Netjets 680 down on Highway in Laredo

[Larry in TN]

What's the chances of a bird strike?? I thought I saw a video where they were getting rid of fuel.

Getting rid of fuel? Corporate jets, and even most transport jets, don't have fuel jettison systems. Those that do are the largest widebodies that fly ultra long-haul flights.

 

[Cesarmx]

Rockwell Sabreliner 65 has jettison system …..mounted in the tail end, old airplane and most pax can walk inside fully standing up….

 

[midwestpa24]

Getting rid of fuel? Corporate jets, and even most transport jets, don't have fuel jettison systems. Those that do are the largest widebodies that fly ultra long-haul flights.

This was something I recently learned as well, a fair number of corporate jets do have fuel dump systems. It came up in conversation about the G280 in the Dominican Republic, that they were dumping fuel to land. I too thought only larger widebody jets had the ability.

 

[Larry in TN]

a fair number of corporate jets do have fuel dump systems

Are these ultra-long range jets? Not sure why anything else would have the complexity of such a system. You just land overweight if you have to.

Ultra-long haul widebodies, B777, B787, etc., have jettison systems because they can takeoff so heavy that they can't land, and stop, at max takeoff weights. Too much energy to dissipate.

 

[midwestpa24]

Are these ultra-long range jets? Not sure why anything else would have the complexity of such a system. You just land overweight if you have to.

Ultra-long haul widebodies, B777, B787, etc., have jettison systems because they can takeoff so heavy that they can't land, and stop, at max takeoff weights. Too much energy to dissipate.

I was told in another forum that many Gulfstreams have it. Older Learjets had an option although it was joked they didn't need it because they burned it all off taxiing anyway. I don't have a comprehensive list. But I too thought it was limited to the widebodies. I know most commercial regional jets and narrowbody airliners do not. Our ARFF training is heavily slanted towards commercial airlines, we don't spend as much time learning about GA or corporate aircraft, and there is so much variety it would be difficult to be proficient on all of them.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I was told in another forum that many Gulfstreams have it.

The GIV and GV doesn't have it, and I'm not familiar with later versions.

Older Learjets had an option although it was joked they didn't need it because they burned it all off taxiing anyway. I don't have a comprehensive list. But I too thought it was limited to the widebodies. I know most commercial regional jets and narrowbody airliners do not. Our ARFF training is heavily slanted towards commercial airlines, we don't spend as much time learning about GA or corporate aircraft, and there is so much variety it would be difficult to be proficient on all of them.

The 727 had the capability.

 

[Cesarmx]

The NTSB preliminary Report has not been released as of yet nor has the ATC communications “tape”, SMD card nor in a written report form. Likely only the NTSB / FAA know by now ( from CVR, FDR, ATC communication), if there was an emergency and of what kind: mechanical/electrical, cabin decompression, fuel leak, cabin fumes, bird ingestion or strike etc…….. (and including the pilots statements of course)….we shall find out more……..

 

[Doc Holliday]

The NTSB preliminary Report has not been released as of yet nor has the ATC communications “tape”, SMD card nor in a written report form. Likely only the NTSB / FAA know by now ( from CVR, FDR, ATC communication), if there was an emergency and of what kind: mechanical/electrical, cabin decompression, fuel leak, cabin fumes, bird ingestion or strike etc…….. (and including the pilots statements of course)….we shall find out more……..

Again, what's the rush?

 

[Cesarmx]

Again, what's the rush?

Just my statement….again,

 

[Larry in TN]

The 727 had the capability.

As did the DC8, another narrowbody. I'd guess that the 707 likely had it, too. Some 767s have it, others don't. In later years, brakes got better which eliminated the need for fuel jettison in all but the largest, longest-range aircraft.

 

[Bell206]

The NTSB preliminary Report has not been released as of yet

FYI: the NTSB uses a long-established investigative procedure for all incidents and accidents. Unless the event involves an Air Carrier (UPS MD11) or is an event of high public interest (Kobe Bryant helicopter) the IIC will follow that procedure and make the necessary public releases when they have the required info. The fact this aircraft departed from an airport outside the US simply extends the normal timeline so the required items can be investigated at the flight origin.

Not sure why anything else would have the complexity of such a systems.

In some cases, when pursuing certain military aircraft bids for these type aircraft, the jettison system was added to meet those requirements or was given an exemption. The Sabreliner series, especially the 4O model/T-39, had the system installed for that reason. However, on the ones I worked on we deactivated the jettison system for civil use.

 

[Groundpounder]

Challenger 604/605 had fuel dump, but only for the tail tank(s). I think.

 

[Mikey52]

DC'6's had it. We took that system out of a DC6 and installed it in a DC4. That upped our takeoff weight by about 6000 lbs.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I was told early on by the recently retired NJ friend that the accident crew was on their third and last leg of the day when they diverted to Laredo.

If that information is correct, N523QS departed Denver mid-morning to Scottsdale. Changing crews in Scottsdale would make the next three legs: Scottsdale to Ensenada MX, Ensenada to Los Cabos, Los Cabos to Austin (diverting to Laredo)... which keeps them legal.

Cool story from your bro.

I hope you followed the code and asked his permission before posting his internal knowledge online.

 

[Cesarmx]

It had been on “The Aviation Safety Network” all along (according to the Laredo Airport Director) that the Crew had reported “Low Fuel and Power Outage” somewhere in flight. (I am not equating Low Fuel with Fuel exhaustion!).

 

[Doc Holliday]

It had been on “The Aviation Safety Network” all along (according to the Laredo Airport Director) that the Crew had reported “Low Fuel and Power Outage” somewhere in flight. (I am not equating Low Fuel with Fuel exhaustion!).

Aviation Safety Network is not an official source for anything.

 

[Cesarmx]

Aviation Safety Network is not an official source for anything.

I never claimed it to be oficial, just as information towards the investigation, that’s all

 

[Dave Theisen]

Challenger 604/605 had fuel dump, but only for the tail tank(s). I think.

That is correct. It’s more for CG issues from fuel trapped in the tail tank than it is for over weight landings.

 

[Tools]

I think every Navy jet could dump… even the A-4.

14hrs duty was was contractual, 16 hr duty day was legal (prior to pt 117) at delta. And patently stupid.

11-12 hrs is waaay legal but can EASILY be fatiguing.

The rules are hour based mostly but take a stab at litigating fatigue. Fact is, fatigue can’t be “ruled” away, and it remains the “f word” in the industry.

 

[Rick A]

Cool story from your bro.

I hope you followed the code and asked his permission before posting his internal knowledge online.

Not internal knowledge... but speculation, and what he initially picked up through the NJ rumor mill. Nothing that originated from an official source which I assumed was evident.
I've edited my misleading post that possibly violated the "code".

As of this past Saturday he doesn't have any more rumors, speculations, or hearsay to share. NJ is silent, and everyone who cares to follow this event are waiting for the preliminary.

 

[hindsight2020]

What's the chances of a bird strike?? I thought I saw a video where they were getting rid of fuel.

A good chance. All speculation of course, but I have it on my bingo card higher than the "fuel contamination that affects you...at the end of the sortie".

I currently give the FOD theory higher weight based on: 1) the video fiery pop, and 2) somebody saying on here there's picture evidence of blackened nacelle when the crane picked up the tail section during recovery.

But who knows

 

[Tarheelpilot]

A good chance. All speculation of course, but I have it on my bingo card higher than the "fuel contamination that affects you...at the end of the sortie".

I currently give the FOD theory higher weight based on: 1) the video fiery pop, and 2) somebody saying on here there's picture evidence of blackened nacelle when the crane picked up the tail section during recovery.

But who knows

I’ll take the contaminated fuel bet.

Bottle of winners choice? $??? total cost limit? Thoughts?

I don’t have any inside info but I do like a fun bet between friends.

 

[wellknow]

lots of laughs. yes, lets speculate on a crash that killed people

 

[Rockymountain]

What's the chances of a bird strike?? I thought I saw a video where they were getting rid of fuel.

Maybe you’re thinking about the recent Gulfstream accident?

 

[Tarheelpilot]

lots of laughs. yes, lets speculate on a crash that killed people

Who’s laughing?

Regarding the speculation. Well. That is going to happen regardless. Just how it is.

 

[wellknow]

You like a “fun” bet. Nothing fun about it. tragic

 

[Rick A]

You like a “fun” bet. Nothing fun about it. tragic

The fun part of this type of bet is putting something of value at risk and learning if your aviation knowledge and instincts turn out to be more accurate than your peers. Regarding any loss of life as a reason not to conduct this type of gambling is a personal opinion, and nobody is forcing anybody to participate.

In this particular crash, the cause(s) is a wildcard extremely likely to be accurately determined. A perfect betting scenario.

IMO, the tragic of loss of one life is cancelled out by the fact five others got out alive.

 

[wellknow]

the tragic of loss of one life is cancelled out by the fact five others got out alive.
that is almost as absurd as thinking it’s fun to bet about what caused a horrific crash. unbelievable

 

[Groundpounder]

Aviation Safety Network is not an official source for anything.

And the quote came from a newspaper that quoted the airport director. That's like a game of telephone that started with poor information.

 

[MauleSkinner]

the tragic of loss of one life is cancelled out by the fact five others got out alive.
that is almost as absurd as thinking it’s fun to bet about what caused a horrific crash. unbelievable

And pretty much on par with the baseless speculation as to cause.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

the tragic of loss of one life is cancelled out by the fact five others got out alive.
that is almost as absurd as thinking it’s fun to bet about what caused a horrific crash. unbelievable

It’s just a different perspective on loss. Not trying to sound morbid but having experienced lots of loss in my career my perspective is through a lens tempered by having double digits in the number of close friends and peers I’ve lost. The most recent was less than a month ago.

Now it’s about fierce analysis to try and make sure as many us make it to the bar for a drink after we hang up the spurs. No room for ego or feelings when the goal is keeping the attrition minimal.

Be offended if you must just don’t expect me to change my opinion.

 

[francisco collazos]

Be offended if you must just don’t expect me to change my opinion

I agree and why frequent the boards where this is happening. If you don't like speculation then don't read the forum

 

[nauga]

I agree and why frequent the boards where this is happening. If you don't like speculation then don't read the forum

If you don't like people pointing out when speculation is harebrained then don't read the forum

Nauga,
learn to guess, guess to learn

 

[Tarheelpilot]

If you don't like people pointing out when speculation is harebrained then don't read the forum

Nauga,
learn to guess, guess to learn

I have no heartburn about the opposition to my posts. Everyone is free to have their own opinions. Including of me. If anyone here thinks I’m callous about the loss of life they are welcome to their opinion.

I was simply offering some background to how I came to be this way.

plus it’s really none of my business what anyone thinks of me.

 

[Cesarmx]

Are the Pilots forced to give statements to NTSB or to anyone?
How does it work? Right to keep quiet both civil or criminally?

Looks like it is not a choice for the pilots to give a statement after an accident if requested by NTSB

a) Reports. The operator of a civil, public (as specified in § 830.5), or foreign aircraft shall file a report on Board Form 6120. 1⁄2 (OMB No. 3147-0001)[<a href="#830.15-footnote-2" data-turbo="false">2</a>] within 10 days after an accident, or after 7 days if an overdue aircraft is still missing. A report on an incident for which immediate notification is required by § 830.5(a) shall be filed only as requested by an authorized representative of the Board.
(b) Crewmember statement. Each crewmember, if physically able at the time the report is submitted, shall attach a statement setting forth the facts, conditions, and circumstances relating to the accident or incident as they appear to him. If the crewmember is incapacitated, he shall submit the statement as soon as he is physically able.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Looks like it is not a choice for the pilots to give a statement after an accident if requested by NTSB

a) Reports. The operator of a civil, public (as specified in § 830.5), or foreign aircraft shall file a report on Board Form 6120. 1⁄2 (OMB No. 3147-0001)[<a href="#830.15-footnote-2" data-turbo="false">2</a>] within 10 days after an accident, or after 7 days if an overdue aircraft is still missing. A report on an incident for which immediate notification is required by § 830.5(a) shall be filed only as requested by an authorized representative of the Board.
(b) Crewmember statement. Each crewmember, if physically able at the time the report is submitted, shall attach a statement setting forth the facts, conditions, and circumstances relating to the accident or incident as they appear to him. If the crewmember is incapacitated, he shall submit the statement as soon as he is physically able.

It’s an interesting discussion. I’m not qualified to have an opinion.

I do know the NTSB has no authority over pilots. From personal experience I can tell you the NTSB can determine the pilot was at fault and the administrator can decide it was a mechanical fault and compliment the pilot on being a rock star.

So the NTSB can suck it.

If it’s a small GA accident I pretty much ignore the NTSB. You don’t have a guarantee on the A team responding unless it’s big enough for CNN. The rank and file gov “employees” there are ****

 

[Larry in TN]

Looks like it is not a choice for the pilots to give a statement after an accident if requested by NTSB

A statement is not an interview. There is no minimum length for the statement. Such statements are written, and are likely to be factual and short.

 

[TwinWasp]

Are these ultra-long range jets? Not sure why anything else would have the complexity of such a system. You just land overweight if you have to.

Ultra-long haul widebodies, B777, B787, etc., have jettison systems because they can takeoff so heavy that they can't land, and stop, at max takeoff weights. Too much energy to dissipate.

Boeing’s old Aero magazine had an article years ago saying if you took off from a runway you can land on it given that all the systems (brakes, flaps, etc.) work normally. Think about it, you’re at max gross TO weight going down a runway and have a problem just before V1. You have to be able to stop the plane on the runway remaining. Ok, say you made it past V1 and then have a problem. Your Vref will be a little bit faster than V1 but you should be touching down much earlier on the runway than the point where you start the high speed reject. Maintenance will have to do an overweight landing inspection but if something was causing you to have to turn around and come back that’s the least of your problems.

 

[Larry in TN]

Ok, say you made it past V1 and then have a problem. Your Vref will be a little bit faster than V1 but you should be touching down much earlier on the runway than the point where you start the high speed reject. Maintenance will have to do an overweight landing inspection but if something was causing you to have to turn around and come back that’s the least of your problems.

It's not that simple. You have to be able to meet the approach/missed-approach climb gradients in the case of an engine-out go-around.

The takeoff V1 case is certified against takeoff climb segments, while an engine-out go-around must also cover the approach/missed-approach environment, where flap/gear configuration and acceleration requirements can be different. So “same runway, same weight” does not mean the same climb margin.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It's not that simple. You have to be able to meet the approach/missed-approach climb gradients in the case of an engine-out go-around.

The takeoff V1 case is certified against takeoff climb segments, while an engine-out go-around must also cover the approach/missed-approach environment, where flap/gear configuration and acceleration requirements can be different. So “same runway, same weight” does not mean the same climb margin.

And then add in brake energy…if you’re at the brake limit for takeoff, “a little bit faster” may result in running out of brakes before stopping.