Challenger Crash in Aspen

Henning said:
How do spoilers counter that? Spoilers "spoil" lift.
Click to expand...

Right. I am in violent agreement with that statement.
To say another way: Minimum amount of lift = spoilers out.

What am I missing?
 
mikegreen said:
Right. I am in violent agreement with that statement.
To say another way: Minimum amount of lift = spoilers out.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

I seem to misunderstand the intent of your original post. I read it as "turn them off", are you suggesting that they had them off?
 
Henning said:
I seem to misunderstand the intent of your original post. I read it as "turn them off", are you suggesting that they had them off?
Click to expand...

Ahem.

I'm actually looking for someone with knowledge the answer to this:
Can the automatic (with wheel spin) ground spoilers be turned off on this plane?
 
mikegreen said:
Ahem.

I'm actually looking for someone with knowledge the answer to this:
Can the automatic (with wheel spin) ground spoilers be turned off on this plane?
Click to expand...

Very likely, everything has a circuit breaker that can be pulled. I can't imagine a circumstance where one would though.
 
If you don't want ground spoilers you could opt to just not arm them if they are automatic or not pull them if its a manual switch/lever...otherwise you would see ground spoilers up all the time on taxiing aircraft. But as said, no reason you wouldn't want them on landing.
 
Last edited:
lr60plt said:
If you don't want ground spoilers you could opt to just not arm them if they are automatic or not pull them if its a manual switch/lever...otherwise you would see ground spoilers up all the time on taxiing aircraft. But as said, no reason you wouldn't want them on landing.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting they would do it on purpose.
 
Henning said:
Very likely, everything has a circuit breaker that can be pulled. I can't imagine a circumstance where one would though.
Click to expand...


There would be a CAS message if a system is inop...
 
mikegreen said:
I wasn't suggesting they would do it on purpose.
Click to expand...

Ah, my mistake.


The eye-witness reports are coming out. There were a lot of people holding short / the airport was very busy at the time...so a lot of people watched it happen. It might of already been mentioned in this thread this is an eye witness report from NBAA member:

"They landed real hard, bounced back up in the air, rolled over on its back and smacked the ground. It caught on fire!!"

Can't really speculate at this point what they did / didn't do in the cockpit yet. All we can do is wait for the investigation reports.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Yep, it's been a while though.
Click to expand...

Then you should probably remember how tight the terrain is next to RWY 33 right base and the fact that after landing on 33 you are rolling downhill.

Even the runway itself is pretty telling. There are no tire marks in the touchdown zone on 33. Compare that with 15 which is solid black with spent rubber.

I'm not sure Aspen tower would clear someone for 33 on a day like yesterday, even only to avoid any delays caused by back taxi.

For the Challenger, it was either land on 15 or divert. They should have diverted...
 
^ Yep. Either we (Lear 60) have good Wx to land on 15 or we aren't going. Our Blue 2 speed (App/circling) is in the 140's...add the altitude / high ground speed, a tight turn and whatever winds to push you on the circle...no way.
 
I've flown in and out of ASE hundreds of times and done the circle to 33 a time or two as well. Things can get pretty "interesting" down in the bowl with winds like they were reporting. The fact that other airplanes were getting in and out could have given them a false sense of confidence. I'm looking forward to reading the accident report, but it looks like a simple case of too much wind and not enough piloting. Sad, very sad. RIP.
 
I've flown in to KASE once so far in my Mooney, and it was interesting and stressful to say the least. Severe VFR with light winds, otherwise I would've gone to Rifle (where I've been many times). I arrived on a Sunday afternoon when all of the pretty people were trying to leave, so it was hectic. I got cleared to land, then had the clearance cancelled THREE times before I was able to land on the 4th. I had planned to come down the Roaring Fork valley and land 15, but of course all of the traffic departs on 33 aiming right at the arrivals. I got vectored back to the east to stay out of the departure traffic, and then was cleared to land on 33 and had to cross a very high ridge (I think I was ~14k' IIRC) and then dive-bomb while circling to land downhill with a very slight tailwind and of course tall rocks on 3 sides. Plenty of runway length for a Mooney of course, but I was more concerned with losing altitude and nailing my approach speeds. I got a bit flustered since I had briefed landing 15 and was familiar with the terrain from driving in and out many times down Hwy 82. Coming in over the ridges from the east was unexpected, and of course you cannot see the airport until clear of them...fortunately a moving map display helps with that anxiety.

I have no doubt the crew would've had all kinds of self-induced pressure since others made it, their pax were waiting, and the controllers were trying to launch others on a busy holiday weekend. Throw in some nasty winds and look what can happen...

Diverting to Eagle or Rifle would have been very easy and only resulted in a small delay.
 
Apelsin Elise said:
Then you should probably remember how tight the terrain is next to RWY 33 right base and the fact that after landing on 33 you are rolling downhill.

Even the runway itself is pretty telling. There are no tire marks in the touchdown zone on 33. Compare that with 15 which is solid black with spent rubber.

I'm not sure Aspen tower would clear someone for 33 on a day like yesterday, even only to avoid any delays caused by back taxi.

For the Challenger, it was either land on 15 or divert. They should have diverted...
Click to expand...
You really need to bring your A game any time you fly a jet in and out of ASE. These guys were from Mexico and from the sounds things on the ATC recording, they didn't appear too comfortable with what was going on around them. As you're approaching DBL they're going to start vectoring you at about 16,000' MSL. Most guys (myself included) are used to screaming along at warp factor 3 or 4 at that altitude so it will take a conscious effort get yourself in the "slow it down and get it set up for landing" mode. They tend to turn you on to the approach pretty close to DBL, but it's not a problem if you're slowed down and configured. Whether you're shooting an approach or the Roaring Fork Visual everything is pretty straight forward; but again, speed and configuration is the key.

We used to go in there several times per month, year round. Over the years, I found out that if you don't have the runway in sight by DBL the chances of actually getting in are greatly diminished. I'll occasionally allowed myself to descend on the approach to ALLIX, but that's that's my personal MAP. When it comes to a missed approach down there, it gets real serious anytime you don't have the runway insight as you pass DBL. I can't say that I'd be real excited about having to go missed at the published published MAP. At that point, it's critical that you don't dawdle, aren't sloppy, keep your speed in check and climb like hell. Sometimes they'll have you circle to 33. It's not a big deal if it's visual, but it it's not and you decide to shoot the approach to minimums and then circle you'd really have your hands full. It's not anything I would personally do.
 
The latest....aircraft has been righted, moved as practical to allow NTSB to continue investigation. Airport is still closed, something like 3000 people needing to find alternate routes. Airlines are sending people to DIA (KDEN) and Grand Junction (KGJT).
 
Last edited:
I thought it interesting in the LIVEATC that no one one the ramp noticed the Gulfstream taxing out with the chock stuck between the right main gear and door. Good job Citation crew.
 
Hawker800 said:
I thought it interesting in the LIVEATC that no one one the ramp noticed the Gulfstream taxing out with the chock stuck between the right main gear and door. Good job Citation crew.
Click to expand...


Agreed... That could have gotten real ugly.......... real fast....:yes:.


:cheers: to the Citation crew....
 
N801BH said:
Agreed... That could have gotten real ugly.......... real fast....:yes:.


:cheers: to the Citation crew....
Click to expand...

Since they were all stuck in aspen maybe they bought the citation crew a beer!
 
Wow, that was a hell of a bounce, touched down with way too much energy, drove it right on nose first.
 
Henning said:
Wow, that was a hell of a bounce, touched down with way too much energy, drove it right on nose first.
Click to expand...

Yup. Then instead of a go around decided to decrease the angle of attack and force it on the runway.
 
It kind of looked like he thought about going around briefly, then abandoned that decision.
 
Anybody hear where the nose gear ended up? Almost looks like something came off in the first bounce but zooming the low quality video doesn't reveal much. Son of a ... Wow.
 
Agreed, appears they tried to force it on with a big tail wind and lots of energy... Wow
 
denverpilot said:
Anybody hear where the nose gear ended up? Almost looks like something came off in the first bounce but zooming the low quality video doesn't reveal much. Son of a ... Wow.
Click to expand...

Nose gear is bent to the left and crushed against the bottom of the fuselage.. Pic in Post#23 clearly shows it...
 
At the 1:00 mark you can clearly see blowing snow along the ground which shows a pretty strong tailwind.
 
Looks like had a first impact at 2:10 of video linked in post #103. I see a puff of snow or something and the nose goes down from then on. Second 'landing' at 2:19
 
Last edited:
Z06_Mir said:
It kind of looked like he thought about going around briefly, then abandoned that decision.
Click to expand...
I suspect that most of what happened after that initial bounce was probably wind. In fact, without a CVR/FDR, I am not sure you can tell if they intentionally tried to salvage the landing. In the last video, it looks more like they pushed the nose down after the initial bounce in an attempt to reduce the angle of attack caused by the bounce and the tailwind then drove that airplane right into the ground. Either that or we found out where the SWA LGA captain went after getting canned by Southwest.
 
Badger said:
Looks like had a first impact at 2:10 of video linked in post #103. I see a puff of snow or something and the nose goes down from then on. Second 'landing' at 2:19
Click to expand...

The video is in infrared, you're seeing a puff of hot tire smoke.
 
Blackhawk said:
Yup. Then instead of a go around decided to decrease the angle of attack and force it on the runway.
Click to expand...
When you bounce that much, you need to reduce the AOA even if you are going around. After watching that video a few times, I really don't think we are seeing much intentional control input. That is all wind. Imagine yourself in that cockpit after experiencing an initial bounce of that magnitude - I think they were in shock/stunned rather than intentionally trying to salvage a landing.
 
Fearless Tower said:
When you bounce that much, you need to reduce the AOA even if you are going around. After watching that video a few times, I really don't think we are seeing much intentional control input. That is all wind. Imagine yourself in that cockpit after experiencing an initial bounce of that magnitude - I think they were in shock/stunned rather than intentionally trying to salvage a landing.
Click to expand...

No I would not shove the nose down like that and I am death to students who do. That is not the correct input and is exactly what leads to porpoising and eventual nose gear collapse. The correct input is to maintain the landing attitude, whether going around or continuing for another landing. Now as power is added forward pressure is necessary to prevent the nose from rising and inducing a tail strike, but this does NOT mean shove the nose down.
http://flightsafety.org/files/alar_bn6-4-bounce.pdf
 
Blackhawk said:
No I would not shove the nose down like that and I am death to students who do. That is not the correct input and is exactly what leads to porpoising and eventual nose gear collapse. The correct input is to maintain the landing attitude, whether going around or continuing for another landing. Now as power is added forward pressure is necessary to prevent the nose from rising and inducing a tail strike, but this does NOT mean shove the nose down.

http://flightsafety.org/files/alar_bn6-4-bounce.pdf
Click to expand...

You're missing what I am saying. I don't think the extent of the pitch down was all pilot. I think he pushed the nose forward, very possibly over corrected and the wind took over and did the rest.

Not saying what they did was correct, just saying that I don't think they were intentionally trying to make a second landing after the bounce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top