Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 06, 2016, 04:41:55 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: FlightSimCon 2016 June 11-12, 2016


+  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 18670 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: 447



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

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: 659



« 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: 338



« 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: 4023



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
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 338



« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2006, 04:22:42 PM »

I didn't want to assume anything, but they didn't mention in this narrative if the flight plan was filed to AIY or ACY.  They did say that it originated in BTV.  It sounded strange to me that the pilot stated inbound to ACY.  Now Dave makes a very good point that this could be the ACY VOR which is colocated with ACY airport.  I thought possibly there was confusion with which Atlantic City airport they were intending to land.  It seems from this statement that maybe they did file to AIY "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."   The controller was not mentioned.

Digger, I was unable to open the links from your previous post, so I don't know if there was further information.  As for Finleyville, we are not aware of any restrictions for aircraft inbound to that airport. 

I concur with Pygmie.  We're not responsible to know the capabilities of each aircraft.

w0x0f     
Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2006, 05:29:40 PM »

Those links were to the NTSB website, as you may have guessed. I just tried them again, and they worked fine from here.  huh

The flight plan was, in fact, to AIY.

I neglected to mention it in the previous post, but it's also interesting that the PIC's "Certificate(s)/Rating(s)" are listed as "Private; Multi-engine Land; Single-engine Land; Helicopter".  I'd have expected a Commercial rating at least.

I mentioned Finleyville because it's only 2,505 feet long. The restriction in place there against a Citation (successfully), landing is part of what's generally referred to as "the laws of physics."  smiley I guess that reinforces what you said about not being required to know the capabilities of each aircraft.

Quote
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.


Yeah, and I guess if you said, "Cleared for the visual approach, and we'll call 911 for you now", you'd probably get gigged for improper phraseolgy.    smiley
Logged
krull
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2006, 07:08:13 AM »

Please congratulate the pilot on passing exam for new rating ...

Multi/engine land/idiot....

NTSB confirms new rating with test results listed in accident file.

Logged
kkjlai
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80


« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2006, 10:53:41 AM »

And does anyone know why the engine suddenly begin to spool up??  That's pretty scary..
Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2006, 12:27:49 PM »

If I recall correctly, a discussion on another board said that the throttle handle was left set at something higher than idle, and the continuous ignition was on. In and of itself that wouldn't do anything, but then water got into the actual circuits that control the starter motor, and you see what happened.
Logged
MJ76A
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2006, 08:33:51 PM »

i think that we should put this on more sites evil
Logged
Robin Rebhan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2006, 09:38:33 PM »

Possible PIC confused feet with meters on runway length. Language may also play a part. undecided
Non- towered airport can be a problem if all you land at is towered airports.  huh
Also, sometimes the human mind sees what it wants and expects to see and excludes everything else.
Add fatigue and or dehydration and ...............  embarassed
Above may explain but does not in anyway exonerate.  wink
Logged

WILL WORK FOR FLIGHT TIME!
mpflood
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


Student pilot,Fire Lieutenat


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2006, 05:02:43 PM »

I had heard that the captain never exited the craft and was trying to beach it on the shore.
Thoughts?
Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2006, 08:18:11 PM »

Quote
I had heard that the captain never exited the craft and was trying to beach it on the shore.
Thoughts?

I'd say, not a chance. The damage was already bad enough from putting the plane into the water at all. Running an engine up had only the potential to make matters worse, and no chance of helping anything.
Logged
EivlEvo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #24 on: November 21, 2006, 03:57:52 PM »

Does anybody know how to capture videos like this from the web and save them onto ur hard drive? There has to be a way?

Also DIGG, that's right YOU wouldn't think there'd be a chance that it would help, but johnny knoxville or whoever was flying this aircraft might! LOL... oh man... kids these days.

~DAVE
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 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!