Extreme Private Jet Take Off In French Alps

skinny · Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:46 pm

This is Crazy !!

Extreme private jet take off in Courchevel, French alps
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=75c_1383854924#dyVioBUil9Ie1uUX.99

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=75c_1383854924

aviatorcraig · Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:45 pm

I wonder what his engine-out performance would have looked like

A compressor stall/bird strike away from death

PlymSpotter · Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:35 pm

Great video, the landing must have been interesting too.

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 1):
I wonder what his engine-out performance would have looked like

Explosive, probably.

Dan

HiJazzey · Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:47 pm

that is truly frightening. I'll take the bus down, thanks

9w748capt · Sat Nov 09, 2013 4:09 pm

Holy $%$. Would be kind of fun though, assuming you live to tell about it.

bohica · Sat Nov 09, 2013 4:41 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2):
Great video, the landing must have been interesting too.

Does anyone have a video of the landing? I did a Google search but nothing came up.

flyboy_se · Sat Nov 09, 2013 4:58 pm

Could it be one of those fake viral videos??
You can clearly hear the sounds of the prop in the beggining, but there is no propeller plane visible.
Also if it was a jet revving its engines, there would be some effect on the snow behind it.
Another thing is, it looks like it is a person walking just behind the plane before it starts its take off roll, conveniently the video is out of focus at that point, and comes back to normal as soon as that person dissapears from the screen.

Just a few observations, could be a real thing too i guess.

airproxx · Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:10 pm

Wooow !!!

I wanna do that !!!!!

theginge · Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:10 pm

Quoting flyboy_se (Reply 6):
Another thing is, it looks like it is a person walking just behind the plane before it starts its take off roll, conveniently the video is out of focus at that point, and comes back to normal as soon as that person dissapears from the screen.

The person looks to be walking behind the cars parked near the camera, not going past the plane.

Quoting flyboy_se (Reply 6):
Also if it was a jet revving its engines, there would be some effect on the snow behind it.

Looks like a wall of ice?

txlbased · Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:16 pm

there are plenty of videos on youtube that show landings in courchevel

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...ry=courchevel+airport+landing&sm=3

FlightShadow · Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:22 pm

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 1):
I wonder what his engine-out performance would have looked like

I'm not a Citation pilot and I don't have a Citation handbook, but for the sake of discussion, here are some numbers I tracked down. This isn't good math, it's just some approximations based on performance specs I found online.

That looks like a CJ2, though I can't tell exactly which variant. At sea level and ISA temp, the standard CJ2 wants 3,450ft for take-off. Granted, it's a downward slope, and it's colder than ISA temp, but also a lot higher at about 6400 ft. He had about 1,750 feet for take off.

Let's say the airplane has lifted off by the end of the runway, at an elevation of ~6350ft, and he loses an engine. Engine-out climb for a CJ2 is about 900 ft/min. Assuming he maintains runway heading on a calm day, there's ~10,000-ft terrain 9.5 miles straight ahead. At 900 ft/min, if he travels straight ahead maintaining approx 120 knots, he'll climb ~3700 ft before reaching that 10,000-ft terrain. (That's climbing about 400ft per horizontal mile traveled.)

Take-off at the end-of-runway altitude 6350 ft + 3700 ft climbed = 10050 ft, or 50 ft of clearance over the terrain.

Of course he could deviate course a few degrees and fly through some canyons and over lower terrain if need be. Then get a change of pants.

Maybe someone with experience or more accurate numbers can shed some light.

[Edited 2013-11-09 09:29:09]

airbazar · Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:25 pm

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 1):
I wonder what his engine-out performance would have looked like

Does it matter where you are? You still need to be able to get off the ground. If anything it should be a little better here since there ground drops significantly.

nutsaboutplanes · Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:03 pm

I think a small turbo-prop would have been more appropriate for this airport........deathwish

Mir · Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:04 pm

Quoting FlightShadow (Reply 10):
That looks like a CJ2, though I can't tell exactly which variant.

Definitely not a CJ, it's a 500-series Citation. You can tell by the tail position - the CJs have a T-tail while the 500-series has the cruciform tail you see in the video.

-Mir

silentbob · Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:16 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2):
Explosive, probably

I was thinking it would be more like a sled.

Ty134A · Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:30 pm

That's normal alpine flying... By the way, Tyrolean actually operated their DHC7 to and from this very airport.

CPH-R · Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:33 pm

Quoting HiJazzey (Reply 3):
that is truly frightening. I'll take the bus down, thanks

It's not much better, trust me

rutankrd · Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:48 pm

Quoting Ty134A (Reply 15):
That's normal alpine flying... By the way, Tyrolean actually operated their DHC7 to and from this very airport.

Some years back and with a Dash 7 if i recall.

A simple search on this site bring up this

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Markus Herzig

FlightShadow · Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:00 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):

Definitely not a CJ, it's a 500-series Citation. You can tell by the tail position - the CJs have a T-tail while the 500-series has the cruciform tail you see in the video.

Got it, Citation II does not equal CJ2. Thanks for the clarification.

Citation II, CJ2:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joop de Groot

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bauldrick

aviatorcraig · Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:35 pm

Quoting FlightShadow (Reply 10):
I'm not a Citation pilot and I don't have a Citation handbook, but for the sake of discussion, here are some numbers I tracked down. This isn't good math, it's just some approximations based on performance specs I found online.

That looks like a CJ2, though I can't tell exactly which variant. At sea level and ISA temp, the standard CJ2 wants 3,450ft for take-off. Granted, it's a downward slope, and it's colder than ISA temp, but also a lot higher at about 6400 ft. He had about 1,750 feet for take off.

Let's say the airplane has lifted off by the end of the runway, at an elevation of ~6350ft, and he loses an engine. Engine-out climb for a CJ2 is about 900 ft/min. Assuming he maintains runway heading on a calm day, there's ~10,000-ft terrain 9.5 miles straight ahead. At 900 ft/min, if he travels straight ahead maintaining approx 120 knots, he'll climb ~3700 ft before reaching that 10,000-ft terrain. (That's climbing about 400ft per horizontal mile traveled.)

Take-off at the end-of-runway altitude 6350 ft 3700 ft climbed = 10050 ft, or 50 ft of clearance over the terrain.

Of course he could deviate course a few degrees and fly through some canyons and over lower terrain if need be. Then get a change of pants.

If he got airborne he would be fine, he could fly down into the valley and trade height for speed. My concern is that as he appears to use the full length of the runway on two engines, an engine failure on the early part of the down gradient could mean he would never achieve Vmu but is unable to stop on the steep down gradient. The remaining engine would just propel him to the scene of the crash.
Maybe someone with experience or more accurate numbers can shed some light.

If he got airborne he would be fine, he could fly down into the valley and trade height for speed. My concern is that as he appears to use the full length of the runway on two engines, an engine failure on the early part of the down gradient could mean he would never achieve Vmu but is unable to stop on the steep down gradient. The remaining engine would just propel him to the scene of the crash.

pugman211 · Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:42 pm

Not a good place for an RTO then....

26point2 · Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:52 pm

Don't know about the Citation but do know every jet I have flown has a +/- 2 degree runway slope limit. This one too?

A spectacular takeoff but surely out of bounds regarding aircraft certification. Jet transports require a look at the performance data before takeoff (or landing) No data? No takeoff. The Cessna 172 crowd won't know this but transport category jets have legal limitations other than "can it get airborne?"

This guy's insurance company will love this video.

[Edited 2013-11-09 12:04:08]

Dufo · Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:42 pm

For private ops you can do whatever you want. And this Citation is not the first to land there. When I flew at this place in 2005 in C172, there was a picture in the control tower of the same type parked there.
There are practically no obstacles from the departure end, except the open valley.

And you need a mountain rating to land/takeoff there anyway.

TheRedBaron · Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:52 pm

Quoting FlightShadow (Reply 10):

Post of the week....

One thing is certain, if something goest wrong you'll make the news.

TRB

FlightShadow · Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:35 pm

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 23):

One thing is certain, if something goest wrong you'll make the news.

If I wanted to make the news I'd have started by calling the aircraft in question a 737, which makes good enough sense because it has wings and two engines.

Reminds me of a scene in the movie The Dish where they lose Apollo 11 and do some crazy fruitless calculating, only to realize they can just point the telescope at the moon and find the spacecraft that way.

einsteinboricua · Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:51 pm

Am I the only one not impressed with this? Just the Alpine version of Lukla airport, except this one can handle jets.

rfields5421 · Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:05 pm

Quoting skinny (Thread starter):
Extreme private jet take off in Courchevel, French alps

No big deal given the slope and clear area below the end of the runway to trade altitude for speed.

Quoting bohica (Reply 5):
Does anyone have a video of the landing?

That would be IMPRESSIVE - stopping a jet in less than 1,500 feet - even with the upslope !!!

Quoting Ty134A (Reply 15):
Tyrolean actually operated their DHC7 to and from this very airport.

Very different airplane - and the airport is well within the aircraft performance limits.

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 19):
could mean he would never achieve Vmu but is unable to stop on the steep down gradient.

No airplane will be able to stop on that runway if it has a problem after the slope starts down. That is the point of no return. Any airplane going down that runway is going to fly. The pilot just hopes it will fly longer than a few thousand feet to the valley floor.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 25):
Just the Alpine version of Lukla airport, except this one can handle jets.

I don't think anyone would say this airport can handle jets. The videos of landings - the only people landing jets are Flight Simulator pilots.

I'm still not convinced the video is real. I don't doubt the real aircraft could make such a takeoff. I don't think the French authorities would ever allow one to land there.

ImperialEagle · Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:16 pm

Quoting FlightShadow (Reply 10):
Of course he could deviate course a few degrees and fly through some canyons and over lower terrain if need be. Then get a change of pants.

Would be even more interesting in a C-46.

Viscount724 · Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:17 pm

Airport info pages and restrictions etc. from the official French AIP.
http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv....CVAC%5CAD%5C2%5C1312_AD-2.LFLJ.pdf

Note the English translation on last line of the 2nd last page ("Preferential crashing zone"). That would be best translated as "Preferential forced landing zone" as it reads in French.

26point2 · Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:04 am

Quoting Dufo (Reply 22):

Really? I have been in the private bizjet world for decades and we can't do "whatever we want" as you say. This is not 172 stuff. A jet must be operated by its ceritfication which means you can't legally fly it contrary to the FOM. Private or otherwise.

TheRedBaron · Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:38 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAShI6Vi7tE

after the end of the runway there is a 100 feet drop then trees!!!! holy cow!

trb

MON · Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:14 am

Just because this Cessna uses the whole runway does not mean it could not physically take off and fly earlier.

Different aircraft manufactures have different philosophies as regards takeoff performance figures. As an example, as I understand it, Airbus, unlike Boeing, has the general philosophy of keeping the aircraft on the ground as long as possible on takeoff runs, this has the result of Airbus aircraft appearing to be runway hogs and the use of much more of the runway to then take off at a higher speed.

Could Cessna have a similar philosophy to Airbus as regards takeoff performance? I've seen quite a few business jets into Courcheval.

(edited for spelling).

[Edited 2013-11-09 17:21:31]

N776AU · Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:44 am

[quote=mon,reply=31]Different aircraft manufactures have different philosophies as regards takeoff performance figures. As an example, as I understand it, Airbus, unlike Boeing, has the general philosophy of keeping the aircraft on the ground as long as possible on takeoff runs, this has the result of Airbus aircraft appearing to be runway hogs and the use of much more of the runway to then take off at a higher speed. [quote]
Is there any merit to this? Logically it seems like the quicker you could get in the air safely the better

seat55a · Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:48 am

There's a video of the Tyrolean operations with multiple landings and takeoffs, apparently extracts from a longer documentary. I particularly like the landing altitude callouts "Plus 6, Plus 5" and so on. Below glideslope would be below the threshold...

And the single engine planes have to power up after landing to get to the top of the hill.

Chaostheory · Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:01 am

Quoting N776AU (Reply 32):
Is there any merit to this? Logically it seems like the quicker you could get in the air safely the better

Same for Boeing too.

If you have asphalt to spare, why not use it? Lower flap setting and a higher Vr will give you a better segment climb performance.

Max Q · Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:41 am

[quote=N776AU,reply=32][quote=mon,reply=31]Different aircraft manufactures have different philosophies as regards takeoff performance figures. As an example, as I understand it, Airbus, unlike Boeing, has the general philosophy of keeping the aircraft on the ground as long as possible on takeoff runs, this has the result of Airbus aircraft appearing to be runway hogs and the use of much more of the runway to then take off at a higher speed.

Quote:

Is there any merit to this? Logically it seems like the quicker you could get in the air safely the better

No, there is absolutely no merit to this with Boeing or Airbus.

AR385 · Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:17 am

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 34):
Lower flap setting and a higher Vr will give you a better segment climb performance.

What about engine wear?

soon7x7 · Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:15 am

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 21):
Don't know about the Citation but do know every jet I have flown has a +/- 2 degree runway slope limit. This one too?

This runway or converted ski jump as it were, seems to violate everything I know that would qualify a safe place to land a flying machine. How are crosswind landings and taxiing with ice handled or do those limitations qualify as no go?!...good grief!

Dufo · Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:41 am

I wonder why many of you condemn such practice at this airport. It is a bit more dangerous than landing on a 10k ft runway in the middle of Texas but that's also why you are not allowed just to come there and do whatever you want.
If I remember correctly, there have only been a few incidents there, with no injuries or loss of lives (not even a write offs).

topgun3 · Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:54 am

I didn't find the take-off that extreme....just full power and go. The only issue would be with aborted take-offs.

SEPilot · Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:46 pm

It reminds me of the most extreme takeoff I ever made, which was while I was operating the local airport (VSF). An elderly man, who turned out to be a retired Pan Am pilot (who had started his career in flying boats, by the way) came to us and said he had an airplane at his private strip that he wanted us to get airworthy and sell for him. He had lost his medical a few years earlier, but had hoped to regain it, but had now decided that that was not going to happen. So my mechanic and I got directions and later went out to see his airplane (which was a 150 hp Cessna 150) and his airstrip. The airstrip looked a lot like the one in this video; it was only about 500' long and sloped sharply downhill, with an abrupt dropoff at the end into a valley. Fortunately he had done a proper job of preserving the engine, and after my mechanic had checked it all out and given it his OK, I started it up and went to the uphill end of the runway. I gave it full throttle and charged down the slope, and lifted off maybe 50 feet from the end of the runway. I had to follow the valley for a ways before I could climb above the walls; but once I was airborne it was not that different from any takeoff in a single engined plane where there is no good emergency landing spot (which is a large number of them.) I never flew in or out of there again, but I could have gotten used to it. The big deal for me was that this was the first time I had ever flown that airplane, and the fact that it had not been flown for several years added considerably to the pucker factor.

worldflyer · Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:31 pm

Courcheval Airport is an "altiport", a term I wasn't aware of.

Also, The airport was featured in the opening sequence of the James Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies.

Chaostheory · Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:57 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 36):
What about engine wear?

More often than not, if the runway is long enough and you're carrying out an improved climb take off, you'll use the assumed temperature or flex thrust (airbus speak) method.

rfields5421 · Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:58 pm

Quoting topgun3 (Reply 39):
The only issue would be with aborted take-offs.

There are no aborted take-offs at this airport. Once the aircraft starts down the slope - there is no option to stop. Period.

qf2220 · Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:56 am

Kinda looks and sounds like a remote control aircraft!!!

Aesma · Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:03 am

Quoting Ty134A (Reply 15):
That's normal alpine flying... By the way, Tyrolean actually operated their DHC7 to and from this very airport.

That's a 4 engined turboprop STOL aircraft. It's like saying a helicopter operated there.

Semaex · Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:47 pm

Quoting flyboy_se (Reply 6):
You can clearly hear the sounds of the prop in the beggining, but there is no propeller plane visible.

You're right about this, and it makes me wonder too. If it had been a prop on the apron generating this sound, then why can we not hear it as soon as the Jet is halfway down the runway.... ?

Quoting FlightShadow (Reply 10):
Of course he could deviate course a few degrees and fly through some canyons and over lower terrain if need be. Then get a change of pants.

A "Straight Takeoff" allows 15° of course change per definition. So in order to avoid 10k mountains, he'd be allowed to fly "straight" by deviating a couple of degrees.

Quoting Ty134A (Reply 15):
That's normal alpine flying... By the way, Tyrolean actually operated their DHC7 to and from this very airport.

As mentioned a couple of times already. A 4 engine prop is a big difference from a 2 engine jet. The documentary on youtube about the planning stage of the Tyrolean flight is quite interesting. It also talks about the subject of performance and safety calculation. I believe it was something like, that the two inboard engines went on full thrust for takeoff while the outboard engines were at half thrust, to ensure an optimum safety-to-performance level in case of an engine failure after V1.

Quoting Dufo (Reply 22):
For private ops you can do whatever you want.

Incorrect. Every airplane and airport has its well defined limits. So do insurance comanies.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 37):
This runway or converted ski jump as it were, seems to violate everything I know that would qualify a safe place to land a flying machine. How are crosswind landings and taxiing with ice handled or do those limitations qualify as no go?!

Didn't know it used to be a ski jump slope. Nice to know!
It's quite simple at altiports: Crosswinds, IMC, Icing - No go, field inop.

Quoting topgun3 (Reply 39):
I didn't find the take-off that extreme....just full power and go. The only issue would be with aborted take-offs.

Yes, and that is exactly what makes the takeoff that extreme; the "what-if's".

I truely have a hard time believing how jet pilots can land and take off in this place. It's a totally different thing with a prop or piston, but as a commercial jet pilot my very first priority is "if my gut feeling says not to go, I don't go".
I simply can't believe that performance calculation (V1, VR, V2, Vmu, Vseroc, TORR, ASDR and so on) allow for a safe operation there.
I'm assuming you must be a rodeo kind of pilot to be willing to fly to this kind of altiport. I'd love to fly there for the heck of the adrenaline, but I still wouldn't do it, because there's not place for adrenaline in civil aviation.

oly720man · Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:46 pm

What are the chances of landing a Challenger 604 there?

http://courchevel.travel/en/private-jet-moscow-courchevel/

or are they conveniently forgetting to point out that the jet won't actually land at Courcheval, but at a more sensible airport?

And, I presume, based on this,

http://blog.privatefly.com/why-cant-a-private-jet-land-at-courchevel

However the French Aviation Authority does not allow commercially chartered private flights to land at Courchevel due to the short length of the runway (525 metres), uphill gradient of the runway, steep approach and “no go around” procedure.

they couldn't do it anyway.

soon7x7 · Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:00 pm

Quoting Semaex (Reply 46):
Nice to know!

I just called it a "ski jump"...sorry to mislead you...My interest here is landing...I know during the Vietnam war there existed many mountainous fields reminiscent of this one but the appropriate aircraft, the Pilatus "Turboporter" was incorporated into this type of operation. The unique aircraft was designed for such off the cuff situations and the pilots too were intimate with the performance of their ships and their confidence. Would be fun to take a wack at it though!...load up the Go-Pro!

rcair1 · Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:28 pm

Quoting oly720man (Reply 47):
What are the chances of landing a Challenger 604 there?

If you read this carefully - I don't think they are landing at the Courchevel airport - they are landing nearby. Then they transfer you. They mention a helicopter transfer as the "most exclusive" and they list the Helicopter as landing at the Courchevel - with a photo of the apron.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net