Challenger Jet down in Truckee CA 7/26/21

To me, it seems like an unsuccessful yank & bank to get lined up with the runway after overshooting the approach. In this picture, the red circle on the left is where that doorbell camera showed the jet's reflection in the jeep's windshield as it flew overhead just before crashing. The red circle on the right appears to be where it crashed. It may have been a few dozen yards to the left, I'm not sure. And in this video, the couple near the beginning describe the plane going wings-vertical just before crashing.https://www.kcra.com/article/crews-respond-to-plane-crash-in-truckee/37135690
upload_2021-7-28_9-26-31.png
 
Last edited:
Despite wanting to argue about the circling approach, the accident didn’t appear to happen until short base to final, so I’m skeptical that the approach entry had much if anything to do with the outcome.
 
Was there a compelling reason to select the RNAV 20 circle to land rather than the RNAV 11 if you knew you needed the length of Rwy 11 to land? (Was it as basic as the airport was using RNAV 20 for their instrument approaches -- and could the RNAV 11 been requested anyway?).
 
ldhilljr13 said:
Was there a compelling reason to select the RNAV 20 circle to land rather than the RNAV 11 if you knew you needed the length of Rwy 11 to land? (Was it as basic as the airport was using RNAV 20 for their instrument approaches -- and could the RNAV 11 been requested anyway?).
Click to expand...

Their flight plan has them coming from the northeast almost very closely aligned with the 20 centerline, maybe they chose to circle from 20 to 11 for convenience.
 
dmspilot said:
Their flight plan has them coming from the northeast almost very closely aligned with the 20 centerline, maybe they chose to circle from 20 to 11 for convenience.
Click to expand...

Agreed that may well have been the case. The IAF for RNAV 11 was only 16 nm away from the IAF to RNAV 20, though, although I agree it was not as directly aligned with their overall route, and as others have said, it may have been possible to underestimate how the smoke/haze actually affected visibility in the runway environment (i.e., they may have expected an easier visual scenario than what they got).
 
Sluggo63 said:
...If the posted METAR above is right (which, I'm not sure because on the audio, tower calls the wind "calm")...
Click to expand...
The post with the METARs shows the most recent observation first. An article I read said the accident occurred just after 1:00 PM, so the closest in time of the two is the 1945Z one (12:45 PM), which says 09005KT, which is not that far from calm.

The 28011G16KT report was at 2050Z (1:50 PM), which was after the accident. On another board it was mentioned that there was a report of cells in the area. Maybe that had something to do with the increase in wind and gusts at some point during the hour.
 
I found Cap'n Ron's analysis interesting:

In examining the track plot from FlightAware and the approach chart, it all looks pretty bizarre. They originally crossed the IF (AWEGA) at FL200 (8000 feet higher than called for at that point) and continued south at that altitude almost to the FAF before beginning a descending right turn back to the north working well south of the published MA hold at AWEGA. They flew a descending path north back up to abeam AWEGA, and there began a descending right turn back to join the final approach still about 4000 feet high. Continuing to descend, they passed the FAF about 1200 feet high and the last stepdown about 400 feet with a 2000 ft/min descent rate -- all in all, far from a stabilized approach, and totally contrary to the rules regarding the approach (requiring that they arrive at the IF within 90 degrees of the FAC at the IF altitude).

All pretty ugly.​
 
They now say 2 pilots, 4 passengers.
 
Palmpilot said:
I found Cap'n Ron's analysis interesting:

In examining the track plot from FlightAware and the approach chart, it all looks pretty bizarre. They originally crossed the IF (AWEGA) at FL200 (8000 feet higher than called for at that point) and continued south at that altitude almost to the FAF before beginning a descending right turn back to the north working well south of the published MA hold at AWEGA. They flew a descending path north back up to abeam AWEGA, and there began a descending right turn back to join the final approach still about 4000 feet high. Continuing to descend, they passed the FAF about 1200 feet high and the last stepdown about 400 feet with a 2000 ft/min descent rate -- all in all, far from a stabilized approach, and totally contrary to the rules regarding the approach (requiring that they arrive at the IF within 90 degrees of the FAC at the IF altitude).

All pretty ugly.​
Click to expand...
Indeed. At 4m50s in the recording they were cleared ALVVA hold north on a 340 bearing.
https://archive.liveatc.net/ktrk/KTRK-ZOA44-Jul-26-2021-2000Z.mp3

Did they botch the hold?
upload_2021-7-28_19-37-4.png
 
Palmpilot said:
I found Cap'n Ron's analysis interesting:

In examining the track plot from FlightAware and the approach chart, it all looks pretty bizarre. They originally crossed the IF (AWEGA) at FL200 (8000 feet higher than called for at that point) and continued south at that altitude almost to the FAF before beginning a descending right turn back to the north working well south of the published MA hold at AWEGA. They flew a descending path north back up to abeam AWEGA, and there began a descending right turn back to join the final approach still about 4000 feet high. Continuing to descend, they passed the FAF about 1200 feet high and the last stepdown about 400 feet with a 2000 ft/min descent rate -- all in all, far from a stabilized approach, and totally contrary to the rules regarding the approach (requiring that they arrive at the IF within 90 degrees of the FAC at the IF altitude).

All pretty ugly.​
Click to expand...
Meh. I watched this
@ 1/4 speed and didn't see things the same: No descending turn to the north, they were level at FL200; They crossed AWEGA right on altitude, 9500' at over 200 kts; Hit the FAF about the right altitude; and by BOFFS they were at 140 kts and again on or close to MDA. IDK, maybe I don't know how to read these things? BOFFS is right at circling mins and 3.9 miles from the airport. A 3° glide path requires 6 NM to lose the 1800', as we've already discussed, which could probably be stretched out during the circle. So unless I've botched YouTube it looks to me like a pretty normal approach from LUMMO. What have I screwed up?
 
dtuuri said:
Meh. I watched this
@ 1/4 speed and didn't see things the same: No descending turn to the north, they were level at FL200; They crossed AWEGA right on altitude, 9500' at over 200 kts; Hit the FAF about the right altitude; and by BOFFS they were at 140 kts and again on or close to MDA. IDK, maybe I don't know how to read these things? BOFFS is right at circling mins and 3.9 miles from the airport. A 3° glide path requires 6 NM to lose the 1800', as we've already discussed, which could probably be stretched out during the circle. So unless I've botched YouTube it looks to me like a pretty normal approach from LUMMO. What have I screwed up?
Click to expand...
The VAS youtube video started after they were cleared ALVVA hold north on a 340 bearing. Instead, they crossed AWEGA, got to ZILTO then went to ALVAA then back to AWEGA. The first AWEGA crossing was bizarre. Other than approaching from the wrong angle, everything after the second AWEGA crossing looked OK, if 282mph at the FAF is normal for a Challenger 605.
 
asicer said:
Indeed. At 4m50s in the recording they were cleared ALVVA hold north on a 340 bearing.
https://archive.liveatc.net/ktrk/KTRK-ZOA44-Jul-26-2021-2000Z.mp3

Did they botch the hold?
View attachment 98725
Click to expand...
Cleared to ALVVA, given holding, reported established in holding. When first told to expect holding he asked if it would be AWEGA. She responds with holding instructions at ALVVA. I’d like to hear earlier recordings. What was his last Clearance received before all this started? KTRK via AWEGA Direct?? Via ALVVA Direct?? Had he been just Cleared Direct KTRK back on up the road?? Crew and Controller both seemed a little behind the power curve
 
Palmpilot said:
I found Cap'n Ron's analysis interesting:

In examining the track plot from FlightAware and the approach chart, it all looks pretty bizarre. They originally crossed the IF (AWEGA) at FL200 (8000 feet higher than called for at that point) and continued south at that altitude almost to the FAF before beginning a descending right turn back to the north working well south of the published MA hold at AWEGA. They flew a descending path north back up to abeam AWEGA, and there began a descending right turn back to join the final approach still about 4000 feet high. Continuing to descend, they passed the FAF about 1200 feet high and the last stepdown about 400 feet with a 2000 ft/min descent rate -- all in all, far from a stabilized approach, and totally contrary to the rules regarding the approach (requiring that they arrive at the IF within 90 degrees of the FAC at the IF altitude).

All pretty ugly.​
Click to expand...
Where did you get that?
 
RyanB said:
Despite wanting to argue about the circling approach, the accident didn’t appear to happen until short base to final, so I’m skeptical that the approach entry had much if anything to do with the outcome.
Click to expand...
I see what your saying. But I can't help thinking that if it hadn't been such a zoo earlier with Center, his holding and Approach clearances, and if he'd flown a normal descent profile instead of what looks to be around 2000 fpm, he may not have gotten himself into the overshoot of final. The CVR recording, if there is one, might tell the story.
 
How about be a lamb and cut/paste?
 
"The Truckee Tahoe Airport District has canceled the 2021 Air Show and Family Festival originally scheduled for September 11, 2021. The District made this decision by consensus at their July 28, 2021 Board of Directors meeting. This decision was reached in an effort to assist those in our community, as well as airport staff recovering from the tragic aircraft accident of July 26, 2021. In an abundance of caution as well as respect for those most affected by the accident, the Board and Staff of the District agree cancelation of the 2021 Airshow is in the best interest of the community and District."
 
Because you know, this killed like dozens of school children and stuff.
 
So... pretty weird, but it seems someone I know had a family member on board. Gonna be following this one more closely.
 
No wind landing distance for the Challenger is slightly under 2900 feet. Well within the 4600+ of runway 20 length.
 
DesertNomad said:
Word on BeechTalk is possibly an illegal charter.
Click to expand...
Wow. Interesting. There was a billionaire Texas real estate guy on that plane. Hard to imagine that kinda brass is using an illegal charter
 
Hawker800 said:
News now says four fatalities.
Click to expand...
Crashing was likely the result of the flying pilot in the situation of being pressured to get down, and going below minimum descent altitude while too close to the landing runway, thus being boxed in by lower than minimum visibility in smoke conditions and the terrain, while yanking and banking at unfavorably slow approach speed...causing him to exceed critical angle of attack and ending up in a stall spin crash west of the field.
 
Charles Lindsay said:
Crashing was likely the result of the flying pilot in the situation of being pressured to get down, and going below minimum descent altitude while too close to the landing runway, thus being boxed in by lower than minimum visibility in smoke conditions and the terrain, while yanking and banking at unfavorably slow approach speed...causing him to exceed critical angle of attack and ending up in a stall spin crash west of the field.
Click to expand...
Welcome to POA. I see there's no wading into the water for you to kind of feel things out. Just a cannonball off the diving board right away! We'll see how your theory pans out. For now, please explain how one goes below MDA "too close to the landing runway". Isn't that better than too far away?
 
dtuuri said:
Welcome to POA. I see there's no wading into the water for you to kind of feel things out. Just a cannonball off the diving board right away! We'll see how your theory pans out. For now, please explain how one goes below MDA "too close to the landing runway". Isn't that better than too far away?
Click to expand...
 
Too close to the landing g runway while circling to land invites yanking and banking and exceeding critical angle of attack resulting in a typical base to final stall spin scenario, while a wider more appropriate stabilized descent to a landing is less likely to end up that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top