Plane crash on FL freeway

Ed Haywood said:
Heavy traffic. Collision with vehicles was unavoidable. By putting it on the ground, they minimized the energy of the crash, which made it survivable for the pax.

Worth asking whether a gear up landing might have been more survivable.
Click to expand...
It's definitely worth asking whether having a gear up landing would have been more survivable.
But the pilots may not have had that choice - I would venture to guess that the gear is hydraulic
in the Challenger. And with both engine driven hydraulic pumps inoperative, the gear won't retract.

Judging from the ADS-B info, it's very likely that the pilots already had their gear down as they were
turning base at 163 knots - and that's just before the speed and altitude started to
drop precipitously and the pilot declared the dual engine failure.

Rest in piece:

 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Could've landed in the grass median with better luck? Sometimes you make the best of choices with what you know and still lose.
Click to expand...
A lot of interstates here in Florida do have dividers made of wires in the grass median. I think you can make them out on the video.
 
How fast was the car with the dash cam driving?

It seemed like the plane was still going really fast, with no lifting of the nose. I’ve never flown a jet…no engines means you can’t pull up?
 
I would assume that they were task saturated and so lifting of the nose and such was not a normal situation to encounter, could be totally focused on trying to line up the plane and highway, avoiding wires, houses and cars, it was an impossible situation and time, distance and altitude just ran out the clock. I'd guess human factors first. And just to say, I'm not a jet pilot, but reading through the comments, that hasn't stopped people of having an opinion about something that at this point, no facts or data has come out about. Much conjecture and projection, to the point that some of the comments are just plain. . . I'll say ill-informed because we know next to nothing on Tuesday morning. I expect that on Facebook, but here???? One vote for wait for the NTSB -good to share first impressions, maybe, but also to realize that is all they are. And to imagine yourself in the left seat, think about how you might face that situation and file that away for your safety.
 
Last edited:
Randomskylane said:
How fast was the car with the dash cam driving?

It seemed like the plane was still going really fast, with no lifting of the nose. I’ve never flown a jet…no engines means you can’t pull up?
Click to expand...

As slow as the ADS-b information puts them, they may have run out of airspeed trying to stretch the glide to the highway. They were fortunate to have gotten as far as they did while wings level. That made it a survivable crash at least for some.
 
Flying that airplane in those final moments was about energy management. I’m willing to say they didn’t have much if any extra airspeed to play with. The PF probably did as best as he could under the circumstances and if he could have flared to arrest the sink rate without making the touchdown worse, he probably would have.
 
francisco collazos said:
A lot of interstates here in Florida do have dividers made of wires in the grass median. I think you can make them out on the video.
Click to expand...
I'm familiar with that part of I75; there are dividers and I believe it dips down in the median there (I can confirm in the next week).
 
CaptainDoug said:
It's definitely worth asking whether having a gear up landing would have been more survivable.
Click to expand...
The intermediate question would be, what would potentially make a gear-up landing more survivable?

I can’t think of anything.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The intermediate question would be, what would potentially make a gear-up landing more survivable?

I can’t think of anything.
Click to expand...

Everything I can think of would make it less survivable, like an inability to steer or to brake once on the ground, or a greater probability of rupturing a fuel tank, and so forth.
 
All transport category planes I have flown from 4 different manufacturers have gear down as part of the off airport emergency landing checklist.
Looked like the nose started to raise to me, but they were probably running out of energy, so the trajectory didn't change much.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Heavy traffic. Collision with vehicles was unavoidable. By putting it on the ground, they minimized the energy of the crash, which made it survivable for the pax.

Worth asking whether a gear up landing might have been more survivable.
Click to expand...

The landing gear absorbed a lot of the energy on touch down. With the gear up, that energy would have gone up through the cabin, and reduced survivability.
 
Randomskylane said:
How fast was the car with the dash cam driving?

It seemed like the plane was still going really fast, with no lifting of the nose. I’ve never flown a jet…no engines means you can’t pull up?
Click to expand...

Randomskylane, I don't think that there's an airplane out there where you can't
turn airspeed into altitude by lifting the nose - that's as long as you have ample
airspeed above stall. It can definitely be done in a jet as well. I used
to do it all the time in the Baron (without passengers - and even with them,
I'd try to be more gentle) so I could get below gear speed if I was being asked
to keep the speed up until the marker, etc.

I've done it in the jet too. But that technique isn't really necessary in a jet because jets
have speed brakes - so they're not really hard to slow down at all. In fact, I think that
speed management can be trickier in the Baron. But all planes need good planning - things
just happen faster in the jet so you definitely need to stay ahead of the airplane.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
Everything I can think of would make it less survivable, like an inability to steer or to brake once on the ground, or a greater probability of rupturing a fuel tank, and so forth.
Click to expand...
The crew fatalities were due to the aircraft pinwheeling into the wall nose first when the wing snagged it. It appears from the video that the aircraft veered sharply off the road and towards the barrier within a few seconds after touchdown, probably because the left wingtip clipped the truck. I raised the question about gear up landing because it seems to me that gear down would increase the likelihood of a sudden uncontrolled veer. With a belly landing, the aircraft would generally slide in the direction it was going when it touched down. If it did depart the roadway, it would have dumped more energy as it slid, thus potentially making the impact more survivable.

But it appears that is a moot point, given the gear could not have been raised in the time allowed.

It's all Monday morning quarterbacking anyways. But interesting to discuss.
 
Cloudhound said:
I guess I disagree, Because how much airspeed gets turned into altitude by lifting the nose during a flair?
Click to expand...

In a proper flare, you don't have much airspeed to give up. If you had a bunch of extra airspeed, that is why you float.
 
midwestpa24 said:
In a proper flare, you don't have much airspeed to give up. If you had a bunch of extra airspeed, that is why you float.
Click to expand...
I agree.

But, it a jet, you definitely aren't taught to do
stall types of landings with your gear just inches
off the runway like in a Cessna172, 182,
210, Cherokee 180, etc., etc.
 
Does anyone know if the flight controls on the 604 are hydraulically boosted? If so does it have a RAT to provide pressure in an event like this?
 
Paul Thomas said:
I'm familiar with that part of I75; there are dividers and I believe it dips down in the median there (I can confirm in the next week).
Click to expand...
yes it has a divider in that area and it does dip down between the lanes. that area gets bumper to bumper starting just about the time of the crash. a hour later and on the north bound lanes it would have been a lot worse. the north bound lanes come to a complete stop by4 pm.
 
Yes.
The flight controls on the 604 are hydraulic.
Yes. The 604 does have a ram air turbine that deploys if both AC busses are unpowered- as would be the case in a dual engine failure.
The RAT would power HYD pump 3B in this scenario to keep adequate HYD pressure to the primary flight controls.
 
The typical SOP for 604 is to land and take off with APU to provide more bleed, which is getting turned on "in range" (more or less 10000-6000 AFL). So they would of have 3B fed off APU in this accident. As well as you don't see a RAT in the videos
I have also attached the additives required for fuel. The only ways they can shut down both at the same time if:
1. Firewall SOV's close (you have to press two buttons on the glareshield while lifted caps)
2. 4 Fuel pumps to fail at the same time (2 boost pumps and 2 ejector pumps)
3. Two fuel cut-offs lifted and throttles moved into shut-off detent.Or two of them stuck in up position.
All other things like sabotage, fuel exhaustion and birds are out of the question IMO. Fuel starvation on the other hand is most likely, but how? So pick yours
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    52.3 KB · Views: 24
  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    165.1 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
IIRC they need system 2 hydraulics to raise the gear. The AC pump for sys 2 will not run weight off wheels. If engine 2 is dead, the gear stays down.

Only thing I can think of common to both engines is the source of fuel and the guys at the controls.
 
camrad1983 said:
The typical SOP for 604 is to land and take off with APU to provide more bleed, which is getting turned on "in range" (more or less 10000-6000 AFL). So they would of have 3B fed off APU in this accident. As well as you don't see a RAT in the videos
Click to expand...
yes.
Thank You for pointing out that SOP.
With the APU powered and on-line, all three B pumps would have been powered.

I was addressing Arm’s question in the simplest way possible.
I thought he was simply asking if the flight controls would still be powered in a dual engine failed scenario.
 
Bacho said:
IIRC they need system 2 hydraulics to raise the gear. The AC pump for sys 2 will not run weight off wheels. If engine 2 is dead, the gear stays down.
Click to expand...
You recall correctly Bacho.
On the CL604, System 3 lowers the gear. System 2 raises it.

You lost me though in your second sentence. “The AC pump for sys2 will not run Weight off Wheels”
???

Sure, it will. The A pumps (1A and 2A) are engine-driven. Everything Normal, operating pressure is from the A pumps.

With regard to your last sentence- That’s not accurate either. IF pump 2B is still powered, you WILL be able to raise the gear. The B pump, with the switch in AUTO, will activate if the A pump pressure is inadequate for some reason( pump fails or engine fails)
Think about it for a second. You’re trucking down the runway. At V1 the right engine fails.
You keep going, accelerate to Vr, rotate and pitch to the command bars.
At “positive rate” you raise the gear- Thanks to HYD pump 2B.

Finally, With BOTH engines failed and the APU ON, the following HYD pumps are still powered:
1B, 2B, 3A, and 3B.
With BOTH engines failed and the APU not on:
The Ram Air Turbine deploys and only HYD pump 3B is powered. This would be the ONLY scenario in which you would NOT be able to raise the gear.
 
Last edited:
I meant AC as in ACMP #2 is electric, #2 EDP is the engine pump. Mechanic talk here!

My memory is starting to fade on the fine details. Maybe its external power that is the difference. ACMP #2 would not run on GPU power when weight off wheels. To perform gear swings in the hangar, we had to jumper a cannon plug near the power center in the avionics bay.

I guess it has to run in the air when needed. Thats the whole point right? :crazy:
 
Bacho said:
I meant AC as in ACMP #2 is electric, #2 EDP is the engine pump. Mechanic talk here!

My memory is starting to fade on the fine details. Maybe its external power that is the difference. ACMP #2 would not run on GPU power when weight off wheels. To perform gear swings in the hangar, we had to jumper a cannon plug near the power center in the avionics bay.

I guess it has to run in the air when needed. Thats the whole point right? :crazy:
Click to expand...

Just the simple act of the engines windmilling probably gave them some pressure in system 1 & 2.
 
CaptainDoug said:
Here's an interesting add on to that from the same YouTube forum:

<<..I flew CRJs with Skywest and I 100%agree with you. Those stupid tabs are a dangerous design. Problem is, once they're "bumped" and unlocked, it doesn't take much to bring the thrust levers to the shutoff position. Even with all the charred wreckage, that throttle quadrant will show what position those levers are in. This same thing happened on a Vietnamese CRJ900 years ago.I also bumped those damn tabs one time during the after landing check as we were taxiing into SLC in a 900. I think it was just a clumsy hand moment or something. Anyway, we had to sit on the outter boundary of the ramp while waiting for a gate so we elected not to start the APU while sitting there with one engine running. The captain went to rest his hand on the thrust lever of the running engine and suddenly "click" and poof,killed the engine. I looked over like "WTF just happened?" More like "how did that happen". Yep, you guessed it, when I bumped it earlier, I unknowingly unlocked it by accident when I bumped the tab. We could hear passengers getting up in the back because they thought we were at the gate. Made an announcement to tell them to be seated and fasten belts until we get to the gate. Pretty embarrassing, but I was super careful around those tabs, especially after I upgraded and moved to the left seat.I now fly Challenger 300/350s and they don't have that deadly design. Engine run switches are below (aft) of the quadrant.>>
Click to expand...
I don't pretend to know what caused this accident. I will say that I was involved in another accident involving a Beech Jet where the cause was established to be one of the front seat occupants pulling the throttles to engine cut-off. Different jet, part 91, single pilot operation-- I know. I am just saying it is one of several potential explanations.
 
Kritchlow said:
To the best of my knowledge, prist never hurts. Could be wrong on that.
Also have never flown a jet (pic typed in 5) that didn’t have some sort of fuel heating.
Click to expand...
Not sure about that. I had an FBO ask me prist or no prist. I fly a 177B.
 
Bacho said:
I meant AC as in ACMP #2 is electric, #2 EDP is the engine pump. Mechanic talk here!

My memory is starting to fade on the fine details. Maybe its external power that is the difference. ACMP #2 would not run on GPU power when weight off wheels. To perform gear swings in the hangar, we had to jumper a cannon plug….”
Click to expand...

Ahhh, yes Bacho. Okay.
that certainly clarifies your earlier post.

That makes sense. Thanks for the input.
 
There's stuff floating around that they said no prist when fueling at OSU. Which makes sense for that aircraft as noted above, and should eliminate the DEF mix up possibilities.

As for gear up, their problem was the wing caught the sound barrier there for the adjacent cookie cutter neighborhood, gear up or down wasn't going to change that.
 
PPC1052 said:
Not sure about that. I had an FBO ask me prist or no prist. I fly a 177B.
Click to expand...
FYI: Prist can be added to 100LL as well for the same reasons. The main reason you see it used more with turbine fuel is that turbine fuel holds water in solution much longer than in avgas and doesn't sump near as well. But nothing wrong with Prist in avgas if conditions warrant.
 
Interesting video floating around demonstrating how to inadvertently shut down the engines in flight.....

If right seater was PF and brought the thrust levers back to flight idle while the Captain was reaching for the flaps:

iCloud Photos - Apple iCloud

View, organize, and share photos and videos with iCloud Photos on the web. Changes will sync across your devices with iCloud.
www.icloud.com www.icloud.com
 
Fearless Tower said:
Interesting video floating around demonstrating how to inadvertently shut down the engines in flight.....

If right seater was PF and brought the thrust levers back to flight idle while the Captain was reaching for the flaps:

iCloud Photos - Apple iCloud

View, organize, and share photos and videos with iCloud Photos on the web. Changes will sync across your devices with iCloud.
www.icloud.com www.icloud.com
Click to expand...
Yowza
 
Ed Haywood said:
New information: engine oil pressure warnings approx 20 seconds prior to radio call on engine loss.

No feathers.
Click to expand...

And only one second apart from each other. Now the report states the throttle controls were found at the idle position, but the only way I could foresee both engines losing power a second apart would be the crew shutting the engines down. I would go so far as to surmise that the theory of an inadvertent shutdown is true, and the crew returned the levers to idle to try to correct it. The 20 second delay was probably reaction time for the crew to what happened before communicating it.
 
There was a mention of water in the fuel...what do you think of that?
About 16 ounces of liquid with an odor and appearance consistent with Jet-A fuel was drained from the aft tail fuel tank; the sample contained about ½ ounce of what appeared to be water.
Click to expand...
 
midwestpa24 said:
[...] would be the crew shutting the engines down. [...] and the crew returned the levers to idle to try to correct it.
Click to expand...

I reckon y'all finally got a hold of my buddy Occam. He's good dude, real straight shooter. :thumbsup:

francisco collazos said:
There was a mention of water in the fuel...what do you think of that?
Click to expand...
water contam kills you at the beginning of the flight, not the end. Chemistry class 101.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top