Challenger Crash in Aspen

Fearless Tower said:
There is a big discussion about this as it relates to the crash on another forum right now. Apparently most jets are limited by their AFMs to a 10 kt TW restriction. Seems you don't start seeing limits like 15 until you get into the Boeings and 'Buses.
Click to expand...

What is the reason for limits like that? Max tire speed is about the only thing I can think of? Other than that stopping distance would the limiting factor. Most TW limitations I'm familiar with are for engine start.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
What is the reason for limits like that? Max tire speed is about the only thing I can think of? Other than that stopping distance would the limiting factor. Most TW limitations I'm familiar with are for engine start.
Click to expand...


Well. Those two limitations alone will kill you at a high mountian airport...:yes::sad:
 
True, but the aircraft flight manual isn't written specifically for high mountain ops...otherwise the Saudis flying them as private jets would be abiding by pointless limitations...
 
Henning said:
Look at the video of the visual to 33 I posted above.
Click to expand...

The video you posted is in bright, sunny, day VMC. Doesn't mean anything regarding the wisdom of circling to that Runway.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
The video you posted is in bright, sunny, day VMC. Doesn't mean anything regarding the wisdom of circling to that Runway.
Click to expand...

Well, they had 7 miles of vis, so I doubt it would have had a worse outcome than trying to land with 20-30kts of gusting tail wind, that which is evidenced in the pics of what happened.
 
Henning said:
Well, they had 7 miles of vis, so I doubt it would have had a worse outcome than trying to land with 20-30kts of gusting tail wind, that which is evidenced in the pics of what happened.
Click to expand...

True, 7nm viz would seem to be fine, but when you start talking about circling at mins it's a whole different animal.
 
Dead tailwind with high elevation and substantial gusts set the stage for a textbook runway excursion. I can't speak for turbine aircraft performance, but if I encountered a 20kt tailwind on landing, averaging gusts up to 28, my landing distance would have easily doubled. That's assuming I nailed the landing in the touchdown zone and didn't float, which is not easy to accomplish in those conditions.

I would just like to say that I'm sure we all feel badly for those involved and their families. For those who only read our posts, or don't fly themselves, we sometimes give the impression that we forget these are people, and pilots, just like us involved in these stories. Nothing could be further from the truth. We'll soon learn the cause of this tragedy and it will hopefully make the rest of us safer.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
True, 7nm viz would seem to be fine, but when you start talking about circling at mins it's a whole different animal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, everything is situational, in this situation they had well above mins and strong gusting tail winds. After the first try I would have cancelled IFR into the pattern for 33 and took whatever crap for noise abatement violation. That's just too much extra energy to be landing downwind.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, everything is situational, in this situation they had well above mins and strong gusting tail winds. After the first try I would have cancelled IFR into the pattern for 33 and took whatever crap for noise abatement violation. That's just too much extra energy to be landing downwind.
Click to expand...
Or do what a couple of other pilots did and divert to Rifle or another airport.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, everything is situational, in this situation they had well above mins and strong gusting tail winds. After the first try I would have cancelled IFR into the pattern for 33 and took whatever crap for noise abatement violation. That's just too much extra energy to be landing downwind.
Click to expand...

Based at ASE... Don't think noise abatement is the issue for circling to 33. The shame is they could have flown the missed to GLENO and an easy ILS into KRIL....a 50 minute drive!

RIP
 
MAKG1 said:
If the rule is due terrain, I don't see it changing unless the mountains move. If it's noise abatement, that's the perfect time to break out 14 CFR 91.3(a).

What I don't understand is, if the crew though circling to 33 was not an option, why not divert to Eagle or even Denver after finding 30 knot tailwinds? Even if no alternate was required (seems doubtful), you can get pretty far in 45 minutes in a jet.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, and this is from another charter pilot I was chatting with at FTG earlier today....the airplane was recently purchased by a Mexican company, got refitted in Tucson and was picking up people at Aspen to return to Mexico. He's baffled by what happend also because the rule of thumb (and policy at his company) is no tailwinds over 10-12 kts in a jet.

Why not circle to land on 33? Not exactly the best idea doing 190 kts in Aspen valley.

Why not divert to Eagle? About the same weather there. The better option would be Rifle. Why they didn't do that? Perhaps the survivor has the answer.
 
Luigi said:
Based at ASE... Don't think noise abatement is the issue for circling to 33. The shame is they could have flown the missed to GLENO and an easy ILS into KRIL....a 50 minute drive!

RIP
Click to expand...

And we got another Colorado member! Welcome Luigi!
 
GetThereitis must be a ***** for a pro crew picking up (owner) passengers at Aspen.

That's a non-factor of course.
 
murphey said:
From what I understand, and this is from another charter pilot I was chatting with at FTG earlier today....the airplane was recently purchased by a Mexican company, got refitted in Tucson and was picking up people at Aspen to return to Mexico.
Click to expand...
Fox is reporting three Mexican nationals on board and have ID'ed the pilot. It was the pilot who perished according to them.

Edit: was it a single pilot plane?
 
timwinters said:
Fox is reporting three Mexican nationals on board and have ID'ed the pilot. It was the pilot who perished according to them.

Edit: was it a single pilot plane?
Click to expand...

The forum on Airliners.net says the co-pilot was killed. The severely injured person is the pilot. The post also says that the other pax was a pilot too.

Either way it sucks.
 
You can circle to land on 33 at Aspen in a jet. There is no noise abatement penalty. Of course you need to be careful of the terrain, among other things and it might not be the smartest thing to do, especially if you don't got there often. Also max tailwind component for takeoff and landing in most business jets is 10 knots. I would bet the Challenger is that way too.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Looks like there's enough room, and they had above the minimums for, a circle to land.



http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=weO7bheLKpI



http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1313/05889LDE.PDF
Click to expand...


Someone needs to donate some white paint to the poor aspen airport! But I couldn't get the visual for a rw15 landing from that video since it was 33. Either way, even in CAVU, on a single engine go around, it looks like it would be less than desirable. In ifr, opposite direction, circling in the mountains, with a tail wind, one wouldn't have to be very far off their game if something went wrong.

What's up with the course correction much earlier? Don't have a chart with me? Looks like the start of a hold or something...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
Was wrong. Here's the audio. Haven't had a chance to listen to it fully, yet. Thought I'd share it first.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/er2bY-aiJb4


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I found it earlier, maybe I forgot to post it. Thanks though. I sent the video to my mom because she was quite interested. She said landing like that at Aspen is a big no-no with those kinds of winds and sheer going on. :nono:
 
TriGear28 said:
Someone needs to donate some white paint to the poor aspen airport! But I couldn't get the visual for a rw15 landing from that video since it was 33. Either way, even in CAVU, on a single engine go around, it looks like it would be less than desirable. In ifr, opposite direction, circling in the mountains, with a tail wind, one wouldn't have to be very far off their game if something went wrong.

What's up with the course correction much earlier? Don't have a chart with me? Looks like the start of a hold or something...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Correct, he was landing the approach to 15, the video shows the circle to 33, the winds were 310, landing 33 would have been into the wind.
 
I guess I missed that someone posted an audio only link already perhaps.

Anyway, interesting points so far are the almost confused response for which approach to fly around 08:30, the two aircraft prior confirming they had 12 and 20 knot increases in airspeed on 3 mile final, the immediate LLWS warning by the tower around 10:30, missed approach announcement at 11:20 combined with a comment that they experienced a 33 knot tailwind (???), decision to make second approach at 13:00, clearance for the second approach at 17:09 (and both times they were cleared they had to be promoted to thread back that it was the DME Echo approach), handoff to tower 17:55, given "continue" but not a landing clearance at 19:25, traffic call for the usual head to head departures and arrivals at 19:40, the accident aircraft replies "IFR" at about a seven mile final, cleared to land with both the instantaneous winds and the average winds at 20:38, aircraft talking to ground at 22:10 hear controller unkey mid sentence and other controllers with raised voices and unintelligible in the background, aircraft starts to respond and you hear similar from his co-pilot as he unkeys, tower clears fire rescue crew to "proceed to the downed aircraft" at 22:55. Sequencing of aircraft awaiting departure back to the ramp starts at 23:36.

Unrelated to the event, but could have sucked for someone, one of the aircraft announces that another has a chock wedged between their right outer main and the gear door during the conga line back to the ramp at 26:20.

All times are in reference to the beginning of e recording I posted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Stupid autocorrect. PROMPTED to read back the correct approach. Not "promoted".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Comments on the audio.

They do sound off the game, I don't know if this is a language barrier or not.

1st approach Falcon just ahead reports 20 knots of shear (that should be a red flag)

Challenger goes missed reporting 33 knots of tailwind

Challenger on the 2nd approach inbound tower reports winds 16 gust 25 (shouldn't that have been an automatic missed based on a 10 knot limitation?)

Can anyone can explain a situation where landing with that amount of tailwind on that runway is acceptable?
 
well they were following another guy in and he made so they probably felt some pressure to continue.
Or they didn't realize the danger since ATC was landing aircraft on 15 and others were flying the approach? Plus, there were at least three departing aircraft waiting for him to land so they could take off.
I wonder if this was their first time into Aspen? I have never flown there but I understand the approach takes some getting use to.
Add strong, gusty tailwinds and a crew that was unfamiliar, and with a new (to them) plane. Lots of opportunity for error.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Challenger on the 2nd approach inbound tower reports winds 16 gust 25 (shouldn't that have been an automatic missed based on a 10 knot limitation?)
Click to expand...

Yes, and here is the potentially sticky thing. There were other jets that landed prior to the accident in those winds....with the tower calling the winds on tape. I wouldn't be surprised if some other operators get visits from the FAA as a result of the investigation into this one. I don't think an ASRS will help in that situation.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes, and here is the potentially sticky thing. There were other jets that landed prior to the accident in those winds....with the tower calling the winds on tape. I wouldn't be surprised if some other operators get visits from the FAA as a result of the investigation into this one. I don't think an ASRS will help in that situation.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking. The question is whether the tailwind limitation is regulatory (Op Specs/AFM limitation) or advisory (AFM "maximum demonstrated").
 
Cruiser said:
well they were following another guy in and he made so they probably felt some pressure to continue.
Or they didn't realize the danger since ATC was landing aircraft on 15 and others were flying the approach? Plus, there were at least three departing aircraft waiting for him to land so they could take off.
I wonder if this was their first time into Aspen? I have never flown there but I understand the approach takes some getting use to.
Add strong, gusty tailwinds and a crew that was unfamiliar, and with a new (to them) plane. Lots of opportunity for error.
Click to expand...

I agree others were getting in and that would add a lot of pressure. I have followed aircraft on an approach that got in and I had to go missed and divert (I think they ducked under). Regardless, a professional shouldn't let other aircraft dictate their actions.

Departing aircraft were going off 33, so they had it good.

New aircraft, new crew, tough airport, tough conditions, agreed lots of chances to screw it up.
 
Henning said:
Correct, he was landing the approach to 15, the video shows the circle to 33, the winds were 310, landing 33 would have been into the wind.
Click to expand...

I've flown into Aspen many times, including landing 33 but in a much slower plane. Circling to land to 33 in a jet in poor weather sounds... borderline suicidal. Things are tight at that end. Right base to 33 is tight and you're heading straight for the hill at that end. So really that isn't an option. He should have diverted. As others have said Rifle is not that far and is MUCH easier. It is tough to listen to that ATC recording. I wonder if he has landed at Aspen before? I hope the injured recover, and condolences to the deceased.
 
Not saying that they should have circled, only that it's possible, unlike some have been saying. In hindsight you could say they should have gone somewhere else.

People are making a lot of guesses here about Aspen.
 
Last edited:
Can the automatic (with wheel spin) ground spoilers be turned off on this plane? If so, tailwinds touchdown and handling would be a much higher pucker factor than without then...
 
mikegreen said:
Can the automatic (with wheel spin) ground spoilers be turned off on this plane? If so, tailwinds touchdown and handling would be a much higher pucker factor than without then...
Click to expand...

:confused: Why would you think that? The relative wind at touch down is still from the front until you get below the wind speed. The problem is that with a 20kt tail wind you carry 40kts more speed and energy into the landing than if you land the other direction. Kinetic energy squares with speed.
 
Henning said:
:confused: Why would you think that? The relative wind at touch down is still from the front until you get below the wind speed. The problem is that with a 20kt tail wind you carry 40kts more speed and energy into the landing than if you land the other direction. Kinetic energy squares with speed.
Click to expand...

When the wheels touchdown, don't you want the maximum amount of weight on the wheels as well as the minimum amount of lift?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top