|
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 1553214)
It's amazing how people keep trying to make tailwind conditions work. Is it the complacency one gets from having TRs and being able to deal with the same amount as an X-wind with no problems? It just blows my mind...
|
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 1553214)
It's amazing how people keep trying to make tailwind conditions work. Is it the complacency one gets from having TRs and being able to deal with the same amount as an X-wind with no problems? It just blows my mind...
|
Based on the audio, it appears multiple dudes landed prior, all with healthy tailwinds. So the accident aircraft was not "alone" in their "poor decision". Seems like some on here are quick to M.F. the accident crew etc, but based on what I heard on the audio, they did not magically appear out of the sky, being the first landing aircraft the entire day.
The tiger just happened to bite them. The scenario in this accident could be arguably similar to DAL at DFW in 1985. Bad weather, folks getting in ahead of them, lets continue, etc. As has already been admitted on this thread, people have landed with excessive tailwinds before. Add in the fact that 1. job security of Mexican pilots (crew was Mexican according to some sites) may completely hinge on successful passenger pick-up 2. aircraft was possibly new to crew and purchased late 2013 3. Derivative of #2, "what do you mean my new airplane couldn't make it in..." from owner, then #1 is in question 4. Yesterday was Sunday 01-05. Monday 01-06, is "back to work" for Mexican business types and this may have been additional pressure to avoid delays and "get into the field" at Aspen. 5. Mexican crew may have been gun-shy about diverting into other, unfamiliar fields due to lack of familiarity with FBO's, etc etc. The above factors do not excuse things but they likely played a role. |
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 1553214)
It's amazing how people keep trying to make tailwind conditions work. Is it the complacency one gets from having TRs and being able to deal with the same amount as an X-wind with no problems? It just blows my mind...
I read that it was a positioning flight on another thread, so perhaps they were pushing it to make it into the field. I certainly don't think the tailwind was the only factor by any means... Looks a lot like FDX 14 & 80's scenario. Possible windshear, long landing, and a bounce. The airplane ending up on its back doesn't help to fuel that kind of speculation. |
Originally Posted by satpak77
(Post 1553271)
Based on the audio, it appears multiple dudes landed prior, all with healthy tailwinds. So the accident aircraft was not "alone" in their "poor decision". Seems like some on here are quick to M.F. the accident crew etc, but based on what I heard on the audio, they did not magically appear out of the sky, being the first landing aircraft the entire day.
The tiger just happened to bite them. Careless & reckless? I spoke today with several of the line guys. The long timers said they had never seen such winds here before. They said the arrivals prior to the accident aircraft were really dicey as well. |
Winds at ASE right now are 310@6 clear skies. 99% of the time when the NTSB comes to investigate the reason you are now dead, the weather is always beautiful. Just HAD to make it. Now will make it home in a box on a FedEx jet.
|
Originally Posted by Hawker Driver
(Post 1553400)
QUESTION: I wonder if the dudes that landed successfully & well beyond their own aircraft tailwind limitations right before this accident, might be hearing from the FAA.
Careless & reckless? I spoke today with several of the line guys. The long timers said they had never seen such winds here before. They said the arrivals prior to the accident aircraft were really dicey as well. |
Do the modern corporate aircraft have CVR/FDRs installed on them?
|
Yes, this plane should have it on board.
|
Yes, both recorders are required.
Pokey, Passenger satisfaction is best achieved by not killing them. I've been a mil, an airline and a corporate pilot, not once in 40 years has seriously risking people or metal been acceptable. I've diverted many more times in 12 years of corporate than either mil or airline and never once questioned, including at ASE. I've been in Aspen just enough to know everyone, including the airlines push the tailwind limits. I went over to Rifle one day when they were landing with a tailwind. As I said, our SOP is within AFM limits or go somewhere else. GF |
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
(Post 1553460)
Pokey, Passenger satisfaction is best achieved by not killing them. I've been a mil, an airline and a corporate pilot, not once in 40 years has seriously risking people or metal been acceptable. I've diverted many more times in 12 years of corporate than either mil or airline and never once questioned, including at ASE. I've been in Aspen just enough to know everyone, including the airlines push the tailwind limits. I went over to Rifle one day when they were landing with a tailwind. As I said, our SOP is within AFM limits or go somewhere else. GF |
Originally Posted by brianb
(Post 1553451)
Do the modern corporate aircraft have CVR/FDRs installed on them?
|
From looking at flight aware for aspen, it looks like a few planes took off right after the crash. I thought the airport was closed. If they did, lucky they didn't ingest some fod and have another burning hole in the snow. Some pilots just paint a bad picture for those of us who do it by the book!
|
Originally Posted by Brokeasspot
(Post 1553500)
From looking at flight aware for aspen, it looks like a few planes took off right after the crash. I thought the airport was closed.
I've never been to ASE but fortunately have an excellent, zero-pressure corporate culture. |
It is amazing how many pilots turn into sheep when "the other guys made it in." I have see numerous examples of plane after plane launching into thunderstorms off the departure end until the first guy said, "I think we'll wait until it moves off." All of a sudden, NO ONE decides to go. Sad, but true.
|
Based on the audio, it appears multiple dudes landed prior, all with healthy tailwinds. So the accident aircraft was not "alone" in their "poor decision". Seems like some on here are quick to M.F. the accident crew etc, but based on what I heard on the audio, they did not magically appear out of the sky, being the first landing aircraft the entire day. The tiger just happened to bite them. The scenario in this accident could be arguably similar to DAL at DFW in 1985. Bad weather, folks getting in ahead of them, lets continue, etc. As has already been admitted on this thread, people have landed with excessive tailwinds before. Add in the fact that 1. job security of Mexican pilots (crew was Mexican according to some sites) may completely hinge on successful passenger pick-up 2. aircraft was possibly new to crew and purchased late 2013 3. Derivative of #2, "what do you mean my new airplane couldn't make it in..." from owner, then #1 is in question 4. Yesterday was Sunday 01-05. Monday 01-06, is "back to work" for Mexican business types and this may have been additional pressure to avoid delays and "get into the field" at Aspen. 5. Mexican crew may have been gun-shy about diverting into other, unfamiliar fields due to lack of familiarity with FBO's, etc etc. The above factors do not excuse things but they likely played a role. |
N115WF went missed on the first LDA-E approach to 15 - they reported a 33 knot tailwind. Aspen tower cleared two aircraft for takeoff prior to them being cleared to land again. After the aircraft crashed - there were no departures and the arrivals were immediately instructed to expect holding for an undetermined amount of time.
I've been to Aspen a hand full of times, and like another guy said on this post - 33 is seldomly used - primarily for VFR calm wind days (mostly by GA aircraft) - not 16knot tailwinds with minute updates 25G35 and reported windshear. Regardless of what the pilots did wrong or didn't - show respect for the pilot that lost his life in this tragedy and my prayers go out to his family and to the other two in the aircraft for a speedy recovery. Point being, remember that hurting your pride by not choosing to land is always better than hurting the hearts of loved ones back home hearing you crashed an airplane exceeding not only the aircrafts limits - but your own. |
Professionalism is about sound decision making. That was not displayed. :(
|
Originally Posted by Peak13
(Post 1553560)
N115WF went missed on the first LDA-E approach to 15 - they reported a 33 knot tailwind. Aspen tower cleared two aircraft for takeoff prior to them being cleared to land again. After the aircraft crashed - there were no departures and the arrivals were immediately instructed to expect holding for an undetermined amount of time.
I've been to Aspen a hand full of times, and like another guy said on this post - 33 is seldomly used - primarily for VFR calm wind days (mostly by GA aircraft) - not 16knot tailwinds with minute updates 25G35 and reported windshear. Regardless of what the pilots did wrong or didn't - show respect for the pilot that lost his life in this tragedy and my prayers go out to his family and to the other two in the aircraft for a speedy recovery. Point being, remember that hurting your pride by not choosing to land is always better than hurting the hearts of loved ones back home hearing you crashed an airplane exceeding not only the aircrafts limits - but your own. |
Originally Posted by Packrat
(Post 1553517)
It is amazing how many pilots turn into sheep when "the other guys made it in." I have see numerous examples of plane after plane launching into thunderstorms off the departure end until the first guy said, "I think we'll wait until it moves off." All of a sudden, NO ONE decides to go. Sad, but true.
Part of the rationale is protecting hindsight judgment -- "Delta xxx, Republic xxx both decided weather was too bad, then YOU GO?? Why would you think you would be that much better than them?" Similarly, it is a bit of a defense (not always legit of course) that "other similar types were doing fine so I decided to go." Finally you don't want to put your colleagues in the awkward situation where you decide to go right after they decline, looks like you tried to "show them up." I'm sure other areas/fields see similar phenomenon. Stay warm fellas. |
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1553766)
Not necessarily sad - possibly a bit of a "protective instinct" phenomenon. In medicine this happens a lot too - if somebody says the "surgery is too dangerous" then often no other surgeons will do the surgery on that patient. If somebody did it and something bad happened, there is a lot of stuff in the chart on how it "was too dangerous."
Part of the rationale is protecting hindsight judgment -- "Delta xxx, Republic xxx both decided weather was too bad, then YOU GO?? Why would you think you would be that much better than them?" Similarly, it is a bit of a defense (not always legit of course) that "other similar types were doing fine so I decided to go." Finally you don't want to put your colleagues in the awkward situation where you decide to go right after they decline, looks like you tried to "show them up." I'm sure other areas/fields see similar phenomenon. Stay warm fellas. In this case - there are black and white limitations (right and wrongs) in play that make the go/no-go decision easier (in theory). I think your point plays more into those gray areas of 'it might be legal, but is it smart'. |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1553770)
A good point - but in your surgery example - one surgeon's skills might very well be better than anothers.
In this case - there are black and white limitations (right and wrongs) in play that make the go/no-go decision easier (in theory). I think your point plays more into those gray areas of 'it might be legal, but is it smart'. But in the end: Was it legal? - sure. Approach was authorizing LOC DME-E approaches to the airport; tower was clearing aircraft to land. Was it safe? - Questionable. Aircraft that landed before them had ATIS reports of 6-9 knots, but reported gains and losses of airspeed on final. Was it smart? - No. |
Originally Posted by Kill Switch
(Post 1553789)
I agree...and who knows how much experience that crew had in Aspen. That might have been their first time there - and being a crew from Mexico flying out of mountainous fields, they may not have seen it as such a big deal. We all know the dangers of Aspen and places like it - majority of our OpSpecs has it listed as a special airport requiring additional training (at least one pilot has had to of flown there within the past 12 months, pictorial view of the airport (jepp charts with a picture of it)...
But in the end: Was it legal? - sure. Approach was authorizing LOC DME-E approaches to the airport; tower was clearing aircraft to land. Was it safe? - Questionable. Aircraft that landed before them had ATIS reports of 6-9 knots, but reported gains and losses of airspeed on final. Was it smart? - No. It is up to us to operate the aircraft safely, something ATC cannot do for us. I would be filling out NASA forms if I was one of the aircraft that landed that day. Just my two cents... |
Originally Posted by satpak77
(Post 1553802)
I don't know if it was legal if POH/AFM limitations were exceeded to complete the approach. The FAA anyway, probably has a different opinion on it being "legal." ATC clearing aircraft for the approach and to land is just that, the airspace is clear and no traffic dangers or threats, airplane XYZ, you are cleared to Do X-Y-Z.
It is up to us to operate the aircraft safely, something ATC cannot do for us. I would be filling out NASA forms if I was one of the aircraft that landed that day. Just my two cents... Sure the FAA can go after the living pilot for 91.13 for careless and reckless operations, if he ever gets back in an aircraft...he was cleared to land with wind 330@16 one minute average 320@25G35. This is after they research the limitations he should have been operating within. The pilots that landed with acknowledging a wind report that can be calculated to more than 10 knots of tailwind (wind was 320@18 on an aircraft that landed before N115WF's first go around) - obviously over 10 knots - better fill out a NASA report, but numerous aircraft landed beforehand with 6 knot winds... |
Some circled for 33 prior to N115WF
|
Sad day for that crew but let's be honest after the go around with a 30 knot tail wind that should have been it . Why try again no one like to say the pilot was incorrect but maybe pressure to get to ASE to pickup the Bossand family they made a bad thing worse . And from reports the owner and his family saw their aircraft crash the aircraft they just bought . Again all respect the that crew but the proof shows after the first 30 knots go around that should have been it . It's ASE no room for messing around when you down in the pocket of ASE . If you can't land you can't no need to force it. I heard a few reports the aircraft that landed before that challenger had a hard time getting on and the winds were kicking hard . That crash could have been worse if the aircraft skidded off to the left when it was over 8 aircraft in taxi line waiting to go thank god that never happen . My son was a copilot on one of the aircraft in taxi line .
This crash at best opens up the topic of safety and owners can see ASE is no joke when sometimes they try to pressure crews . And more crews can now know why ASE can be a big deal . |
Originally Posted by 698jet
(Post 1555203)
.... And from reports the owner and his family saw their aircraft crash the aircraft they just bought .....
|
Bossand family??? Owner?
LiveATC - Challenger Crash - Aspen, CO - YouTube LiveATC recording of relevant audio. Photo; https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdyGiOpCMAAXtBD.jpg:large |
Originally Posted by robbreid
(Post 1557834)
Bossand family??? Owner?
|
The video of the crash:
Video from Aspen airport infrared cameras of Jan. 5, 2014 jet crash on Vimeo |
Scrubbing between 2:03 - 2:18 makes a pretty good argument for not landing at high altitude airports with a strong tailwind.
|
At about 1:45, the guy on the left is clearly distraught by what he just witnessed, followed by him kicking whatever was immediately to the left of him.
Crazy footage. Wow. |
I can't believe how much the nose was pushed over after that last hop......:eek:
|
Holy crap that was nuts!!!!
|
Originally Posted by mosteam3985
(Post 1563901)
I can't believe how much the nose was pushed over after that last hop......:eek:
|
Originally Posted by Brett1
(Post 1563829)
The video of the crash:
Video from Aspen airport infrared cameras of Jan. 5, 2014 jet crash on Vimeo |
They looked liked afterburners on film!!!
|
Very hard to watch, but telling too. :(
|
Originally Posted by savall
(Post 1563955)
Damn. Looks like he added A LOT of elevator down after the second bounce where the plane REALLY slams into the runway. Wonder if he firewalled the throttles.
|
Unfortunately it's prob the bad pilot that lived and the FO that had to die…
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:47 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands