My home airport had a crash this morning

[Flyin'[email protected]]

I did my flight training out of this airport. As such, many landings and
lots of time at this facility. Not much details yet. The west end of the
runway is typically the departure end. Maybe landed long... Who knows.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Plane crashes at McClellan-Palomar Airport

By: Associated Press Wire Reports

A small plane crashed and burst into flames at McClellan-Palomar Airport
Tuesday morning, officials said.

The plane skidded off the west end of the runway at 6:39 a.m., said Bill
Polick, spokesman for the San Diego County Department of Public Works.
Television footage showed bright orange flames billowing from the aircraft,
which appeared to have hit a building.

North County Times circulation manager Henry Alcocer said he saw the huge
explosion.


"It was higher than the tower out there," Alcocer said "I called 911 and
they said they had other calls... they got out here in about three
minutes."

There was no immediate word on casualties, Polick said. The plane that
crashed was a small private plane or business jet, he said.

Crews from the airport and Carlsbad fire departments were on scene, he
said.

The airport 30 miles north of San Diego serves private planes, business
jets and two commuter airlines -- America West Express and United Express,
both of which operate turboprops out of the facility, Polick said.

A temporary flight restriction was in place over the airport, according to
KFMB-TV.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Flyingmonk]

Wow, hope all're OK.

[Jim Logajan]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote:
> Wow, hope all're OK.

Sadly no:

"4 Killed in Small Plane Crash in Calif.":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_re_us/calif_plane_crash

<cynic mode>
Gee, I guess this is more bad press for Cirrus. Oh wait - it's not a
Cirrus? Then why post it?
</cynic mode>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:41:24 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >::

>
>"4 Killed in Small Plane Crash in Calif.":
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_re_us/calif_plane_crash

The jet-engined Cessna 560 was landing at McClellan-Palomar
Airport on a flight from Hailey, Idaho, when it skidded off the
end of a runway at about 6:40 a.m., said Mike Fergus, a
Federal Aviation Administration spokesman in Seattle.

It hit a shack that held the airport's instrument landing system
equipment, Fergus said.

What is a Cessna 560? Is it a Cessna 560 Citation Ultra Encore* or a
Cessna 560 Citation V?

Cessna claims their Citation Encore + to have a Landing Distance of
2,770 ft.** And the length of Mc Clellan-Palomar Airport's Runway
6/24 is 4,897'.*** So other than the VOLUNTARY JET CURFEW 2200-0700,
one would expect the landing to have been uneventful.

The only thing remarkable about the weather at the time****:

Date Time T DP RH Wind Vis Pres Alt Sta QC
24 Jan 6:50 am 57 15 19 ENE 7 10.00 CLR 1013.3 29.93 29.586 OK
24 Jan 5:50 am 50 18 27 E 6 10.00 CLR 1012.8 29.91 29.566 OK
24 Jan 4:50 am 56 15 20 E 3 10.00 CLR 1012.2 29.90 29.556 OK

is the offshore wind direction. The news report does not include
information about the runway the flight was using, and the FAA
preliminary data hasn't been updated yet*****.

The 10News.com video report****** mentions that the crash occurred at
the west end of the runway. This report also mentions:

Witnesses said the plane appeared to be traveling faster than
normal as it approached the general aviation airport in Carlsbad

That is confirmed in the NEWS 8 report*******.


* http://encoreplus.cessna.com/

** http://encoreplus.cessna.com/specifications.chtml

*** http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCRQ

****
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesonet/getobext.php?sid=KCRQ&num=48&banner=off

*****
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/

****** http://www.10news.com/news/6398187/detail.html

******* http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.35912.html

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> What is a Cessna 560? Is it a Cessna 560 Citation Ultra Encore* or a
> Cessna 560 Citation V?


http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=161

My gal has been a passenger in a 1998 Cessna 560XL (Citation Excel)


Montblack

[Darkwing]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
...
> "Flyingmonk" > wrote:
>> Wow, hope all're OK.
>
> Sadly no:
>
> "4 Killed in Small Plane Crash in Calif.":
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_re_us/calif_plane_crash
>
> <cynic mode>
> Gee, I guess this is more bad press for Cirrus. Oh wait - it's not a
> Cirrus? Then why post it?
> </cynic mode>

Article says the gear was up and it was very fast on approach, very strange.

-------------------------------------
DW

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:36:20 -0500, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
>::

>
>"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
...
>
>> "4 Killed in Small Plane Crash in Calif.":
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_re_us/calif_plane_crash
>>
>
>Article says the gear was up and it was very fast on approach, very strange.
>

From these 12 photographs, it's difficult to see if the thrust
reversers had been deployed:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/us/012406carlsbadplane/im:/060124/480/cash10301241936;_ylt=AkYMG441uDM6iQ0YcCweAChsaMYA; _ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg--

[Darkwing]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:36:20 -0500, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> >::
>
>>
>>"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> "4 Killed in Small Plane Crash in Calif.":
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_re_us/calif_plane_crash
>>>
>>
>>Article says the gear was up and it was very fast on approach, very
>>strange.
>>
>
> From these 12 photographs, it's difficult to see if the thrust
> reversers had been deployed:
> http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/us/012406carlsbadplane/im:/060124/480/cash10301241936;_ylt=AkYMG441uDM6iQ0YcCweAChsaMYA; _ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg
--

Holy ****! Did you see Photo 8? Did that plane crash down the side of that
hill? It looks like it went through that fence up top. Terrible, that plane
is just destroyed.

---------------------------------------
DW

[Ron Lee]

>http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/us/012406carlsbadplane/im:/060124/480/cash10301241936;_ylt=AkYMG441uDM6iQ0YcCweAChsaMYA; _ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg--

Please use tinyurl.com to make a smaller link Like this

http://tinyurl.com/96g9j


Ron Lee

[B a r r y]

Ron Lee wrote:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/us/012406carlsbadplane/im:/060124/480/cash10301241936;_ylt=AkYMG441uDM6iQ0YcCweAChsaMYA; _ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg--
>
> Please use tinyurl.com to make a smaller link Like this
>
> http://tinyurl.com/96g9j
>
>
> Ron Lee


Or, one could simply bracket the link
<http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/us/012406carlsbadplane/im:/060124/480/cash10301241936;_ylt=AkYMG441uDM6iQ0YcCweAChsaMYA; _ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg>
and avoid using third party sites.

[Peter R.]

B a r r y > wrote:

> Or, one could simply bracket the link

Does that work for every news reader, though?

--
Peter

[Flyingmonk]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote:
JIm Logajan wrote:
> Wow, hope all're OK.
>
>Sadly no:
>
>"4 Killed in Small Plane Crash in Calif.":
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_re_us/calif_plane_crash

Sorry to hear that... My sincerest condolences to their families and
friends.

The Monk

[Grumman-581]

"B a r r y" wrote in message
m...
> Or, one could simply bracket the link

Actually,. both worked for that URL, but when you get *really* long URLs,
the angle brackets don't always work...

[cpu]

I checked with FlightWare.com yesterday and it shows the last track
record of the plane during touch down is at 227 kt (at 300 msl,
pressure altitude, The airport elevation is 328 feet). It was way
tooooo fast. .

Here is the link.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N86CE/tracklog

[Larry Dighera]

More information:

http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/warticle.jsp?Section=LOCAL&ID=564670281365848262
Authorities probe deadly plane crash at airport in Carlsbad

January 25, 2006 8:08 AM

....
It went about 150 yards beyond the runway, smashed through a
scaffolding holding airfield equipment and into a commercial storage
facility, said Bill Polick, spokesman for the San Diego County
Department of Public Works.

It was unclear whether the plane ever touched down on the runway
before winding up about 30 yards beyond airport property, he said.

''There are no skid marks on the runway,'' Polick said.

One victim was identified as Frank H. Jellinek Jr., 60, chairman
emeritus of Fisher Scientific International, a Hampton, N.H., company
that provides products and services for labs and clinics. Jellinek was
flying into San Diego County to attend business meetings for Fisher
Scientific, said Gia Oei, a company spokeswoman.
....
Authorities were waiting for dental records to identify the other
three victims, two males and a female, said Mike Workman, a San Diego
County spokesman.

In Idaho, Sun Valley Aviation General Manager Melidee Wright told the
Wood River Journal newspaper that the following people had boarded the
plane: pilot Jack Francis, co-pilot Andy Garrett and passenger Janet
Shafran, wife of one of the aircraft's registered owners.
....
The cause of the crash was unknown. Polick said the weather was clear
and sunny with only light winds at the time.

Norman Boyd of Escondido told The Associated Press in a telephone
interview that he saw the plane landing as he drove to work near the
airport and could tell there was a problem because its landing gear
was up and it was descending quickly.

''It was heading toward the runway and the approaching speed was way
beyond what it should be,'' said Boyd, adding that he observes
takeoffs and landings daily on his way to and from work.
....
The aircraft was registered to Goship Air LLC of Ketchum, Idaho,
authorities said.

According to state incorporation records, Goship Air is owned by Kipp
Nelson and Steve Shafran, both of Ketchum. Shafran was appointed this
month to the Ketchum City Council and Nelson is an investment banker
and a trustee of the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Team Foundation.

[B a r r y]

Peter R. wrote:
> B a r r y > wrote:
>
>> Or, one could simply bracket the link
>
> Does that work for every news reader, though?

It goes back to OLD RFC's, so it certainly should.

[karl gruber]

You don't need thrust reversers to stop a Citation 560. BRAKES stop
jets. There are MANY Lear jets running around all the time without
reversers at all.

In the performance charts I've seen, stopping distance in predicated on
using no thrust reverse. It's nice to have and makes lots of cool noise
but generally unnecessary for corporate jets.

Karl

[Larry Dighera]

On 25 Jan 2006 12:01:00 -0800, "karl gruber" >
wrote in . com>::

>You don't need thrust reversers to stop a Citation 560. BRAKES stop
>jets.

Given the recent revelation, that the gear appeared to be up, brakes
may not have been too useful in stopping this aircraft.

>In the performance charts I've seen, stopping distance in predicated on
>using no thrust reverse.

From the manufacturer's performance information available here
<http://encoreplus.cessna.com/specifications.chtml>, it's unclear if
reverse thrust was included in the 2,770 foot landing distance
specification. However, given the 7 knot tailwind at the time, TR may
have been a good idea (not to mention lowering the gear).

It's beginning to look like there may have been a pilot incapacitation
issue involved. Do you know if the Citation 560 is certified for
single pilot operation?

[The Visitor]

Yeah, what's 60,000 for new brakes?

karl gruber wrote:
> You don't need thrust reversers to stop a Citation 560. BRAKES stop
> jets. There are MANY Lear jets running around all the time without
> reversers at all.
>
> In the performance charts I've seen, stopping distance in predicated on
> using no thrust reverse.

Not all jets. exceptions should not be allowed.

It's nice to have and makes lots of cool noise
> but generally unnecessary for corporate jets.
>
> Karl
>

[Montblack]

("cpu" wrote)
> I checked with FlightWare.com yesterday and it shows the last track record
> of the plane during touch down is at 227 kt (at 300 msl, pressure
> altitude, The airport elevation is 328 feet). It was way
> tooooo fast.
>
> Here is the link.
> http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N86CE/tracklog


From 9:33 AM (10,500 ft) thru 9:36 AM (1,200 ft) they descended. At 9:37 AM
they were at 300ft. for a total drop of 10,000 ft.

That's 2,500 ft (4 minutes) or 2,000 ft (5 minute) per minute. Is that
normal for a Cessna Citation 560XL?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N86CE/tracklog


FAA Registry
N-Number Inquiry Result
N86CE has multiple records

Bell 206L-3
Certificate Issue Date: 04/27/1993
Cancel Date: ................04/19/1994
Destroyed
JOHNSTON COCA COLA BOTTLING CO INC

<http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=86CE&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0>


Montblack

[cpu]

>N86CE has multiple records
>Bell 206L-3
>Certificate Issue Date: 04/27/1993
>Cancel Date: ................04/19/1994
>Destroyed
>JOHNSTON COCA COLA BOTTLING CO INC


OMG!!! ..don't any a/c owner should ever use this number again.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:13:42 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>It's beginning to look like there may have been a pilot incapacitation
>issue involved. Do you know if the Citation 560 is certified for
>single pilot operation?

Another posting here indicated that there was a co-pilot.

Could it be possible that they had the whole flight programmed into the FMS and then had
a Pane Stewart type problem and the plane finished the flight?

Paul

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> Could it be possible that they had the whole flight programmed into the FMS and then had
> a Pane Stewart type problem and the plane finished the flight?

In this case, wouldn't there have been reports of the aircraft being NORDO
for the last half of the flight?

--
Peter

[Montblack]

("cpu" wrote)
> >N86CE has multiple records
>>Bell 206L-3
>>Certificate Issue Date: 04/27/1993
>>Cancel Date: ................04/19/1994
>>Destroyed
>>JOHNSTON COCA COLA BOTTLING CO INC
>
>
> OMG!!! ..don't any a/c owner should ever use this number again.


So you're saying the FAA should ..."86" that number?
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_291b.html


Montblack

[Flyingmonk]

Montblack wrote:
>So you're saying the FAA should ..."86" that number?
>http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_291b.html

Well, in that case, 55 and 19. Whoa! 87-1/2!

The Monk

[AJ]

Pilot seemed OK before deadly crash

By Mark Arner
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

January 26, 2006

CARLSBAD - A federal investigator said yesterday that nothing in the
pilot's last conversation with an air-traffic controller indicated
there was a problem before a fatal jet crash at McClellan-Palomar
Airport.

Kurt Anderson, an investigator for the National Transportation Safety
Board, also said there are conflicting reports about the jet's speed
when it approached the Carlsbad airport Tuesday morning.

Witnesses said the jet appeared to be traveling too fast as it touched
down near the middle of the 4,600-foot-long runway.

All four people aboard were killed when the aircraft skidded off the
runway, plowed through barricades and hit a storage building before
catching fire.

Anderson said he knew about the Internet data from "FlightAware" that
shows minute-by-minute ground speed data about such general aviation
flights.

The Web site said the 1994 Cessna Citation V twin-engine jet was
traveling at 227 nautical mph (261 mph) when it touched down at the
Carlsbad airport shortly before 6:40 a.m.

Anderson confirmed that the recommended landing speed for such a jet is
between 105 and 115 knots (121 mph to 132 mph).

"There is some discrepancy between that (the FlightAware data) and
other data that we have," he said.

All the information will take four to six months to fully analyze,
Anderson said.

He declined to speculate about what caused the crash.

"This is a slow and very deliberative, step-by-step process," he said.
"At this point, we are nowhere near any specific conclusions."

Investigators did determine that the jet's landing gear was down after
the crash, and that its "thrust reversers," used to slow the jet, were
stowed.

That would be the normal position for such equipment if the pilot
intended to take off again and attempt another landing, Anderson said.

He said the cockpit voice recorder was recovered "in good shape" and
was being flown to Washington, D.C., along with reams of other data.

Anderson said he also has a recording of the pilot's conversation with
an off-site air traffic controller just before the landing attempt.

That conversation was with a controller based at an FAA radar station,
called a TRACON, next to the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station.

Anderson said there was no distress call or indication from the pilot
that he was having difficulty with the aircraft.

Killed in the wreck were pilot John C. "Jack" Francis, co-pilot Anthony
Garrett, New Hampshire science-equipment executive Frank Jellinek Jr.
and Janet Shafran of Ketchum, Idaho, authorities said.

Mark Arner: (619) 542-4556;

[Grumman-581]

"AJ" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Pilot seemed OK before deadly crash

But seemed rather unresponsive afterwards? <sick-grin>

[Flyingmonk]

Grumman-581 wrote:
>> Pilot seemed OK before deadly crash

>But seemed rather unresponsive afterwards? <sick-grin>

I don't know weather to laugh with you or scold you, since I'm not the
scolding type. <g>

The Monk

[Aluckyguess]

I was thinking hard attack on final with auto-pilot still engaged.
They said clear to land and the pilot replied and then massive coronary.
People in the back never knew what happened.
"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
>> Could it be possible that they had the whole flight programmed into the
>> FMS and then had
>> a Pane Stewart type problem and the plane finished the flight?
>
> In this case, wouldn't there have been reports of the aircraft being NORDO
> for the last half of the flight?
>
> --
> Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:46:26 -0800, "Aluckyguess" >
wrote in >::

>I was thinking hard [sic] attack on final with auto-pilot still engaged.
>They said clear to land and the pilot replied and then massive coronary.

That would have had to occur within the temporal window of opportunity
bounded by the time the gear was extended and the time of impact, a
period of probably a couple of minutes at the speed the aircraft was
alleged to have been traveling. (What's the old saw about preferring
luck to skill?)

The other questionable issue in this hypothesis, is the necessity for
BOTH pilots to have been stricken simultaneously.

[Studnt172]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Grumman-581 wrote:
>>> Pilot seemed OK before deadly crash
>
>>But seemed rather unresponsive afterwards? <sick-grin>
>
> I don't know weather to laugh with you or scold you, since I'm not the
> scolding type. <g>
>
> The Monk
>

86CE was sold to the new owners last year by Coca Cola Enterprises based out
of Atlanta, GA to replace with newer Excels. The co-pilot, Andy Garret was a
friend of mine. I have flown in this same aircraft with him. Andy was a VERY
SAFE pilot. In fact he was known to be too safe on his landings (slow
approaches). Andy went with the deal because he was facing lay-offs at CCE.
He was on his way for his check ride to gain single pilot rating on 506's.
It is rumored that he was to take over the plane as the company was
replacing the other pilot. Judging by the outcome of this tragic event, you
can read between the lines as to the reasons why the PIC was to be replaced.
We will not know for months what happened and who was really at the stick.
Regardless this is still tragic and our hearts should go out to everyone on
board and to their families. Please try to keep the jokes to yourselves.
Andy left behind his wife and young son that will never know his dad.

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> That would have had to occur within the temporal window of opportunity
> bounded by the time the gear was extended and the time of impact, ...

According to several posts in this thread, the gear was never extended.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Flyingmonk]

Larry wrote:
>That would have had to occur within the temporal window of opportunity
bounded by the time the gear was extended and the time of impact

gear's up...

The Monk

[Flyingmonk]

Studnt172 wrote:
_____________________
86CE was sold to the new owners last year by Coca Cola Enterprises
based out
of Atlanta, GA to replace with newer Excels. The co-pilot, Andy Garret
was a
friend of mine. I have flown in this same aircraft with him. Andy was a
VERY
SAFE pilot. In fact he was known to be too safe on his landings (slow
approaches). Andy went with the deal because he was facing lay-offs at
CCE.
He was on his way for his check ride to gain single pilot rating on
506's.
It is rumored that he was to take over the plane as the company was
replacing the other pilot. Judging by the outcome of this tragic event,
you
can read between the lines as to the reasons why the PIC was to be
replaced.
We will not know for months what happened and who was really at the
stick.
Regardless this is still tragic and our hearts should go out to
everyone on
board and to their families. Please try to keep the jokes to
yourselves.
Andy left behind his wife and young son that will never know his dad.
____________________

Wow, that is tragic.

The Monk

[[email protected]]

It seems that the gear was down.
A ground observer and the online flight recording link both seemed to indicate a very high approach speed.

Is it posssible that a frozen/ plugged or partially plugged pitot tube could have caused an excesive approach speed?

I've been flying for more than 25 years and the scariest event I ever had has a frozen static port in marginal weather.



Paul

[Flyin'[email protected]]

According to a local newspaper the gear was extended.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/01/27/news/top_stories/21_02_281_26_06
..txt



George Patterson > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > That would have had to occur within the temporal window of opportunity
> > bounded by the time the gear was extended and the time of impact, ...
>
> According to several posts in this thread, the gear was never extended.
>
> George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong
> to your slightly older self.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Flyingmonk]

Larry wrote:
>That would have had to occur within the temporal window of opportunity
>bounded by the time the gear was extended and the time of impact

gear's up...

The Monk

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:59:32 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <ErrCf.1962$oo1.1321@trnddc02>::

>According to several posts in this thread, the gear was never extended.

Later news articles reported:


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20060126-9999-7m26cessna.html
Investigators did determine that the jet's landing gear was down
after the crash, and that its "thrust reversers," used to slow the
jet, were stowed.

[Ron Lee]

wrote:

>It seems that the gear was down.
>A ground observer and the online flight recording link both seemed to indicate a very high approach speed.
>
>Is it posssible that a frozen/ plugged or partially plugged pitot tube could have caused an excesive approach speed?
>
>I've been flying for more than 25 years and the scariest event I ever had has a frozen static port in marginal weather.

GPS provides a ground speed that is a backup for the airspeed
indicator (accounting for winds)

Ron Lee

[Peter R.]

Ron Lee > wrote:

> GPS provides a ground speed that is a backup for the airspeed
> indicator (accounting for winds)

Given varying winds aloft and differences between true and indicated
airspeeds, I would be very careful in using groundspeed as a backup.
Personally I would not be comfortable using it while approaching to land.

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

>>It seems that the gear was down.
>>A ground observer and the online flight recording link both seemed to indicate a very high approach speed.
>>
>>Is it posssible that a frozen/ plugged or partially plugged pitot tube could have caused an excesive approach speed?
>>
>>I've been flying for more than 25 years and the scariest event I ever had has a frozen static port in marginal weather.
>
>GPS provides a ground speed that is a backup for the airspeed
>indicator (accounting for winds)

You started the flight in the wee hours of the morning, you are tired, flying a routine
approach in reasonable weather are you doing all the proper cross checks?
It's clear that you should be, but it's also clear that something went very wrong with the end of this flight.
My guess is that it was a coupled approach and pilot just adjusted the throttles to maintain the indicated airspeed....

One other possiblity is that he landed long and was trying to go around and ran out of space.

Paul

[Roger]

On 25 Jan 2006 12:01:00 -0800, "karl gruber" >
wrote:

>You don't need thrust reversers to stop a Citation 560. BRAKES stop
>jets. There are MANY Lear jets running around all the time without
>reversers at all.
>
>In the performance charts I've seen, stopping distance in predicated on
>using no thrust reverse. It's nice to have and makes lots of cool noise
>but generally unnecessary for corporate jets.

The Falcon 900 that landed on our 3800 foot runway sure used them.
They went on as soon as the nose wheel came down and with the
judicious use of brakes managed to get stopped by the end of the
runway. <:-)) Without the reversers he'd have been over in the mall
parking lot... or maybe in the mall.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Karl

[karl gruber]

Well Roger,

I'm typed rated in the Falcon 50 and 900. First of all, they don't have
"them." There is only one reverser on a 900, on the center engine. NONE
of Dassaults landing performance charts are predicated on using
reversers--NONE. If they landed on your 3800 ft field you can be SURE
their computed landing distance data assured a safe landing without
reversers. BRAKES STOP JETS!!!! Further, the 50 and 900 series Falcons
are excellent short field jets because their wing design with leading
edge devices enable them to use short fields. Not their reverser!

Best,
Karl
ATP
BE30 CE500 LR-Jet DA-50, 900