Friday, August 16, 2019

Cessna 680A Citation Latitude, N8JR: Accident occurred August 15, 2019 at Elizabethton Municipal Airport (0A9), Carter County, Tennessee

The National Transportation Safety Board traveled to the scene of this accident.

Additional Participating Entities:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Nashville, Tennessee
Textron Aviation; Wichita, Kansas
P&W Canada; Longueuil, Quebec, Canada

Aviation Accident Preliminary Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf

https://registry.faa.gov/N8JR


Ralph E. Hicks
Investigator In Charge (IIC)
National Transportation Safety Board


Location: Elizabethton, TN
Accident Number: ERA19FA248
Date & Time: 08/15/2019, 1537 EDT
Registration: N8JR
Aircraft: Textron Aviation Inc 680A
Injuries: 3 Minor, 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Business 

On August 15, 2019, about 1537 eastern daylight time, a Textron Aviation Inc. 680A, N8JR, was destroyed during a runway excursion after landing at Elizabethton Municipal Airport (0A9), Elizabethton, Tennessee. The airline transport-rated pilot and copilot were not injured. The three passengers sustained minor injuries. The airplane was registered to JRM Air LLC and operated under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a business flight. Day, visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the flight. The flight originated at Statesville Regional Airport (SVH), Statesville, North Carolina at 1519 and was destined for 0A9.

According to the flight crew, the flight departed SVH under visual flight rules and climbed to 12,500 ft. No air traffic control services were requested. The preflight, departure, and en route portions of the flight were routine. Approaching 0A9, the crew announced their intentions to land on runway 24 via the airport's common traffic advisory frequency.

Airport surveillance video captured the initial touchdown, which occurred near the runway touchdown zone, and portions of the accident sequence. The airplane bounced twice, then continued airborne down runway 24 until it touched down a third time with about 1,000 ft of paved surface remaining. The video revealed that the right main landing gear collapsed and the outboard section of the right wing contacted the runway shortly after the third touchdown. The airplane departed the paved surface beyond the runway 24 departure end threshold, through an open area of grass, down an embankment, through a chain-link fence, and up an embankment, coming to rest on the edge of Tennessee Highway 91.

The pilots' account of the landing was generally consistent with the video. The pilots also reported that, following the second bounce, a go-around was attempted; however, the airplane did not respond as expected, so they landed straight-ahead on the runway and could not stop the airplane prior to the excursion. After the airplane came to a stop, the flight crew secured the engines and assisted the passengers with the evacuation. The main entry door was utilized to exit the airplane. A postaccident fire was in progress during the evacuation.

The airplane came to rest upright, on a true heading of 285┬║. The fuselage aft of the main entry door, the right wing, and the empennage were consumed by the postaccident fire. The left main and nose landing gear were separated from the airframe during the impact sequence. The right main landing gear remained under the right wing and was heavily fire damaged.

The airplane, also known as the Citation Latitude, was a low wing, cruciform tail design with twin, fuselage-mounted Pratt and Whitney Canada 360D turbofan engines. It was equipped with two cockpit seats and nine passenger seats. The airplane was built in 2015 and the owner purchased the airplane new. The total time of the airframe was about 1,165 hours. The maximum takeoff weight was 31,025 lbs. The cockpit, which was undamaged by fire, was equipped with a Garmin G5000 advanced integrated flight deck (flat screen displays and touch screen controls) that recorded numerous flight and systems parameters. The data was successfully downloaded following the accident. The airplane was also equipped with a cockpit voice recorder (CVR). The CVR was damaged by the postaccident fire and was sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory, Washington, DC for examination and download.

The pilot, seated in the left cockpit seat and acting as the flying pilot and pilot-in-command, held an airline transport pilot certificate and a type rating in the accident airplane. He reported 5,800 hours total flight experience, including 765 hours in the accident airplane. His latest recurrent training occurred in October 2018.

The copilot, seated in the right cockpit seat, held an airline transport pilot certificate and a type rating in the accident airplane. He reported 11,000 hours total flight experience, including 1,165 hours in the accident airplane. His latest recurrent training occurred in October 2018.

The reported weather at 0A9 at 1535 included calm wind, 10 miles visibility, scattered clouds at 4,700 and 5,500 ft, broken clouds at 7,000 ft, and altimeter setting 29.97 inches of mercury.

The wreckage was retained for further examination.



Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Make: Textron Aviation Inc
Registration: N8JR
Model/Series: 680A
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Amateur Built:No 
Operator: JRM Air LLC
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None 

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: K0A9, 1592 ft msl
Observation Time: 1535 EDT 
Distance from Accident Site: 1 Nautical Miles
Temperature/Dew Point: 29°C / 19°C
Lowest Cloud Condition: Scattered / 4700 ft agl
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: Calm / ,
Lowest Ceiling: Broken / 7000 ft agl
Visibility:  10 Miles
Altimeter Setting: 29.97 inches Hg
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Departure Point: Statesville, NC (SVH)
Destination: Elizabethton, TN (0A9)

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 2 None
Aircraft Damage: Destroyed
Passenger Injuries: 3 Minor
Aircraft Fire: On-Ground
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion:None 
Total Injuries: 3 Minor, 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 36.367222, -82.181667






ELIZABETHTON, Tennessee — Now two days after Dale Earnhardt, Jr. and his family narrowly escaped a plane crash, environmental crews are on the scene trying to clean up residual fuel that leaked out of the plane when it crashed. Most of the fuel caught fire immediately after the crash, so there is just a little to clean up.

Elizabethton Fire Department put out booms in a nearby lake to contain the water.

"First responders, when they first got the call, absolutely did a fantastic job of containing everything and mitigating everything at that point in time,” Carter County EMA Director Gary Smith said. “That's why this is going to be a much easier process."

Smith said fuel will likely seep out of the storm drains for quite some time. Booms will remain in place to catch that extra fuel, but it will not affect traffic.

Meanwhile, the NTSB was still on scene Saturday cutting up sections of the airplane. They will take those to Griffin, Georgia, for further analysis and investigation.

TDOT crews were also on scene assessing the safety of the road to make sure it is still structurally sound. Police Chief Jason Shaw said the road could open as early as midday Monday, but it could take longer.

Original article can be found here ➤ https://wcyb.com




ELIZABETHTON, Tennessee -  Pilots of the plane that crashed carrying Dale Earnhardt Jr. and his family Thursday had experience with the Elizabethton Municipal Airport, according to the airport manager.

Dan Cogan told News 5 that the plane had previously been to the Elizabethton airport and its pilots had flown into the airport at both day and night.

"Day-to-day, we land jets, mid-sized jets, light jets regularly," Cogan said. "It's not an anomaly or unusual circumstance."

The Elizabethton Municipal Airport can see between 50-70 operations daily, which includes take-offs and landings. Cogan said most customers are taking advantage of the airport for the region's mountain tourism, while only a small number use the airport for race week.

On Thursday, only one driver flew into the airport, though it is the closest runway to Bristol Motor Speedway.

Unlike the much larger Tri-Cities Airport, Elizabethton Municipal Airport doesn't have a control tower, requiring pilots to communicate with each other upon approach.

Gene Cossey, executive director of the Tri-Cities Airport Authority, said he communicates with the Elizabethton Municipal Airport staff regularly and it's important to not rush to cast blame.

"I know the guys down in Elizabethton, they do a great job at making sure that that is a perfectly safe airport," Cossey said.

Landing planes at smaller airports requires extra focus and larger planes have to land further down the runway, according to flight instructor Bill Powley.

He said the situation could have been much worse if Earnhardt's plane would have reached the ditch across Highway 91.

"Somebody is looking out after Dale and his family," Powley said. "Unlike baseball, where you can be a hero batting .260, in this game, you have to bat 1.000 all the time."

The Elizabethton Municipal Airport staff is working with the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board as they carry out investigations.

As of Thursday evening, the Elizabethton Municipal Airport is fully operational once again.

Story and video ➤ https://wcyb.com















NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s plane bounced at least twice before "coming down hard" on the right main landing gear resulting in Thursday's fiery crash, officials said Friday.

Earnhardt, his wife and their 1-year-old daughter were on board with two pilots during the accident and they all escaped without serious injuries, officials said.

The Cessna 680A Citation Latitude took off from Statesville, North Carolina, for a 20-minute afternoon flight before it crashed while landing at Elizabethton Municipal Airport in Elizabethton, Tennessee, Ralph Hicks of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said at a news conference on Friday.

The crash was captured on surveillance video, Hicks said, which showed the plane bounce "at least twice before coming down hard on the right main landing gear."

"You can actually see the right main landing gear collapsing on the video," he said.

The plane then continued down the runway, went through a fence, and came to a stop on a highway, Hicks said.

The Earnhardts were able to evacuate before the plane erupted in flames, Hicks said, adding that the fire appeared to start after the crash.

Elizabethton Fire Chief Barry Carrier attributed the blaze to fuel from the aircraft.

The former race car driver was taken to Johnson City Medical Center with cuts and abrasions. He was the only person on board who was hospitalized, according to the sheriff.

A spokesman for NBC Sports, where Earnhardt works as a NASCAR analyst, later said that Earnhardt was discharged from the hospital.

Elizabethton Mayor Curt Alexander said it's extremely lucky that no cars were involved in the accident.

"We're just happy everyone walked away and no one on the ground was injured as well," Alexander said at Friday's news conference.

Both pilots on board were professionally-trained, Hicks said, and when interviewed by the NTSB they provided information consistent with the surveillance video.

The Earnhardts were interviewed and their comments were also consistent with the video, said Hicks.

The surveillance footage of the accident will eventually be released to the public, he added.

The plane had a cockpit voice recorder which will be sent to NTSB headquarters in Washington, DC., Hicks said.

Story and video ➤ https://abcnews.go.com


First Responders 

"We had a great time with our first responder family at the Bristol Motor Speedway night race! A big thank you to NASCAR for giving us and all the agencies that responded to Dale Jr.'s plane crash free tickets!" 
-Carter County Tennessee Sheriff's Office

First Responders

49 comments:

DWN said...

an "eyewitness" reported he landed half way down the 4500' strip. Has anyone else seen the video of the wheel/tire assembly lying on the runway burning?

Anonymous said...

They said today that they bounced twice.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm... possibly landed half way down a relatively short runway, bounced (possibly more than once), right main gear torn off, and thrust reversers are stowed.

cunn9305 said...

... seems like perfect circumstances for a Go Around
#NotAPilot

Anonymous said...

Thank you cunn9305.
I don't understand why this isn't ingrained in EVERY pilots brain. SIMPLY PUT: one bounce, just freakin' go around. It's not rocket science.
In this case, if indeed they were halfway down the runway, don't even try to land. Natural instinct is to try to rush it to the ground since you've floated too far down the runway.

Anonymous said...

Throughout my life I have heard of and seen so many general aviation aircraft crashes, I think this is the only one that was instantaneously engulfed in flames and had survivors (fire and survivors). I am guessing there are others but I do not know what happens more ... small plane crashes or Pit Bull attacks ... it seems they are both always in the news. The odds that all people (and canine) walked and ran away from this is literally an insane miracle of epic proportions. This is inexplicable. Anomalous.

Anonymous said...

Don't get it, TRI has rwy 23 8,000' and closer to Bristol speedway...so very thankful that door was able to extend and all were able to run away from that inferno, seconds mattered.

Unknown said...

Not to mention better ARFF at TRI

Anonymous said...

I don't get it either. I know this was a landing accident, but why would anyone(or in this case two professionally trained pilots as stated by the NTSB) land this type aircraft at an airport with only 4500' of runway. According to Cessna specs on the latitude, it needs about 2500' for landing, which should have been ok if everything went just right, but it didn't. The even greater concern would have been on takeoff. according to Cessna specs the latitude needs about 3600' of runway for takeoff, leaving only 900' of runway to abort a takeoff when approaching V-1. Those numbers just don't add up. How could anyone expect to abort a takeoff approaching V-1 with only 900' to stop and not expect to scream off the end of the runway if something did go wrong. As the previous post above TRI would have been a Much safer choice with an 8000' runway leaving a good margin for safety for either landing or takeoff.

Anonymous said...

Overshoot the landing? Then, go around.
Overshoot the landing and the runway is fairly short to begin with? Then, go around.
Halfway down the runway before first touching down? Then, go around.
Bounce on the landing? Then, go around.
Bounce twice on the landing? Then, go around.

Anonymous said...

This was a very preventable accident. More then likely there was pressure on he pilots to land at that airport and get the pax to their destination. Sounds like a classic case of get-there-itis. The pilots probably tried to wrestle it down to the ground after a botched landing, so as to avoid the embarrassment of a go-around. Unclear why they didn't just go-around after they started to notch the landing. In the future these pilots will have trouble getting jobs more then likely because they were involved in an accident .

Interesting to hear what the CVR/FDR says if available. Would be interesting to see if either PIC or SIC called for a go-around. And to see the coordination between them. They are very lucky that they didn't get killled in this accident. Pretty severe accident.

Anonymous said...

Oh YES! All walked away. Miracle doesn't really fit here, it's beyond that. Now about the insurance....

Anonymous said...

Pilot's Boss: "Gotta get them VIPs to their destination no matter what!"

Anonymous said...

4500' runway is well within the capability of that airplane. The 3600' number stated earlier is balanced field length, which includes distance for an abort.

Anonymous said...

Ummm. The pilot's boss was on board.

Anonymous said...

They have it on video that he bounced it twice and then collapsed the gear. I’ve been a private pilot for 44 years and it’s how you handle an airplane over the runway after you flare that separates the men from the boys. Also, a bad landing is usually preceded by a bad approach. There is no VASI on 24 at Elizabethton, VASI is another crutch used by pilots who can’t judge their glide paths. No crutch = lousy approach, likely too high and too fast. Clearly pilot error, he should have swallowed his pride and gone around without even attempting to touch down. My theory, today’s young pilots rely too much on the auto pilot and many are lousy stick and rudder guys after they disengage it on final. No need to wait for the NTSB report to see who was at fault here.

Anonymous said...

This runway is more than adequate for this airplane.
"-larger planes have to land further down the runway, according to flight instructor Bill Powley." ........WHY? The touchdown zone is the same for all aircraft.

Anonymous said...

"One bounce go around"... even more so in a tailwheel.

This is why tailwheel training and owning a tailwheel makes one such a better pilot. A lost art in superior proficiency against the crop of "bare standard minimums" ATPs now pouring from those puppy mills 141 schools and operating planes with a thousand gadgets. They won't help in the one phase that will always require good manu skills i.e landing.

It is no accident the first tricycles were advertised as "automatic landing gear", and just like automatic transmissions on cars, they didn't reduce the accident rates.

In fact they dumbed down the pool of pilots so that the ADM for a go around is now very limited and the pressure to salvage a landing when the cost is 5k an hour to operate the bird very high.

Anonymous said...

Landing distance for the Falcon 900 I fly is about 2500-2800 feet, and, the Falcon only has 1 thrust reverser. This Cessna is fully capable of operating in and out of this airport safely.

Anonymous said...

You'll never have to answer for why you went around.....you may have to answer for why you didn't go around!

JWC said...

Heard from a very experienced pilot friend that the scuttlebutt is not that there was something wrong with the gear that cause the aircraft to bounce. I call BS. High DA, short runway and pressure to get it right the first time. The only possible mechanical issue I can even imagine is the speed brakes being set on auto and for some odd reason deploying before touchdown. There is a short video floating around which I cannot locate at this points, that appears to short the aircraft on short final, and the sink rate looks extremely high. One the infamous surveillance video is released, we will all know much more. Oddly, in most crashes or incidents, the pilot's names and experienced are released, but in this case, all that is being said is they were "professionally trained". No names, no hours, no time in type. Why the secrecy ?

JWC said...

sorry for all the typos. Intent is obvious.

JWC said...

In fairness, the spool-up time for jet engines make a go-around difficult, especially if you are bouncing down a 4500 foot runway. The fact the aircraft skidded another 1000 feet past the threshold, on its belly, across turf and a ditch would indicate excess speed, or a very long TD point.

Anonymous said...

"If you don't believe in God after this mess....you may be truly lost."

Supernatural forces don't keep airplanes flying. If you have to rely on a magic sky wizard to keep you safe then you are truly lost. There's a phenomenon called apophenia where people assign meaning to patterns. When a favorable result arises from an accident like this, some will bias the outcome in favor of a benevolent entity. If the result was unfavorable, like ten people die, it remains some sort of mystery and the entity is not biased against.

Apophenia, selection bias, and wishful thinking are the tools of magic, not reason.

Anonymous said...

0A9 runway is 4529 feet long with a 429 foot displaced threshold for landing on RWY 24, the runway N8JR was landing on. Available landing distance was 4100 feet and meteorological data indicated hot temperatures and gusty tailwinds landing on RWY 24 during that time frame. Witness reports and security camera videos indicating the C680 touching down well beyond normal touchdown zone coupled with gusty tailwinds doesn't leave much room for stopping a turbojet moving at 120 knots with maybe 2000 feet of runway remaining. Sounds like another classic unstabilized approach leading to touchdown beyond normal touchdown zone leading to off runway excursion like we've read about many times before. Thank goodness no lives were lost and a lesson learned from this, abort any unstabilized approach and go around, pride be damned!

Anonymous said...

Since everyone survived, it is relegated to the VEL category. (Very Expensive Landing)

Anonymous said...

Any landing you walk away from, crawl away from, are extracted by the jaws of life to be put in a stretcher barely alive, is a good landing.

Anonymous said...

From what I saw on Flightaware, all other aircraft on that day landed in the opposite direction.

Anonymous said...

The travel path through the turf grass after the end of the runway can be seen in youtube video "RAW VIDEO: Chopper 9 over scene of Earnhardt plane crash" at about the 1:00 minute mark as the camera pans toward the end of the runway. Looks like the pilots were able to keep fairly straight and did not gouge up the turf (while dealing with reportedly collapsed main gear on one side) until the ditch crossing, uphill dirt bank and fence dissipated the remaining energy.

Anonymous said...

I also noticed on flightaware that most aircraft t/o's and landings that day were on rwy 060,
not 240. After I heard about this accident, I looked at the weather data for 0A9.
Wind was variable 060 @ 11 knots at the time of the accident. Landing downwind with an 11 kt tailwind is a definite set up for an unstable, high, and fast approach, that eats up a lot of runway in an already fast airplane. They were lucky!

Anonymous said...

Possibly momentary lapse of pilot judgement y’all.

Anonymous said...

NTSB senior investigator Ralph Hick said that the wind was calm at the time of the accident.
See, e.g.: https://www.flyingmag.com/dale-earnhardt-jr-crash-ntsb-details/

Historic METARS also indicate that Runway 24 was appropriate for landing:

201908151935 METAR K0A9 151935Z AUTO 00000KT 10SM SCT047 SCT055 BKN070
29/19 A2997 RMK AO2=
201908151955 METAR K0A9 151955Z AUTO 26008KT 10SM FEW048 FEW075 SCT090
31/19 A2996 RMK AO2=

See, e.g.: https://www.ogimet.com/display_metars2.php?lang=en&lugar=K0A9&tipo=ALL&ord=DIR&nil=SI&fmt=txt&ano=2019&mes=08&day=15&hora=18&anof=2019&mesf=08&dayf=15&horaf=20&minf=59&send=send

Anonymous said...

There is a video out there that the FAA has. It might help to clear up the speculation if it could be posted sooner than later.

Anonymous said...

Hats Off to Dale Jr for having 2 pilots on board his jet, and not flying it solo or just with a safety pilot as many other highly successful individuals with a predilection for fast complicated vehicles are prone to do.

Whatever led to this accident, I'm glad Earnhardt has the good sense to leave the flying to the pros when it's his family on board.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^ LOL

I want better 'Pros' than these guys.

Anonymous said...

The crew did not file a flight plan. That suggests a cavalier attitude that does not comport with a higher commercial-like standard when lying the boss, his wife, and their precious child (and Gus, the dog).

Anonymous said...

Can't say that I would file either for a flight this short.

ATC nor a flight plan would have helped with the landing.

Anonymous said...

Any chance Dale was flying? Short trip, no flight plan, just the family?

Anonymous said...

The NTSB Preliminary Report indicates that ATP pilots were in the left and right seats. That assertion is probably based on flight-crew (and perhaps passenger) interviews rather than objective evidence. Ralph "Dale" Earnhardt, III, does not appear to have even a student pilot certificate;
so, if he were flying, that would be highly irregular (but possible, of course).

Given the purported failure of a go-around attempt ("the airplane did not respond as expected"), and the resultant crash, give cause to wonder whether evaluations for impairment were performed.
Whatever actually happened, kudos to the flight crew for getting everybody out alive.

Anonymous said...


"Given the purported failure of a go-around attempt ("the airplane did not respond as expected"), and the resultant crash, give cause to wonder whether evaluations for impairment were performed.
Whatever actually happened, kudos to the flight crew for getting everybody out alive."

Really,
Yes I agree. It was miraculous that everyone got out alive, but, you have to remember,
It was the flight crew that caused this accident in the first place. Poor planning ,poor judgement, poor piloting. Botching the landing twice, smashed the gear, trying to do a go around, and then trying to land with only 1000' of runway left. The outcome was inevitable.
Blasting off the end of the runway across the grass, through the fence, and onto the highway. They were very Lucky!

Anonymous said...

If I were a betting man I would put my money on that Dale was in the left seat. The “ATP” rated pilot in the right probably did not possess the skills of a CFI. Just sayin’ ……

Anonymous said...

An ATP with experience in that jet, even without a CFI would certainly know things were going to hell fast and boss flying or not would have taken over. The CVR recording should answer this troubling question.

Anonymous said...

“airplane did not perform as expected “ is an interesting statement. Reminds me of the Emirates 777 in DXB that landed gear up on a go around after a bounced landing. Something in the auto throttle logic prevented the jet from going into TOGA (Take Off/Go Around) mode and the throttles never advanced as expected. I think the TOGA switch was activated while the jet was in contact with the ground on the bounce and inhibited its function. Gear was retracted on the bounce but the throttles were at idle and the jet settled onto the runway gear up. “Trust But Verify” is essential when it come to aircraft automation.

Anonymous said...

In VMC on a visual approach - between 1,000 to 500 feet AGL, stabilized, final items completed and “all automation off please” will possibly prevent such situations. Sometimes, a good ol FAA landing on a shorter runway will get the best of ya. Did here unfortunately. Wasn’t there – don’t know for sure. So sorry for this mishap!

Anonymous said...

Well, it is incredible easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback on the info provided. Yes, many factors suggest this was a totally avoidable accident. The accident started before this crew ever left the ground. I suspect this jet performance numbers were in the parameters of landing on a 4500’ airport. But, was that the best choice in an around the area or was it just picked based on someones convenience? A longer runway would have promoted a much greater safety margin. Next, in my humble professional opinion, they should have filed a flight plan. Again, this just increases the margin of safety but may have not been a factor. Here are some very good key questions. Was this a stable visual approach? In other words, during the last 500’ from touchdown, were they fully configured, on glide slope indicator with PAPI/VASI, and +10 knots or less from Vref? I’m guessing they were not. Do they even have Standard Operating Procedure defining what a stable approach is? If so, what are the procedures if they are out of these guidelines? Do they go around? Who can call for a go around? Is is just the captain, the first officer, or can it be any crew member? A pretty soft landing on a short runway is NOT the goal regardless who is on board the aircraft. Putting all 3 tires firmly on the ground on the Touchdown Zone (or slightly before when safety permits) and using max breaking is best. In conclusion and in my professional opinion, a longer runway would have been better, an IFR flight plane should have been filed, a stable approach flown (regardless of runway length), and to use and follow short runway procedures.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^

Well said!

Anonymous said...

"In my humble professional opinion, they should have filed a flight plan."

Yes I agree on the flight plan, but, what you're implying is that if they would have filed a flight plan this accident would not have happened. You have no clue. Since this is an uncontrolled field, they would have canceled well in advance of entering the traffic pattern.
You might be a professional, but hopefully not a pilot.. And if you are, I would never fly with you. If you were a professional, You would know there is no Papi/Vasi on runway 24. This is not an aircraft carrier landing. you do not slam the aircraft down and hope you can stop in time. Bad advice. Well beyond your pay grade

Anonymous said...

One thing to notice in the approach to runway 24, would be to follow the circle to land maneuvers. The rising terrain to the NW is so very apparent in the approach to a runway that is downhill with no VASI or other guidance. This downhill runway appears in a pilots eye as he needs to be higher than a normal flat 3 degree approach.
That coupled with the dip and bowlout of the middle of the runway, leads me to believe that there was now consideration for the class of plane, along with the lack of using the circle to lady altitudes on the approach plate, to establish a means to position this plane in the proper field of view for a safe, above normal glide slope towards a downhill visually deceptive runway with a bowl in the middle impeding a flare while observing the far end of the runway.
Thus the terrible bounce without a call by any pilot to go around.
Just my two cents.

highertheflyer said...

One thing to notice in the approach to runway 24, would be to follow the circle to land maneuvering for the runway. The rising terrain to the NorthEast is so very apparent with very high mountains. Now to the the approach to a runway that is positioned downhill with no VASI or other vertical guidance. This downhill runway appears in a pilots eye to be higher than a normal flat runway 3 degree approach. In other words, he thinks he would be low with the falling runway and thus to stay where the normal runway view will be the correct one.
This is very bad as it created a higher than normal approach.
That coupled with the dip and bowl out of the middle of the runway, leads me to believe that there was no consideration for the class approach speed of the plane, along with the lack of using the circle to land altitudes on the approach plate, and to establish a means to position this plane in the proper runway field of view with the bowling in the middle lading area, a safe, above normal glide slope towards a downhill visually deceptive runway with a bowl in the middle and thus impeding a flare while observing the higher far end of the runway.
Thus the terrible bounce without a call by any pilot for go around in the resultant planting at a high rate, the descent of the jet upon the dip in the runway.
Just my two cents.