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 10-01-2021, 03:53 PM
  #51  
Gets Weekends Off
 
B727DRVR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Standing in front of the tank with a shopping bag
Posts: 917
Unhappy No warning for Parking Brake set..

No,

Unfortunately, the US version of the XL/XLS and I'm pretty sure the XLS+ do not have a warning for Parking Brake set.. The No Takeoff Light is not triggered by the Parking Brake position on the US Models of the XL/XLS. Only the EASA versions have that warning. I call "Parking Brake set,... Parking Brake released" as part of my flow because of the Oroville XL, CA overrun, an Encore+ in the Bahamas, and now this. That being said, IMHO, this airport's runway was WAY too short for this jet unless everything was PERFECT. No 135 Operator would be allowed to fly an Excel into and out of a runway this short.

I know that this would be a tough conversation for a Part 91 corporate pilot to have with "the Boss", but sir this jet needs a longer runway. I met a corporate guy in SLC that told me that they fly a Piaggio in and out of Palo Alto and my VNR alumni and myself couldn't believe it.

RIP to the crew and the passengers.
B727DRVR is offline  
Old 10-03-2021, 10:09 AM
  #52  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

JB weighs in on the prelim, rational discussion...

Reported indications that one engine got FODed out by the impact with the power lines. Also lost a flap there.

FDR indicates T/O thrust throughout the event, so no reject attempt.

Also that rotation pitch attitude did not correspond to elevator inputs, ie brake force held the nose down. At least until the wheels got airborne, then big positive pitch excursion.

Confirms that PB is *not* monitored by T/O warning sys.

Bit vague on A/S operation, but the skid marks hint that it was both releasing and applying pressure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGBMy05Y09c
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 04-07-2022, 04:06 PM
  #53  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2013
Position: Fire Lieutenant
Posts: 50
Default

The end of the runway is elevated above the neighboring streets, with the power lines below the runway elevation. When we arrived (responded mutual aid with the FD) on scene the top third of the wood telephone pole was sheared and hanging in the wires with part of the aircraft near it on the ground.

It appeared they got airborne more because of the ground falling away, rather than a rotation. The very large commercial building it hit was in a straight line about another 800’ or so from the pole. Anyone know if the final report is out yet?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
gdube94 is offline  
Old 04-07-2022, 04:47 PM
  #54  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by gdube94 View Post
Anyone know if the final report is out yet?
It's early for that, maybe after one year. Or maybe two. If the root cause is straightforward, it will be on the sooner side.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-09-2022, 06:40 AM
  #55  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

NTSB final report is out for the similar 560XL crash in KOVE which occurred two years prior to the CT fatal accident. Basically set the park brake and took off with it set due to distractions.

They achieved V1 and Vr but couldn't rotate, so rejected and went off the end (no injuries fortunately).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiQhxXcqGOE
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-21-2022, 09:07 AM
  #56  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 96
Default No checklist or light needed, just airmanship

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
It's early for that, maybe after one year. Or maybe two. If the root cause is straightforward, it will be on the sooner side.
No final yet but the NTSB does have an opinion which differs from Textron:
Require Safeguards to Prevent Cessna 560XL Takeoff with Parking Brake Engaged (ntsb.gov)
1wife2airlines 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