Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Safety
560XL+  4 fatal Connecticut >

560XL+ 4 fatal Connecticut

Notices
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc

560XL+ 4 fatal Connecticut

Old 09-05-2021, 04:17 PM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Default

Originally Posted by TiredSoul View Post
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?
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.
JamesNoBrakes is offline  
Old 09-05-2021, 05:18 PM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,172
Default

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
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.
Elsewhere, the BFL was shown to be 2805’ on a TORA of 3665’, APG numbers.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 09-05-2021, 07:03 PM
  #13  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,235
Default

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.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-05-2021, 07:34 PM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,172
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
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.
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.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 09-05-2021, 08:10 PM
  #15  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,235
Default

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
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.
I initially thought from the video that the braking started near the beginning of the roll, but maybe not. That would make more sense.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-06-2021, 04:06 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 481
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I initially thought from the video that the braking started near the beginning of the roll, but maybe not. That would make more sense.
That was what the video suggested. Lighter marks at the beginning showing abs usage apparently and then much heavier, solid black at the departure end. Doesn't add up to me that the initial marks are from this jet, but I'll reserve any speculation.
60av8tor is online now  
Old 09-06-2021, 06:38 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,172
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I initially thought from the video that the braking started near the beginning of the roll, but maybe not. That would make more sense.
Departure was on 02, marks are on the 20 piano keys.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 09-06-2021, 06:54 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 481
Default

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
Departure was on 02, marks are on the 20 piano keys.
The darker marks are. His theory starts at about 5:20 in the vid - shows marks prior to the 02 thousand footers that he believes were from this aircraft.
60av8tor is online now  
Old 09-06-2021, 02:12 PM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Position: Retired NJA & AA
Posts: 1,915
Default

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.
AirBear is offline  
Old 09-06-2021, 02:34 PM
  #20  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,235
Default

Originally Posted by AirBear View Post
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.
Jb's video explains that there are marks consistent with anti-skid operation, that would probably preclude the parking brake.
rickair7777 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
takingmessages
Safety
0
06-21-2020 08:11 AM
BizPilot
Pilot Health
1
09-06-2015 05:49 PM
flyboy2508
Safety
0
04-12-2013 05:54 AM
AUS_ATC
Regional
13
01-03-2010 04:11 PM
Convairator
Regional
57
12-25-2009 09:15 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices