560XL+ 4 fatal Connecticut
 

4 fatal

No experience on type but that seems like a big airplane for a little runway.
Really only SE piston and one helicopter showing on Flightaware.
Kathryn's Report: Cessna 560 Citation XLS+, N560AR: Fatal accident occurred September 02, 2021 near Robertson Field Airport (4B8), Plainville, Hartford County, Connecticut

It's a slowtation, probably fine with a low GTOW (only two pax).

Not what they commonly call 'slowtations' IME and they operate C-680s out of there too....but I bet you end up finding some procedural errors out of this one.

Yeah, I meant it's in the realm of bizjets designed to operate out of smaller fields so as to open up convenient access to more locations.

Bizarre. JB makes a solid case that the brakes were applied throughout the TO roll. Not the parking brake, but anti-skid and the skid marks show it...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmWltLbCLOI

While short, a 560XL can takeoff from that runway. It's a straight wing jet. That airport has (or had) a 135 jet operator out of there. The brake marks during the takeoff roll seem very similar to the 560XL crash in Oroville, CA in 2019. It also had skid marks on the runway.

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?

Edit feature timed out on my previous post.
Watching the YT video I wonder if they had a pax sit right seat for the take off.
In light GA aircraft I would always brief “feet pulled back flat on the floor” where I can see them until we’re at altitude.
This for first time flyers or sight seeing or introduction flights.
Its hard to believe a professional crew would have their feet on the brakes without communicating.
Or was this one career pilot and a random day rate stranger on the right seat?

My understanding is that the crew were two older, experienced pros. Bizarre.

And even a 250 CPL would know not to ride the brakes.

But they'll probably know who was in which seat by now.

Yes, short flight and only two out of nine possible pax seats filled so likely well below MGTOW.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jb's video explains that there are marks consistent with anti-skid operation, that would probably preclude the parking brake.

Looks like the skids start around the 1000' mark from 02 and continue to the end.

Again, this looks very similar to the Oroville, CA crash. Both had "light" skid marks at the start of the takeoff, and heavy skid marks at the end of the runway. It seems that both these 560XL crews had brake applications during the takeoff roll.

Which is weird. I know from a Lr45 accident or incident, brake application in that type can delay or inhibit rotation. Can’t say about the XL.

Dan thinks the parking brake was on, and that the anti-skid did operate with parking brake applied, blames it on 91/135 "knuckleheads".

Doesn't explain if he confirmed that the anti-skid actually works with PB applied, also no way to know yet if the pilots set the brake or if it malfunctioned. Brakes do malfunction, ask me how I know.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7J6p7i9yNA

Dan’s suspect on the parking brake AND the anti-skid operating; never seen a plane the works that way. And it was a dry runway, wet or better yet, icy; I’d believe it, not dry and going that far AFTER departing the runway. I would believe the right seat panicking and applying the brakes while the pilot tries to go. Or, a messed up abort.

Seems unlikely, both pilots obstinately making conflicting control inputs all the way down the runway, both knowing it's going to kill them?

If I was going to do a unilateral abort with brakes, I'd pull the levers back too, or grab the master cutoffs if the other guy fought it.

Exactly what's so odd about it - reverse, cutoffs, something to stop that thing. When they start that early how are they that pronounced at the departure end..? I'm almost inclined to think the marks at the approach end are not from that plane - only the end, dark marks from a last minute high-speed reject attempt.

Speaking of knuckleheads

Is there no take off configuration warning on these light jets?
If not, why not?

There is a TAKE-OFF CONFIG and it covers parking brake, flaps, stab position. Having one and acting on it are two different things, I guess.

If you google an XLs warning system you can find a pdf of it. The one I found has a "no takeoff" annunciator that does not include the parking brake. Might not be accurate but if it is and there have been previous incidents where partial application of the brake was involved I would think NTSB and/or Cessna would make it a point to insure crews checked the parking brake knob to be fully in/off before takeoff.

Thers been, at least, one XLS overrun where the crew forgot the flaps, selected the flaps and didn’t realize the stab was still moving. Couldn’t rotate, tried to stop and overran at KPWK. I don’t think any XLS had brake induced accident.

This seems like it might be one, ASN Aircraft accident Cessna 560XL Citation Excel N91GY Oroville Airport, CA (OVE) (aviation-safety.net), and I think there have been 1 or 2 internationally. I have no firm proof but after Oroville maybe somebody should have put out a warning to make sure the parking brake activator is fully deactivated. I am not familiar with the bird at all but in a casual conversation with a buddy who flies a CJ2 he was surprised to learn about the accident and possible parking brake involvement and is going to put it on his checklist now. he was of the opinion that the bird wouldn't move with the parking brake on. Does anybody out there fly an airliner that won't give a takeoff warning with the parking brake engaged?

Does anyone know of a plane that will taxi on dry pavement with brake engaged? Campbell’s Soup went off the end of icy Meigs and lost all on-board. But,yes, the parking brake will give a NO TKEOFF warning on all types I flown.

Parking Brake Was Set
 

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...ngton/2591922/

Parking Brake Was Set at Time of Fatal Farmington Jet Crash: NTSB Report

The National Transportation Safety Board has released its preliminary report on the investigation into a plane crash in Farmington that killed four people and injured four others earlier this month.

The plane, a Cessna 560, was heading from Robertson Field Airport in Plainville to Dare County Regional Airport in Manteo, North Carolina when it crashed into the Trumpf production facility on Hyde Road in Farmington on Sept. 2 just before 10 a.m.

A pilot from Bristol, a pilot from Danbury, and a couple from Boston were killed.

The two pilots who died in the crash were William O’Leary, 55, of Bristol, Connecticut, and Mark Morrow, 57, of Danbury.
The two passengers were 33-year-old Courtney Haviland, and 31-year-old William Shrauner, a husband and wife from Boston, Massachusetts.The couple both worked as doctors in Boston, Shrauner at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Haviland at MassGeneral Hospital for Children.

The report says the cockpit, cabin, and wings were nearly consumed by fire after the crash and the parking brake handle in the cockpit and the valve that it controlled were both in the brake set position.

According to the NTSB report, one witness reported that the airplane hit a powerline pole, causing a small explosion near the right engine, then there was a shower of sparks before the witness lost sight of the plane when it was behind trees.

Witnesses told investigators that the airplane was going slower than they had seen during previous takeoffs and there was a puff of blue smoke from the backside of the airplane.

The flight data recorder showed the plane's acceleration values on the runway prior to the crash were lower than its two previous takeoffs, according to the NTSB report.

One witness reported that the nose landing gear was still on the ground as the airplane passed a taxiway intersection near the mid-point of the runway and he said to a friend that something was wrong.

NTSB investigators also said marks from the main landing gear went past the end of the runway and onto a grassy area.

Investigators found no anomalies with any of the airplane’s primary or secondary flight control surfaces.

In a Facebook post, the Trumpf company said two employees were injured because of the crash. Police said the injuries were not life-threatening and all of the other employees have been accounted for.

The NTSB report says one person on the ground sustained serious injuries and three people sustained minor injuries.

Actually, the prelim says the parking handle and valve were positioned in the set position. They doesn’t specifically mean the brake was set. They had sub-standard acceleration, but reached 100 knots on the runway.

Didn't Rich manage to take off in a Q-400 with the parking brake set or something?

I’m still struggling to understand how this happened.
Was the parking brake set on the taxiway to contact ATC for a release time?

Doesn't the parking brake valve just trap pressure in the normal brake line? So it's possible the handle was set with light brake application and the aircraft can still be moved. Other forums have had posters who espoused the idea that with partial brake application on the TO roll the application becomes stronger as the brakes heat up explaining the skid marks. N91GY will probably be the same thing and one wonders if a warning should have been given by FAA/Cessna although I would think the parking brake would be on the TO checklist since it was not part of the TO warning system.

Probably something like that. I normally set the brake when stopping, and most certainly at the hold short or if going heads-down.