Challenger Crashe at TEB

.. 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

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?

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

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.

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...

"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.

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

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 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

"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.