Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 28, 2014, 03:32:01 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Video: Jet Overruns Runway and Crashes Into Bay — Then Things Turn Bad
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Video: Jet Overruns Runway and Crashes Into Bay — Then Things Turn Bad  (Read 15662 times)
BMT
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« on: September 13, 2006, 07:59:05 PM »

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=6900

If you are on a dial up modem you might want to skip this one.

BMT
Logged

Electronic Stalker
RayZor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2006, 08:21:58 PM »

Wow, would not want to be that pilot.  I couldn't believe it when the engines began restarting.
Logged
PIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 527



« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2006, 09:10:26 PM »

what what  that guy thinking, was he out of his mind?
Logged
Fryy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419



WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2006, 11:12:07 PM »

wow, that was seriously incredible. hopefully noone was hurt too bad. that was seriously some bad judgment on the pilot. did anyone read the ntsb report? besides the landing conditions, the airport was closed to jet traffic.
Logged

Volunteer KSUU feeder
http://d.liveatc.net/ksuu.m3u
Pygmie
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2006, 12:49:00 AM »

NTSB report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050526X00676&ntsbno=NYC05LA085&akey=1

From the report:

Quote
... 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.
Logged
MIAMIATC
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 627



« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2006, 08:32:16 PM »

only in my homestate would this happen rolleyes
Logged
RayZor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2006, 09:33:05 PM »

NTSB report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050526X00676&ntsbno=NYC05LA085&akey=1

From the report:

Quote
... 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.

How could he miss something like this.  Wouldn't he at least notice that the runway looks very short  on final?  ATC must have been pretty busy to miss this incident though.  Wouldn't they have to clear him to land on that runway, or was that not a B,C, or D airport?  Looked like IFR weather maybe?   
Logged
Pygmie
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2006, 12:37:22 AM »

How could he miss something like this.  Wouldn't he at least notice that the runway looks very short  on final?  ATC must have been pretty busy to miss this incident though.  Wouldn't they have to clear him to land on that runway, or was that not a B,C, or D airport?  Looked like IFR weather maybe?   

There is no tower.  ATC cleared him for an approach, and cut him loose.
Logged
petrovcic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2006, 05:11:51 AM »

I think that this pilot was a fucking boring. all day!
Logged
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 322



« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2006, 07:53:43 AM »

"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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't read the whole report, but according to this, the pilot may not be the only one who messed up here.  Extra bonus points for the first one who can find the problem in the above statemement.

w0x0f
« Last Edit: September 15, 2006, 07:55:32 AM by w0x0f » Logged
dave
Site Founder
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3674



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2006, 08:10:42 AM »


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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't read the whole report, but according to this, the pilot may not be the only one who messed up here.  Extra bonus points for the first one who can find the problem in the above statemement.
 
w0x0f


For one thing, the pilot stated he was direct "ACY," and we can only assume he was direct to the ACY VOR, and I also assume he was filed form KBTV to KAIY, not KACY.

The possible mistake I see is that Atlantic City Approach descended him to 1,500, which would appear to be 200' below the published MSA of 1,700.  Is that what you're referring to?  Or I wonder if Approach has an MVA in that area that is 1,500', which would have permitted that descent instruction.

Either way, I see human error on both sides...the airport is clearly closed to jet traffic - it was on the approach chart and in the AFD.  Both the pilot and ATC should have known this.  The pilot is ultimately responsible for all aspects of the flight.  I am not sure this would be an operational error on the controller's part, but I am not certain.

-Dave


« Last Edit: September 15, 2006, 08:17:49 AM by dave » Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2006, 10:43:43 AM »


Quote
The possible mistake I see is that Atlantic City Approach descended him to 1,500, which would appear to be 200' below the published MSA of 1,700.  Is that what you're referring to?  Or I wonder if Approach has an MVA in that area that is 1,500', which would have permitted that descent instruction.

It looks like ACY Approach owns down to 1300 over Bader. I can't vouch for the currency of the chart, but here's a link:

  http://mapserver.maptech.com/homepage/index.cfm?lat=39.359956477&lon=-74.4561367878&scale=500000&zoom=100&type=2&height=498&width=498&icon=0&searchscope=dom&CFID=2121337&CFTOKEN=55647208&scriptfile=http://mapserver.maptech.com/homepage/index.cfm&bpid=MAP0060030900%2C1%2C1%2C0&latlontype=DMS

It also appears that the VORTAC is located on the airport, which makes it difficult to know whether the controller thought he was direct to the VOR, or the airport itself, which might have been a factor, although if the controller cleared him for the approach to Bader, he apprently knew the intended destination. Should the controller have caught that a Citation wasn't legally able to land at Bader?  Should that fact have been caught by Flight Service when the flight plan was filed?

What's the correct procedure/phraseology when the controller realizes that a pilot is attempting to do something that's not allowed or physically impossible? What would you do if this guy had filed for Finleyville? (http://www.airnav.com/airport/G05 for those not familiar with Pittsburgh area airports.)
Logged
Pygmie
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2006, 11:50:37 AM »

Speaking only for Canada, controllers have no authority to prevent an aircraft from doing an approach based on what we think their aircraft is capable of.  If a jet wanted to land at some tiny airport with a 1,000 foot runway, all we can do is advise him of the runway length, and if he still wants to go in, we issue the clearance.  The fact is, controllers don't have readily available information on what each aircraft needs as far as runway length, etc.  I'd assume it's the same way for the U.S.

That said, however, "closed to jet traffic" is another thing entirely.
Logged
Lexxx
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2006, 11:54:35 AM »

Think we're gonna have to wait for the report on this one. Could be any number of possibilities. I mean the aircraft was Danish. Was there a communication issue? Was the flight progess strip correct for the controller? Maybe the aircraft type was listed as C425 instead of C525. A C525 is one of the slowest executive jets. Anything is possible.

Lexx
www.ykf.ca
Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2006, 01:22:24 PM »

Quote
Think we're gonna have to wait for the report on this one.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05LA085&rpt=fi

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05LA085&rpt=fa

(I apologize for the link to the chart I posted above--at least on my browser it has the page all stretched out sideways, making it difficult to read. )

Interesting to note that the PIC was not instrument rated. It also makes no mention of the controller as a factor.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!