Hawker down.

Or the ceiling wasn't 400' at the spot they hit the ground.

Badger said:
agree.
I was just thinking even a 300 foot error coupled with the power lines might put them in a bad place.
RIP
Click to expand...
 
noobJohn said:
Or the ceiling wasn't 400' at the spot they hit the ground.
Click to expand...

Good point. But in any case, this wasn't CFIT. Video shows the plane was in an unusual attitude after emerging from the clouds and before hitting the house.
 
acrophile said:
Good point. But in any case, this wasn't CFIT. Video shows the plane was in an unusual attitude after emerging from the clouds and before hitting the house.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any official confirmation yet, but several news outlets talk about indications the plane may have hit power lines before the actual crash.
 
British Aerospace 125-700 manufactured in 1979, that's old for a flying small biz jet.
 
bnt83 said:
British Aerospace 125-700 manufactured in 1979, that's old for a flying small biz jet.
Click to expand...

Not really...the primary reason we don't see many biz jets older than that is that you don't get too much older before most of them are non-stage-3 noise compliant, and therefore are largely unusable in the US.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Not really...the primary reason we don't see many biz jets older than that is that you don't get too much older before most of them are non-stage-3 noise compliant, and therefore are largely unusable in the US.
Click to expand...

The primary reason is that when a jet hits about 20 years old it costs so much to maintain compared to its purchase price they get exported and never come back.
 
Pilots experience, total time, IFR time, time in type. Might have a bearing on the accident. It was an older hawker, much less expensive than an up to date executive jet.
 
I have an Aunt who has had a long-time boyfriend that reminds me of this guy. Gave me a chuckle.
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 69
Dead Stick said:
Yes, all of that is true, but recovering from a stall in a jet is simply a matter of bumping up the power levers. With BOTH shakers and pushers, it's hard to see a crew letting things decay to the point that it became a factor. It just is. We'll see what the Feds have to say.
Click to expand...
As someone else in the thread mentioned, the "stall recovery" you practice in the sim is an approach to stall recovery. You never get into a full stall. Here is a stall incident in a Hawker.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20060512X00563&ntsbno=CHI06IA127&akey=1

The pilot-in-command (PIC) reported that the flight was entering a stall series in accordance with the planned flight test procedures. The PIC was the pilot flying at the time of the incident. Flight crew calculations indicated that the stick shaker was expected to activate at 115 knots, with stick pusher activation at 107.5 knots. Aerodynamic stall was expected at 105.5 knots at the current operating weight. The PIC stated that "as the airplane slowed through [approximately] 126 knots [indicated airspeed], it abruptly rolled off / dropped the right wing and the nose fell rapidly." He noted that, although the autopilot was on as required by the test procedure, he was holding the control wheel and felt "no vibration or abnormal indication" prior to the event. He reported that the airplane rolled 5 to 7 times, both to the right and the left.

The PIC reported that during the resulting uncontrolled descent, the airplane entered an underlying cloud layer at 12,000 feet msl. The airplane exited the cloud layer about 10,000 feet msl and was "descending vertically." He stated: "I neutralized the ailerons with the yoke and began a higher than normal back pressure pull-out, experiencing [approximately] 4 - 5 Gs. The aircraft responded, and we stopped the descent somewhere below 7,000 [feet msl]."
Click to expand...

Not making any judgement about what happened in the recent accident, but a full stall in a jet at low altitude, or any altitude, is not something you want to have happen. It's not forgiving, like a trainer.
 
What am I missing? I'm trying to read on an iPhone so maybe it's not showing properly, but probable cause is not there.
 
It's preliminary. Just stating the facts known at this point. Probable cause within a year or so.
 
Not much new info. They did talk to the flight school plane that landed just ahead of them. The CFII said they broke out at minimums. When I first read about the flight school plane landing just ahead of them, I wondered if the Hawker tried to slow for spacing on thier own and got too slow. At least what we read in the report, does not seem to indicate thier was a problem.

I did not know any of these people involved, but when it happens in your back yard, it gets your attention.

A few articles in the local paper this morning.
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/does...2525252Fnews%2525252525252525252525252Fohio%2


http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news...rport-presents-no-special-challenges-1.642421
 
Last edited:
Stingray Don said:
Update on this accident. Flaps set to 45 degrees 4 miles out.

http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2016/04/pilots_talked_about_speed_afte.html
Click to expand...
So.....is flaps 45 abnormal for the Hawker???

There's lots of media sensationalism in that article, but unless it is abnormal to use flaps 45 for landing, it doesn't seem that odd to me. Keep in mind that unlike most piston planes, jets are typically fully configured for landing by the FAF. So if flaps 45 is normal for landing, it doesn't seem odd at all to set them 4 miles out.
 
Flaps 45 are perfectly normal for a Hawker on an ILS. Now on any non-precision, or, on a single engine ILS, flaps 25 are the normal setting until landing is assured, then you can configure to 45.
 
Most of the story was part of the CVR transcript, lots of errors and confusion in the cockpit.
Parts in the story were very wrong, 410 gallons would no where near fill a Hawker 700, 410 x 6.7 = 2750lbs, that's just leg fuel, a Hawker 700 holds 9440lbs.
They also reported one pilot had 4300 miles of experience, obviously they meant hours and not miles.

As soon as I saw the video from last fall I knew there wasn't anything wrong with that plane, they just screwed up and lost control of the plane.
No power lines brought that plane down either, the only power lines they hit were the ones paralleling the road 100' from impact. They lost the plane long before they cut those lines, at that point they were already in a 80 degree bank.
 
Yeah, but when I read that a company has an "unwritten custom" that copilot a don't fly passenger legs, I start to wonder how many contributions the company made to the accident as well.
 
The thing that surprised me was the question about cloud heights being AGL or MSL. Was this the copilots first time in actual? Well that surprised me among other things.
 
Somedudeintn said:
The thing that surprised me was the question about cloud heights being AGL or MSL. Was this the copilots first time in actual? Well that surprised me among other things.
Click to expand...

Considering the airport elevation is ~1,000', a 600' MSL ceiling would involve clouds being substantially underground.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Yeah, but when I read that a company has an "unwritten custom" that copilot a don't fly passenger legs, I start to wonder how many contributions the company made to the accident as well.
Click to expand...
This is not *that* unusual for these type of outfits. That said, it does give a hint of minor league training for the FO.
 
if there's a link to the cockpit audio, I missed it........
 
eman1200 said:
if there's a link to the cockpit audio, I missed it........
Click to expand...
You won't get the actual audio. Only the CVR transcript which is up on the NTSB docket.

The only time the public is ever able to hear the actual CVR is if it gets used as evidence in court and gets out that way.
 
Kritchlow said:
This is not *that* unusual for these type of outfits. That said, it does give a hint of minor league training for the FO.
Click to expand...
FOs plural...it wasn't THIS FO that wasn't allowed to fly passenger legs. And not "until they have a certain level of experience in the airplane." All FOs until they upgrade, the way it sounds to me. Doesn't give me much confidence.
 
Kritchlow said:
What am I missing? I'm trying to read on an iPhone so maybe it's not showing properly, but probable cause is not there.
Click to expand...

No probable cause yet. NTSB has released all the sub-reports in the docket.

They came down like a piano with the the gear down, flaps 45 and the engines at idle. When they broke out, they heaved back on the yoke, got a stick shaker and hit the dirt.
 
champ driver said:
Parts in the story were very wrong, 410 gallons would no where near fill a Hawker 700, 410 x 6.7 = 2750lbs, that's just leg fuel, a Hawker 700 holds 9440lbs.
Click to expand...

They topped off. The prior leg wasn't too long. From IL or IA to OH iirc. The issue was they shouldn't have topped off for that short of a flight as it left them arriving quite heavy.
 
According to the article, wings topped...8200 pounds or so, IIRC. 2000 lbs the first hour's burn. Tankering, definitely, but not unreasonable.
 
MauleSkinner said:
According to the article, wings topped...8200 pounds or so, IIRC. 2000 lbs the first hour's burn. Tankering, definitely, but not unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Except that they crashed overweight. Calculated W&B with basic empty weight instead of basic operating weight. Not that it caused the crash, just another sign of a B-team operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top