Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by olasek, Feb 8, 2019.
Doesn't land until the top of that bump and then the tires squealing from slamming on the brakes.
Wow. He missed his touchdown point by a mile. That is if he had one picked out.
I think he was probably also WAY fast, if he managed to float all the way up that steep of a grade.
I love the “peanut gallery” chatter.
How much we talking about in way of damage?
Front gear, prop, engine tear down, probably firewall damaged. What else???
Pilot seat cushion
Interesting...I wonder how the waive the runway slope limitation in the AFM.
Toss the book out the window and fly the plane, probably. I would bet that limitation is only there because they didn't do all the takeoff performance testing at any slopes above that...
I love how they pretty much just roll off the end.
yeah, just like max weights and stuff, limitations are just a suggestion anyway.
Takes quite a technique to float up that hill.
Didn't look like he had much flap down either.
I was wondering if they actually wait for positive climb to retract the gear; or just pull 'er up when clear of the end of the pavement.
It sounds like he still had some power in and didn't pull her back to idle until he was at least 2/3rds of the way up the hill. I've never flown a Malibu but i'm thinking that he makes it if he pulls power at the threshold instead of waiting.
If you watch for it, you can see the prop slowing also. He had power in way too long.
shredders call this a "face-plant"
I'm surprised France (or any EASA member country) would allow that airport to exist, Europe being pretty much the ultimate nanny state. I could see insurers mandating a clause that void coverage during ops at that airport.
I think insurers love looking at the numbers, perhaps the accident rate at this airport is actually within some acceptable bounds. This may also be the reason why airport is allowed to exist, perhaps things aren't so bleak.
Reversing the prop helps!
No, but I wouldn't be surprised if the operator(s) who run Citations in and out of there have contacted Cessna to find the reason for the limitation and do some engineering/testing of their own to get local regulators to allow such an operation.
Clearly, the plane is capable of it, though it's also clear there's a reduced safety margin. V1 is probably "whatever speed we're going at the crest of the hill."
im not sure that "clearly the airplane is capable of it"...even with two engines they didn't clear the end of the runway by much. What would a V1 failure look like? And how about stopping from immediately before V1?
Cessna might do analysis to increase slope limitations to 3 or 4%, but I have difficulty imagining them going 9 times the published limit.
I am no expert of twin engine operations but one of the reasons for V1 is that you will have a positive rate of climb at the end of the runway but this is not the case here - no positive rate of climb is needed in this case - you can actually descend when clearing the runway, perhaps this changes things quite a bit, perhaps V1 no longer applies??
This isn’t just twin engine operation...certification on that airplane says it can be at 35 feet above the end of the runway with an engine failure at V1. Terrain can only increase climb requirements...they can never be decreased.
We don’t know it for fact, v1 seems dubious at best there yet this airport even supports twin engine commercial operations, clearly something is quite different there.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
If I were a betting man, my bet on the difference would be the Citation operator choosing to ignore limitations and legal per requirements to go into that airport.
Like I said, V1 in this case is probably "whatever speed we're going at the crest of the hill" because after that point, stopping is unlikely to be successful. I'd sure hate to be going after that if losing an engine, but a runway that's pretty much a jump and plenty of room to descend and accelerate further means it's not a death sentence to go.
The only thing Cessna necessarily needs to do is share and document the reason for the limitation. The owner of the aircraft could then apply to their local authority for a waiver of that limitation and do any testing required by that authority.
Anything can be waived.
No, it's not, but it doesn't meet Part 25 requirements to be able to stop on the runway.
Historically, Cessna doesn't share engineering data for the purposes of performance modification...airplanes modified that way have typically been disowned.
Got a reference for that?
The craziest part is, that this runway should be long enough for a Piper Malibu.. landing on the uphill should only help it slow down
Also.. is operating an aircraft outside (non commercial) of its poh considered illegal, or just ill-advised?
Barring any certification change, the Citation was illegal.
Assuming operating rules similar to the US, the Malibu was probably not.
That Malibu is living a dangerous life - nose deep in a huge pile of white powder!
The Malibu pilot couldn't have been too far behind on that account judging by the audio of the power change. The tail number is still the funniest part of this whole monied clown story.
You actually can see the the jet drop some altitude after it went off the runway.
But in this case, they wouldn't be modifying the airplane at all.
Not really, other than the exemption application forms allow you to put in whatever regulation you're applying for an exemption for. If you Google it, you can even find info about exemptions to Part 25.
Maybe. I watched it several times to see if I could verify it one way or the other, and you just can't. There's no good reference in that video for what "level" is. Too many potential illusions to conclusively determine whether they're climbing or not after leaving the runway.
I looked at it a number of times too. Came to the same conclusion you did.
Also, seems unlikely they would want to run it off the end of the pavement with any weight on the mains of a Citation and risk damaging the gear.
The French and other European/global elite are not in the habit of banning stuff they want for themselves, or their own convenience. You just have to consider the demographic of the people that use that airport.
Hang around Geneva, Switzerland awhile, a city that thrives on the UN expense account crowd, and you'll see first hand exactly what I mean.
That’s the Malibu lifestyle. Have you never been to SoCal?
All of the exemptions I'm familiar with provide an equivalent level of safety to the reg being exempted...they don't waive the requirement, they use an alternate means of compliance.
Yep. I live in a world of "ELoS" exemptions. Some exist because the regulation is out-of-date for a new design or material. Some have come about through the gathering of empirical data.
Can you see mains off the ground prior to end of runway?? I can’t really see it. Frame by frame from second 5-7.
I took a sight seeing flight in a Jodel out of that airport when I was skiing in Meribel. I sat in the back, a pilot friend sat in the front. Take off looked easy and landing didn't seem particularly challenging in that plane. Both of us got super nervous on the approach because the pilot was holding about 110 on the airspeed and not slowing down as the runway was starting to fill the windscreen. Then we both realized the ASI was in kilometers.
About 70mph gain/loss from the potential energy of the hill. So on take off it's like being at 70mph at the start of the runway.
From google earth:-
Equating potential and kinetic energy
mgh = 1/2 mv^2
gh = 1/2 v^2
2gh = v^2
2 * 10 * 62 = V ^ 2
1240 = V ^ 2
= 35 m per sec
= about 70mph gain/loss from the potential energy of the hill