Citation X Telluride

M

MauleSkinner

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
21,670
Location
Wichita, KS
Display Name
MauleSkinner

Incident Cessna 750 Citation X N772XJ, Tuesday 13 January 2026

A Cessna 750 Citation X, N772XJ, operating as callsign TCN772, suffered a veer-off and subsequent landing collapse upon touchdown at Telluride. The aircraft was reportedly hit by a strong...
aviation-safety.net

“A Cessna 750 Citation X, N772XJ, operating as callsign TCN772, suffered a veer-off and subsequent landing collapse upon touchdown at Telluride. The aircraft was reportedly hit by a strong gust of wind.”

WHEEEEEEEEE!
 
Landing east with a gusty tailwind…should have diverted it to Montrose MTJ. That’s what I did when faced with a similar scenario. Boss told me to circle to land. Lol, not doing that at TEX in a jet!
 
texasclouds said:
Landing east with a gusty tailwind…should have diverted it to Montrose MTJ. That’s what I did when faced with a similar scenario. Boss told me to circle to land. Lol, not doing that at TEX in a jet!
Click to expand...
Actually circling to land west is surprisingly easier than it looks.
 
As noted in the ASN report, winds at the time:
KTEX 131935Z AUTO 05003KT 10SM CLR 07/M08 A3041 RMK AO2
KTEX 131915Z AUTO 02004KT 10SM CLR 08/M08 A3041 RMK AO2
KTEX 131855Z AUTO 27004G17KT 10SM CLR 08/M07 A3043 RMK AO2
KTEX 131835Z AUTO 03007KT 360V100 10SM CLR 07/M06 A3043 RMK AO2
KTEX 131815Z AUTO 01005G18KT 10SM CLR 06/M07 A3044 RMK AO2

What you might call "squirrely."
 
Happy to hear all walked away. From the available pics, damage appears fairly limited. Seems to be a few sizable hangars available at the airport. I would think a good repair team would be able to have it back to flying status before long.
 
aterry1067 said:
Happy to hear all walked away. From the available pics, damage appears fairly limited. Seems to be a few sizable hangars available at the airport. I would think a good repair team would be able to have it back to flying status before long.
Click to expand...

Its just a gear leg, all the attachment points, and a wing. No big deal.

Plane ran off the runway at Aspen a few years ago, similar looking situation, I remember seeing pictures in the paper of a crane setting the fuselage on a truck.

Not much for hangars there, if there is one its probably $1000/ night. But then they don't have squat for snow so maybe they aren't that busy. I know when the people I used to work for need a hangar for their CJ-3 or Falcon 900 at EGE from December 27 through Jan 3, it was $1200/night. And they reserved for the next year while they were there.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Only the left TR is deployed. Right side stowed.

Things that make you go...hmmmm
Click to expand...
Yup. Something is fishy. Vref seemed 20 to 30 kts too fast based on ADSB data. Circle to 27 is not hard, I’ve done it several times. End result will be pilot decision and potential equipment failure (Right TR) not a simple gusting wind that blew a 33,000 lb a/c off a 100 foot wide runway.
 
SpineFlyer said:
Yup. Something is fishy. Vref seemed 20 to 30 kts too fast based on ADSB data. Circle to 27 is not hard, I’ve done it several times. End result will be pilot decision and potential equipment failure (Right TR) not a simple gusting wind that blew a 33,000 lb a/c off a 100 foot wide runway.
Click to expand...
ADS-B is groundspeed. The density altitude on a couple mile final would have been well over 10,000’, so consider that TAS would have been around 20% higher than IAS. I think that could easily make up the 20-30 knots.

Also, it’s possible (but not confirmed) there could have been a tailwind aloft, pushing groundspeed even higher than TAS.
 
Flying Keys said:
ADS-B is groundspeed. The density altitude on a couple mile final would have been well over 10,000’, so consider that TAS would have been around 20% higher than IAS. I think that could easily make up the 20-30 knots.

Also, it’s possible (but not confirmed) there could have been a tailwind aloft, pushing groundspeed even higher than TAS.
Click to expand...
All true, but make the case for entering left downwind to 27. If you look at speed differences, unless they were very familiar with KTEX it might have been prudent to be as slow as pracitcable in the last 5 miles.
 
If I recall correctly, in the X if one TR is inop the procedure is still to deploy the other. Powering it is where it may get tricky.
 
Kritchlow said:
If I recall correctly, in the X if one TR is inop the procedure is still to deploy the other. Powering it is where it may get tricky.
Click to expand...

Most tail mounted engine jets allow for one TR inop in the MEL. Again, it's not a big deal.

From the CE-750 MMEL

1768581726083.png

1768582034997.png
 
MauleSkinner said:
Looking at that MMEL, does the X include thrust reverse for stopping distances?
Click to expand...

It was my understanding, and I could very well be wrong, that thrust reversers are not normally included in calculated stopping distances for jets. Or is that just RTO?
 
midwestpa24 said:
It was my understanding, and I could very well be wrong, that thrust reversers are not normally included in calculated stopping distances for jets. Or is that just RTO?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, they aren’t. I’ve run across a couple of airplanes that included them in some or all of the data. When they’re included, “max reverse” is the procedure, including OEI operations.

Doc Holliday said:
I think it has more to do with the limitations (see highlighted above).
Click to expand...

The fact that reverse can’t be held as long under a couple of conditions for single engine reversing means they can’t get “max reverse,” so that made me wonder.
 
Flying Keys said:
ADS-B is groundspeed. The density altitude on a couple mile final would have been well over 10,000’, so consider that TAS would have been around 20% higher than IAS. I think that could easily make up the 20-30 knots.

Also, it’s possible (but not confirmed) there could have been a tailwind aloft, pushing groundspeed even higher than TAS.
Click to expand...
Welcome to winter in the mountain west. Mountain flying with guests, lee winds, every other type of mtn weather issue will impact speed but unlikely to impact the DA. Except that DA will go down. It's cold. Really cold.

Examples, this timestamp (2:45 pm MST)
KAPA Field: 5885, DA 5541
KEGE (Vail) Field: 7557, DA 6275
KASE (Aspen) Field: 7838, DA 7461
KTEX (Tell) Field: 9070, DA 8839
 
murphey said:
Welcome to winter in the mountain west. Mountain flying with guests, lee winds, every other type of mtn weather issue will impact speed but unlikely to impact the DA. Except that DA will go down. It's cold. Really cold.

Examples, this timestamp (2:45 pm MST)
KAPA Field: 5885, DA 5541
KEGE (Vail) Field: 7557, DA 6275
KASE (Aspen) Field: 7838, DA 7461
KTEX (Tell) Field: 9070, DA 8839
Click to expand...
I took that into account when I made the post. At the time of the accident, the temp at the surface was 8C, which is ISA+11. That, and the last ping was still a few hundred feet, where DA is likely higher than the surface.

Either way, even if it were slightly lower, as it is right now, the point is TAS is still significantly higher than IAS, and the resulting GS shouldn’t be used as a direct indicator of IAS. It needs to be derived (in approximation) from the density altitude.
 
Flying Keys said:
ADS-B is groundspeed. The density altitude on a couple mile final would have been well over 10,000’, so consider that TAS would have been around 20% higher than IAS. I think that could easily make up the 20-30 knots.
Click to expand...
Vref is IAS, not TAS.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Vref is IAS, not TAS.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Well aware. The first post I responded to had used the ADS-B GS readout as an analog for proximity to Vref. My point was that TAS, and thus GS (irrespective of wind) is going to be a lot higher than IAS at that density altitude. So conversely, IAS would be a lot lower than what was stated, probably closer to the published Vref. It’s not like they were flying the approach at 160 IAS, probably closer to 135-140, which resulted in the higher TAS and higher groundspeed (also figuring in whatever winds aloft).
 
Pretty sure thrust reversers are never required for certification. I know some jet (or jets) I’ve flown dump brakes as you use reverse, so the distance positively doesn’t change.

Otherwise they are just extra but not required help. Basically there to save brakes.
 
Tools said:
Pretty sure thrust reversers are never required for certification. I know some jet (or jets) I’ve flown dump brakes as you use reverse, so the distance positively doesn’t change.

Otherwise they are just extra but not required help. Basically there to save brakes.
Click to expand...
They aren’t required for certification, but manufacturers can use them to certify stopping distances, and a couple of airplanes I’ve worked with do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top