Another plane down - Lear 35 Groton CT

[Skip Miller]

GROTON, Conn. (1010 WINS) -- Two people have died after a plane owned by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson went down in heavy fog Friday, a state police spokesman said. Robertson was not aboard.

Their bodies were recovered from Long Island Sound and were being taken to the Coast Guard station in New London.

Three other people who had been in the Learjet 35 when it went down about a half-mile short of the runway at Groton-New London Airport were able to escape with minor injuries. They were pulled from the water and taken to Lawrence and Memorial Hospital in New London.

The plane is registered to Virginia-based Robertson Asset Management. The company is owned by Robertson and is separate from the Christian Broadcasting Network, spokeswoman Angell Vasko said.

She said Robertson was not on the plane and rents it out because he uses it infrequently.

``We're still trying to figure out who was on the plane,'' she said. ``It's not Dr. Robertson, or (anyone) related to CBN or related to Dr. Robertson's individual businesses.''

Coast Guard officials said the chartered, twin-engine plane took off from Norfolk, Va., about 12:30 p.m. Friday and stopped in Atlantic City, N.J., to drop off two passengers before heading to Connecticut.

Hospital spokesman William A. Stanley said the three wounded passengers had such minor injuries they were not expected to be admitted to the hospital.

``There's nothing about their conditions that outwardly appears serious enough to require them to be admitted, although they'll certainly be checked thoroughly before they're discharged,'' Stanley said.

The plane could hold 10 passengers and two crew members.

State Department of Transportation spokesman Chris Cooper said those on board were believed to be headed to a golf tournament at Foxwoods Resort Casino in nearby Mashantucket.

Police had no information about whether the pilots had been in touch with the airport before the incident and whether any weather-related or mechanical problems had been reported.

Cooper said the plane went down about 2:30 p.m. and the airport was closed about 10 minutes later.

Rachel Waszkelewicz lives right on the water and heard the crash.

``It was so loud I just knew instantly it was a plane,'' she said.

Waszkelewicz ran out of her house and onto her dock but said it was too foggy to see. So she called out to the lobstermen who said they thought it was a plane.

``Everybody jumped in their boats,'' she said. ``You could hear voices. I don't know if it was from the plane or if it was boaters yelling to them.''

Dick Sawyer, who lives in the neighborhood, said the plane crash sound like two boats colliding.

``You could barely see past your hand at the time,'' Sawyer said. Five minutes later, he said, ``the fog lifted just enough so you could see it out there.''

The area around the airport is known for fog

Endquote.

Sorry to report this! Here are the Groton METARs bracketing the estimated 14:30 (local) crash time:

GON 021845Z 19007KT 2SM BR BKN001 20/18 A2985 RMK AO2
KGON 021803Z 21006KT 2SM BR BKN001 21/19 A2985 RMK AO2

My first thought is that we have had very heavy rain showers frequently today: highway flooding and all that. But they were highly localized and the METARs say that wasn't it. Let's see what we find out in the coming days.

-Skip

 

[silver-eagle]

From the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/local/co..._at_groton_new_london_airport/?p1=MEWell_Pos4

Tonight's news says plane may have hit an approach light.
From the little video they had, the plane appeared to be upsidedown.
My sympathies are with the families of the pilots no matter what happened.

 

[Skip Miller]

It does appear that they hit an approach light. Today's NYTimes article: -Skip

Jet Crashes in L.I. Sound, but 3 of 5 Aboard Survive, Largely Unhurt
Bob Child/Associated Press

A twin-engine Learjet that belongs to the religious broadcaster Pat Robertson crashed in Long Island Sound yesterday while trying to land in heavy fog in Groton, Conn. Two of the five people aboard were killed, the authorities said.

Several officials said the survivors, three men in their 50's who were dripping with jet fuel, broke open the cabin door and climbed out of the crippled plane. It had flipped over after striking a light fixture in the Sound several hundred yards from the end of the runway. The fixture is one in a string of lights that guide pilots as they approach Runway 5.

Mr. Robertson was not on the flight.

The travelers were on their way to a charity golf tournament at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Ledyard, said a spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Transportation, which runs the Groton-New London Airport.

The survivors were standing in shallow water when a flotilla of boats — some operated by fishermen who had heard the plane smash into the water, some dispatched by the Coast Guard and local police departments — converged on the plane. The three men were taken to Lawrence and Memorial Hospital in New London. One of them was admitted overnight, though listed in good condition. The other two were treated and released.

The two victims who died in the crash were believed to have been the pilots.

People who live in the area said they were accustomed to hearing the distant whine of aircraft engines turn into a roar. What they heard yesterday was different, and disturbing: the usual whine and the usual roar, followed by the sound of metal slamming into metal. And then, silence.

"The crashing sound, it was unmistakable," said Paul Walker, a home inspector who is renovating a house near the airport.

Jennifer Spreng, who lives nearby, said she had been standing in her yard with her 3-year-old daughter as the sound of the approaching plane grew louder. "We were saying, 'When are we going to see the plane, when is it going to break through the fog,' and then we heard a big boom," Ms. Spreng said. "I knew something wasn't right."

Mr. Walker said he could hear the survivors yelling for help afterward, but could not see them in the fog.

The cause of the accident was under investigation. Federal officials said the pilots were trying an instrument landing in the fog. Their identities were not released last night. Officials said one of them was trapped in the plane, and his body had to be freed by rescuers.

At the hospital, a spokesman, William Stanley, said that the three survivors had only minor injuries. "Considering that they'd been in a plane crash, they appeared relatively unscathed," he said.

Mr. Stanley said one of the survivors told him that when the plane hit, he "was in a little bit of a state of shock." Another passenger forced open the cabin door and led the way out.

The three survivors' identities were not released.

The plane is registered to Robertson Asset Management, a company controlled by Mr. Robertson. His spokeswoman, Angell Vasko, told The Associated Press that he was not on board and that the passengers were not connected to his Christian Broadcasting Network or his other businesses.

She also told The A.P. that the plane was being flown by International Jet Charter of Norfolk, Va., which has a lease arrangement to use it when Mr. Robertson does not need it. A woman who answered the telephone at International Jet Charter said the company had no comment on the accident.

The authorities said there was some confusion about where the flight originated. Sgt. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police said the plane had come from Virginia Beach. On the Internet, the site flightaware.com, which tracks aircraft, said it stopped in Atlantic City before leaving for the Groton-New London Airport at 1:47 p.m.

Rachel Waszkelewicz, who lives near the airport, said she ran out of her house when she heard the noise. "I knew instantly that it was a plane," she said. "You couldn't see anything, the fog was so thick."

Christopher Cooper, the transportation department spokesman, said the plane had struck an approach light mounted on one of eight platforms in the water, all leading to the runway. The platforms put the lights about 20 feet above the water, he said.

A Coast Guard spokeswoman, Ensign Vanessa Looney, said the plane had 600 gallons of fuel when it crashed, and that a fuel slick was spreading in the water. She also said that a team was standing by to clean up the mess, but could not start its work until investigators had completed theirs.

The accident was the second in less than three years involving the same type of jet. In August 2003, another Learjet approaching the Groton-New London Airport plowed through several houses and scattered debris along a quarter-mile path after a wing clipped a rooftop. The two pilots were killed.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

It looks like he busted minimums and payed the price for it...

If the aircraft was being operated under FAR part 135, I'm not really sure how he shot the approach since Part 135/121 operators are bound by additional requirements. In order to attempt the approach, the visibility must be at least at minimums (or better) when the flight crosses the final approach fix. If they don't have the vis when they reach the FAF, they cannot continue the approach. If the vis drops after crossing the FAF, then they can continue to fly the approach down to minimums, at which point they must see the appropriate visual cues to continue, or they must go missed.

What a shame.
Jason

 

[Eamon]

It looks like he busted minimums and payed the price for it...

2 miles vis is WAY WAY WAY above mins.

I am guessing they were on the ...

ILS 5 which has a min of 1/2 mile vis

Even the GPS 33 has a min of only 1 mile.

Landing in 1/4 to 1/2 mile is a regular thing for a 135 pilot.

It could have been a auto pilot that messed up, or the pilots might have just gone below glideslope, or a mech problem. It will be a while before we know.


One last note...............

With either the auto pliot flying or the pilots flying...... If you are on the glideslope, you are on the glide slope. If you followed the needle all the way to the ground (Going below min's) you would hit the runway hard at the 1000 ft mark. You would not end up short of the runway.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

2 miles vis is WAY WAY WAY above mins.

...but a 100 foot ceiling isn't. I think he ducked down below the glideslope.

Like you said, it'll be a while before we know what happened. The media skews things anyway, so I'll wait for the NTSB report to really believe any conclusions.

Landing in 1/4 to 1/2 mile is a regular thing for a 135 pilot.

Of course it is. Busting the altitude in the mins shouldn't be so regular...and might have been the reason why the accident occured. It's really hard to tell, so I'll leave it up to the NTSB to figure out. They have a lot more information than we do.

 

[snrfly]

...but a 100 foot ceiling isn't. I think he ducked down below the glideslope.

Like you said, it'll be a while before we know what happened. The media skews things anyway, so I'll wait for the NTSB report to really believe any conclusions.



Of course it is. Busting the altitude in the mins shouldn't be so regular...and might have been the reason why the accident occured. It's really hard to tell, so I'll leave it up to the NTSB to figure out. They have a lot more information than we do.

Then shut up with the speculation and conclusions in your first post. You weren't there and there is no way you know what happened. With 135 ops specs, visibility is controlling. Sheesh -- another low time expert.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Then shut up with the speculation and conclusions in your first post. You weren't there and there is no way you know what happened. With 135 ops specs, visibility is controlling. Sheesh -- another low time expert.

Thanks for your respectful post. It's most appreciated...

I'm sorry if I upset/angered you but I would rather spend my time having a respectful discussion.

Regards,
Jason

 

[Eamon]

In most/all Commercial ops........................

The mins are VIS only. If you fly commercially, you follow you "ops spec manuel" They all say Vis is king & ceiling means nothing. These ops specs are sanctioned by the FAA.

When you listen the ATC you will hear the question "American 208, what do you need to shoot the app" The answer will always be a RVR number, not a ceiling.

And to the original problem. going below mins will not make you come up short of the runway if you are on the glideslope. With 800 ft vis, you can still do a glassy water landing without looking out the window.

I am not at all angry, I am just sharing info

 

[HPNPilot1200]

In most/all Commercial ops........................

The mins are VIS only. If you fly commercially, you follow you "ops spec manuel" They all say Vis is king & ceiling means nothing. These ops specs are sanctioned by the FAA.

When you listen the ATC you will hear the question "American 208, what do you need to shoot the app" The answer will always be a RVR number, not a ceiling.

And to the original problem. going below mins will not make you come up short of the runway if you are on the glideslope. With 800 ft vis, you can still do a glassy water landing without looking out the window.

I am not at all angry, I am just sharing info

Hi Eamon,

Thanks for the info! One question though...wouldn't you have to stop at the DH on the ILS to 5 [at GON] (207') until you see the runway environment in sight or if you don't, stay at the DH until the MAP where you would decide to go missed or see the runway?

...or are you saying under Part 135, as long as you have 1/2 mile, you can pass right through the DH?

Thanks for the information again...

Regards,
Jason

 

[Eamon]

Hi Eamon,

Thanks for the info! One question though...wouldn't you have to stop at the DH on the ILS to 5 [at GON] (207') until you see the runway environment in sight or if you don't, stay at the DH until the MAP where you would decide to go missed or see the runway?

...or are you saying under Part 135, as long as you have 1/2 mile, you can pass right through the DH?

Thanks for the information again...

Regards,
Jason

First point. While going missed, The plane will still go lower before it cilmbs.


2nd...Usually with 1/2 mile vis, you would see the approach lights at 200 ft. If you see the "runway enviorment" (Some lights) you can go another 100 down.

Friday morning 5am, I was coming from Canada to Islip like I do every night. Islip was calling 800 ft RVR with 700 RVR rollout. Being empty, I was part 91 so I went down to take a look. At DH I saw something, but It wasnt the runway, so I went missed and headed to Brookhaven. HWV was calling 1/2 vis & 100 over. When I got to DH, I had the runway in sight & I landed. Mins there are 1/2-300. If the cloud was really at 100 ft, I would not have seen the runway. The Ceiling machines at the airports suck. RVR readings are usually good. If the Ceiling reader is on runway 24 & you are landing 33, you might be a mile away & in very different WX.

This morning was MUCH better at 1 am. The wind from the level 2 T-Storm over the airport kept the RVR at 6000. Ceiling was 300

 

[Eamon]

I heard, that if you really want to get home...
You have a friend on the ground shine a flashlight at the rvr machine. Wow the RVR is good enought to shoot the App.


I can't find the words to explain it better, but in my expirence, when it is calling 100 over. It really isn't , or maybe between 100 ft & 300 ft is so thin that you can see through it.

I will tell you that If I had to shoot an app with low numbers/Fog, It is MUCH easier to find the rumway at night.

 

[4CornerFlyer]

All the discussion of Part 135 requirements are moot if the flight was oeprated under Part 91 rules. Has there been any official reporting that it was an air taxi or commerical operation?

Jon

 

[wsuffa]

There was a report that he went missed on the first attempt at the approach. I do not know whether that is factual - we'll have to wait for the report.

I have gone into New Orleans (pt 91) at minimums. There really was no ceiling due to the low clouds & fog, we just broke out seeing the approach lights ahead. At 250' altitude we had the approach lights sitting in the Lake, at about 200' we had the runway. On departure, the vis was barely at 1/2 mile, with indefinite ceiling.

Even if you set the altimeter wrong, if you follow the glideslope you should end up on the runway. To crash just short indicates that something wasn't right....

 

[poadeleted20]

The reported GON weather (2 miles vis) suggests that it would be legal to commence the approach under Part 135, but with a 100-foot ceiling, the likelihood of a succesful visual acquisition of the runway lights/environment would be rather low, and a prudent pilot would probably be spring-loaded to the missed approach position.

In any event, while it's pretty clear what happened (the aircraft went below DH and impacted short of the runway), possibilities on how/why it happened include everything from aircrew error to systems malfunctions. No doubt those will be the questions for which the NTSB will be seeking answers, but absent a lot more data, speculation on anyone's part would be seriously premature.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

The reported GON weather (2 miles vis) suggests that it would be legal to commence the approach under Part 135, but with a 100-foot ceiling, the likelihood of a succesful visual acquisition of the runway lights/environment would be rather low, and a prudent pilot would probably be spring-loaded to the missed approach position.

In any event, while it's pretty clear what happened (the aircraft went below DH and impacted short of the runway), possibilities on how/why it happened include everything from aircrew error to systems malfunctions. No doubt those will be the questions for which the NTSB will be seeking answers, but absent a lot more data, speculation on anyone's part would be seriously premature.

Hi Rev,

I like your post. I was thinking while I was out tonight and talked to my dad about the official 135 regs (who made things a bit clearer) about the whole thing and take back my speculation. I agree with you 100%.

Regards,
Jason

 

[Chas]

The reported GON weather (2 miles vis) suggests that it would be legal to commence the approach under Part 135, but with a 100-foot ceiling, the likelihood of a succesful visual acquisition of the runway lights/environment would be rather low, and a prudent pilot would probably be spring-loaded to the missed approach position.

In any event, while it's pretty clear what happened (the aircraft went below DH and impacted short of the runway), possibilities on how/why it happened include everything from aircrew error to systems malfunctions. No doubt those will be the questions for which the NTSB will be seeking answers, but absent a lot more data, speculation on anyone's part would be seriously premature.

Something that needed to be said, thank you Ron. I do think that the experiences of others attempting landings in somewhat similar circumstances are appropriate and interesting. But we don't even know yet if it was Part 91 or 135, so why all the talk about regs ? We all know if it was under Part 91 the legality of making the attempt wasn't an issue.

Shouldn't we be talking about how to be absolutely sure the crate stays on or above GS past the OM no matter what - I mean that's the one thing we DO know didn't happen as it was supposed to ? All I know from some approaches under a lowish marine layer (but not THAT low for sure, always with excellent vis below, and at 90 knots ....) is that I try to stay just a tad above GS all the way in, and that carrying some nose-up trim helps me to do that. But I wonder if this isn't such a good idea, I mean is it a bit like aiming 20 degrees right to compensate for a tendency to hook in golf ? - which I would never do BTW (honest, or my game would be even worse than it is now !). Anyway, landing a Lear safely under these conditions - it's way out of the ken of almost all GA pilots surely.

Later: Jason, oops, I just read your latest post .... fair enough and well said. You give a good example to the forum Sir !

 

[Steve]

More info

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=105495&ran=30421

 

[poadeleted20]

But we don't even know yet if it was Part 91 or 135, so why all the talk about regs ?

The news media reported it as a "charter" flight, and it was carrying people unrelated to the owner's company. That's a 135 op.

Shouldn't we be talking about how to be absolutely sure the crate stays on or above GS past the OM no matter what

To a certain extent, but the target should be neither above nor below, but on GS, except for normal bracketing maneuvers (to paraphrase the PTS).

All I know from some approaches under a lowish marine layer (but not THAT low for sure, always with excellent vis below, and at 90 knots ....) is that I try to stay just a tad above GS all the way in, and that carrying some nose-up trim helps me to do that.

That's technique, not procedure. For some, that would tend to drive them either slow or back up when they try to go visual.

But I wonder if this isn't such a good idea, I mean is it a bit like aiming 20 degrees right to compensate for a tendency to hook in golf ?

No. The target from GS intercept to DH is on GS, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Earthroamer]

? All I know from some approaches under a lowish marine layer (but not THAT low for sure, always with excellent vis below, and at 90 knots ....) is that I try to stay just a tad above GS all the way in, and that carrying some nose-up trim helps me to do that. But I wonder if this isn't such a good idea, I mean is it a bit like aiming 20 degrees right to compensate for a tendency to hook in golf ? - which I would never do BTW (honest, or my game would be even worse than it is now !). Anyway, landing a Lear safely under these conditions - it's way out of the ken of almost all GA pilots surely.




This technique might be a problem in a LR35 depending on the runway length. Keeping above the "ball" might put you farther down the runway than you brakes will stop you. The preformance numbers in the book are from test pilots in certain conditions. So you might not meet those numbers being an every day pilot, or they might not be on Vref, etc... Then add the fact that you are now farther down the runway than the touchdown point.

Speaking as a Learjet 35 and 45 driver...