Dassault Falcon 50 crash in Greenville SC

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of the articles I read were incredibly detailed. Seems most of them I read are responsible enough to take no position, make no assumptions, and simply state the obvious details, while stating one can read the finer details when the government reports come out.

Whatever happened, it's just sad. Not much forgiveness in flight.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
Greenville is 7,000' long.
Official records show 5,393' but I dug into the tech specs on the plane; it can land in less than 2000'. Takeoff would be a little tighter if fully loaded.

Originally Posted by Astro14
From the speed with which the airplane left the runway - it either touched down way past the "touchdown zone*" or the spoilers weren't armed/deployed.
The airport manager was interviewed and said he saw it land out of his window; all looked normal.

I've a friend who has some right seat experience in an Eclipse and Citation. He discussed the different systems of spoiler deployment and use and WONDERS it the wrong thing was done. NON-PROFESSIONAL REPORTS say the plane sounded at full throttle as it exited the runway. Perhaps he thought the clamshell (my term, I don't know the right one) was deployed and throttle had to be advanced to brake? Perhaps something else was wrong and he didn't reach liftoff velocity for a go-around?

I understand that the aircraft was equipped with a flight data recorder. The NTSB should give us a prelim report in a week or 2, I understand.

(My interest; I live just a few miles from the runway and drive the road on which it stopped occasionally. I've friends with light singles and small twins based there with whom I've flown.)
 
Originally Posted by George Bynum
Originally Posted by Astro14
Greenville is 7,000' long.
Official records show 5,393' but I dug into the tech specs on the plane; it can land in less than 2000'. Takeoff would be a little tighter if fully loaded.

Originally Posted by Astro14
From the speed with which the airplane left the runway - it either touched down way past the "touchdown zone*" or the spoilers weren't armed/deployed.
The airport manager was interviewed and said he saw it land out of his window; all looked normal.

I've a friend who has some right seat experience in an Eclipse and Citation. He discussed the different systems of spoiler deployment and use and WONDERS it the wrong thing was done. NON-PROFESSIONAL REPORTS say the plane sounded at full throttle as it exited the runway. Perhaps he thought the clamshell (my term, I don't know the right one) was deployed and throttle had to be advanced to brake? Perhaps something else was wrong and he didn't reach liftoff velocity for a go-around?

I understand that the aircraft was equipped with a flight data recorder. The NTSB should give us a prelim report in a week or 2, I understand.

(My interest; I live just a few miles from the runway and drive the road on which it stopped occasionally. I've friends with light singles and small twins based there with whom I've flown.)



Thank you George - I was clearly looking at the wrong airport!

At 5,393 - take everything I said and make it more emphatic. That's not long for a runway operating a jet airplane.

The NTSB will probably give us an update in a few weeks. Full report typically takes a year or so.

The 2,000 foot distance is likely the stopping distance, not the same as landing distance. All landing distance calculations for us are predicated on crossing the threshold at 50 feet, touching down at 1,000 feet down the runway, then a 15% margin on that.

I pulled up the data for Boston runway 27 last night on my way into Boston. All the assumptions are there. Wind, weight, elevation, temp, altimeter, runway slope, flap setting, brake setting.

Using those planning assumptions, and the following conditions: 8KT Headwind, 179,700 lbs weight, temp 19C, Altimeter 29.97, 18 foot landing elevation, flaps 30, with maximum braking and reverse, we could stop a 757 in 3,192 feet. But that is standing on the brakes, with full reverse.

A more normal landing, same conditions, with autobrakes 2, would be a distance of 6,245. So, yes, after careful analysis of conditions and performance, I would've accepted runway 27 if that's what ATC requested.

But I don't know if these pilots performed that kind of analysis...I do...every time...


Tailwind doesn't help...neither does rain...
 
Last edited:
Let me add that we also consider the runway condition, braking action, visibility and type of approach, and ability of the airplane to go around in our performance analysis. Only after all that do I consider the landing to be safe.

Flying isn't as simple as folks would like to think, sometimes...

Here, clipped to my yoke, as we're at FL390 approaching Albany, is the Boston Runway 27 analysis from last night. Lots of it is hard to read, but you can see some of the assumptions that go into the analysis...sorry that BITOG rotated the upload...

Cheers,
Astro

IMG_0278[1108].jpg
 
Last edited:
Every time you explain flying, I feel like maybe nuclear physics would be an easier hobby take up.

When I was a kid, and my elders would talk about it, I assumed it sounded complex because I was a kid. As I got older, it was just, "Nope. It's just really really complicated."
 
Where did this flight originate? Europe?
Also, am I reading this correctly in that stopping distances are actually shorter with autobrake off?
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Where did this flight originate? Europe?
Also, am I reading this correctly in that stopping distances are actually shorter with autobrake off?


That flight originated in SFO. UAL 242.

You are reading the performance analysis correctly. Autobrakes command a programmed deceleration rate. 1 is pretty mild, and in fact, with reverse engaged, the airplane slows more quickly than the programmed rate, so no actual braking is applied when using reverse and 1.

While you might think that "Max" autobrakes is maximum braking, it isn't. "Max" is the maximum deceleration rate that the autobrakes are programmed to produce.

Maximum manual braking (standing on the pedals, which is limited only by anti-lock) on a dry runway exceeds that programmed deceleration rate of autobrakes.
 
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Every time you explain flying, I feel like maybe nuclear physics would be an easier hobby take up.

When I was a kid, and my elders would talk about it, I assumed it sounded complex because I was a kid. As I got older, it was just, "Nope. It's just really really complicated."



I think that flying big airplanes, or fighters, is complicated because you're extracting very high performance out of the machines while maintaining good safety. You're taking off, or landing, at close to the limits of what the machine can do.

That's not a simple matter.

It's my hope that explaining flying here on BITOG makes it more accessible- easier to understand.

If I'm failing in that, please ask questions, I'll be glad to clear up anything that I've left lingering.

Cheers,
Astro
 
Astro you are a champ.
I did some single engine piston time years ago. Always liked and followed aviation stuff. You make it so clear and 'right down the center line' (no bull).

Thank You
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Every time you explain flying, I feel like maybe nuclear physics would be an easier hobby take up.

When I was a kid, and my elders would talk about it, I assumed it sounded complex because I was a kid. As I got older, it was just, "Nope. It's just really really complicated."



I think that flying big airplanes, or fighters, is complicated because you're extracting very high performance out of the machines while maintaining good safety. You're taking off, or landing, at close to the limits of what the machine can do.

That's not a simple matter.

It's my hope that explaining flying here on BITOG makes it more accessible- easier to understand.

If I'm failing in that, please ask questions, I'll be glad to clear up anything that I've left lingering.

Cheers,
Astro



Please don't mistake my statement to mean that I'm not understanding what you're saying. I definitely am. I'm just left with my mind a little blown how much data and information one must know and process in order to perform the tasks of flying.

My grandfather and my great-uncles passed away when I was young. My father when I still a teenager. They never really talked directly to me as far as the specific operations of flight. I've learned that a big part of that was because they were all military pilots in war and really didn't like to go back there unless it was between other veterans. My father was the most silent of all them because it was Vietnam, and I've learned people just don't like talking about 'Nam.

I have heard a lot of war stories, especially from the air war over Europe, but I've always wondered what it was really like for them in those cockpits. The things you post, especially your experiences in military service really help in imagining that. It definitely reinforces my perspective that they, and all warriors of the sky are really something else entirely.
 
You know, I wonder what it was like for them, too...

In World War II, bomber crews in the 8th AF generally didn't live for 25 missions, when they could rotate home.

I think flying was far simpler then. You had standard numbers for various speeds in an airplane like a B-17 or B-24: stall, liftoff, max, landing, etc. Several reasons, I think, for that...the bomb load was a smaller percentage of the airplane weight, the field was quite long in relation to the aircraft landing performance, and safety of operations wasn't really as important is it is now...

The manuals for the WW II fighters (I have a couple, including a personal favorite, the F-4U Corsair) were so simple. My F-14 Manual is (yes, I still have it) three inches thick...and it doesn't include the inch thick set of performance charts...or the two inch thick classified weapon system manual... the 757/767 manual that I use every day is 2,673 pages long...

Those guys in WW II had a fatality every 20 or so missions.

Vietnam wasn't a whole lot better, at least, from what I've read about it, perhaps one in a hundred.

The USN now flies fighters with a mishap rate of less than 1 in 100,000 hours.

Airlines operate with a mishap rate of less than 1 in 10,000,000.

Through engineering improvements, complexity and risk analysis, we've gotten better. But we sure have made flying harder.

I hope to build an RV-8 one day, and look forward to the simplicity of flying an airplane like that...one where control feel is mechanical, and I can tell what the airplane is doing... where I feel like I'm flying, not managing risk through decision-making, analysis, and balancing the use of automation.
 
So I have heard. I believe the exact statistic was that 6 out of 10 RAF airmen never came back. Better chance of dying than coming home.

For the US airmen it was a lot better as the war went on, but it was more frequent for my grandfather to have his plane shot than not. More like an aerial fistfight than modern warfare.

I've wanted to build an RV-8 since I was 15. Don't know what powerplant I would want today, but I was very impressed with the rotary engined RV-8's. Either way, it would be the pleasure of flying and being able to say, "Yup. I built it myself.". Yeah, I could do that.
 
I think it's nuts that they thought it was an acceptable risk to take a Falcon flying when the guy in the left seat didn't even have the right endorsement to be PIC in that A/C, and the guy in the right seat didn't have an endorsement AT ALL to fly that A/C type. I'd be afraid to lose my license and never get to fly an airplane again, at minimum.

And carrying passengers, risking their lives, too? Just crazy.
 
And how were #2 & 3 still running with the fire handles pulled? I thought it was a standard design function across OEMs for the fire handle being pulled to close the fuel & hydraulic SOVs.
 
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
All three engines at full power, but reverser only on center engine? Does that mean center was braking, but outboards were forcing the plane ahead?
That's my take. Your question doesn't make it obvious, but only the center has thrust reversing equipment.

Considering the lack of qualification by the pilot on this aircraft, and friends who tell me some planes have reversing capability on all engines, my guess is that he assumed all 3 engines were used to slow ... and 2 in normal mode WAY overcame 1 trying to slow.

It is too bad that we'll never know why he did what he did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top