Gulfstream GIV - Deadly failure on the runway

Maxed-out

Maxed-out

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
81
Display Name
Display name:
Maxed-out
A detailed article appeared today (Aug 2nd) on the crash of a Gulfstream GIV on takeoff that occurred last year killing Philadelphia businessman Lewis Katz and six others. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp acknowledged to investigators that a key fail-safe system on the GIV had a flawed design.

Basically, the system that prevents the pilots from getting the jet above a low speed if the elevators were locked was flawed from the beginning. The pilots on this flight somehow managed to achieve ground speeds of up to 187 m.p.h. even though the elevators were immobilized. You can bet the lawsuits are flying on this one, and the FAA isn't exactly looking good in this story. The manufacturer, pilots, and the FAA all appear to have dropped the ball on this one.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Deadly_failure_on_the_runway_in_Katz_crash.html
 
Title sounds like a Mayday/Air Investigation episode.
Lawsuits go after the big $: pilots insurance probably not much, GS big $, engine maker too (doesn't matter if they weren't responsible), tire maker, airport owner (didn't have overrun protection), and so forth...
 
You mean a checklist is designed to catch broken, damaged, inop or improprly set systems? I thought it was an arbitrary ritual where you just go thru the motions, skipped or ignored :dunno:
 
"A review of the quick access recorder, a backup to the flight data recorder, showed that out of the Gulfstream GIV’s last 176 takeoffs, only two complete and 16 partial control checks were performed"


"Free and Correct", everyone.
 
Regardless of whether or not there is an installed safety system that is supposed to prevent reaching a certain speed with a gust lock installed, ensuring that the gust lock is not installed is still a pre-flight or checklist item. It is not something that a pilot should be dependent on to save his bacon. Same with a take-off warning horn, stall warning horn, stick pusher, etc., those are not what should prevent an accident. What should prevent them is following checklists and airmanship.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
"A review of the quick access recorder, a backup to the flight data recorder, showed that out of the Gulfstream GIV’s last 176 takeoffs, only two complete and 16 partial control checks were performed"


.
Click to expand...


Dang!

As bad as that sounds, it seems that Gulfstream pilots know that this sloppy practice is common.

http://code7700.com/g450_gust_lock.html

Excerpt


Check the two gust lock springs below the elevator assembly in the aft equipment compartment during every exterior preflight inspection. (Some crews do not preflight the aft equipment compartment at all; this is not smart.)

Ensure the gust lock is off prior to engine start. (This is in the manual and tends to be self-correcting: the throttles will not move unless the throttle lock is broken.)

Accomplish a complete flight control check after every engine start. (Some crews skip this routinely; this is not smart.)

Accomplish an elevator free check at 60 knots during takeoff. (Some crews skip this or have invented alternate procedures which could actually make things worse. Not smart!)
 
Had the Captain accomplished a control check IAW Gulfstream's manual and SOP's this wouldn't have occurred.

The Captain had a history of sloppy flying and ignoring procedures.
 
VERY early in my flying (I had <100 hrs I'm sure), I survived a similar stupid mistake. I was departing Meigs in a 172. A friend was departing in another 172 at the same time. I knew he was going IFR and I was going VFR and I didn't want to get stuck behind him on the taxiway while he waited for his clearance. I rushed through the checklist and taxied out for takeoff. Got full power in and pulled the yoke back and realized that I had left the gust lock in (stupid mistake #1). Instead of aborting the takeoff, I reached up and pulled the gust lock out while continuing the takeoff roll (stupid mistake #2). Nose pitched up quickly, but I maintained control and (somehow) successfully completed the takeoff and climbout. The rest of the flight was uneventful, but I scared myself enough that I never take shortcuts after that day. An extra 5 minutes (or even 50 minutes for that matter) on the ground isn't worth risking you and your pax life.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Just knowing the fdr was recording my free and corrects would be enough for me to make sure I did it each time!
Click to expand...

A long-dead US President is surveilling your pre-flight procedures? Damn! You must be REALLY important.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
"A review of the quick access recorder, a backup to the flight data recorder, showed that out of the Gulfstream GIV’s last 176 takeoffs, only two complete and 16 partial control checks were performed"


"Free and Correct", everyone.
Click to expand...

That is downright SCARY....:yikes::mad2::mad2::mad:
 
suppose these were 135 pilots operating an airplane on a 135 certificate?
 
The design of the gustlock and its annunciator reeks of the old mantra that management or sales tells an engineering department "we don't need it perfect. We need it next Tuesday."
 
This gets back to the other thread where we talked about how people learn but a different aspect of it.

If any one of us did something dozens of times with the same desireable and seemingly predictable outcome, how many of us could conceive of an alternative outcome?
"158 perfect take-offs without a control check, why would the next one be any different?"

N801BH said:
That is downright SCARY....:yikes::mad2::mad2::mad:
Click to expand...

"A review of the quick access recorder, a backup to the flight data recorder, showed that out of the Gulfstream GIV’s last 176 takeoffs, only two complete and 16 partial control checks were performed"
 
Its crazy what can kill you if you run through preflight checks.
A few years ago back in Europe, a guy took off in a PA28, with the tail still tied down to a concrete block. He took off, flew around with the block trailing him, then stalled and crashed and died.
 
mtuomi said:
Its crazy what can kill you if you run through preflight checks.
A few years ago back in Europe, a guy took off in a PA28, with the tail still tied down to a concrete block. He took off, flew around with the block trailing him, then stalled and crashed and died.
Click to expand...

Did anyone at that airfield figure out the uselessness of tying down to something that the plane can pick up and fly with?
 
Henning said:
Did anyone at that airfield figure out the uselessness of tying down to something that the plane can pick up and fly with?
Click to expand...

I guess they were all perplexed how you can taxi and take off with a 100lbs lump of concrete wagging around on your tail, and not notice a thing.

If I remember the accident report correctly, it said it needed like 2000rpm to get the plane moving.
 
mtuomi said:
I guess they were all perplexed how you can taxi and take off with a 100lbs lump of concrete wagging around on your tail, and not notice a thing.

If I remember the accident report correctly, it said it needed like 2000rpm to get the plane moving.
Click to expand...

Stupidity of pilots regardless, the tie down is there to hold the plane in place in severe weather, which 100lb lumps of concrete are not going to accomplish.
 
Henning said:
Stupidity of pilots regardless, the tie down is there to hold the plane in place in severe weather, which 100lb lumps of concrete are not going to accomplish.
Click to expand...

Accomplishes that perfectly. That airport has never experienced winds in excess of 30kts. 300lbs of load is easily enough to hold planes in place there.
 
mtuomi said:
Its crazy what can kill you if you run through preflight checks.
A few years ago back in Europe, a guy took off in a PA28, with the tail still tied down to a concrete block. He took off, flew around with the block trailing him, then stalled and crashed and died.
Click to expand...

That had to have been a VERY interesting accident investigation when the NTSB ( or whatever they are called over there) dug through the wreckage and found a concrete block connected to the tail tie down...

I am sure WTF was uttered several times at that stage..:confused::confused::confused::idea:
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
That had to have been a VERY interesting accident investigation when the NTSB ( or whatever they are called over there) dug through the wreckage and found a concrete block connested to the tail tie down...

I am sure WTF was uttered several times at that stage..:confused::confused::confused::idea:
Click to expand...

Finns like to keep things short and sweet, so the NTSB there is called "onnettomuustutkintalautakunta" :)
 
mtuomi said:
Its crazy what can kill you if you run through preflight checks.
A few years ago back in Europe, a guy took off in a PA28, with the tail still tied down to a concrete block. He took off, flew around with the block trailing him, then stalled and crashed and died.
Click to expand...

In the incident you refer to, the block fell off in flight. He didn't crash and was later fined for his stupidity. I'm quite surprised an aircraft could become airborne with a substantial weight that far aft of the CG.

http://m.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/1899644.pilot_fined_after_concrete_block_falls_of_his_plane/
 
3393RP said:
In the incident you refer to, the block fell off in flight. He didn't crash and was later fined for his stupidity. I'm quite surprised an aircraft could become airborne with a substantial weight that far aft of the CG.

http://m.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/1899644.pilot_fined_after_concrete_block_falls_of_his_plane/
Click to expand...

Nope, unfortunately there are more apparently.

I'm talking about this case:

http://turvallisuustutkinta.fi/mate...tutkintaselostus/b52009l_tutkintaselostus.pdf

Here's a quote from the English summary:

"The accident was caused by the tail tie down anchor which the pilot neither noticed nor disconnected
during the external inspection. The anchor degraded the flight characteristics to such an
extent that the pilot found it difficult to control the aircraft in the strong and gusty wind. As he entered
the final approach at a low altitude, encountering strong wind turbulence coming from the
quarry, he finally lost control of the aircraft. As a result, the aircraft stalled and crashed into the
open-pit mine. "

65kg weight on the tail on a 3ft lever. High price to pay for such stupidity.
 
mtuomi said:
Nope, unfortunately there are more apparently.

I'm talking about this case:

http://turvallisuustutkinta.fi/mate...tutkintaselostus/b52009l_tutkintaselostus.pdf

Here's a quote from the English summary:

"The accident was caused by the tail tie down anchor which the pilot neither noticed nor disconnected
during the external inspection. The anchor degraded the flight characteristics to such an
extent that the pilot found it difficult to control the aircraft in the strong and gusty wind. As he entered
the final approach at a low altitude, encountering strong wind turbulence coming from the
quarry, he finally lost control of the aircraft. As a result, the aircraft stalled and crashed into the
open-pit mine. "

65kg weight on the tail on a 3ft lever. High price to pay for such stupidity.
Click to expand...

One thing to remember, you deduct the 'engine weight' that the tail lifts from the weight of the block.
 
Henning said:
One thing to remember, you deduct the 'engine weight' that the tail lifts from the weight of the block.
Click to expand...

The tail won't lift 65kg plus its own weight in light winds(max usually 10-15kts) they have over there.
 
mtuomi said:
Nope, unfortunately there are more apparently.

I'm talking about this case:

http://turvallisuustutkinta.fi/mate...tutkintaselostus/b52009l_tutkintaselostus.pdf

Here's a quote from the English summary:

"The accident was caused by the tail tie down anchor which the pilot neither noticed nor disconnected
during the external inspection. The anchor degraded the flight characteristics to such an
extent that the pilot found it difficult to control the aircraft in the strong and gusty wind. As he entered
the final approach at a low altitude, encountering strong wind turbulence coming from the
quarry, he finally lost control of the aircraft. As a result, the aircraft stalled and crashed into the
open-pit mine. "

65kg weight on the tail on a 3ft lever. High price to pay for such stupidity.
Click to expand...

My mistake. I thought it unlikely there was more than one. I guess there's no limit to stupid human tricks.
 
The problem with making something idiot-proof is that as soon as you do, they make a bigger idiot. Flight control checks are taught from lesson #1 along with the dire consequences of locked controls. Sad deal, but so easily avoided.
 
We had a club member years back who managed to snap the (wing) tiedown ring off the plane when he attempted to power out of the space with the right wing still tied down. He said he was surprised it broke as the last time he did that it just spun the plane around (last time?). We're pretty sure he was also the one who taxied across a runway light with another plane and didn't notice.
 
flyingron said:
We had a club member years back who managed to snap the (wing) tiedown ring off the plane when he attempted to power out of the space with the right wing still tied down. He said he was surprised it broke as the last time he did that it just spun the plane around (last time?). We're pretty sure he was also the one who taxied across a runway light with another plane and didn't notice.
Click to expand...

Another example why I really hate paying for insurance. :mad2:
 
mtuomi said:
Its crazy what can kill you if you run through preflight checks.
A few years ago back in Europe, a guy took off in a PA28, with the tail still tied down to a concrete block. He took off, flew around with the block trailing him, then stalled and crashed and died.
Click to expand...

No need to go that far. 1971 in Minnesota.

MKC71FER66
3-0240 71/5/31 PARK RAPIDS,MINN BEECH E35 CR- 0 1 0 NONCOMMERCIAL PRIVATE, AGE 61, 6562
TIME - 1500 N19FF PX- 0 1 1 PLEASURE/PERSONAL TRANSP TOTAL HOURS, 135 IN TYPE,
DAMAGE-DESTROYED OT- 0 0 0 NOT INSTRUMENT RATED.
NAME OF AIRPORT - PRIVATE
DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION
PARK RAPIDS,MINN LOCAL
TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION
COLLIDED WITH: TREES TAKEOFF: INITIAL CLIMB
PROBABLE CAUSE(S)
PILOT IN COMMAND - INADEQUATE PREFLIGHT PREPARATION AND/OR PLANNING
REMARKS- PILOT DID NOT RELEASE 250 LB TAIL TIEDOWN BFR TKOF.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
This gets back to the other thread where we talked about how people learn but a different aspect of it.

If any one of us did something dozens of times with the same desireable and seemingly predictable outcome, how many of us could conceive of an alternative outcome?
"158 perfect take-offs without a control check, why would the next one be any different?"
Click to expand...
This is a good point, relating not only to this accident but many other situations in aviation and in life.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Yes. If you read the reports, the two pilots were hi time, well regarded, with lots of time in type. They were simply careless. They were responsible and a good lawyer would make quick work of it.
Click to expand...
How would the lawyer make quick work of it, since more than one person (like the pilots and Gulfstream) can be responsible?
 
Lindberg said:
How would the lawyer make quick work of it, since more than one person (like the pilots and Gulfstream) can be responsible?
Click to expand...

You must be kidding. It's obvious from all the reports they did not follow basic preflight inspection of the aircraft. Notice I said a GOOD lawyer and in a case like this I'm sure it will be a GOOD lawyer.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
You must be kidding. It's obvious from all the reports they did not follow basic preflight inspection of the aircraft. Notice I said a GOOD lawyer and in a case like this I'm sure it will be a GOOD lawyer.
Click to expand...

You seem certain. How about a bet that Gulfstream pays a bunch of money?
 
I don't think anyone will bother to sue the pilots...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top