Why not to land downwind

On 3 Sep 2006 13:44:25 -0700, wrote:

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

Watch it all.


That was crazy!

Glad no one got hurt.

z

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:jVSKg.6851$SZ3.5261@dukeread04...
That is true, but the engine did finally quit and it did not
appear that there was any water ingestion to drown the
engine.

The video is not of high enough quality to know whether there was any water
ingestion, especially since the engine doesn't shut down until the airplane
has turned so that the engine is on the far side of the airplane from the
camera.

Once a jet is running, it takes shutting down the
fuel supply to kill it,

There are plenty of ways for a jet engine to stop running other than simply
cutting off its fuel supply. Heck, you already mentioned one (water
ingestion). And for that matter, there are ways for the fuel supply to be
cut off other than actually exhausting the fuel supply.

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.

I agree it's possible. But not nearly as likely as the engine shut down for
a reason other than fuel exhaustion. Accident investigators are generally
pretty thorough, to the point of including whether a pilot had filed a
flight plan or not, even when there's almost never any relevance to that
question.

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

Eh. The video was okay, IMHO. Obviously in a situation like this, it's
unreasonable to expect a professional production value, but even simple
things like having image stabilization (clearly not in use here) and
deinterlacing the video for computer display (something that would have been
done in post-processing) would have gone a long way toward making the video
more watchable.

I found it interesting enough to not feel I completely wasted the ten
minutes it took to watch it, but I wouldn't call it "great".

Pete

"Roger" wrote in message
...
[...]
That wasn't much of a tail wind. I'd guess either the runway was short
or something else went wrong. It was wet so hydroplaning also could
have been a problem.

There was enough of a tailwind to add 500 feet to the landing distance, when
the airplane was already going to require more distance to land than there
was runway.

Read the accident report. What "went wrong" is that the pilot tried to land
at that airport.

Pete

It would be nice if, like the USNavy, a professional crew,
with the finest cameras filmed every TO and landing at
every airport. These guys were just some airport bums with
a camera and pickup truck. So the camera isn't stabilized,
at least it was there.

Had there been water ingestion, you would have seen steam.
Also, the engine was well above the water when it was
visible. There was no person on the airplane to shut it
down. The pilot had come a long distance, northern Maine to
Atlantic City.

Water ingestion doesn't always kill a turbine engine, they
run just fine in heavy rain. Even being submerged doesn't
always kill the engine, it is still running after a 400 mph
crash into the Pacific Ocean and comes up to menace Tom
hanks in CASTAWAY and Hollywood certainly has the best
technical advisors, cameras and they would not just make
things up [humor].



"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:jVSKg.6851$SZ3.5261@dukeread04...
| That is true, but the engine did finally quit and it did
not
| appear that there was any water ingestion to drown the
| engine.
|
| The video is not of high enough quality to know whether
there was any water
| ingestion, especially since the engine doesn't shut down
until the airplane
| has turned so that the engine is on the far side of the
airplane from the
| camera.
|
| Once a jet is running, it takes shutting down the
| fuel supply to kill it,
|
| There are plenty of ways for a jet engine to stop running
other than simply
| cutting off its fuel supply. Heck, you already mentioned
one (water
| ingestion). And for that matter, there are ways for the
fuel supply to be
| cut off other than actually exhausting the fuel supply.
|
| 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.
|
| I agree it's possible. But not nearly as likely as the
engine shut down for
| a reason other than fuel exhaustion. Accident
investigators are generally
| pretty thorough, to the point of including whether a pilot
had filed a
| flight plan or not, even when there's almost never any
relevance to that
| question.
|
| Clearly the PIC failed to calculate properly, to know
his
| airport restrictions, but he sure did provide a great
bit of
| video.
|
| Eh. The video was okay, IMHO. Obviously in a situation
like this, it's
| unreasonable to expect a professional production value,
but even simple
| things like having image stabilization (clearly not in use
here) and
| deinterlacing the video for computer display (something
that would have been
| done in post-processing) would have gone a long way toward
making the video
| more watchable.
|
| I found it interesting enough to not feel I completely
wasted the ten
| minutes it took to watch it, but I wouldn't call it
"great".
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:lLZKg.6888$SZ3.5001@dukeread04...
It would be nice if, like the USNavy, a professional crew,
with the finest cameras filmed every TO and landing at
every airport. These guys were just some airport bums with
a camera and pickup truck. So the camera isn't stabilized,
at least it was there.

What's your point? Just having the camera there doesn't make it "great".
It just means the camera was there. And besides, it's not like you can even
buy a video camera today that doesn't have some sort of image stabilization.
I'm not talking about professional standards here, which if you'd bothered
to actually READ my post you'd understand.

Had there been water ingestion, you would have seen steam.

I saw LOTS of stuff that could've been steam. Again, the video quality is
not sufficient to know what did or did not happen.

Also, the engine was well above the water when it was
visible.

Again, what's your point? The engine didn't shut down when it was visible.
What you can see when it WAS visible is irrelevant.

There was no person on the airplane to shut it
down. The pilot had come a long distance, northern Maine to
Atlantic City.

Again, so what?

Water ingestion doesn't always kill a turbine engine,

I never said it does.

they run just fine in heavy rain.

I never said they don't.

Even being submerged doesn't
always kill the engine, it is still running after a 400 mph
crash into the Pacific Ocean and comes up to menace Tom
hanks in CASTAWAY and Hollywood certainly has the best
technical advisors, cameras and they would not just make
things up [humor].

Whatever. You just managed to post a 4K article that failed completely to
add *anything* to the discussion. Good job.

I'll add some more, this video was given to the NTSB and not
sold to CNN. The camera was not the most modern, perhaps a
law should be passed to require all video buffs to buy a new
camera every month or so just so they'll have a camera that
suits you.

It was great that there was in fact video at all. It was a
fun video to watch, to see a Citation seaplane. To see tyhe
Boston Whaler boat. To find the NTSB report just Google
"NTSB Bader Citation" without the quotes.


NYC05LA085
On May 15, 2005, at 1548 eastern daylight time, a
Danish-registered (OY-JET), Cessna Citation 525A, was
substantially damaged during a runway overrun at Atlantic
City Municipal Airport/Bader Field (AIY), Atlantic City, New
Jersey. The certificated private pilot received minor
injuries, and three passengers received no injuries. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight
rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the flight which
originated at the Burlington International Airport (BTV),
Burlington, Vermont. The business flight was conducted under
14 CFR Part 91.

The pilot reported to a Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) inspector, that he performed "one circle" around the
airport, observed the windsock, and then performed a landing
on runway 11. During the landing roll, approximately 2/3
down the runway, the pilot "lost the brakes," and was unable
to stop on the remaining runway. The airplane then continued
off the departure end of the runway and impacted the water.

A review of recorded radar data and air traffic control
(ATC) communications revealed the pilot contacted Atlantic
City (ACY) Approach Control at 1538, and stated he was
inbound to "alpha charlie yankee." The pilot was instructed
to descend to an altitude of 2,000 feet, and fly heading 220
degrees.

At 1540, ATC instructed the pilot to "proceed direct Bader,
descend and maintain 1,500 feet. Expect visual approach."
The pilot read back the instructions, stating, "thank you,
direct Bader, descend to 1,500."

At 1544, ATC informed the pilot that "the airport is 12
o'clock and 4 miles." The pilot responded that he had the
airport in sight, and the controller then cleared the pilot
for a "visual approach at Bader airport."

Radar data indicated that the airplane was at an altitude of
800 feet, at 1545, continuing on a heading of 220 degrees.
About 1 minute later, the airplane made a 360-degree right
turn, and rolled out on it's previous heading of
220-degrees. At 1547:10, the airplane crossed abeam the
departure end of runway 11, at AIY, at an altitude of 100
feet. The airplane then continued on a westerly (downwind)
heading and climbed to an altitude of 300 feet.

The airplane then initiated a right turn back toward runway
11, at an altitude of approximately 200 feet. During the
turn, the airplane's groundspeed was approximately 180
knots.

At 1548:42, the airplane was at an altitude of 200 feet,
1.24 nautical miles from the approach end of runway 11, with
a groundspeed of 155 knots. Over the next 10 seconds, the
airplane's altitude decreased to 0 feet, and the airspeed
decreased to 140 knots. The last radar return was recorded
approximately 1,000 feet beyond the approach end of runway
11, at an airspeed of 128 knots.

A witness, who was an employee at AIY, was inside a trailer,
located about 400 feet to the right of the midfield point of
runway 11, at the time of the accident. The witness was in
communication with a Cessna 182, on a downwind leg of the
traffic pattern for runway 29, when he looked out the window
and observed the accident airplane make a "low pass on
runway 29 with a climbing right turn out." The witness went
outside the trailer and observed the accident airplane
touchdown "about halfway down" runway 11. The airplane
appeared to slow as it approached the end of the runway;
however, it did not stop, and subsequently impacted the
water. The witness further reported that the pilot of the
accident airplane did not communicate any intentions on the
UNICOM frequency.

Several other witnesses reported that as the airplane
touched down, they thought braking was occurring, since
smoke was coming from the airplane's tires.

Examination of a video recording, which was taken by a
witness at the airport, revealed the airplane touched down
about 800-1,000 feet beyond the approach end of runway 11.
The video also displayed the windsock at the airport, and
according to the witness, it indicated a tailwind at 10-15
knots.

The airplane was examined by an FAA inspector after the
accident. According to the inspector, the brake system and
emergency brake system were functionally checked, and no
abnormalities were noted. The anti-skid system could not be
tested, due to salt water damage. Examination of the
emergency brake system revealed it had not been used, and
the nitrogen bottle gauge indicated 1,800 psi. The flap
selector was in the "ground" position, but the indicator was
in the 15 degree position. The left throttle lever was
observed in idle cut off, and the right throttle lever was
bent to the right at the idle stop.

Examination of the runway revealed tread marks beginning
approximately two-thirds down the runway, and continuing off
the departure end into the grass and dirt.

The winds reported at Atlantic City International Airport
(ACY), 9 miles to the northwest, at 1554, were from 280
degrees at 9 knots.

A review of the FAA Airport/Facility Directory for the
Northeast U.S., revealed the following notation listed in
the Airport Remarks section of the Atlantic City/Bader Field
Airport entry, "Arpt CLOSED to jet traffic." Additionally,
runway 11 was a 2,948 foot-long, 100 foot-wide, asphalt
runway.

Additionally, the airport diagram for Bader Field, was
observed attached to the pilot's control column after the
accident. A notation, which read, "airport closed to jet
aircraft" was observed on the diagram.

According to the Cessna 525A Landing Distance Chart, an
airplane with a landing weight of 11,400 pounds required
3,000 feet of landing distance, in a no wind situation. With
a 10 knot tailwind, the airplane required 3,570 feet of
landing distance.


Use your browsers 'back' function to return to synopsis
Return to Query Page
"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:lLZKg.6888$SZ3.5001@dukeread04...
| It would be nice if, like the USNavy, a professional
crew,
| with the finest cameras filmed every TO and landing at
| every airport. These guys were just some airport bums
with
| a camera and pickup truck. So the camera isn't
stabilized,
| at least it was there.
|
| What's your point? Just having the camera there doesn't
make it "great".
| It just means the camera was there. And besides, it's not
like you can even
| buy a video camera today that doesn't have some sort of
image stabilization.
| I'm not talking about professional standards here, which
if you'd bothered
| to actually READ my post you'd understand.
|
| Had there been water ingestion, you would have seen
steam.
|
| I saw LOTS of stuff that could've been steam. Again, the
video quality is
| not sufficient to know what did or did not happen.
|
| Also, the engine was well above the water when it was
| visible.
|
| Again, what's your point? The engine didn't shut down
when it was visible.
| What you can see when it WAS visible is irrelevant.
|
| There was no person on the airplane to shut it
| down. The pilot had come a long distance, northern
Maine to
| Atlantic City.
|
| Again, so what?
|
| Water ingestion doesn't always kill a turbine engine,
|
| I never said it does.
|
| they run just fine in heavy rain.
|
| I never said they don't.
|
| Even being submerged doesn't
| always kill the engine, it is still running after a 400
mph
| crash into the Pacific Ocean and comes up to menace Tom
| hanks in CASTAWAY and Hollywood certainly has the best
| technical advisors, cameras and they would not just make
| things up [humor].
|
| Whatever. You just managed to post a 4K article that
failed completely to
| add *anything* to the discussion. Good job.
|
|

Peter Duniho schrieb:

There was enough of a tailwind to add 500 feet to the landing distance, when
the airplane was already going to require more distance to land than there
was runway.

And most probably to shift the touch down point a couple of hundred feet
down the runway, too. Don't ask me why I know this.

My guess is that the same water which caused the short circuit by
creeping into the electrics and launched the engine creeped further and
cut the fuel pump. Just my guess, not better nor worse than other guesses.

Stefan

Stefan wrote
My guess is that the same water which caused the short circuit by
creeping into the electrics and launched the engine creeped further
and cut the fuel pump.

Jet engines run rather well with no electric power what-so-ever.
Mechanical fuel pumps. A more likely situation would be that
water entered the fuel tank vent system and jets don't like to
run on water very well.

Bob Moore

The last radar return was recorded
approximately 1,000 feet beyond the approach end of runway
11, at an airspeed of 128 knots.

I assume they mistyped, and meant ground speed? (the difference would
be important)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

Watch it all.

I know it's not right to say this, but...

Somehow, the registration number is nearly perfect for the situation.
The only thing better/worse might have been OY-VEY

Peter