Plane into building

Reported to be 2 pilots, 2 passengers. I thought the runway was about 3650’ or so, didn’t look it up.

Ok, 3665’, currently winds 010/12G19, rwy 02/20, winds a few hours after accident.
 
Last edited:
From Facebook Page: Aviation Accidents/This Day in History.

Cessna 560XLS+ Citation Excel N560AR

241143876_1534608670247370_2786678377096447101_n.jpg

241272826_10226070508019973_3982150570403866059_n.jpg
 
Condolences to the victims and their families.
 
The runway sits on a bit of a berm, the building they hit is a bit below grade of the airport.

RiP.



Btw. That was an expensive building to hit. It's a production facility for industrial cutting lasers.
 
Lowflynjack said:
From Facebook Page: Aviation Accidents/This Day in History.

Cessna 560XLS+ Citation Excel N560AR

241272826_10226070508019973_3982150570403866059_n.jpg
Click to expand...

It appears the plane hit the building just a little right of the extended centerline. The NW corner of the building just above and to the right of the abbreviation “Rd” in the text 111 Hyde Rd address. Doesn’t matter except when pilots see the ‘crash site’ pinpoint and start asking why it veered way to the left, when in fact it didn’t.
 
Kritchlow said:
I don’t care what the numbers say. I have thousands of hours in the airplane, and 3600 feet does not have “reasonable margin” on a summer day.

That’s my opinion, regardless of book numbers.
Click to expand...

Of course I have no time in jets but here is how I would figure it in my Cardinal.

What is the book takeoff distance - in this case perhaps 3190. add 50% is 4785. So we need to be careful here and figure it by the book.

Koch chart says maybe 2% more needed for the DA. So 3253'. Of course, I don't know if the starting number here is over a 50' obstacle -- probably is.

So I would get the POH and compute the ground run. Then figure out what the abort point is going to be. I mean the landing distance is listed as 3180, probably also over a 50' obstacle. It almost seems like you really can't safely take off from that field in this plane.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Of course I have no time in jets but here is how I would figure it in my Cardinal.

What is the book takeoff distance - in this case perhaps 3190. add 50% is 4785. So we need to be careful here and figure it by the book.

Koch chart says maybe 2% more needed for the DA. So 3253'. Of course, I don't know if the starting number here is over a 50' obstacle -- probably is.

So I would get the POH and compute the ground run. Then figure out what the abort point is going to be. I mean the landing distance is listed as 3180, probably also over a 50' obstacle.
Click to expand...
The takeoff field length in a jet includes engine failure distances (accelerate-stop and accelerate go—generally to 35 feet) in addition to all-engine takeoff. Landing distance is from 50 feet.
 
On Reddit someone said it was from an engine out. So either it was dual engine out or some failure of takeoff distance, single engine procedures, etc. All speculation and no facts here.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The takeoff field length in a jet includes engine failure (accelerate-stop and accelerate go—generally to 35 feet) in addition to all-engine takeoff. Landing distance is from 50 feet.
Click to expand...

Not a jet pilot, but the balanced field number I saw in one of the spec sheets was like 4600 feet. 3,100 is probably just the takeoff roll. Maybe one of you jet jockeys that are familiar can clarify.
 
The local word in CT (which is probably as reliable as Reddit) is also that they lost both engines. How or why, unknown.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
On Reddit someone said it was from an engine out. So either it was dual engine out or some failure of takeoff distance, single engine procedures, etc. All speculation and no facts here.
Click to expand...

Certainly two turbine engines out from mechanical failure seems exceedingly unlikely. Operator error causing two engines out - maybe.

Does that type of plane have a CDR?
 
Truly, there is no way to even guess at this until more facts are known.
 
AKBill said:
A 2 engine out in a jet would be very unlikely
Click to expand...

Misfueling with something other than jet-A or 100LL.
There have now been two with DEF (waterous urea solution) being pumped into aircraft tanks.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Certainly two turbine engines out from mechanical failure seems exceedingly unlikely. Operator error causing two engines out - maybe.

Does that type of plane have a CDR?
Click to expand...
It’s been roughly 15 years since I’ve flown the airplane, so I’m perhaps not as sharp as some others on systems. That said, I don’t know any intricacies with the fuel system that would have caused this. I also don’t believe misfueling would be a culprit, as jet engines will run on anything that burns.

Again, I can’t speculate, as few facts are in. That said, 3600 feet is one of the few facts, and I am suspicious of that.
 
PaulS said:
Not a jet pilot, but the balanced field number I saw in one of the spec sheets was like 4600 feet. 3,100 is probably just the takeoff roll. Maybe one of you jet jockeys that are familiar can clarify.
Click to expand...

Unless noted otherwise, a spec sheet typically uses standard (ISA) temperature, one particular weight (usually max takeoff weight), and other fixed criteria. Most reputable sources will use balanced field length, not takeoff roll. Jet pilots don’t necessarily need to know takeoff roll, since they really care about BFL. Takeoff calculations for a jet, like other aircraft, involve numerous inputs. Some jet aircraft have widely varying BFLs due to the fact that the amount of fuel carried and airport density altitudes can vary greatly. A takeoff BFL at light weight and standard temps might be 4000 feet while BFL at max weight and a hot summer day might be 7000 feet. Not sure if this answers your question or not.
 
weilke said:
Misfueling with something other than jet-A or 100LL.
There have now been two with DEF (waterous urea solution) being pumped into aircraft tanks.
Click to expand...
I think that DEF was added, in limited quantities, because it was mistaken for Prist.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I think that DEF was added, in limited quantities, because it was mistaken for Prist.
Click to expand...

Yes, that has been a recent issue.

In '85 and '92 there were two multi fatality skydiving plane accidents caused by fuel contamination. Shouldn't happen with professionally maintained FBO equipment and if procedures are adhered to, but no system is perfect.
 
A commenter on the Kathryn's Report states that there are tire marks 1,050 feet from the departure end of the runway, suggesting they were braking at that point. Someone else above has commented that the runway is somewhat elevated from the land beyond the departure end, so (assuming both of the foregoing are true), this plane may have rejected the takeoff, overrun the departure end, become airborne and hit the small grass field in front of the building before hitting the building itself.
 
Most of these are failure to put the flaps down...

Go to rotate, nothing happens... everything seems fine...
 
Kritchlow said:
It’s been roughly 15 years since I’ve flown the airplane, so I’m perhaps not as sharp as some others on systems. That said, I don’t know any intricacies with the fuel system that would have caused this. I also don’t believe misfueling would be a culprit, as jet engines will run on anything that burns.

Again, I can’t speculate, as few facts are in. That said, 3600 feet is one of the few facts, and I am suspicious of that.
Click to expand...

My home base runway length is 3950. We have two 560XLS jets based here for years. It does not seem to be that bad at all to me every time they take off or landing.

RIP...
 
Tools said:
Most of these are failure to put the flaps down...

Go to rotate, nothing happens... everything seems fine...
Click to expand...
That’s what I heard was the issue. Very speculative though.
Does this citation have a flight data recorder??
 
jpskies said:
My home base runway length is 3950. We have two 560XLS jets based here for years. It does not seem to be that bad at all to me every time they take off or landing.

RIP...
Click to expand...
I’m not saying it’s not possible.
Please also remember just because the performance may meet the ground roll distance, does not mean it meets accelerate go/stop.
I do not know upon which performance criteria they operate them.
 
weilke said:
This may have been a recruitment trip.

Or resident and pediatrician salaries in the northeast have really gone up...
Click to expand...

Ah… took me a minute to figure out what you meant. Sad their baby lost both parents but I’m glad he wasn’t on the plane. I sure hope they did their wills. My daughter and SIL have two children now and haven’t! They’re in their early thirties too. You think you’re not gonna go at that age. I’ve nagged them about it as much as I dare. Go to LegalZoom and do it for $200 if you think you don’t have the time and money. No excuse. Sorry for the off topic rant but maybe it’ll plant a seed with any young parent here who hasn’t done that yet. You want the government deciding who gets custody of your kids?
 
Rushie said:
Ah… took me a minute to figure out what you meant. Sad their baby lost both parents but I’m glad he wasn’t on the plane. I sure hope they did their wills.
Click to expand...

Both parents recent medical school graduates. The only thing the kid could inherit is a pile of educational debt. Of course, there could be generational wealth, but I know that when I was a fellow, all my kids would have inherited was a 10 year old Volvo.
The only thing you have to put down on paper is the desired custody setup for the kid.
 
weilke said:
The runway sits on a bit of a berm, the building they hit is a bit below grade of the airport.

RiP.



Btw. That was an expensive building to hit. It's a production facility for industrial cutting lasers.
Click to expand...

.

yes ... and before they hit the grass they just barely overflew a small natural gas facility with valves and pipes above the ground ... that would have been a huge inferno .

sidenote ... the crash site in post 3 shows it hit the Trumpf building on the left of Johnson ave .... it was actually the Trumpf building on the right that they hit.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top