560XL+ 4 fatal Connecticut
09-02-2021, 04:24 PM
#1
All is fine at .79
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 3,723
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
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
09-03-2021, 02:40 PM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 36,736
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
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.
09-04-2021, 07:22 PM
#5
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 36,736
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmWltLbCLOI
09-04-2021, 10:20 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,060
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.
09-05-2021, 12:54 AM
#7
All is fine at .79
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 3,723
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, 03:34 AM
#8
All is fine at .79
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 3,723
Originally Posted by rickair7777
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmWltLbCLOI
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?
09-05-2021, 08:22 AM
#9
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 36,736
Originally Posted by TiredSoul
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?
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?
And even a 250 CPL would know not to ride the brakes.
But they'll probably know who was in which seat by now.
09-05-2021, 08:23 AM
#10
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 36,736
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?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
