Challenger Crashe at TEB

[Jon Kraus]

It looks like the Challenger skidded off the runway and crashed into a
warehouse at TEB. Isn't this the same kind of plane that crashed on
takeoff in Colorado? It looks like the plane remained intact so
hopefully the passengers and crew are OK.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146112,00.html

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201 4443H

[kage]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> It looks like the Challenger skidded off the runway and crashed into a
> warehouse at TEB. Isn't this the same kind of plane that crashed on
> takeoff in Colorado? It looks like the plane remained intact so hopefully
> the passengers and crew are OK.
>

There are no leading edge devices on a Challenger. Bombardier made it cheap
to buy, but that wing is very clean. I'm betting on an emergency AD for
winter operations.

Karl

[Aaron Coolidge]

In rec.aviation.owning kage > wrote:

: There are no leading edge devices on a Challenger. Bombardier made it cheap
: to buy, but that wing is very clean. I'm betting on an emergency AD for
: winter operations.

Kind of like the DC-9-10 series, eh? What, 5% of the DC-9-10 fleet crashed
on take off because of wing contamination?
Even more similar to the Fokker F-28 series, a similar size & weight
aircraft (well, compared to a DC-9, anyway). Crashes at Dryden and La Guardia
because of wing contamination. The Fokker report says that one 1mm ice
particle per square centimeter of wing reduces lift coeficient by at least
22%.
--
Aaron C.

[Darkwing Duck]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> It looks like the Challenger skidded off the runway and crashed into a
> warehouse at TEB. Isn't this the same kind of plane that crashed on
> takeoff in Colorado? It looks like the plane remained intact so hopefully
> the passengers and crew are OK.
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146112,00.html
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> '79 Mooney 201 4443H


Two in the last two months? Winter ops are not to kind for the Challenger.

[Blueskies]

Looks like all except the co-pilot walked away, and the co-pilot had a broken leg. Someone on a respirator with head
injuries was hit while driving his car, and a couple more were injured when hit...


"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message ...
> It looks like the Challenger skidded off the runway and crashed into a warehouse at TEB. Isn't this the same kind of
> plane that crashed on takeoff in Colorado? It looks like the plane remained intact so hopefully the passengers and
> crew are OK.
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146112,00.html
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> '79 Mooney 201 4443H
>

[Scott Skylane]

Blueskies wrote:
>/snip/ Someone on a respirator with head
> injuries was hit while driving his car, and a couple more were injured when hit...

Well, he shouldn't have been driving in the first place!!!

[zatatime]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:50:35 -0900, Scott Skylane
> wrote:

>Blueskies wrote:
>>/snip/ Someone on a respirator with head
>> injuries was hit while driving his car, and a couple more were injured when hit...
>
>Well, he shouldn't have been driving in the first place!!!


LOL!!! That's exactly what I was thinking!!!

z

[Blueskies]

"zatatime" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:50:35 -0900, Scott Skylane
> > wrote:
>
>>Blueskies wrote:
>>>/snip/ Someone on a respirator with head
>>> injuries was hit while driving his car, and a couple more were injured when hit...
>>
>>Well, he shouldn't have been driving in the first place!!!
>
>
> LOL!!! That's exactly what I was thinking!!!
>
> z

LOL - OK, I get it!

Sad day for a couple of folks - just heard two died...

[[email protected]]

On 2-Feb-2005, Aaron Coolidge > wrote:

> Kind of like the DC-9-10 series, eh? What, 5% of the DC-9-10 fleet crashed
> on take off because of wing contamination?
> Even more similar to the Fokker F-28 series, a similar size & weight
> aircraft (well, compared to a DC-9, anyway). Crashes at Dryden and La
> Guardia because of wing contamination. The Fokker report says that one 1mm
> ice
> particle per square centimeter of wing reduces lift coeficient by at least
> 22%.


This is one of the few safety advantages of light piston singles. When you
reach takeoff speed in a single, pull back, but the plane doesn't want to
fly for whatever reason, you will most often have ample runway left to abort
the takeoff (assuming a runway of 3500 ft or longer). And if you do run off
the end, it will be at low speed, so chances are there will be no injuries.
In a jet, once you exceed V1 on takeoff you are committed. Then if the
plane won't fly at Vr, due to wing contamination or some other cause, you
are screwed unless you are on an exceptionally long runway.
--
-Elliott Drucker

[Darkwing Duck]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "zatatime" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:50:35 -0900, Scott Skylane
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Blueskies wrote:
>>>>/snip/ Someone on a respirator with head
>>>> injuries was hit while driving his car, and a couple more were injured
>>>> when hit...
>>>
>>>Well, he shouldn't have been driving in the first place!!!
>>
>>
>> LOL!!! That's exactly what I was thinking!!!
>>
>> z
>
> LOL - OK, I get it!
>
> Sad day for a couple of folks - just heard two died...


Not that I can find anywhere -

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/plane_crash

Still a wild deal. I flew IN a Challenger a couple times, amazing plane.
Beats my 172!

[Capt.Doug]

>"kage" wrote in message > I'm betting on an emergency AD for
> winter operations.

There was no visible moisture. The sky was crystal clear. The only wing
contamination possible would have been light frost on the bottom of the wing
where the fuel had cold-soaked after landing- if the plane had made a
quick-turn. No other aircraft had requested de-icing. I doubt that the cause
was wing ice.

D.

[Aaron Coolidge]

wrote:
: This is one of the few safety advantages of light piston singles. When you
: reach takeoff speed in a single, pull back, but the plane doesn't want to
: fly for whatever reason, you will most often have ample runway left to abort
: the takeoff (assuming a runway of 3500 ft or longer). And if you do run off
: the end, it will be at low speed, so chances are there will be no injuries.
: In a jet, once you exceed V1 on takeoff you are committed. Then if the
: plane won't fly at Vr, due to wing contamination or some other cause, you
: are screwed unless you are on an exceptionally long runway.

You, sir, get the prize. With reduced thrust takeoffs the V1/Vr speed is set
so that an abort at V1 will use the entire remainder of the runway. An abort
beyond V1 guarantees a trip into the woods.

The airfoil shapes on aircraft with a top speed of less than 0.2 mach
really aren't all that sensitive to minor surface contamination such as one
1mm particle per square cm. I have seen many aircraft with paint worse than
that flying. There's even a 150 with *moss* on it's wings that flies
occasionally.
--
Aaron C.

[Peter R.]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote:

> There was no visible moisture. The sky was crystal clear. The only wing
> contamination possible would have been light frost on the bottom of the wing
> where the fuel had cold-soaked after landing- if the plane had made a
> quick-turn.

Interesting that I have read the "there was no visible moisture" point a
few times in relation to this crash. Based on my experience, no visible
moisture is no guarantee.

I only have about 750 hours of flying in the Northeast US, but during this
short time I have experienced three different situations where frost
appeared over top of the entire aircraft (twice in a C172 and once in a
Bonanza) within 10 minutes of landing in weather that was crystal clear, no
visible moisture.

This happened twice at Niagara Falls and once in Plattsburgh, NY. In all
cases, the sun had either just set or had been down a few hours and outside
temperatures were well below freezing (10 degrees F or so).

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Gary Mishler]

"Capt.Doug" >>
> There was no visible moisture. The sky was crystal clear. The only wing
> contamination possible would have been light frost on the bottom of the
> wing
> where the fuel had cold-soaked after landing- if the plane had made a
> quick-turn. No other aircraft had requested de-icing. I doubt that the
> cause
> was wing ice.

Frost on top of the wings, and more importantly - on top of the T-tail is
highly likely. I have flown a T tail jet for 25 years and you can get frost
on top of the wings and tail very easily in the early morning with the right
conditions.

[Joe Johnson]

To Peter R. and Gary Mishler. Say for sake of argument that the pilots
missed a thin layer of frost. If discovered, are there any remedies short
of a full, formal deicing?

[Peter R.]

Joe Johnson > wrote:

> To Peter R. and Gary Mishler. Say for sake of argument that the pilots
> missed a thin layer of frost. If discovered, are there any remedies short
> of a full, formal deicing?

I am not qualified to answer as I have no experience in anything greater
than a single engine piston aircraft.

That said, when my aircraft was frosted over in those three incidents, my
only fly-able option was to request a complete aircraft deicing.

Fortunately, in all three cases the line crew was available, had the deice
fluid nearby, and did it for free. I tipped them generously.

If deicing were not an option, I would have had to get a hotel and wait
until the frost melted off the next day, or some liquid deicing were
available. In no case would I have attempted to take off with it on the
wing surface.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Gary Mishler]

"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message
. com...
> To Peter R. and Gary Mishler. Say for sake of argument that the pilots
> missed a thin layer of frost. If discovered, are there any remedies short
> of a full, formal deicing?

They used to say you could "polish" the frost smooth with a rag or gloved
hand, although I have not heard of that in a long time and I would never do
it on a supercritical wing shape. *Maybe* a light single engine, but never
a business jet.

But even so, that still leaves the question of the top of the T tail.

Best answer is a quick spray down with the deice truck - wouldn't take much
to get rid of a morning frost.

[Gary Mishler]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...

> There was no visible moisture. The sky was crystal clear. The only wing
> contamination possible would have been light frost on the bottom of the
> wing
> where the fuel had cold-soaked after landing- if the plane had made a
> quick-turn.

When I walked past my car in the driveway about a half hour before dawn this
morning, the sky was crystal clear with no visible moisture and there was no
frost on my car. When I left for work about a half hour after sunrise, the
sky was crystal clear with no visible moisture but enough frost had formed
on my car during that time that I needed to lightly scrape my windows off
before I left.

Had the same thing happen in SFO once in the lear on a "dawn patrol"
departure. Clear sky, no visible moisture but frost started to form on the
wings and top of the fuselage right about sunrise. When the passengers
arrived we had the line crew use their "garden sprayer" deice setup to
lightly spray the frost off the wings and top of tail and away we went with
no problem.

Not speculating, but an area they will be looking at with the TEB incident.

[Jim Burns]

Thank you for pointing this out. The "visable moisture" requirement is for
in-flight icing, not frost. Temp/Dewpoint at TEB yesterday morning was
M04/M08. Obviously the "collecting surface" was below freezing and the temp
dewpoint spread was narrow enough for the humidity to sublimate and create
frost on the wings.

Jim

[kage]

>
> They used to say you could "polish" the frost smooth with a rag or gloved
> hand, although I have not heard of that in a long time and I would never
> do it on a supercritical wing shape. *Maybe* a light single engine, but
> never a business jet.
>
> But even so, that still leaves the question of the top of the T tail.
>
> Best answer is a quick spray down with the deice truck - wouldn't take
> much to get rid of a morning frost.

"They" still say you can polish, at least for 135 operations!

Sec. 135.227 - Icing conditions: Operating limitations.

(a) No pilot may take off an aircraft that has frost, ice, or snow adhering
to any rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control
surface, to a powerplant installation, or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of
climb, or flight attitude instrument system, except under the following
conditions:

(1) Takeoffs may be made with frost adhering to the wings, or stabilizing or
control surfaces, if the frost has been polished to make it smooth.



Karl

[Blueskies]

"Darkwing Duck" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message ...
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> "zatatime" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:50:35 -0900, Scott Skylane
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Blueskies wrote:
>>>>>/snip/ Someone on a respirator with head
>>>>> injuries was hit while driving his car, and a couple more were injured
>>>>> when hit...
>>>>
>>>>Well, he shouldn't have been driving in the first place!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL!!! That's exactly what I was thinking!!!
>>>
>>> z
>>
>> LOL - OK, I get it!
>>
>> Sad day for a couple of folks - just heard two died...
>
>
> Not that I can find anywhere -
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/plane_crash
>
> Still a wild deal. I flew IN a Challenger a couple times, amazing plane. Beats my 172!


Yep, nothing I can find now. Damn TV. I guess still not a good day, but not as bad as before?!?!

[Matt Whiting]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:50:35 -0900, Scott Skylane
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Blueskies wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>/snip/ Someone on a respirator with head
>>>>>injuries was hit while driving his car, and a couple more were injured
>>>>>when hit...
>>>>
>>>>Well, he shouldn't have been driving in the first place!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL!!! That's exactly what I was thinking!!!
>>>
>>>z
>>
>>LOL - OK, I get it!
>>
>>Sad day for a couple of folks - just heard two died...
>
>
>
> Not that I can find anywhere -
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/plane_crash
>
> Still a wild deal. I flew IN a Challenger a couple times, amazing plane.
> Beats my 172!

Except at short-field takeoffs and landings! :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter R. wrote:

> Joe Johnson > wrote:
>
>
>>To Peter R. and Gary Mishler. Say for sake of argument that the pilots
>>missed a thin layer of frost. If discovered, are there any remedies short
>>of a full, formal deicing?
>
>
> I am not qualified to answer as I have no experience in anything greater
> than a single engine piston aircraft.
>
> That said, when my aircraft was frosted over in those three incidents, my
> only fly-able option was to request a complete aircraft deicing.
>
> Fortunately, in all three cases the line crew was available, had the deice
> fluid nearby, and did it for free. I tipped them generously.
>
> If deicing were not an option, I would have had to get a hotel and wait
> until the frost melted off the next day, or some liquid deicing were
> available. In no case would I have attempted to take off with it on the
> wing surface.

Why? It is acceptable to "polish the frost smooth" per FAR 91.527.

Matt

[Joe Johnson]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> Thank you for pointing this out. The "visable moisture" requirement is
for
> in-flight icing, not frost. Temp/Dewpoint at TEB yesterday morning was
> M04/M08. Obviously the "collecting surface" was below freezing and the
temp
> dewpoint spread was narrow enough for the humidity to sublimate and create
> frost on the wings.
>
> Jim
>
Sounds like we're closing in on an answer, or at the very least reasonably
informed speculation.

[Peter R.]

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Why? It is acceptable to "polish the frost smooth" per FAR 91.527.

Three words: New paint job

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Morgans]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > Why? It is acceptable to "polish the frost smooth" per FAR 91.527.
>
> Three words: New paint job
>
> --
> Peter

Those cans of spray-on windshield de-icer, which are mostly alcohol, seem to
do a great job, even on very heavy frost. Seems like two or three, and a
towel for a wipedown, would be a good thing to carry. Save the paint, fast,
complete, and not two expensive when compared to a paint-job, airport de-ice
(if available), or a new plane and crew.
--
Jim in NC

[Darkwing]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Darkwing Duck wrote:
>
>> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:50:35 -0900, Scott Skylane
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Blueskies wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>/snip/ Someone on a respirator with head
>>>>>>injuries was hit while driving his car, and a couple more were injured
>>>>>>when hit...
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, he shouldn't have been driving in the first place!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>LOL!!! That's exactly what I was thinking!!!
>>>>
>>>>z
>>>
>>>LOL - OK, I get it!
>>>
>>>Sad day for a couple of folks - just heard two died...
>>
>>
>>
>> Not that I can find anywhere -
>>
>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/plane_crash
>>
>> Still a wild deal. I flew IN a Challenger a couple times, amazing plane.
>> Beats my 172!
>
> Except at short-field takeoffs and landings! :-)
>
> Matt

Yeah, but the Challenger had a BATHROOM!

[Ron McKinnon]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> Peter R. wrote:
>> ...
>> If deicing were not an option, I would have had to get a hotel and wait
>> until the frost melted off the next day, or some liquid deicing were
>> available. In no case would I have attempted to take off with it on the
>> wing surface.
>
> Why? It is acceptable to "polish the frost smooth" per FAR 91.527.

Interesting. It seems a rather dubious practice to me. It would indeed
appear to be legal in the US - but, FWIW, it isn't legal in Canada.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 2/2/05 8:24 AM, in article ,
"Jon Kraus" > wrote:

> It looks like the Challenger skidded off the runway and crashed into a
> warehouse at TEB. Isn't this the same kind of plane that crashed on
> takeoff in Colorado? It looks like the plane remained intact so
> hopefully the passengers and crew are OK.
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146112,00.html
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> '79 Mooney 201 4443H
>

It seems to me that beyond the fact that they did ultimately crash, this
crew made the right decision to abort the takeoff and avoided an accident
that would likely have been much worse.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Matt Whiting]

Peter R. wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>Why? It is acceptable to "polish the frost smooth" per FAR 91.527.
>
>
> Three words: New paint job
>

Won't hurt it if the rag is soft and you don't polish the frost clean
through to the paint. Keep in mind that you don't have to remove the
frost, just knock off the roughness. This doesn't take much effort
typically.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Ron McKinnon wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>
>>Peter R. wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>If deicing were not an option, I would have had to get a hotel and wait
>>>until the frost melted off the next day, or some liquid deicing were
>>>available. In no case would I have attempted to take off with it on the
>>>wing surface.
>>
>>Why? It is acceptable to "polish the frost smooth" per FAR 91.527.
>
>
> Interesting. It seems a rather dubious practice to me. It would indeed
> appear to be legal in the US - but, FWIW, it isn't legal in Canada.

Why? Smooth frost is less of an aerodynamic issue that a thick layer of
dirt, bugs and dust...


Matt

[Robert A. Barker]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Ron McKinnon wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>
>>>Peter R. wrote:
>>>
>>>>...
>>>>If deicing were not an option, I would have had to get a hotel and wait
>>>>until the frost melted off the next day, or some liquid deicing were
>>>>available. In no case would I have attempted to take off with it on the
>>>>wing surface.
>>>
>>>Why? It is acceptable to "polish the frost smooth" per FAR 91.527.
>>
>>
>> Interesting. It seems a rather dubious practice to me. It would indeed
>> appear to be legal in the US - but, FWIW, it isn't legal in Canada.
>
> Why? Smooth frost is less of an aerodynamic issue that a thick layer of
> dirt, bugs and dust...
>
>
> Matt

The last two FAA seminars I have attended indicated
it was no longer considered good practice to fly with
ANY frost, polished or not.

Bob Barker N8749S

[Ron McKinnon]

From: "Matt Whiting"
> Ron McKinnon wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>>...Why? It is acceptable to "polish the frost smooth" per FAR 91.527.
>>
>> Interesting. It seems a rather dubious practice to me. It would indeed
>> appear to be legal in the US - but, FWIW, it isn't legal in Canada.
>
> Why? Smooth frost is less of an aerodynamic issue that a thick layer of
> dirt, bugs and dust...

Be that as it may, arguing that its not as bad as something else (that you
shouldn't fly with either), isn't any argument at all for the acceptability
of flying with smooth frost.

Frost, smooth or otherwise, or other contaminants arguably affect the
aerodynamic behaviour. How much does it change with a given
level of contamination?, what level of contamination is significant?
or how significant is such a change? how much is too much? how
smooth is smooth enough? in what way will such change affect the
aerodynamic behaviour of the plane? (does it change the critical
angle of attack for the wings? the control surfaces?, what are
the new critical angles (what's the new stall behaviour? is a
tailplane stall more likely? will it spin easier? how does it change
rudder effectiveness?) for instance) are critical questions. But
these are not questions that a typical pilot is in a position to answer
operationally. This a job for computer simulations, and lab analysis
in controlled test conditions, and for test pilots in controlled test
situations.

Critical surfaces should be clean.

[Matt Whiting]

Ron McKinnon wrote:
> From: "Matt Whiting"
>
>>Ron McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>...Why? It is acceptable to "polish the frost smooth" per FAR 91.527.
>>>
>>>Interesting. It seems a rather dubious practice to me. It would indeed
>>>appear to be legal in the US - but, FWIW, it isn't legal in Canada.
>>
>>Why? Smooth frost is less of an aerodynamic issue that a thick layer of
>>dirt, bugs and dust...
>
>
> Be that as it may, arguing that its not as bad as something else (that you
> shouldn't fly with either), isn't any argument at all for the acceptability
> of flying with smooth frost.
>
> Frost, smooth or otherwise, or other contaminants arguably affect the
> aerodynamic behaviour. How much does it change with a given
> level of contamination?, what level of contamination is significant?
> or how significant is such a change? how much is too much? how
> smooth is smooth enough? in what way will such change affect the
> aerodynamic behaviour of the plane? (does it change the critical
> angle of attack for the wings? the control surfaces?, what are
> the new critical angles (what's the new stall behaviour? is a
> tailplane stall more likely? will it spin easier? how does it change
> rudder effectiveness?) for instance) are critical questions. But
> these are not questions that a typical pilot is in a position to answer
> operationally. This a job for computer simulations, and lab analysis
> in controlled test conditions, and for test pilots in controlled test
> situations.

They only affect the aerodynamic behavior if they significantly affectt
he flow in the boundary layer. On some airfoils this a concern with
fairly small disturbances, but on others it isn't much of a concern at
all. Saying that you should not fly an airplane that has any frost on
it is just as silly as saying you should never take off with less than
full fuel. You have to know your airplane, nobody is arguing that.
Most light airplanes will fly just fine with polished frost on the wings
and even the control surfaces, I know my 182 did.


> Critical surfaces should be clean.

Only if being clean is critical. :-) It often isn't.

Do you really wipe your entire airplane completely clean of bugs and
dirt after every flight? If you fly through bugs do you land
immediately to clean them off?


Matt

[Ron McKinnon]

From: "Matt Whiting" >
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:57 PM


> Ron McKinnon wrote:
>> From: "Matt Whiting"
>>
>>>Ron McKinnon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>...Why? It is acceptable to "polish the frost smooth" per FAR 91.527.
>>>>
>>>>Interesting. It seems a rather dubious practice to me. It would indeed
>>>>appear to be legal in the US - but, FWIW, it isn't legal in Canada.
>>>
>>>Why? Smooth frost is less of an aerodynamic issue that a thick layer of
>>>dirt, bugs and dust...
>>
>>
>> Be that as it may, arguing that its not as bad as something else (that
>> you
>> shouldn't fly with either), isn't any argument at all for the
>> acceptability
>> of flying with smooth frost.
>>
>> Frost, smooth or otherwise, or other contaminants arguably affect the
>> aerodynamic behaviour. How much does it change with a given
>> level of contamination?, what level of contamination is significant?
>> or how significant is such a change? how much is too much? how
>> smooth is smooth enough? in what way will such change affect the
>> aerodynamic behaviour of the plane? (does it change the critical
>> angle of attack for the wings? the control surfaces?, what are
>> the new critical angles (what's the new stall behaviour? is a
>> tailplane stall more likely? will it spin easier? how does it change
>> rudder effectiveness?) for instance) are critical questions. But
>> these are not questions that a typical pilot is in a position to answer
>> operationally. This a job for computer simulations, and lab analysis
>> in controlled test conditions, and for test pilots in controlled test
>> situations.
>
> They only affect the aerodynamic behavior if they significantly affectt he
> flow in the boundary layer. On some airfoils this a concern with fairly
> small disturbances, but on others it isn't much of a concern at all.
> Saying that you should not fly an airplane that has any frost on it is
> just as silly as saying you should never take off with less than full
> fuel. You have to know your airplane, nobody is arguing that. Most light
> airplanes will fly just fine with polished frost on the wings and even the
> control surfaces, I know my 182 did.

The issue isn't whether it will fly at all, but what happens to its
flying characteristics, and whether you're still operating
with safe margins for error. A few anecdotal cases where it
'flew', does nothing to answer that. There are many other
cases on record where it didn't.

What, exactly is the expected level-flight stalling speed with
this particular amount of frost, 'polished' to this particalar
smoothness? Is it safe with the current loading, the current
density altitute, the current runway (the destination loading,
density altitude, and runway?) - do you have any safety
margin left? or have you used it all up by leaving frost on
the wings? or have you, in these particular circumstances
not affected it at all? What's the new stalling characteristics
of the stablizers, elevator and rudder effectiveness. Are you
going to be in the neigborhood of a tailplane stall on takeoff?
Is the frost layer uniform - does it affect the whole wing in the
same way?

You don't know. .

And its not just about 'knowing your airplane'. How many
pilots can say with assurance how much contamination
will significantly affect the flow in the boundary layer?, or for
which airfoils its a concern with fairly small disturbances?
There are no doubt some that can, I'll grant you. But this is
not the usual rule. (Off the top of your head - What is the
airfoil on your 182? How sensitive is it to contamination.
How much contamination is too much on your 182.
What thickness of frost is too much for this airfoil? How
'smooth' *does* it have to be? And then what about the
stabilizers, elevators and rudder? Exactly what is the new
level flight stalling speed?)

The proposition isn't that you shouldn't fly an airplane that
has *any* frost on it - it is that you shouldn't fly it with any
frost on the critical surfaces: wings, stabilizers, rudder
(propellers).

It is obviously 'legal' in the US (the original FAR citation
shows this), so in the US you may obviously feel free to
use your discretion in the matter. But that doesn't necessarily
mean it is safe.

In other places (Canada, for instance) it isn't even legal.

[Andrew Gideon]

It doesn't appear that ice was a factor:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-crashfolo4feb04,1,5063880.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

The pilot is claiming that something broke:

http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=2902222

A radio report I heard said that the pilot said that he couldn't pull the
yoke back, at which point he discontinued the takeoff.

Of course, all this is almost irrelevant. The ground-huggers are out in
force now, exploiting this accident:

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-20/1107500326181070.xml
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-20/110741476833170.xml


"I intend to use this accident to help persuade the FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration) that Teterboro Airport
has reached its capacity and that any additional flights
coming into this region should go through JFK or Newark
airports," said Rep. Steve Rothman (D-9th Dist.).

Of course, he doesn't represent the people around those airports, nor those
that would be impacted by the increased delays. Well, actually, some
people in his district would be impacted, but he'd just find someone else
to blame.

Teterboro Airport was there long before any of these businesses or
residents.

- Andrew

[George Patterson]

Gary Mishler wrote:
>
> "Capt.Doug" >>
> > There was no visible moisture. The sky was crystal clear. The only wing
> > contamination possible would have been light frost on the bottom of the
> > wing
> > where the fuel had cold-soaked after landing- if the plane had made a
> > quick-turn. No other aircraft had requested de-icing. I doubt that the
> > cause
> > was wing ice.
>
> Frost on top of the wings, and more importantly - on top of the T-tail is
> highly likely. I have flown a T tail jet for 25 years and you can get frost
> on top of the wings and tail very easily in the early morning with the right
> conditions.

An AP article stated that the temperature at the time was 20 degrees. I think
that rules out frost, but I'm not sure. Another report today stated that there
was no indication that ice was a factor.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[Matt Whiting]

Ron McKinnon wrote:

> From: "Matt Whiting" >
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:57 PM

>>They only affect the aerodynamic behavior if they significantly affectt he
>>flow in the boundary layer. On some airfoils this a concern with fairly
>>small disturbances, but on others it isn't much of a concern at all.
>>Saying that you should not fly an airplane that has any frost on it is
>>just as silly as saying you should never take off with less than full
>>fuel. You have to know your airplane, nobody is arguing that. Most light
>>airplanes will fly just fine with polished frost on the wings and even the
>>control surfaces, I know my 182 did.
>
>
> The issue isn't whether it will fly at all, but what happens to its
> flying characteristics, and whether you're still operating
> with safe margins for error. A few anecdotal cases where it
> 'flew', does nothing to answer that. There are many other
> cases on record where it didn't.

My 182 flew just fine. I'm not aware of any 182 accidents from polished
frost and I know many people with many thousands of hours operating 182s
in my area and climate.


> What, exactly is the expected level-flight stalling speed with
> this particular amount of frost, 'polished' to this particalar
> smoothness? Is it safe with the current loading, the current
> density altitute, the current runway (the destination loading,
> density altitude, and runway?) - do you have any safety
> margin left? or have you used it all up by leaving frost on
> the wings? or have you, in these particular circumstances
> not affected it at all? What's the new stalling characteristics
> of the stablizers, elevator and rudder effectiveness. Are you
> going to be in the neigborhood of a tailplane stall on takeoff?
> Is the frost layer uniform - does it affect the whole wing in the
> same way?
>
> You don't know. .

Same way you don't know after you fly through a swarm of bugs. Does
this freak you out also? It never bothered me. I can detect a stall
pretty easily in all of the airplanes I've flown. If the stall
commences at 60 knots instead of 50 knots, I don't really care, I just
stay above that airspeed.


> And its not just about 'knowing your airplane'. How many
> pilots can say with assurance how much contamination
> will significantly affect the flow in the boundary layer?, or for
> which airfoils its a concern with fairly small disturbances?
> There are no doubt some that can, I'll grant you. But this is
> not the usual rule. (Off the top of your head - What is the
> airfoil on your 182? How sensitive is it to contamination.
> How much contamination is too much on your 182.
> What thickness of frost is too much for this airfoil? How
> 'smooth' *does* it have to be? And then what about the
> stabilizers, elevators and rudder? Exactly what is the new
> level flight stalling speed?)

I don't care exactly what it is as I mentioned above. The stall speed
varies constantly with loading and many other factors. If you fly based
on what the ASI tells you and not what the airplane is telling you, then
you are going to be a statistic some day.


> The proposition isn't that you shouldn't fly an airplane that
> has *any* frost on it - it is that you shouldn't fly it with any
> frost on the critical surfaces: wings, stabilizers, rudder
> (propellers).

And I disagree with that proposition and have done so successfully for
27 years. It just requires a little common sense and discussion with
people who have a lot of experience in your make and model.


> It is obviously 'legal' in the US (the original FAR citation
> shows this), so in the US you may obviously feel free to
> use your discretion in the matter. But that doesn't necessarily
> mean it is safe.

It is legal and safe if done properly. Just like most other aspects of
aviation. However, I'm not suggesting you should do it. I'm just
saying that for many of us it isn't a big deal.


> In other places (Canada, for instance) it isn't even legal.

Then you shouldn't do it in Canada.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> It doesn't appear that ice was a factor:
>
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-crashfolo4feb04,1,5063880.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
>
> The pilot is claiming that something broke:
>
> http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=2902222
>
> A radio report I heard said that the pilot said that he couldn't pull the
> yoke back, at which point he discontinued the takeoff.

Probably all that frost on the elevator made it too heavy to lift up for
rotation. :-)

It does sound like something failed that blocked or froze the control
column. Sounds unlikely, but this was an experienced captain (one
source said 15,000 hours) so I trust he knew that the stick wasn't
moving enough for takeoff.

Matt

[Peter R.]

George Patterson > wrote:

> An AP article stated that the temperature at the time was 20 degrees.
> I think that rules out frost, but I'm not sure.

George, as I posted earlier, I have personally experienced three different
aircraft frosting over within 10 minutes of landing when the outside air
temp was around 5-10 degrees F. Temperature alone does not rule out
frost.


--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Capt.Doug]

>"Matt Whiting" wrote in message > It does sound like something failed that
>blocked or froze the control
> column. Sounds unlikely, but this was an experienced captain (one
> source said 15,000 hours) so I trust he knew that the stick wasn't
> moving enough for takeoff.

Trusting sorts get squashed. The PIC may very well have that much flight
time, but according to my source he was typed in Challengers just 2 weeks
ago. The FO purportedly had a couple hours total in Challengers. My source
indicates that one pilot wanted to continue the take-off and one wanted to
abort. Poor CRM led to mayhem.

D. (so much for icing)

[Matt Whiting]

Peter R. wrote:
> George Patterson > wrote:
>
>
>>An AP article stated that the temperature at the time was 20 degrees.
>>I think that rules out frost, but I'm not sure.
>
>
> George, as I posted earlier, I have personally experienced three different
> aircraft frosting over within 10 minutes of landing when the outside air
> temp was around 5-10 degrees F. Temperature alone does not rule out
> frost.

Yes, I routinely have frost on my car windshields at all sorts of temps.
We had a cold snap a week ago where we got down to -15F a couple of
nights and I had a light layer of really hard to remove frost on my
vehicle that is parked outside. Unfortunately, polishing it smooth
doesn't help much for visibility through it!


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Capt.Doug wrote:

>>"Matt Whiting" wrote in message > It does sound like something failed that
>>blocked or froze the control
>>column. Sounds unlikely, but this was an experienced captain (one
>>source said 15,000 hours) so I trust he knew that the stick wasn't
>>moving enough for takeoff.
>
>
> Trusting sorts get squashed. The PIC may very well have that much flight
> time, but according to my source he was typed in Challengers just 2 weeks
> ago. The FO purportedly had a couple hours total in Challengers. My source
> indicates that one pilot wanted to continue the take-off and one wanted to
> abort. Poor CRM led to mayhem.

Yes, poor CRM can be deadly. I didn't hear the time in type, just the
total PIC. Even so, it seems like someone that experienced would be
able to tell functioning controls from non-functioning controls.


Matt

[John]

Joe Johnson wrote:

> "Jim Burns" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thank you for pointing this out. The "visable moisture" requirement is
> for
> > in-flight icing, not frost. Temp/Dewpoint at TEB yesterday morning was
> > M04/M08. Obviously the "collecting surface" was below freezing and the
> temp
> > dewpoint spread was narrow enough for the humidity to sublimate and create
> > frost on the wings.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> Sounds like we're closing in on an answer, or at the very least reasonably
> informed speculation.

Mechanical failure and errors in the cockpit have been ruled out already?
Nothing wrong with speculations, but why limit it to a narrow area?

[Blueskies]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
> Capt.Doug wrote:
>
>>>"Matt Whiting" wrote in message > It does sound like something failed that
>>>blocked or froze the control
>>>column. Sounds unlikely, but this was an experienced captain (one
>>>source said 15,000 hours) so I trust he knew that the stick wasn't
>>>moving enough for takeoff.
>>
>>
>> Trusting sorts get squashed. The PIC may very well have that much flight
>> time, but according to my source he was typed in Challengers just 2 weeks
>> ago. The FO purportedly had a couple hours total in Challengers. My source
>> indicates that one pilot wanted to continue the take-off and one wanted to
>> abort. Poor CRM led to mayhem.
>
> Yes, poor CRM can be deadly. I didn't hear the time in type, just the total PIC. Even so, it seems like someone that
> experienced would be able to tell functioning controls from non-functioning controls.
>
>
> Matt


Voice recorder was pretty much quite except for an abort takeoff comment. The pilot apparently said 'something broke'
after the crash, and another comment I heard said that the yoke only moved about 1"....

[Dave]

Anyone here know what kind of control locks are installed on the
Challengers?

Dave


On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:24:11 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>> Capt.Doug wrote:
>>
>>>>"Matt Whiting" wrote in message > It does sound like something failed that
>>>>blocked or froze the control
>>>>column. Sounds unlikely, but this was an experienced captain (one
>>>>source said 15,000 hours) so I trust he knew that the stick wasn't
>>>>moving enough for takeoff.
>>>
>>>
>>> Trusting sorts get squashed. The PIC may very well have that much flight
>>> time, but according to my source he was typed in Challengers just 2 weeks
>>> ago. The FO purportedly had a couple hours total in Challengers. My source
>>> indicates that one pilot wanted to continue the take-off and one wanted to
>>> abort. Poor CRM led to mayhem.
>>
>> Yes, poor CRM can be deadly. I didn't hear the time in type, just the total PIC. Even so, it seems like someone that
>> experienced would be able to tell functioning controls from non-functioning controls.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>
>Voice recorder was pretty much quite except for an abort takeoff comment. The pilot apparently said 'something broke'
>after the crash, and another comment I heard said that the yoke only moved about 1"....
>
>
>

[Blueskies]

"Dave" > wrote in message ...
> Anyone here know what kind of control locks are installed on the
> Challengers?
>
> Dave
>


That is what I was thinking...

[Matt Whiting]

Blueskies wrote:

> "Dave" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Anyone here know what kind of control locks are installed on the
>>Challengers?
>>
>>Dave
>>
>
>
>
> That is what I was thinking...
>
>

I don't know what the control system design is on the Challenger, but
perusing the Moog web site suggests that it uses Moog hydraulic
actuators. If that is the case, then no control locks are needed. I've
never heard of a modern bizjet using control locks, but I suppose there
are some that do.


Matt

[Aardvark]

quoted from
shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2023496A

Pilot pins jet crash on failed controller
Tells investigators cockpit wheel stuck
Saturday, February 05, 2005
BY ANA M. ALAYA
Star-Ledger Staff

The pilot of a corporate jet that sped off a runway at Teterboro Airport
and smashed into a warehouse told investigators yesterday that the
control wheel malfunctioned, forcing him to abruptly abort takeoff.

But the 58-year-old veteran pilot slammed on the brakes and slowed the
plane from 176 mph to 104 mph in 10 seconds, which one aviation expert
said made the crash "survivable." He also steered the plane to a less
crowded area of Route 46.
From our Advertisers





"He hit the brakes so hard he has bruises all over his feet," said
Michael A. Moulis, a lawyer for pilot John Kimberling and Platinum Jet
Management, the company that was operating the Bombardier CL-600
Challenger that rammed into a clothing warehouse Wednesday, injuring 20.

The plane, carrying eight passengers, careened down a 6,000-foot runway,
crashed through a fence and slid across busy Route 46, hitting two cars
before smacking into the garage door of the warehouse and bursting into
flames.

Federal investigators, while declining to pinpoint a control wheel
malfunction as the cause of the crash so early in their probe, said they
are examining the cockpit controls and other mechanical issues after a
90-minute interview with the pilot yesterday.

"The pilot stated that the flight was uneventful until the moment of
liftoff," Debbie Hersman, a spokeswoman for the National Transportation
Safety Board, said at a news conference yesterday.

"He got only one inch of movement from the yoke (the control wheel),"
Hersman said. "He hit the brakes and the thrust reversers ... and tried
to identify a path to steer it to."

Normally a pilot needs to move the control wheel, or yoke, three or four
inches back toward himself to sufficiently raise the nose of the plane
for takeoff, Hersman said.

"He told our investigators he didn't get the response he needed,"
Hersman said.

The pilot's account was consistent with some information retrieved from
the flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, and video footage
of the aircraft on the runway taken from an airport security camera,
according to Hersman.

Investigators still need to interview the co-pilot, Carlos W.
Salaverria, 31, of Miramar, Fla., several more passengers and several
more airport ground workers.

Both pilots are being treated at the Hackensack University Medical
Center. Each suffered a broken leg in the crash.

A lawyer for Salaverria said his client, a married father of two, was
heavily sedated yesterday and would have to undergo surgery tomorrow for
serious wounds to his lower body, and was suffering from post-traumatic
stress. The lawyer said he didn't know when Salaverria could talk to
officials.

"Based on what I heard, the pilot and co-pilot are on the same exact
page," said Manuel Epelbaum, a Miami personal injury lawyer. "Carlos is
going to give the same scenario as the pilot. It was some kind of
mechanical failure on the plane."

Epelbaum said that when the control jammed, Salaverria helped the pilot
pull back on it and employ the thrust reversers to slow the plane.

"If anything, these two guys were heroes. I think the pilot, co-pilot
and crew were heroic in that there was no loss of life. They maintained
control of the plane after an abort, didn't spin off, break the landing
gear or explode."

Moulis said both pilots "pulled and pulled and pulled," on the control
wheel at the point they should have taken off, "but it wouldn't go and
they realized the plane wasn't going to get off the ground."

After the crash, Kimberling crawled on his hands and knees with a broken
leg, touching every seat in the aircraft to make sure no one was left
inside, his lawyer said.

"He keeps asking, did I hurt anybody?" Moulis said.

A woman described as a cabin aide, Angelica Calad-Gomez, helped
passengers out of the plane. "She was a real hero. She was soaked in
fuel and kept going back to make sure everyone was off the plane,"
Moulis said.

According to FAA records, Kimberling has logged 15,805 flight hours and
is licensed to fly five different kinds of jets. Salaverria has logged
4,800 flight hours and is licensed to fly one type of jet. Records show
neither pilot has ever been disciplined.

The NTSB has requested maintenance records for the airplane from
Platinum in Fort Lauderdale to determine if the plane has a history of
problems with the control wheel, Hersman said.

The plane involved in the crash was originally used by the Canadian
military in the 1980s, is one of the original and oldest of the
Challenger jets manufactured and has 6,800 flight hours and 4,300
take-offs and landings, according to the NTSB.

Investigators are also struggling to decode the flight data recorder
information and determine why it only recorded 10 seconds of the 43
seconds from the time the plane revved up to impact. The information
gleaned so far shows the plane was going 176 mph when the recorder was
switched on, and 104 mph when it was turned off, sometime after the
aborted takeoff.

The rapid deceleration likely saved lives, said Jack Olcott, president
of the New Jersey Aviation Association.

"The slower the airplane, the less energy needs to be absorbed in the
accident," Olcott said. "He was able to slow the plane down and to
create a survivable accident."

One of the most seriously injured victims, James Dinnall, 66, of
Paterson, who was riding in a car struck by the plane as it skidded
across Route 46, remained in critical condition at Hackensack University
Medical Center.

The NTSB has found no evidence that ice was present on the plane when it
crashed. A preliminary review of video footage that shows the airplane
on the runway showed there was no signs of frost on the windshield when
the plane took off, according to Hersman.

[Don Hammer]

>>>Anyone here know what kind of control locks are installed on the
>>>Challengers?
>>>

They don't have control locks. They are boosted controls and have
dampers when no pressure is on.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Don Hammer]

.. I've
>never heard of a modern bizjet using control locks, but I suppose there
>are some that do.
>
>
>Matt

Gulfstreams have locks as well as some others, but Challengers don't


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Doug Carter]

Aardvark wrote:
....
> The pilot of a corporate jet that sped off a runway at Teterboro Airport
> and smashed into a warehouse told investigators yesterday that the
> control wheel malfunctioned, forcing him to abruptly abort takeoff.
....

Don't turbine aircraft POH's require sufficient runway length to stop
after an abort?

[Dan Foster]

In article >, Doug Carter > wrote:
> Aardvark wrote:
> ...
>> The pilot of a corporate jet that sped off a runway at Teterboro Airport
>> and smashed into a warehouse told investigators yesterday that the
>> control wheel malfunctioned, forcing him to abruptly abort takeoff.
> ...
>
> Don't turbine aircraft POH's require sufficient runway length to stop
> after an abort?

Quoted figure for highest speed achieved was 174 MPH, or about 150 knots.

For a plane that small, I'm guessing they were above V1; in which case,
bets for coming to a full stop on remaining runway is pretty much off.

I'm not sure what the Challenger V1 for that weight was, but I can't
imagine it being much higher than 125 knots or so.

Though, I'll grant, they were nearly fully loaded with passengers (but
perhaps not significant cargo if they were business execs on a 'day
trip').

I haven't heard of a V1 that high in a long time except for certain
extreme high performance jets. (SR-71, Concorde?)

So in my mind, it seems more probable that the Challenger was already
past V1 at time of abort.

Idle speculation, though, and I'd appreciate corrections from anyone
whom knows that plane.

-Dan

[George Patterson]

Jon Kraus wrote:
>
> It looks like the Challenger skidded off the runway and crashed into a
> warehouse at TEB.

Yesterday, NPR news stated that the mayor is pushing for reducing the number of
flights at TEB and installing "foam crash barriers" at the ends of the runway.

No mention of the fact that the deceleration produced by barriers like that
would have killed everyone on board this aircraft had they been in place.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[Blueskies]

Runways are selected to assure the ability to accelerate to V1 and then stop with maximum braking. You are committed to
fly passing V1, but that assumes that the plane will fly. Quite often Vr is faster than V1...

[Juan Jimenez]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jon Kraus wrote:
>>
>> It looks like the Challenger skidded off the runway and crashed into a
>> warehouse at TEB.
>
> Yesterday, NPR news stated that the mayor is pushing for reducing the
> number of
> flights at TEB and installing "foam crash barriers" at the ends of the
> runway.
>
> No mention of the fact that the deceleration produced by barriers like
> that
> would have killed everyone on board this aircraft had they been in place.

I suspect his point is not to protect the pax and crew as much as to protect
the people in the buildings and roads around the airport. That building the
Challenger crashed into happened to be empty, but during working hours that
one alone has more than 200 people in it.

Doesn't take away from the lack of imagination in thinking that foam will
solve any perceived problems with the airport, but might explain where he is
coming from.

[Stefan]

Blueskies wrote:

> Runways are selected to assure the ability to accelerate to V1 and then stop with maximum braking.

Isn't it the other way round: The runway length defines v1?

Stefan

[Stefan]

George Patterson wrote:

> No mention of the fact that the deceleration produced by barriers like that
> would have killed everyone on board this aircraft had they been in place.

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But if that plane would have hit a
school bus full of kids when crossing the road and/or that warehouse
would not have happened to be empty at that time, I bet the airport
would already be closed right now.

Stefdan

[Colin W Kingsbury]

I wouldn't shoot so fast- TEB is a pretty major artery in the NYC area. It
handles probably more than half of the bizjet traffic into Manhattan and in
case it isn't obvious, the people who fly in those jets are, shall we say,
influential? This is not some little country strip supporting weekend Cub
flights. Besides, if they close TEB the traffic will just have to move to
somewhere else, and the NY/NJ Port Authority has enough trouble dealing with
the traffic at EWK, LGA, and JFK as it is.

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> George Patterson wrote:
>
> > No mention of the fact that the deceleration produced by barriers like
that
> > would have killed everyone on board this aircraft had they been in
place.
>
> Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But if that plane would have hit a
> school bus full of kids when crossing the road and/or that warehouse
> would not have happened to be empty at that time, I bet the airport
> would already be closed right now.
>
> Stefdan

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yesterday, NPR news stated that the mayor is pushing for reducing the
number of
> flights at TEB and installing "foam crash barriers" at the ends of the
runway.
>
> No mention of the fact that the deceleration produced by barriers like
that
> would have killed everyone on board this aircraft had they been in place.

Why not just pile up a bunch of barrels of gasoline? It'd cost a lot less,
stop the plane just as quick, and would be totally self-cleaning.

-cwk.

[Blueskies]

"Stefan" > wrote in message ...
> Blueskies wrote:
>
>> Runways are selected to assure the ability to accelerate to V1 and then stop with maximum braking.
>
> Isn't it the other way round: The runway length defines v1?
>
> Stefan

Well, yea, gross takeoff weight and density altitude, etc control define V1, so you could look at a runway then decide
the max weight allowable for that day. You need to be sure that the runway is long enough to accel to V1 then stop...

[Blueskies]

"Stefan" > wrote in message ...
> George Patterson wrote:
>
>> No mention of the fact that the deceleration produced by barriers like that
>> would have killed everyone on board this aircraft had they been in place.
>
> Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But if that plane would have hit a school bus full of kids when crossing the road
> and/or that warehouse would not have happened to be empty at that time, I bet the airport would already be closed
> right now.
>
> Stefdan

I don't think so...

[Blueskies]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Jon Kraus wrote:
>>
>> It looks like the Challenger skidded off the runway and crashed into a
>> warehouse at TEB.
>
> Yesterday, NPR news stated that the mayor is pushing for reducing the number of
> flights at TEB and installing "foam crash barriers" at the ends of the runway.
>
> No mention of the fact that the deceleration produced by barriers like that
> would have killed everyone on board this aircraft had they been in place.
>
> George Patterson
> He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
> adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.



Build some sort of ramp thing that would carry the plane up and over the road as it stops, like a runaway truck ramp
;-)

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:
>
> Jon Kraus wrote:
>
>>It looks like the Challenger skidded off the runway and crashed into a
>>warehouse at TEB.
>
>
> Yesterday, NPR news stated that the mayor is pushing for reducing the number of
> flights at TEB and installing "foam crash barriers" at the ends of the runway.
>
> No mention of the fact that the deceleration produced by barriers like that
> would have killed everyone on board this aircraft had they been in place.

Yes, but more voters drive cars on the hiqhway going past TEB than fly
out of it. That is all that matters to politicians.


Matt

[Andrew Gideon]

Blueskies wrote:

> Quite often Vr is faster than V1...

Knowing this, but being only SE rated, I've a question:

It seems that certain problems become apparent only at Vr. So why not use
that as the "size of runway/weight of aircraft" factor?


I'm also curious as to whether the aircraft in this accident gets the same
type of runup as do the little Cessnas I fly. One part of this is always
pulling the yoke back and confirming elevator movement (in the proper
direction).

- Andrew

[Gary Mishler]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Blueskies wrote:

> I've never heard of a modern bizjet using control locks, but I suppose
> there are some that do.
>

Every one I have ever flown does, but I have not flown Challengers. I would
be they do though as they have to have wind gust protection while parked.

[Gary Mishler]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
om...

>> Don't turbine aircraft POH's require sufficient runway length to stop
> after an abort?

Yes, but an abort is predicated prior to or at V1 (takeoff decision speed),
not after the higher Vr (rotate speed).

[Gary Mishler]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
m...

> Quite often Vr is faster than V1...

By definition Vr is never less than V1.

[Don Hammer]

>
>Every one I have ever flown does, but I have not flown Challengers. I would
>be they do though as they have to have wind gust protection while parked.
>

Gary,
The challengers have dampers that come into effect when there is no
boost pressure. On Falcons, the hydraulic actuators essentially lock
up with no pressure. Neither require any other locks. If memory
serves, Gulfstream locks the rudder only.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Gary Mishler]

"Don Hammer" > wrote in message
...
> Gary,
> The challengers have dampers that come into effect when there is no
> boost pressure. On Falcons, the hydraulic actuators essentially lock
> up with no pressure. Neither require any other locks. If memory
> serves, Gulfstream locks the rudder only.

Thanks for the clarification. All the ones I have flown are cable actuated
and they of course have gust locks. Even so, one of our Lears had the
rudder stops beat up when a Falcon parked right behind us blew our rudder
around, even with the gust lock installed. Ouch.

[Robert A. Barker]

"Highfllyer" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
>
> PS: annual rec.aviation flyin at Pinckneyville is coming up May 21, 22,
> and
> 23. Be there or be square! :-)
>
> Highflyer: Where have you been? I haven't" heard" your
"voice" for quite a while. Welcome back anyhow.

Bob Barker N8749S
>

[Don Hammer]

>
>Thanks for the clarification. All the ones I have flown are cable actuated
>and they of course have gust locks. Even so, one of our Lears had the
>rudder stops beat up when a Falcon parked right behind us blew our rudder
>around, even with the gust lock installed. Ouch.
>

I know the feeling. I am completing a G-550 for a client. A couple
of months ago they pushed it out of the paint hangar. The spoiler
boards were disconnected from their actuators so they could paint
under them. An airliner coming off of the gate swung around and blew
the boards open damaging them and the panels forward of the boards.
Big ouch!!!

Large transport aircraft either restrict or stop the hydraulic flow to
and from the actuators with pressure off so they don't need any other
locks.

[Gary Mishler]

"Don Hammer" > wrote in message
...

> Large transport aircraft either restrict or stop the hydraulic flow to
> and from the actuators with pressure off so they don't need any other
> locks.

As the late Johnny Carson would say, "I didn't know that."

Any insight on what may cause the Challenger to be unable to unstick?

[Blueskies]

"Gary Mishler" > wrote in message news:jGANd.52214$EG1.44351@attbi_s53...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>> Blueskies wrote:
>
>> I've never heard of a modern bizjet using control locks, but I suppose there are some that do.
>>
>
> Every one I have ever flown does, but I have not flown Challengers. I would be they do though as they have to have
> wind gust protection while parked.
>


Just heard that the pilot of the Colorado plane said the controls were locked up also, couldn't move the yoke...

[Don Hammer]

>
>Any insight on what may cause the Challenger to be unable to unstick?
>

The way the Challenger is built, you can pull a handle on the console
and split the elevators. That way each side has an elevator. Its use
is for an in-flight jam. Of course, on the takeoff roll there
wouldn't be time to split them and talk about it.

You have two twin actuators receiving pressure from two systems so
loss of a single system wouldn't change anything. With a loss of both
systems, you still have manual control if you pull hard enough. Any
hydraulic failure would be preceded by lots of cockpit warnings. All
that said, I don't think hydraulic failure comes in to play. I guess
there is an outside chance of a bad actuator locking things up.

My initial thought is moisture physically froze something and the
controls didn't get checked prior to takeoff. We always exercised the
controls after we had hydraulic pressure. It also weighs heavily on
my mind that even though both pilots had a lot of time, neither had
much time in type. The Challengers are great aircraft, but they are
certainly a different animal.

I'm sure the NTSB will get it all sorted out in the end.

[Capt.Doug]

>"George Patterson" wrote in message > No mention of the fact that the
>deceleration produced by barriers like that
> would have killed everyone on board this aircraft had they been in place.

That's barriers, not barricades. Foam barriers are being installed at most
large airports at the ends of the runways. They are made from special cement
which crunches when landing gears run through it thus decelerating the
aircraft with minimum damage. It is an excellent idea for airports such as
TEB.

D.

[Newps]

Don Hammer wrote:

>>Any insight on what may cause the Challenger to be unable to unstick?

Avweb has reported that the pilots stated to investigators in this crash
and the last Challenger crash a few months ago in Colorado that they
were unable to pull the stick back during takeoff.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don Hammer wrote:
>
>>>Any insight on what may cause the Challenger to be unable to unstick?
>
> Avweb has reported that the pilots stated to investigators in this crash
> and the last Challenger crash a few months ago in Colorado that they were
> unable to pull the stick back during takeoff.

Hmm. But they were able to do so when performing the flight controls free
and correct checklist item?

The bull****ometer is starting to peg here....

[Mike W.]

> >>>Any insight on what may cause the Challenger to be unable to unstick?
> >
> > Avweb has reported that the pilots stated to investigators in this crash
> > and the last Challenger crash a few months ago in Colorado that they
were
> > unable to pull the stick back during takeoff.
>
> Hmm. But they were able to do so when performing the flight controls free
> and correct checklist item?
>
> The bull****ometer is starting to peg here....
>
So, after reaching v1 and not being able to rotate, they just looked at each
other and lit up a cig and crashed, is that it? I think it was probably a
little more complicated than that.