doesn't the CL600 have any envelope protection?y
Or were they already in a situation where it could not kick in?
The stall protection on a challenger is essentially just a stick pusher which, at that altitude (and presumably bank angle) isn’t gonna do anyone any good.
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.
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?
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?
JasonInRVA wrote:...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.[...] https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdv1yWmJ/
N766UA wrote:FlapOperator wrote:N766UA wrote:
Wondering why a crew can't just fly the airplane? Circling approaches aren't a big deal. If that's actually what happened, there's 0 excuse for stalling an otherwise perfectly good jet.
How many circling approaches do you have in a supercritical wing with no LEDs in mountainous terrain?
At any operator I’ve worked at, this would be a special airport qualification/high risk operation.
How many do you have? In what way is that relevent here?
The question should be how many approaches THEY have in these conditions. Like you said, it’s a special airport… were they qualified and capable? Were they familiar? If they were within their limitations, this shouldn’t have been a big deal, and I maintain that. If you’re flying an airplane into a situation that is a “big deal,” potential problem, etc, you’ve done it wrong, and I really don’t get how “hey, it’s a difficult approach” is a potential excuse for crashing.