Challenger Jet down in Truckee CA 7/26/21

METARs at approx. time of crash:

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
 
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of circle-to-land approaches, but something looks "off?"

From the LiveATC feed, it sounds like the pilot (monitoring, probably) initially checked in with TRK tower while inbound from LUMMO, the FAF for the RNAV approach to 20. He later reported a right turn to 11 before being cleared to land, less than two minutes before the crash.

However, the FR24 track shows the jet flying north of that track, circling to descend before continuing toward the field and then turning left to 11.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n605tr#288e0e62
 
Flightwriter…that flight path does not show a “circle to land” approach. Typically if you circle to land…you fly the approach for one runway, then stay within the protected area of the airport and switch to another runway. A circle to land does not entail doing 360’s out by a FAF or on an arrival. Maybe one of the jet guys can explain what he was doing? I heard him tell ATC they were going to need to circle…but I don’t know why he would do that.
 
flybill said:
Flightwriter…that flight path does not show a “circle to land” approach. Typically if you circle to land…you fly the approach for one runway, then stay within the protected area of the airport and switch to another runway. A circle to land does not entail doing 360’s out by a FAF or on an arrival. Maybe one of the jet guys can explain what he was doing? I heard him tell ATC they were going to need to circle…but I don’t know why he would do that.
Click to expand...
Well, one may circle to gain altitude, lose altitude, assure traffic separation, or sort out a problem. When I've needed to do any of those (when not directed by ATC) I would likely say why. This is a confusing one. Conditions were iffy for me, but I don't fly big fast planes.
 
flybill said:
Flightwriter…that flight path does not show a “circle to land” approach. Typically if you circle to land…you fly the approach for one runway, then stay within the protected area of the airport and switch to another runway. A circle to land does not entail doing 360’s out by a FAF or on an arrival. Maybe one of the jet guys can explain what he was doing? I heard him tell ATC they were going to need to circle…but I don’t know why he would do that.
Click to expand...

Kenny Phillips said:
Well, one may circle to gain altitude, lose altitude, assure traffic separation, or sort out a problem. When I've needed to do any of those (when not directed by ATC) I would likely say why. This is a confusing one. Conditions were iffy for me, but I don't fly big fast planes.
Click to expand...

Thank you both for your input. I'm hoping a turbine pilot can weigh in, too.
 
flybill said:
Flightwriter…that flight path does not show a “circle to land” approach. Typically if you circle to land…you fly the approach for one runway, then stay within the protected area of the airport and switch to another runway. A circle to land does not entail doing 360’s out by a FAF or on an arrival. Maybe one of the jet guys can explain what he was doing? I heard him tell ATC they were going to need to circle…but I don’t know why he would do that.
Click to expand...
The flight path showed a turn in holding at AWEGA. It was the RNAV RWY 20 Approach. Then a pretty much left base to RWY 11.
 
I haven’t looked at the flight path but circle to land is just like flying a traffic pattern to align with the runway of your choice, except you stay tight and at a lower altitude. You must maintain visual of the airport. You must stay within X miles of airport while circling, depending on aircraft speed. If you lose visual, you initiate a climb towards the airport then follow missed approach instructions for that instrument approach procedure used.
 
Hawker800 said:
Click to expand...
Just watched the first few seconds. Controller seemed kinda confused. Guy enters and reports the hold at AWEGA. This certainly implies that he had been Cleared to AWEGA, given holding instructions and an EFC. At that point a simple cross AWEGA at or above 13,000 cleared for the approach would have been the correct clearance. That proceed direct AWEGA was useless. Didn’t have nuthin to do with what happened later though.

EDIT: He doesn't report AWEGA, just that he's established in hold. He had actually been been given holding at ALVVA.
 
Last edited:
Kenny Phillips said:
Well, one may circle to gain altitude, lose altitude, assure traffic separation, or sort out a problem. When I've needed to do any of those (when not directed by ATC) I would likely say why. This is a confusing one. Conditions were iffy for me, but I don't fly big fast planes.
Click to expand...
Turns out he was circling for runway lights, at least that was his call, though the tower generally operates those during "working hours". Unless he was looking ... and he perhaps found something he thought was the runway. He was on an RNAV, though. This will be interesting.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Turns out he was circling for runway lights, at least that was his call, though the tower generally operates those during "working hours". Unless he was looking ... and he perhaps found something he thought was the runway. He was on an RNAV, though. This will be interesting.
Click to expand...

I believe he said "for runway length."
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Turns out he was circling for runway lights, at least that was his call, though the tower generally operates those during "working hours". Unless he was looking ... and he perhaps found something he thought was the runway. He was on an RNAV, though. This will be interesting.
Click to expand...
I’m wonder if meant to say length, not lights
 
flightwriter said:
Thank you both for your input. I'm hoping a turbine pilot can weigh in, too.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you one thing, is that in a big airplane, I'm going to circle as high as the weather allows me to, up to my normal visual pattern altitude. If the posted METAR above is right (which, I'm not sure because on the audio, tower calls the wind "calm") the ceiling was 2300' AGL with 3-1/2 - 4 miles in smoke. I'm circling at the highest altitude I can. Probably 2000' AGL. These circling minima are pretty high, but I've seen lots of cases where pilots descend to a low circling MDA when they could be flying higher. Nothing good comes out of being that close to the ground when you don't have to. It's a manifestation of how we train. Every practice circling approach is done at the circling MDA, then when it comes time to really circle, pilots do what they were trained to do and descend all the way to the MDA, even though there's no good reason to.

I'll add, without me knowing, I read somewhere else that a 605's circling speed puts it in Cat D territory (141 kts and above), which isn't allowed for this approach.
 
It makes more sense now. The big loop before the airport was him establishing a lap in the hold while ATC was setting up his clearance for the approach. And he did indeed circle to land for runway “length”. I went back and listened to the tape again.
The only part that doesn’t make sense is why he crashed?
 
News now says four fatalities.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Nothing good comes out of being that close to the ground when you don't have to.
Click to expand...
Oh yes it can. The higher you choose to circle, the farther you need to stray from the protected circling area. That's one thing VFR day and another thing at night when you might have to rely on remaining within the protected area.
 
dtuuri said:
Oh yes it can. The higher you choose to circle, the farther you need to stray from the protected circling area. That's one thing VFR day and another thing at night when you might have to rely on remaining within the protected area.
Click to expand...
The protected area is plenty big I think…
 
dtuuri said:
Oh yes it can. The higher you choose to circle, the farther you need to stray from the protected circling area.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you mean by this.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you mean by this.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking he's talking about Ground Speed is going to increase at higher altitudes, therefore radius of turn. I think he meant 'the farther you MAY stray' not 'you NEED to stray.' @dtuuri ???
 
Sounds on the camera footage appear to reveal the aircraft struck trees before engines were throttled up, then it went down.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you mean by this.
Click to expand...

luvflyin said:
I'm thinking he's talking about Ground Speed is going to increase at higher altitudes, therefore radius of turn. I think he meant 'the farther you MAY stray' not 'you NEED to stray.' @dtuuri ???
Click to expand...
When you can't see unlighted objects below MDA or beyond circling limits at night you need to be intimately familiar with local terrain in order to know when/where to descend. The only requirement for lighted obstructions, IIRC, is +/- 10° of the runway centerline, so you'd be advised to maintain MDA until positioned there. At, say, 500' AGL it's quite do-able. At 1500' AGL that would put you beyond circling limits at the same glide angle, no? In the mountains (ASE?) at night, circling MDAs are too high to make a normal descent to the runway without intimate local knowledge. A Learjet landing at Eagle infamously hit a mountain during a night visual approach when it extended the downwind in order to lose excess altitude, as what you are suggesting would be required. While not the same scenario, the principle is the same: If you fly higher than you need, you need more space to lose the excess. In the dark, that sounds like a bad SOP to me.
 
dtuuri said:
When you can't see unlighted objects below MDA or beyond circling limits at night you need to be intimately familiar with local terrain in order to know when/where to descend. The only requirement for lighted obstructions, IIRC, is +/- 10° of the runway centerline, so you'd be advised to maintain MDA until positioned there. At, say, 500' AGL it's quite do-able. At 1500' AGL that would put you beyond circling limits at the same glide angle, no? In the mountains (ASE?) at night, circling MDAs are too high to make a normal descent to the runway without intimate local knowledge. A Learjet landing at Eagle infamously hit a mountain during a night visual approach when it extended the downwind in order to lose excess altitude, as what you are suggesting would be required. While not the same scenario, the principle is the same: If you fly higher than you need, you need more space to lose the excess. In the dark, that sounds like a bad SOP to me.
Click to expand...
Why would you be outside of circling limits?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top