560XL+ 4 fatal Connecticut
09-05-2021, 04:17 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by TiredSoul
3665’ runway under the 60% rule gives 2200’
Quick online search on 560 performance figures shows numbers that are significantly higher but those are probably all MTOW and MLW.
In any case this was likely a Part 91 operation?
Quick online search on 560 performance figures shows numbers that are significantly higher but those are probably all MTOW and MLW.
In any case this was likely a Part 91 operation?
09-05-2021, 05:18 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Yeah, it seems like a bloody-short runway to be operating a jet out of, and even if it can "technically make it", you erase any safety margin by going right to the minimums.
09-05-2021, 07:03 PM
#13
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,271
If the brakes are applied (or stuck) from a stranding start all the way down the runway, A/S, BFL, etc aren't going to matter either way.
All performance numbers assume the brakes are released.
All performance numbers assume the brakes are released.
09-05-2021, 07:34 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by rickair7777
If the brakes are applied (or stuck) from a stranding start all the way down the runway, A/S, BFL, etc aren't going to matter either way.
All performance numbers assume the brakes are released.
All performance numbers assume the brakes are released.
09-05-2021, 08:10 PM
#15
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,271
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
True enough, but the only brake indications are in the last 1,000’ or less. They certainly went off the end at high energy indicating the brakes weren’t a factor til nearing the end.
09-06-2021, 04:06 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I initially thought from the video that the braking started near the beginning of the roll, but maybe not. That would make more sense.
09-06-2021, 06:38 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I initially thought from the video that the braking started near the beginning of the roll, but maybe not. That would make more sense.
09-06-2021, 06:54 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
Departure was on 02, marks are on the 20 piano keys.
09-06-2021, 02:12 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Position: Retired NJA & AA
Posts: 1,916
In theory the anti-skid should prevent those skid marks near the end. But if they went for the Emer Brake that could have done it.
There was a Phenom 300 that landed in heavy rain, thought they had lost normal braking, and applied emer brakes. All they did was steam clean the runway before going off the end.
Operator came out with a new policy that prohibited use of emer brakes unless there was a CAS message for normal brakes.
There was a Phenom 300 that landed in heavy rain, thought they had lost normal braking, and applied emer brakes. All they did was steam clean the runway before going off the end.
Operator came out with a new policy that prohibited use of emer brakes unless there was a CAS message for normal brakes.
09-06-2021, 02:34 PM
#20
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,271
Originally Posted by AirBear
In theory the anti-skid should prevent those skid marks near the end. But if they went for the Emer Brake that could have done it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
