This is the 3rd red stripe to run off the runway.

ASN Aircraft accident Embraer EMB-500 Phenom 100 N584JS Houston-Sugar Land Regional Airport, TX (SGR)

No one hurt but the Phenom is in a creek.

More Phenom 100 brake problems?

Ungroved 35 landing with a tailwind component & rain. Maybe hydroplaned as well...

More pictures and video in this article/news story.

Corporate jet skids off runway, ends up in Sugar Land creek

Looking at the METAR, the winds were no greater than 9 kts. Don't know the max tw component for the Phenom, but with 8,000ft of runway it shouldn't have been an issue. Brake malfunction?

Winds were quartering tailwind. 6 knots at the tail.

Max tailwind component is 10 knots.

It was raining.

It wasn't an 8000 ft runway and I believe the runway is not grooved.

I won't speculate on the cause except to say that the brakes on the Phenom are awful, especially on a wet runway.

Runway 35 has a 1984' displacement. 8000-1984=6016' of usable runway for landing. APG performance analysis for 1/8" of standing water is 5306' to stop the plane. 6102 for 115% (wet runway buffer). At the time of the landing the METAR was RA. Not -RA. RA together with non-grooved pavement, you can bet your butt it had at least 1/8" of standing water on it. Runway 17 has an RNAV GPS approach with LPV minimums. Jetsuite's planes and crews are qualified and fly them all the time. Runway 17 has 7620' available for landing.

I know the PIC. Not friends or anything but met the person in my interview group when I interviewed at Jetsuite a couple years ago. Would this be the kiss of a death for one's career?

I suppose if it was a break malfunction then you might have a valid explanation. However, if this was due to not properly calculating the correct stopping distance with the given conditions I could see this being a being a huge blemish on the resume.

Most applications I've filled out ask "have you ever had an incident or accident?" I suppose if you check yes it goes straight to the round file. I know in the 135 world it would negatively impact your company's Argus/Wyvern rating.

Considering this is the 3rd Jetsuite aircraft to go off a runway I imagine the Feds will be up their butt as well. Their phenom which ran off the runway in KPOC a couple years ago was also due to similar circumstances (wet/ungrooved).

Seems like it!...

NTSB factual preliminary report...

"According to the crewmembers, the purpose of the flight was to reposition the airplane from HOU to SGR. After departing HOU the flight received vectors from air traffic control, who also told the pilots to expect the ILS 35 approach at SGR. The first officer reported that the SGR tower controller cleared the flight to land and that there was no standing water on the runway. During the approach, the first officer noted that there was a tailwind of 15 knots that decreased to 9 knots on touch down.

After landing, the captain, who was flying the airplane, applied the brakes which were unresponsive. She then pulled the emergency brakes twice, but the airplane continued past the end of the runway and onto a grassy area. The airplane then crossed a service road and came to rest in a drainage ditch. The airplane's empennage section was partially submerged by water and the airplane faced the opposite direction of travel. "

In my fleet aircraft, the AV-8B, we had an SOP that if we were above 100 KIAS at the 3 board, then we would go around. I'm currently instructing in the T-6B, and I teach my students to target "double the board," and to go around if they are faster than 60 KIAS at the 2 board.

Is this not emphasized in other segments of the aviation industry? Is an initial response to unresponsive brakes after touchdown usually to pull the emergency brakes instead of going around?