Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ScottB
Posts: 7595
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:46 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Here, it was a lucky day. At KHOU, the full ARFF complement would have made a difference.


Would it, though? Everyone on the plane managed to escape the aircraft with only one minor injury reported. Regardless of the emergency response, this aircraft would be a write-off either way -- the only difference would be how much of a burned-out hulk it ended up being.
 
User avatar
flyPIT
Posts: 2197
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:21 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:54 pm

IAHWorldflyer wrote:
flyPIT wrote:
Does this airport not have appropriate ARFF? Pretty painful watching the local VFD put out that fire with a squirt gun.


I am not positive, but I do not think this airport has any on-site ARFF. The guys in the video probably drove over from the town of Brookshire, which is like 5 miles away. I happen to work out in this vicinity, and this is a pretty small airport. I was shocked when I found out an MD-87 was suing that runway. Most everything I ever see coming out of there is single engine prop planes. I was working from home today though, so only have seen the TV reports.



Even though it may not have scheduled commercial ops, as far as GA/corportate traffic goes this is still a pretty significant airport in that regard, no? Usually these lager GA airports still have pretty good equipment. Might not be the latest and greatest trucks, but adequate nonetheless even if second hand.


But I think I found a clue to my concern:
"The airport is privately owned by WCF, LLC, which is based in Waller County" [Wikipedia]
Had this been a publicly owned facility it most likely would have had better ARFF equipment and response. For one, the increased probability of the local government to secure federal grant money to acquire adequate equipment.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5546
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:03 pm

FlyingElvii wrote:
nm2582 wrote:
Uninformed speculation:
The ground behind #2 makes me wonder if it was running at some above-idle power setting for at least a moment after the aircraft came to rest.
The unaffected ground behind #1 also makes me wonder.

Image
Image

That picture makes it look like an engine fail on takeoff?


Not necessarily. All it shows is Engine #2 was still powering away after the hullk came to rest. #1 could have failed anytime before that, even from eating dirt and trees on the short ride to the crash site.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:12 pm

ScottB wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Here, it was a lucky day. At KHOU, the full ARFF complement would have made a difference.


Would it, though? Everyone on the plane managed to escape the aircraft with only one minor injury reported. Regardless of the emergency response, this aircraft would be a write-off either way -- the only difference would be how much of a burned-out hulk it ended up being.


You can’t look at this solely because people survived due to a very “soft overrun”; had it been less so, the presence of ARFF could have been decisive. It was a catastrophic event, luck of being grass beyond the end saved the lives.
 
User avatar
DL757NYC
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:07 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:15 pm

I just heard it was confirmed to be a rejected take off on the news.The MD-87 in VIP configuration has incredible range with AUX tanks. I saw a few for sale for 2-3 million with recent paint and interior. If I win powerball I would buy one.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8992
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:40 pm

DL757NYC wrote:
I just heard it was confirmed to be a rejected take off on the news.The MD-87 in VIP configuration has incredible range with AUX tanks. I saw a few for sale for 2-3 million with recent paint and interior. If I win powerball I would buy one.

What kind of range are we talking?
 
hivue
Posts: 2154
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:10 am

DL757NYC wrote:
I just heard it was confirmed to be a rejected take off on the news.


Who exactly confirmed that? "The news" is not a source I would put much faith in.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:11 am

cedarjet wrote:
DL757NYC wrote:
I just heard it was confirmed to be a rejected take off on the news.The MD-87 in VIP configuration has incredible range with AUX tanks. I saw a few for sale for 2-3 million with recent paint and interior. If I win powerball I would buy one.

What kind of range are we talking?


A broker has one listed with 7+ hours of range—3000nm. Probably stuck at F290 for the first few hours.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2554
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:22 am

KCaviator wrote:
Skid marks appear to by visible near the end of the runway. Tire marks in the grass make it obvious the aircraft never got off the ground.

No. What those skid marks say it that the plane was on the ground, pilot on the brakes when the end of the runway was reached; whether the plane got off the ground or not is a question for the pilots, surveillance videos and black boxes. It most likely never left the ground, but you cannot say for sure until all evidence is analyzed.
 
nm2582
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:09 am

The video at the bottom of this URL contains several seconds of the takeoff attempt, starting at 0:27. Notably, at 0:29, you can see the attitude of the aircraft change, it appears this is the point that the takeoff was rejected and brakes were applied. It rolls out for about 10 seconds more before running off the end of the runway.

https://abc13.com/plane-down-waller-cou ... /11143371/
 
DUSdude
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 4:20 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:01 am

FlyingViking wrote:
The ABC13 feed has a very short view from the right rear down. I think I can just catch the trailing edge of the right wing. Looks like flaps were extended.
https://abc13.com/plane-crash-katy-toda ... /11143371/


I don't see flaps in that footage from the rear angle. I only see the flap track fairings or whatever they are called under the wing. The MD80s have a pretty massive leading edge slat that would be quite prominent and would reflect a lot of light as it is unpainted aluminum. I'm not seeing that in any footage either. So the plane looks not configured for takeoff to me. Other question is why the thrust reversers are stowed.
 
N47
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:38 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:56 am

KCaviator wrote:
Wow, yet another Part 91/135 accident...


Im fairly confident this was part 91. Part 135 is a whole different ball game, they cant be lumped together like that.
 
HAWKXP
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:03 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:10 am

Google earth would lead someone to think the MD has been based at KTME for at least 4 years.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:31 am

DUSdude wrote:
FlyingViking wrote:
The ABC13 feed has a very short view from the right rear down. I think I can just catch the trailing edge of the right wing. Looks like flaps were extended.
https://abc13.com/plane-crash-katy-toda ... /11143371/


I don't see flaps in that footage from the rear angle. I only see the flap track fairings or whatever they are called under the wing. The MD80s have a pretty massive leading edge slat that would be quite prominent and would reflect a lot of light as it is unpainted aluminum. I'm not seeing that in any footage either. So the plane looks not configured for takeoff to me. Other question is why the thrust reversers are stowed.


Agree - the fire damage is too extensive to make anything out of the condition of the flaps, much less the wings themselves. MD-87 flaps go out to about 2/3 of span, so if only a wingtip is visible you wouldn't see any part of the flaps.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 1798
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:33 am

DL757NYC wrote:
I just heard it was confirmed to be a rejected take off on the news.The MD-87 in VIP configuration has incredible range with AUX tanks. I saw a few for sale for 2-3 million with recent paint and interior. If I win powerball I would buy one.

Even with the extra maintenance required, a hell of a deal over a $70 million dollar G7, or a $32 million dollar Challenger 650.
Much more room, and many more custom interior opportunities? Wanna flying Hot Tub?
 
AR385
Posts: 6937
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:35 am

I do see the flaps. Plus they say the MD-87 never left the ground. If it had not been correctly configured, it would have gotten off the ground on ground effect, stalled with a rocking wing motion and would have fallen back with an uncontrolled impact. At least that´s how the stalls on the Northwest and Spanair crashes behaved when they tried to take off without flaps.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 1798
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:38 am

cedarjet wrote:
DL757NYC wrote:
I just heard it was confirmed to be a rejected take off on the news.The MD-87 in VIP configuration has incredible range with AUX tanks. I saw a few for sale for 2-3 million with recent paint and interior. If I win powerball I would buy one.

What kind of range are we talking?

The MD-87LR range at max gross was around 5-2600 miles. An Exec version would be MUCH lighter than a 139 seat max cap, giving it across the pond kind of range. 35-3800?
 
FlyingViking
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:16 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:40 am

Second abc13 video at 1.34 shows the plane taxiing with flaps extended. I asume they were left unchanged for the T/O attempt. So I will asume that a flap up T/O can be ruled out.
At 1.55 at the beginning of the T/O roll there is a puff of smoke from the #1? engine, That's not normal. Earlier posts about a possible #1 engine failure could be right on. Performance numbers are generated based on weight, temp, wind, runway length and condition (wet, snow etc) and will generate flpa setting engine power needed and a V1 speed also called the decision speed. Do I go or not. That V1 speed is calculated based on engines performing flawlessly uptil V1 then if one engine fails, a decision is made to continiue the T/O or abort. The V1 speed will be low enough that a full brake application will stop the plane on the remaining runway. Or if after V1 there iwill be enough runway that the plane can get airbourne before the end of the runway. Now what happens on a short runway where an engine is giving it up slowly and then fails right around V1?. It is possible (My speculation of course) that the plane used to much runway to reach V1 (Slower than nornal acceleration due to low performing engine #1 using up more runway than normal to reach V1) that when the decision was made to abort it was obviously to late. Had this happened on 13000 foot 31L at JFK we would never have heard about it. But at a 6600 foot runway it could be one of the probably many things that contributed to this accident.
No reverser deployed? Pilots could have been concerned about yaw from the right engine in reverse pulling the plane off the side. The runway there is only 100 feet wide unlike the more normal 150 foot. The reverser could also have been on a MEL.
 
nm2582
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:18 am

FlyingViking wrote:
At 1.55 at the beginning of the T/O roll there is a puff of smoke from the #1? engine, That's not normal.


I missed it the first time I watched, but you're right, it's there. Here's six sequential frames from that video.

Image
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:30 am

nm2582 wrote:
FlyingViking wrote:
At 1.55 at the beginning of the T/O roll there is a puff of smoke from the #1? engine, That's not normal.


I missed it the first time I watched, but you're right, it's there. Here's six sequential frames from that video.

Image


That also explains why the grass wash seemed to show only the #2 was running when the aircraft came to a stop.
 
nm2582
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:41 am

using public photos of Houston Executive to determine where the video was shot from, landmarks in front of and behind the aircraft, and some basic math/google maps, I come up with an estimated max speed of ~ 145mph (with two different measurements coming in above 140mph) before she started slowing down. Anyone know the v1/v2/rotation speeds for this AC and the assumed fuel load etc.?
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10950
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:15 am

Glad it worked out for all involved. I'm not sure the Ameristar accident is a great point of reference, for two reasons. First, that Captain aborted immediately upon determining that it wasn't going to rotate (fly). Just a couple of seconds of hesitation, and NTSB said the outcome would likely have been way different. Here, it seems like there may have been a few seconds of hesitation following the puffs of smoke, assuming that they were a cause of the abort rather than a result of it. Second, the Ameristar Captain had it in full reverse before the training captain sitting next to him could even react and start to reach for the controls; he is said to have not interfered, per the NTSB, because that was the Ameristar protocol, but he admits he started to reach for the controls but realized it was already in reverse. The zillion hours in DC9s that the captain had made the whole process seamless and instantaneous. And the reason that aircraft couldn't fly was truly a once-in-a-lifetime event: an unrecoverable elevator anomaly that couldn't have been detected by the crew through the approved preflight checks.

I'm assuming this crew briefed the issue of reverse thrust yes/no in the event of an engine failure due to the narrow runway and it appears the answer was "No.". Or, as pointed out, it could have been MELd, but that's less-likely. They did have a dry runway, and it looks like the antiskid was working from the nature of the tire marks. Ultimately, this will be a straightforward high-speed abort with the aircraft appearing otherwise to function as advertised, and they just got lucky.

Whether a high-speed abort was the right decision will be a major focus of the investigation. And on that, we likely won't know until the investigation is mostly-complete. Maybe the media and "experts" will give the captain a break before rushing to judgment, given what happened with Ameristar: the poor guy was pilloried in the media and by plaintiffs' lawyers until the NTSB report came out that not only cleared him but lauded the speed and correctness of his decision in a way I have never read in such a report.

OTOH, if this is a single engine failure at V1, with no other anomalies, followed by a high-speed abort, the floggings will certainly begin.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:51 am

nm2582 wrote:
FlyingViking wrote:
At 1.55 at the beginning of the T/O roll there is a puff of smoke from the #1? engine, That's not normal.


I missed it the first time I watched, but you're right, it's there. Here's six sequential frames from that video.

Image



Yep, I thought I saw some sort of surge or puff out of the engine! Potential bird ingested?
 
nm2582
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:58 am

wjcandee wrote:
Here, it seems like there may have been a few seconds of hesitation following the puffs of smoke, assuming that they were a cause of the abort rather than a result of it.


The puff of smoke was very early in the takeoff ground roll; the aircraft had barely started to accelerate. Presumably, the flight deck did not hear/feel anything significant nor notice any loss of power from the engine, as the takeoff was continued to a high speed.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10950
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:39 am

nm2582 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Here, it seems like there may have been a few seconds of hesitation following the puffs of smoke, assuming that they were a cause of the abort rather than a result of it.


The puff of smoke was very early in the takeoff ground roll; the aircraft had barely started to accelerate. Presumably, the flight deck did not hear/feel anything significant nor notice any loss of power from the engine, as the takeoff was continued to a high speed.


There you go. Good to know. Of course, there was that Midwest Express accident where they had 3 in the cockpit and were gabbing a bit and didn't respond to an engine failure.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:08 pm

N47 wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
Wow, yet another Part 91/135 accident...


Im fairly confident this was part 91. Part 135 is a whole different ball game, they cant be lumped together like that.


Probably a 125 operation, more than 19 passengers and payload >6,000 pounds.
 
MO11
Posts: 1908
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:47 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
N47 wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
Wow, yet another Part 91/135 accident...


Im fairly confident this was part 91. Part 135 is a whole different ball game, they cant be lumped together like that.


Probably a 125 operation, more than 19 passengers and payload >6,000 pounds.



No, I looked, not 125.
 
Western727
Posts: 2091
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:55 pm

DUSdude wrote:
FlyingViking wrote:
The ABC13 feed has a very short view from the right rear down. I think I can just catch the trailing edge of the right wing. Looks like flaps were extended.
https://abc13.com/plane-crash-katy-toda ... /11143371/


I don't see flaps in that footage from the rear angle. I only see the flap track fairings or whatever they are called under the wing. The MD80s have a pretty massive leading edge slat that would be quite prominent and would reflect a lot of light as it is unpainted aluminum. I'm not seeing that in any footage either. So the plane looks not configured for takeoff to me. Other question is why the thrust reversers are stowed.


The TE flaps and LE slats look extended to me. The LE looks too "thick" from the front to be clean. Further, on the taxi out segment at 1:31 we see the port spoilers going up as part of the usual pre-takeoff check, and the TE flaps are clearly down at that point, indicated by the angle of the TE flap vs the fuselage with the stowed position on the fuselage exposed. The slats look extended at that point as well, evidenced by the shinier part of the upper LE of the wings that gets exposed when the slats are out.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7595
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:11 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
ScottB wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Here, it was a lucky day. At KHOU, the full ARFF complement would have made a difference.


Would it, though? Everyone on the plane managed to escape the aircraft with only one minor injury reported. Regardless of the emergency response, this aircraft would be a write-off either way -- the only difference would be how much of a burned-out hulk it ended up being.


You can’t look at this solely because people survived due to a very “soft overrun”; had it been less so, the presence of ARFF could have been decisive. It was a catastrophic event, luck of being grass beyond the end saved the lives.


You literally said "At KHOU, the full ARFF complement would have made a difference." In THIS ACCIDENT it absolutely would not. It could have made a difference under some other set of circumstances, but the ARFF response would not have saved this aircraft, and as all the passengers made it out with surprisingly only a couple of minor injuries, it would not have saved lives.

And if this aircraft had had a similar overrun at KHOU, it's likely everyone on the aircraft would be dead, along with a bunch of folks on the ground, because the plane probably would have gone into structures past the airport perimeter.
 
User avatar
SuseJ772
Posts: 1080
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:13 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:11 pm

KCaviator wrote:
Wow, yet another Part 91/135 accident...


Annnnnnnd here we go again. You wouldn’t have Part 121 with out Part 135 or 91. The continued onslaught of derision of Part 135 from 121/military and the derision of Part 91 from 135/121/military does the aviation community as a whole no good, less we continue to make aviation more and more inaccessible. Part 91 is necessary to create the Part 121 safety record, just as as teen driving is necessary to create a better adult driving safety record.

Also, the numbers don’t actually show an increase in accidents. Just more, better and more graphic coverage of them as there are cameras everywhere and likelihood of it being caught on tape is higher. When it is caught on tape/photos it gets a lot more coverage.
 
spyglass
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 3:17 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:23 pm

Not certain, but don't think reversers can deploy at t/o power. Don't believe powering down, engaging reverse, then powering up in the time remaining before running out of runway would have prevented anything, other than possibly pulling the plane off the starboard side of the runway. Not yet known the ground speed, but they likely thought brakes were the only way to go. Glad all escaped but sad to see an 87 lost.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:34 pm

ScottB wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
ScottB wrote:

Would it, though? Everyone on the plane managed to escape the aircraft with only one minor injury reported. Regardless of the emergency response, this aircraft would be a write-off either way -- the only difference would be how much of a burned-out hulk it ended up being.


You can’t look at this solely because people survived due to a very “soft overrun”; had it been less so, the presence of ARFF could have been decisive. It was a catastrophic event, luck of being grass beyond the end saved the lives.


You literally said "At KHOU, the full ARFF complement would have made a difference." In THIS ACCIDENT it absolutely would not. It could have made a difference under some other set of circumstances, but the ARFF response would not have saved this aircraft, and as all the passengers made it out with surprisingly only a couple of minor injuries, it would not have saved lives.

And if this aircraft had had a similar overrun at KHOU, it's likely everyone on the aircraft would be dead, along with a bunch of folks on the ground, because the plane probably would have gone into structures past the airport perimeter.


Let me ask this: do you think there is a greater risk operating from KTME or from KHOU, in general? Would you rather have an ARFF response trained and tested in aviation crashes or have the local volunteer fire dept respond from 5 miles away? Because that’s the added risk in operating at some airports and ARFF response saves lives. This event’s outcome was a result of luck not design.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:37 pm

MO11 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
N47 wrote:

Im fairly confident this was part 91. Part 135 is a whole different ball game, they cant be lumped together like that.


Probably a 125 operation, more than 19 passengers and payload >6,000 pounds.



No, I looked, not 125.


Then, why wasn’t it? The plane meets 125 applicability; the operator doesn’t look eligible for a deviation.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:50 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
cedarjet wrote:
DL757NYC wrote:
I just heard it was confirmed to be a rejected take off on the news.The MD-87 in VIP configuration has incredible range with AUX tanks. I saw a few for sale for 2-3 million with recent paint and interior. If I win powerball I would buy one.

What kind of range are we talking?


A broker has one listed with 7+ hours of range—3000nm. Probably stuck at F290 for the first few hours.


But if your mission is carrying large sales or technical teams, I could see the value. There were times at a former operator of mine where we would launch the fleet (4 medium to large cabin aircraft) and still be sending people commercially. Having one aircraft with 19-35 seats would be valuable.

I would imagine even something like MD-87 in VIP configuration and bag of gas would get into the mid 30s pretty quick, even if you might be stuck there.

About the only modern common jet I know that is stuck in the high 20s/low 30s would be 321ceo full on a warm day.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:55 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Let me ask this: do you think there is a greater risk operating from KTME or from KHOU, in general? Would you rather have an ARFF response trained and tested in aviation crashes or have the local volunteer fire dept respond from 5 miles away? Because that’s the added risk in operating at some airports and ARFF response saves lives. This event’s outcome was a result of luck not design.


But lots of (perhaps the majority of) 91/135 operators routinely go to plenty off in the middle of no where airports. That's generally the whole point of justifying 91/135 travel for many corporate and private customers.

In this particular case, its likely that if this aircraft did show up at many FAA airports, it would have to call ahead for ARFF services (the reason why there is often a note this effect in the AFD.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:59 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Let me ask this: do you think there is a greater risk operating from KTME or from KHOU, in general? Would you rather have an ARFF response trained and tested in aviation crashes or have the local volunteer fire dept respond from 5 miles away? Because that’s the added risk in operating at some airports and ARFF response saves lives. This event’s outcome was a result of luck not design.


But lots of (perhaps the majority of) 91/135 operators routinely go to plenty off in the middle of no where airports. That's generally the whole point of justifying 91/135 travel for many corporate and private customers.

In this particular case, its likely that if this aircraft did show up at many FAA airports, it would have to call ahead for ARFF services (the reason why there is often a note this effect in the AFD.


And that’s my argument when the inevitable 91/135 versus 121 argument occurs with the “here’s another crash involving bizjets”. Private operations are a trade-off of risks and convenience or operational advantage.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7595
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:06 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Let me ask this: do you think there is a greater risk operating from KTME or from KHOU, in general? Would you rather have an ARFF response trained and tested in aviation crashes or have the local volunteer fire dept respond from 5 miles away? Because that’s the added risk in operating at some airports and ARFF response saves lives. This event’s outcome was a result of luck not design.


That is not what you said. You said:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Here, it was a lucky day. At KHOU, the full ARFF complement would have made a difference.


It was indeed a lucky day because everyone got out alive with astonishingly few injuries. But the ARFF response available at Hobby would have made no difference at all in this accident.

Frankly I'd rather operate from Hobby given that the primary runways are 1,000' longer and 50' wider. An extra 1,000' of paved surface might have made a difference in avoiding an overrun. BUT (and I recognize that you don't get to choose where an overrun will happen) I'd rather have an overrun like this at KTME because there's nothing but prairie (and a couple of roads) for a mile in either direction from the runway. That kind of overrun at KHOU would have gone into structures, and ARFF wouldn't have saved lives.

I don't disagree that ARFF is good to have for incidents/accidents which are different from this one. But it would not have helped here.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:17 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
[

Then, why wasn’t it? The plane meets 125 applicability; the operator doesn’t look eligible for a deviation.


Why not? Looks like a 91 Flight Department.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:32 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

And that’s my argument when the inevitable 91/135 versus 121 argument occurs with the “here’s another crash involving bizjets”. Private operations are a trade-off of risks and convenience or operational advantage.


Indeed, I would guess we are pretty violent agreement that too many operators value convenience over other safety factors, but for the most part, a professionally operated and maintained flight department can operate in a wide variety of conditions and airports and maintain effective safety margins.

Personally, I think there is a fair degree of inbreeding in the flight departments where effective safety management is lacking. Honestly, I think the best thing for 91/135 safety would be attracting more pilots/mechanics from robust safety cultures to ensure safety remains a priority and owner/customer education for why things can be legal and not safe.
 
nm2582
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:16 pm

quote from https://www.khou.com/article/news/local ... 644380105f

As to what went wrong on the plane owned by Houston developer J. Alan Kent, here’s what the passenger said: “One pilot pulled up... and it (the plane) wouldn’t go up, and then the other one tried, this is what the pilots told me, it wouldn’t go up," the passenger said. "So, they tried to stop but there just wasn’t enough runway left."
 
lx2iah
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 1:01 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:07 pm

Just watched the NTSB first briefing on the crash on Click2Houston.com

NTSB officials discuss investigation into plane that ran off runway, caught fire in Brookshire
https://www.click2houston.com/news/loca ... rookshire/

Several things mentioned - part 91 operation, 2 cockpit crew and 1 flight mechanic onboard + 18 passengers - no F/A onboard - the plane departed TME @ 10:08am Local time - significant wheel marks in grass on the north end of runway plus end of runway - Plane went through the north airport perimeter fence - crossed over Morton Road - crossed over another fence on the north side of Morton Road - the left wing clipped trees - the wings went between the power poles, no power poles knocked down, but power lines were down after the plane crossed the road - They have not had a chance to walk the runway, he mentioned debris on both sides of the fences, both FDR and CVR are badly burned but en-route to Washington, DC now - they will be on scene for at least a week or two - a reporter asked about the puff of smoke before the plane started its takeoff roll - he said they will be looking at the videos. They have also started interviewing the crew and pax today and have the maintenance records of the plane involved.
 
lx2iah
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 1:01 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:16 pm

Here’s a link to the NTSB briefing -

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local ... 06ceb8c3e9
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:25 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

And that’s my argument when the inevitable 91/135 versus 121 argument occurs with the “here’s another crash involving bizjets”. Private operations are a trade-off of risks and convenience or operational advantage.


Indeed, I would guess we are pretty violent agreement that too many operators value convenience over other safety factors, but for the most part, a professionally operated and maintained flight department can operate in a wide variety of conditions and airports and maintain effective safety margins.

Personally, I think there is a fair degree of inbreeding in the flight departments where effective safety management is lacking. Honestly, I think the best thing for 91/135 safety would be attracting more pilots/mechanics from robust safety cultures to ensure safety remains a priority and owner/customer education for why things can be legal and not safe.


I would agree we’re in complete agreement on safety issues. The department I flew for and now do SMS consulting for has been to 80+ countries; operated in most of the world’s challenging airports—Sion, Chambery, or Gstaad, for example. I turned down operating at airports where I could see the risk/reward balance was tilted toward convenience (save a 15 minute ride) instead of safety. ARFF is on our checklist, not a deciding factor, but availability is assessed, mitigations like is there a local department, is there a notification plan, who is responsible for it, is there training for the airport response. We’ve only been to a few private airports where this was needed.

An acquaintance once told me the worst flight departments are where two old friends had been flying Gulfstreams (his example, but true for most types) for the last 30 years together. See Bedford crash, for one.
 
lx2iah
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 1:01 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:38 pm

Here’s another NTSB briefing from Fox 26 Houston-

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/plane ... ler-county
 
cat3appr50
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:50 pm

Based on the estimated route KTME-KBOS and flight level, departure wx and winds aloft, 18 passengers and estimated typical cargo, with calc. trip fuel, plus calc. normal contingency, FR, alternate, and taxi fuel, the est. TOW (assuming no tankering fuel used) would as calc. be way below the MTOW. If flaps 15 or 20 takeoff at this calc. TOW and using an expected flex temp., there is no issue whatsoever with a Rwy36 full length takeoff relative to (safe) actual takeoff distance required or ASDA margin.

Given the flight takeoff time/GS, etc. data posted on PPR, at the 35 sec. after (full length) threshold takeoff point the GS was 150 kn (and was around 5,260' from the takeoff threshold). That speed would closely coincide with the Vr speed if there was a Flaps 0 (no flex temp) takeoff. Not sure how the aircraft proceeded to 150 kn GS without liftoff, but in any case with normal flaps and takeoff thrust and calc. TOW it would have lifted off way before 150 kn GS (est. 120 KN +/-). Possibly inadequate flaps setting may have occurred, stabilizer trim way off relative to what was needed, or a jammed elevator situation. One engine failure being asserted as a potential cause...then how did they get to 150 kn GS and not have rejected the takeoff way before this point if that occurred? Just my opinion.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10950
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:47 pm

The most interesting comment I have seen so far was from a passenger who said essentially that the pilots said (and I'll not use her words) that the PF commanded a rotation with the yoke and it wouldn't rotate, so the PNF tried to rotate it and it wouldn't, so they aborted.

Who knows if that's true, but, if true, it's the opposite of the Ameristar accident, where the Captain, with a zillion hours in DC9s, pulled back on the yoke and got no response, pulled further and then immediately aborted when the plane didn't respond as he knew a DC9-series should. He said it felt like it had a stack of bricks on the nose. His actions happened in less than 5 seconds from first commanding rotation to abort. He didn't hesitate or discuss with the other pilot, and that's why they lived. He had it in reverse before the PNF could even react to him saying "Abort." In that accident, the NTSB calculated that a further delay of even a couple of seconds in initiating the abort would have caused a very-different outcome. Note they were well past V1 at the point that rotation was initiated, because they were giving themselves the margin of a little more groundspeed before Vr, given the weather conditions.

In this accident, it would appear that a few more seconds elapsed because of the attempt by the PNF to initiate rotation before aborting.

I will be interested to see: (1) if they did a control check before taking the runway (vis. Bedford); (2) if so, was there recent maintenance on the aircraft or recent storm activity after which the elevator wasn't inspected; (3) if the wheels were turning free of the brakes during the roll (i.e. nose-down physics of MLG brake application).

This all presupposes that the witness onboard the plane was accurate.

A lot of possibilities here. Good news that there's a Part 121 compliant CVR and DVR, so they'll get to the bottom of it.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10950
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:15 am

For what it's worth, I looked at the flight history of this aircraft from ADSBExchange. Since 1/1/21, the only trip picked up there was one in April (4/21-26) from Houston southwest across Mexico until the ADSBExchange signal stopped off the coast below Baja California. Made a stop in Nuevo Laredo, presumably for Customs or fuel. Went down on 4/21, returned 4/26, stopping at Nuevo Laredo both ways.

The aircraft also lit up on the ground at Houston Executive (where she apparently lived) on most days in the two weeks prior to this trip. Presumably, they were getting her ready. Interesting, though not necessarily indicative of anything, that they brought a mechanic along for the ride.
 
Thrusty69
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:55 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:14 am

Can’t really do a flight control check on MD-80 elevator. Control cables only go to the tabs.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10950
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:08 am

Thrusty69 wrote:
Can’t really do a flight control check on MD-80 elevator. Control cables only go to the tabs.


Understood. I know how the system works. (And I'm granularly-familiar with the Ameristar MD80 investigation and report.) One would think it would be smart to check the freedom of the controls you can check.

Are you suggesting that you don't do a flight-control check on an MD80? I hadn't heard that before.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10950
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Plane Crash in Waller County, Texas

Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:16 am

cat3appr50 wrote:
Not sure how the aircraft proceeded to 150 kn GS without liftoff, but in any case with normal flaps and takeoff thrust and calc. TOW it would have lifted off way before 150 kn GS (est. 120 KN +/-). Possibly inadequate flaps setting may have occurred, stabilizer trim way off relative to what was needed, or a jammed elevator situation. One engine failure being asserted as a potential cause...then how did they get to 150 kn GS and not have rejected the takeoff way before this point if that occurred?


Agreed. I think the puff of smoke is going to be a red herring. The passenger who spoke to the media did not mention anything about the pilots saying it wouldn't accelerate. Instead, she said that the pilots told her the one pilot tried to rotate and it wouldn't, so the other tried, and when he couldn't get it to rotate, they aborted. That could explain the 150; the acceleration of the aircraft continued as they attempted to rotate her, maybe taking longer than optimal to call a high-speed abort. That also may explain why the tire marks seem to come a lot further down the pavement than one would expect for an abort just after V1.

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