Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LePaul on September 14, 2006, 05:15:54 PM
-
Whoa! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA&eurl=)
-
The Footage Golfer tried to hide:D
-
That's looks REALLY expensive.
-
couple weeks late on this one.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186583
I don't fly CJs. My airplanes have TRs and lots more thrust. Shouldn't you be jumpseating, anyway?
-
Welcome to Wallmart, how may I help you?:(
-
Originally posted by Golfer
I don't fly CJs. My airplanes have TRs and lots more thrust. Shouldn't you be jumpseating, anyway?
HAHAHAHA zing!
-
That's a couple years back.
Pilot talks to Atlantic City gets clearance to land. Instead lands on this strip -- which is shorter than stopping distance and marked on charts as not for jet use. Simple mistake? Could be, but he somehow had the plates open to the right airfield. Anyway, runway is way to short, he shoots it with a tailwind and touches down halfway. They bail out and he doesn't bother to shutdown.
If you search the web, you can find pictures of the same pilot (the fat guy) at the controls of his citation butt-nekkid. He (Danish, like the the company (weber scientific?) that owns the jet) also has a reputation for buzzing schoolkids who bother his house with a helicopter.
Company's replacement for OY-JET is OY-WET
-
That is just retarded. Not the overshoot, accidents happen, but leaving the engines on. Shut-down would be my big priority.
-
Like hell it would. You'd be so happy to be alive and ecstatic you're still breathing that you'd want to get out of dodge lickity split.
There are 4 ways what happened wouldn't have happened.
1.) Pull the power levers to cutoff
2.) Ignition Switches off
3.) Push the fire lights
4.) Don't wind up in a river where this could happen.
None of those are higher on my list than "get out of airplane before it sinks with me inside of it" especially if the engines had stopped making noise. You wouldn't expect them to relight but on one hand that does show the reliability of todays turbine engines.
-
I have a question..
As far as aviation is concerned is there an arguement against running turbines on everything except cost?
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Like hell it would. You'd be so happy to be alive and ecstatic you're still breathing that you'd want to get out of dodge lickity split.
There are 4 ways what happened wouldn't have happened.
1.) Pull the power levers to cutoff
2.) Ignition Switches off
3.) Push the fire lights
4.) Don't wind up in a river where this could happen.
None of those are higher on my list than "get out of airplane before it sinks with me inside of it" especially if the engines had stopped making noise. You wouldn't expect them to relight but on one hand that does show the reliability of todays turbine engines.
UM, no. Once that door is open, my escape is secure, (Or so I like to beleive) and I do NOT want to get into water near running turbines. I would kill the engines, (Not the right way, id just kill the fuel, kill it fast, no matter how much damage it did) and then run my arse outa there.
-
Reynolds I think you're missing one thing. The engines were snuffed out and not running when the airplane went into river. Standing water will do this. The problem lied with the engines not placed into cutoff with the ignitions and battery on. The combination of Fuel+spark=combustion. This got the engine turning after the fact and you of course have seen the results.
If the engines wern't making noise anymore I'd have assumed they were safe too. They didn't jump out of the airplane with the motors screaming...it came on by itself.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Reynolds I think you're missing one thing. The engines were snuffed out and not running when the airplane went into river. Standing water will do this. The problem lied with the engines not placed into cutoff with the ignitions and battery on. The combination of Fuel+spark=combustion. This got the engine turning after the fact and you of course have seen the results.
If the engines wern't making noise anymore I'd have assumed they were safe too. They didn't jump out of the airplane with the motors screaming...it came on by itself.
Yes, I noticed that, but WHY werent the engines in the cutoff?
-
Well given that one was in cutoff and the other was bent...
I'd say that the crash damaged something so it wouldn't go to cutoff or the J hook wasn't pulled all the way up in the rush to get the hell out of dodge and the power lever wouldn't go to I/CO. If he put enough force into it to bend the power lever you'd think it was as good as it will get.
-
Good plane.
Bad pilot.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
GEEK FIGHT!!! lol. Just joking. I love planes too.
-
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.
-
Fuel + spark with insufficient N2 = tailpipe fire ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Fuel + spark with insufficient N2 = tailpipe fire ;)
yeah, those are fun. seen one or two in my years.
-
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.
-
I think I'll just wait until the final comes out.
Novel concept, eh?
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
True enough.
The Brief stated a finding of probable cause. As for the motorboat bit, the narrative has this tit-bit:
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.
-
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 :D
Read somewhere that the replacement aircraft for this aircraft is now a Soverign and it's ID is OY-WET.