It's probably because corporate pilots are accustomed to doing what it takes to complete a mission. I'm not speaking for all corporate guys. I've found debates on APC, and in my own life, with corporate pilots who will weigh a procedure against passenger satisfaction. Listen to the recording up to the accident aircraft. How many pilots landed in those conditions prior? It's really sad a life was lost yesterday, and I hope his family can find peace, but it's embarrassing to listen to how many other pilots continued in those conditions prior to the accident. RIP amigo.

 

That's why they call them "limitations."

 

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.

 

Yep. Those winds must have been awful. Certainly a different ballgame landing on a 7000' rwy with that tailwind as opposed to a x wind. I wasn't trying to put down the crew of this jet either, because as others pointed out, they were certainly not the first crew trying to land.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I agree 100% with you. Its all peaches and cream until an eye gets poked out or metal gets bent. I would not want to be one of the prior-arrivals that day.

 

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