OT- Pilot error

Grummy, this one's for you.

Wonder if this guy is still driving airplanes.



http://www.glumbert.com/media/planecrash

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.


--
I have never met a liberal street cop.

"nitespark" <nitespark@cox.net> wrote in message
news:92iOg.138449$LF4.40609@dukeread05...
> Grummy, this one's for you.
>
> Wonder if this guy is still driving airplanes.

<snip>

Well, I don't fly that particular type of aircraft, but at first glance, I
would have to say that it appears that his short field landing technique
might need a bit of work...

Nice plane, but personally, I have a problem justifying flying something
that only gets about 1.5 mpg at best... As if the couple of million dollars
for the aircraft were not enough of a limitation...

Grumman-581 wrote:

> "nitespark" <nitespark@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:92iOg.138449$LF4.40609@dukeread05...
>
>>Grummy, this one's for you.
>>
>>Wonder if this guy is still driving airplanes.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Well, I don't fly that particular type of aircraft, but at first glance, I
> would have to say that it appears that his short field landing technique
> might need a bit of work...
>
> Nice plane, but personally, I have a problem justifying flying something
> that only gets about 1.5 mpg at best... As if the couple of million dollars
> for the aircraft were not enough of a limitation...
>

I just figured you would find the article interesting from a general
aviation point of view and not from a personal experience point of view.

Grumman-581 wrote

> Nice plane, but personally, I have a problem justifying flying something
> that only gets about 1.5 mpg at best... As if the couple of million
> dollars
> for the aircraft were not enough of a limitation...

You'd hate my big boat.

"Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkuOg.840$LH2.34@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> "nitespark" <nitespark@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:92iOg.138449$LF4.40609@dukeread05...
>> Grummy, this one's for you.
>>
>> Wonder if this guy is still driving airplanes.
>
> <snip>
>
> Well, I don't fly that particular type of aircraft, but at first glance, I
> would have to say that it appears that his short field landing technique
> might need a bit of work...
>
> Nice plane, but personally, I have a problem justifying flying something
> that only gets about 1.5 mpg at best... As if the couple of million
> dollars
> for the aircraft were not enough of a limitation...
>
>
1.5 *at best* being a huge factor. Figger the average fuel burn fer a short
trip, like you might do in yours for example.
Don't forget startup & taxi, T/O & climb, and IFR reserves of course, which
this guy would need for his several missed app's. ;0)
Then bear in mind that most people don't use this sorta 'plane for private
flights. This one, although under Part 91, specifically states that it was a
"business flight".

LD.

"Limey" <davidflies@noatt.crapnet> wrote in message
news:ePxOg.147200$5i3.17333@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> 1.5 *at best* being a huge factor.

Yeah, I was calculating that figure by the number of pounds of fuel that it
can hold, figuring 6 lbs per gallon, and the quoted max range... Shorter
trips would definitely have worse gas mileage...

> Figger the average fuel burn fer a short
> trip, like you might do in yours for example.
> Don't forget startup & taxi, T/O & climb, and IFR reserves of course,
which
> this guy would need for his several missed app's. ;0)
> Then bear in mind that most people don't use this sorta 'plane for private
> flights. This one, although under Part 91, specifically states that it was
a
> "business flight".

From what I've gathered the one of the reasons that the Citations are so
well liked by pilots is that their approach speeds are relatively slow...
Hell, I've probably flown approaches at their speeds in my Grumman when I'm
over at HOU and they want me to keep my speed up because of a 737 behind
me... Hell, I've been at 130 kts on short final -- yeah, it results in quite
a bit of float, but with a 7000 ft runway, no big deal...

"Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com> wrote in message
newsnWOg.1790$LH2.859@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> "Limey" <davidflies@noatt.crapnet> wrote in message
> news:ePxOg.147200$5i3.17333@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> 1.5 *at best* being a huge factor.
>
> Yeah, I was calculating that figure by the number of pounds of fuel that
> it
> can hold, figuring 6 lbs per gallon, and the quoted max range... Shorter
> trips would definitely have worse gas mileage...

Yep, prolly about right but as ya say, that's about the *best* you can
expect.....by a long shot under normal conditions.
>
>> Figger the average fuel burn fer a short
>> trip, like you might do in yours for example.
>> Don't forget startup & taxi, T/O & climb, and IFR reserves of course,
> which
>> this guy would need for his several missed app's. ;0)
>> Then bear in mind that most people don't use this sorta 'plane for
>> private
>> flights. This one, although under Part 91, specifically states that it
>> was
> a
>> "business flight".
>
> From what I've gathered the one of the reasons that the Citations are so
> well liked by pilots is that their approach speeds are relatively slow...

Shit, the only pilots that say they like 'em are the ones that can't get a
Lear job. ;0)


> Hell, I've probably flown approaches at their speeds in my Grumman when
> I'm
> over at HOU and they want me to keep my speed up because of a 737 behind
> me... Hell, I've been at 130 kts on short final -- yeah, it results in
> quite
> a bit of float, but with a 7000 ft runway, no big deal...
>
>
Yep, same here. I used to pride myself on fast approaches, with a high,
slipping, decelerating final. If nothing else, just to save fuel and rental
time. Complements from the tower are always nice! ;)

LD.