Why not to land downwind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA

Watch it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA

Dang!

Was there actually someone inside the plane at the end, trying to power
it out of the water?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA

Dang!

Was there actually someone inside the plane at the end, trying to power
it out of the water?

I didn't see anyone in the cockpit. Granted, the video quality sucks, but
there are a few places where you can see straight through the cockpit from
one window to the other side, and there's no sign of someone in there.

Also, only one engine was powered up. It seems like if someone was actually
trying to drive the airplane out of the water, they'd get both engines
started and then use them both. With just the one engine, the airplane just
turns and makes no real progress toward the shore.

Unfortunately, the accident report offers no commentary on the
after-accident high-power operation of the engine. It does mention that
"the right throttle lever was bent to the right at the idle stop", but I
don't know whether that would have anything to do with the engine throttling
up on its own. Maybe the lever itself somehow became disconnected from the
control mechanism, resulting in the uncommanded power-up?

I would ordinarily say that I can't imagine any person, after having landed
long like that, actually doing something so foolhardy as to sit in the
cockpit and try to power a half-submerged jet to shore, but after reading
the accident narrative, I have to say that if anyone would do such a thing,
maybe the pilot involved in this accident would.

Apparently, even in zero wind, the runway was 52 feet too short for the
attempted landing, and the tailwind added almost 600 feet to the
requirement. In addition, apparently the pilot made a low pass over the
runway, followed by a low-altitude (200-300') circling maneuver at 180
knots, before trying to land. Even a normal circle-to-land would likely
happen at a higher altitude, and conditions were VMC and the pilot had been
cleared for a visual approach. As if that weren't enough, the airport was
closed to jets, and the pilot had the airport diagram right in front of him
that said so.

Clearly, this was a pilot not operating on all cylinders.

But even so, it doesn't appear that the power-up in the water was
intentional (or even occurred while anyone was still on the airplane).

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00676&key=1

Interestingly, while trying to find this accident in the NTSB database
(hint: it didn't happen at a place called "Atlanta Bay", assuming there even
is such a place), I came across a surprisingly similar one that happened in
Montana:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...02X01078&key=1

I wonder how many other Citations have gone into the drink after being
landed long.

Pete

It looks to me like the nose cone and electronics have been removed.
Can anyone explain that (or am I not seeing it correctly)?


Peter Duniho wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA
Dang!

Was there actually someone inside the plane at the end, trying to power
it out of the water?

I didn't see anyone in the cockpit. Granted, the video quality sucks, but
there are a few places where you can see straight through the cockpit from
one window to the other side, and there's no sign of someone in there.

Also, only one engine was powered up. It seems like if someone was actually
trying to drive the airplane out of the water, they'd get both engines
started and then use them both. With just the one engine, the airplane just
turns and makes no real progress toward the shore.

Unfortunately, the accident report offers no commentary on the
after-accident high-power operation of the engine. It does mention that
"the right throttle lever was bent to the right at the idle stop", but I
don't know whether that would have anything to do with the engine throttling
up on its own. Maybe the lever itself somehow became disconnected from the
control mechanism, resulting in the uncommanded power-up?

I would ordinarily say that I can't imagine any person, after having landed
long like that, actually doing something so foolhardy as to sit in the
cockpit and try to power a half-submerged jet to shore, but after reading
the accident narrative, I have to say that if anyone would do such a thing,
maybe the pilot involved in this accident would.

Apparently, even in zero wind, the runway was 52 feet too short for the
attempted landing, and the tailwind added almost 600 feet to the
requirement. In addition, apparently the pilot made a low pass over the
runway, followed by a low-altitude (200-300') circling maneuver at 180
knots, before trying to land. Even a normal circle-to-land would likely
happen at a higher altitude, and conditions were VMC and the pilot had been
cleared for a visual approach. As if that weren't enough, the airport was
closed to jets, and the pilot had the airport diagram right in front of him
that said so.

Clearly, this was a pilot not operating on all cylinders.

But even so, it doesn't appear that the power-up in the water was
intentional (or even occurred while anyone was still on the airplane).

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00676&key=1

Interestingly, while trying to find this accident in the NTSB database
(hint: it didn't happen at a place called "Atlanta Bay", assuming there even
is such a place), I came across a surprisingly similar one that happened in
Montana:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...02X01078&key=1

I wonder how many other Citations have gone into the drink after being
landed long.

Pete

Stubby wrote:

It looks to me like the nose cone and electronics have been removed.
Can anyone explain that (or am I not seeing it correctly)?

That could have happened when it made initial contact with the water
(nose hit first at a highish speed).

Ron Lee

I don't think so. I think that the throttles were pulled into "reverse" and
some how the left engine never lost it's fire.
Jim

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA

Dang!

Was there actually someone inside the plane at the end, trying to power
it out of the water?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

No, it was shutdown, but the throttle lever was bent and not
in cutoff, this may have happened after in the water and as
the passengers and crew escaped. The Cessna Citation has
had a number of electrical shorts and they have had engines
self-start in hangers and while on jacks if the throttles
are not fully in cut-off.

The video shows and you can also hear the engine starting up
and then the whoomp as ignition happens and the flames
starts out the exhaust. Then it spools up more and begins
to move.

I think it stopped when out of fuel, which might explain why
the pilot landed downwind and at an airport closed to jet
traffic.


"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...
|I don't think so. I think that the throttles were pulled
into "reverse" and
| some how the left engine never lost it's fire.
| Jim
|
| "Jay Honeck" wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA
|
| Dang!
|
| Was there actually someone inside the plane at the end,
trying to power
| it out of the water?
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:rDNKg.6845$SZ3.2959@dukeread04...
[...]
I think it stopped when out of fuel, which might explain why
the pilot landed downwind and at an airport closed to jet
traffic.

That would be a good guess, except that the accident report doesn't say
anything about the fuel being low or empty. Checking the fuel state is SOP
for an accident report (even if no engine failure occurred), so the lack of
any comment regarding that strongly suggests that fuel wasn't a factor at
all in the incident.

That is true, but the engine did finally quit and it did not
appear that there was any water ingestion to drown the
engine. Once a jet is running, it takes shutting down the
fuel supply to kill it, there was no one on the airplane.
Since it was filmed, non-fatal and only minor injuries, it
is possible that it was just left out of the report.

Clearly the PIC failed to calculate properly, to know his
airport restrictions, but he sure did provide a great bit of
video.



"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:rDNKg.6845$SZ3.2959@dukeread04...
| [...]
| I think it stopped when out of fuel, which might explain
why
| the pilot landed downwind and at an airport closed to
jet
| traffic.
|
| That would be a good guess, except that the accident
report doesn't say
| anything about the fuel being low or empty. Checking the
fuel state is SOP
| for an accident report (even if no engine failure
occurred), so the lack of
| any comment regarding that strongly suggests that fuel
wasn't a factor at
| all in the incident.
|
|

wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA

Watch it all.

The end was actually pretty funny. Would have been cool in a Willie
Coyote cartoon.