Author Topic: Citation Runway overrun.... (Read 1697 times)

Seagoon · « **Reply #15 on:** September 15, 2006, 03:34:38 PM »

Hope everyone with the same insurance carrier didn't have to cover that particular loss.

I think the initial description zinged it "We got a nutball trying to land."

Dago · « **Reply #16 on:** September 15, 2006, 04:08:46 PM »

That aircraft is a Cessna 525, which features a full FADEC system. I suspect it went into restart mode since the engine thrust lever was left at idle instead of cutoff.

Golfer · « **Reply #17 on:** September 15, 2006, 05:31:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
That aircraft is a Cessna 525, which features a full FADEC system. I suspect it went into restart mode since the engine thrust lever was left at idle instead of cutoff.

After thinking better of it...I'm giving up the chance to be a ******* and simply say...

No it doesn't. The + series of CJs does...the straight CJ1/CJ2 don't.

Dago · « **Reply #18 on:** September 15, 2006, 07:14:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Golfer
After thinking better of it...I'm giving up the chance to be a ******* and simply say...

No it doesn't. The + series of CJs does...the straight CJ1/CJ2 don't.

I don't know the Cessna line well, never dealt with the lower end corp jets. Was more a Falcon and Gulfstream guy. I will have to take your word for it, thought it might be on those since it was a single pilot certified a/c.

One thing for sure, it took more than just spark and fuel.

Golfer · « **Reply #19 on:** September 15, 2006, 07:53:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
I don't know the Cessna line well, never dealt with the lower end corp jets

That didn't stop you from being an expert and dishout the what for/why is, did it?

Why's it take more than fuel and a spark? How do you thing it starts in the first place? You get a pool of fuel, igniton and hot expanding gasses. Gasses expand just like they would...start N2 rotation. N2 rotation draws in more air...normal ignition.

Sounds like its a solvent theory to me.

Reynolds · « **Reply #20 on:** September 15, 2006, 07:56:08 PM »

GEEK FIGHT!!! lol. Just joking. I love planes too.

Dago · « **Reply #21 on:** September 15, 2006, 08:09:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Golfer
That didn't stop you from being an expert and dishout the what for/why is, did it?

Why's it take more than fuel and a spark? How do you thing it starts in the first place? You get a pool of fuel, igniton and hot expanding gasses. Gasses expand just like they would...start N2 rotation. N2 rotation draws in more air...normal ignition.

Sounds like its a solvent theory to me.

Are you serious? Ignition and spark, then N2 rotation?

Okay, if that is what you believe, you really dont fly jets and dont know anything about them.

You might notice I said stuff like "I suspect", making it obvious I am not a Citation expert and not qualified to speak authoritatively about the series and how the systems are designed.

Since you really are ignorant in the ways of the modern gas turbine engine, I will let you in on a fact everyone who operates a dual spool turbine engine. You will have to have N2 rotation BEFORE you supply fuel and ignition. What about an engine with an N3, you think it needs to be rotating too?

Man, you had me fooled, I thought you really did know something about turbines up to that point. Gave me a laugh though, thanks for that.

Toad · « **Reply #22 on:** September 15, 2006, 08:17:59 PM »

Fuel + spark with insufficient N2 = tailpipe fire

Dago · « **Reply #23 on:** September 15, 2006, 08:20:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Fuel + spark with insufficient N2 = tailpipe fire

yeah, those are fun. seen one or two in my years.

Golfer · « **Reply #24 on:** September 15, 2006, 08:24:51 PM »

I'm not saying it's good, i'm not saying it's healthy I'm just not saying it's impossible

Then again they're not supposed to be opearted from a river, either. Irregardless...who says it's completely spooled down anyway?

And how'd I end up in a debate about whether or not it's impossible. Clearly it's on videotape...therefore it must not be impossible.

Now since you're quick to say how dumb I am for keeping my mind open on the theory...please explain to me how:

-You take a presumably shut down aircraft
-Floating in a river
-Remove anyone who can push the starter button

and have it motor said empty aircraft around the river for a few minutes? We're not talking about keeping things within any engine limitations...we're talking about is it possible to have an engine that'd been snuffed out relight on it's own by using only fuel/ignition. I'd say that argument has the advantage since we've just seen it happen.

Toad · « **Reply #25 on:** September 15, 2006, 10:51:43 PM »

I think I'll just wait until the final comes out.

Novel concept, eh?

Dinger · « **Reply #26 on:** September 16, 2006, 03:47:47 AM »

Heh. Why wait for the final? Sure, it coulda been little green gremlins that restarted the engine.

But the problem with supposing that the pilot had attempted proper shutdown procedure is that it goes against logic and everything we know about this pilot.

Some accidents happen when all the holes in the cheese line up just right, a series of little mistakes and unfortunate conditions that combine to make an improbable event.

Some are due to gross incompetence. A pilot with a history of being a hot dog decides to land at an airfield that's too short, with considerable tailwind. He buzzed the airstrip first, so everyone knew what his intentions were. He then floats down the runway. He's so patently incompetent that guys on the ground get their cameras out to record this "idiot" for posterity. He then overruns and finds himself captain of a canoe. Is he going to suddenly wake up and start doing things "by the book"?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure this is all you're gonna get in terms of final:

Quote

The pilot performed "a low pass" over the runway, and then touched down approximately 1,000 feet beyond the approach end of the 2,948-foot long runway, with a tailwind of approximately 10 knots. After touchdown, the airplane continued off the end of the runway, and subsequently impacted water. 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. The published airport diagram for the airport, 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. Additionally, the same notation, "Arpt CLOSED to jet traffic," was observed in the FAA Airport/Facility Directory. Examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical deficiencies.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's improper decision to plan a flight to a runway of insufficient length, his improper in-flight decision to land on that inadequate runway with a tailwind, and his failure to obtain the proper touchdown point. A factor in the accident was the tailwind condition.

Toad · « **Reply #27 on:** September 17, 2006, 09:50:05 PM »

Because I like things wrapped as neatly as possible.

Not every final is 100% certain but they usually differ from the prelims in several areas.

Dinger · « **Reply #28 on:** September 17, 2006, 11:28:29 PM »

True enough.

The Brief stated a finding of probable cause. As for the motorboat bit, the narrative has this tit-bit:

Quote

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.

Golfer · « **Reply #29 on:** September 18, 2006, 12:23:01 AM »

That last line was a key bit showing that even if he tried to shut down the engines it didn't happen properly. That's not to say something wasn't damaged in the power quadrant though it's somewhat hard to imagine.

Regardless unless something shorted out in the back when the water flooded it didn't sound like a normal start sequence. I haven't paid much attention to Williams' engines as they start but with the P&W JT15's and 535As the starter/generator kicks off the starter roundabout 38% N2. Seemed like it spooled up awfully slow but then again I've never started an aircraft engine in water before. The same can't be said for a boat motor on land

Read somewhere that the replacement aircraft for this aircraft is now a Soverign and it's ID is OY-WET.