Monday, December 21, 2020

Raytheon Hawker 800XP, N412JA: Accident occurred December 20, 2020 at Republic Airport (KFRG), East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

The National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident.

Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Farmingdale, New York

Talon Air LLC

Location: Farmingdale, NY
Accident Number: ERA21LA083
Date & Time: December 20, 2020, 20:35 Local 
Registration: N412JA
Aircraft: Raytheon Hawker
Injuries: 1 Serious, 1 Minor
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Executive/Corporate

On December 20, 2020, about 2035 eastern standard time, a Beechcraft Hawker 800XP, N412JA, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident at Republic Airport (FRG), Farmingdale, New York. The captain sustained minor injuries and the first officer was seriously injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 business flight.

The flight was operating on an instrument flight rules flight plan from Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport (OPF), Opa Locka, Florida, to FRG. The captain was the pilot monitoring, and the first officer was the pilot flying.

Both pilots stated that the flight to FRG was normal. As they approached FRG, air traffic control (ATC) vectored them onto the ILS RWY 14 approach. The weather included a ceiling of 200 ft overcast and 3/4-mile visibility, which was the weather minimum for the approach. The pilots briefed the approach, and the airplane was fully configured to land by the time they reached the final approach fix (FAF). Both pilots said that after passing the FAF, the FRG tower-controller reported that the visibility had deteriorated to 1/4-mile. The captain asked the first officer if he was “comfortable” continuing with the approach, and he said he was. The first officer said he was using the autopilot on the approach, the airplane was stabilized “on glideslope and on speed,” and he felt they could safely descend to minimums.

The first officer reported that the captain made the standard altitude callouts, and when they reached 200 ft, the captain announced “minimums, lights.” The first officer then looked outside, saw the “lead-in” lights, announced “continuing,” and returned to flying the airplane via instruments. As the airplane descended to 100 ft, the captain said the runway was to the left. The first officer said he looked out and saw runway end identifier lights, the red terminating lights, and only the end of the runway. The weather was worse than he expected, and it was as if a “black cloud” was sitting at the end of the runway. The first officer said the conditions were not “good enough for him” and hit the takeoff/go-around (TOGA) switch. He did not verbally announce that he was going-around, but the captain said, “Go-Around.” The first officer responded by saying “Go Around” twice, called for flaps 15°, and added full power. The first officer said the airplane never established a positive rate of climb and impacted the ground.

The captain said that as the airplane descended to 100 ft, it began drifting to the right. He told the first officer that he needed to make a correction; however, the correction was not sufficient to get the airplane realigned with the runway centerline and he called for a go-around. The captain said the airplane pitched up in response to the TOGA switch, and he heard both engines spool up as he retracted the flaps, but the airplane did not climb. The airplane then impacted the ground, veered right, and spun before coming to a stop.

According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, the airplane departed the runway environment about 2,000 ft down the runway, then traveled approximately 1,500 ft before coming to rest. The nose wheel and both main landing gear departed the aircraft and were found on the runway. There was no postimpact fire.

Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Make: Raytheon 
Registration: N412JA
Model/Series: Hawker 800XP 
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Amateur Built: No
Operator: 
Operating Certificate(s) Held: On-demand air taxi (135)
Operator Designator Code:

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: IMC 
Condition of Light: Night
Observation Facility, Elevation: KFRG,81 ft msl
Observation Time: 20:33 Local
Distance from Accident Site: 1 Nautical Miles
Temperature/Dew Point: 1°C /-1°C
Lowest Cloud Condition: 
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 3 knots / , 80°
Lowest Ceiling: IndefiniteVV / 200 ft AGL 
Visibility: 0.25 miles
Altimeter Setting: 30.02 inches Hg 
Type of Flight Plan Filed: IFR
Departure Point: Opa Locka, FL (OPF) 
Destination: Farmingdale, NY

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 1 Serious, 1 Minor 
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: N/A 
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A 
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 1 Serious, 1 Minor
Latitude, Longitude: 40.7268,-73.410425 (est) 



East Farmingdale Volunteer Fire Company Inc.

Our units are just taking up from Republic Airport after assisting Republic Airport Fire Rescue with a plane crash on the runway. Our volunteer firefighters laid down a foam blanket over the leaking jet fuel, while our EMS crews extricated the co-pilot from the aircraft. Both the pilot and co-pilot were taken to local area hospitals for further evaluation. All units were under the command of Chief of Department Duane Welliver.



The Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board are investigating after a  Raytheon Hawker 800XP landing gear collapsed at Republic Airport in East Farmingdale and the plane slid off the runway, federal officials said Monday.

The 2001 Raytheon Hawker 800XP operated by Talon Air carried two crew members but no passengers at the time of the Sunday night mishap, Talon Air spokeswoman Lisa Hendrickson said. According to records, the jet can seat 15, but Talon Air said this particular plane seats just eight.

Records confirmed by the Federal Aviation Administration show the flight departed Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport at 6:16 p.m. Sunday and arrived at Republic at about 8:35 p.m. According to Suffolk County police, the landing gear on the jet had "failed to deploy," but the FAA said in a statement Monday that the jet "experienced nose and main gear collapse" upon landing at Republic.

It was not immediately clear if the crew had any indication of a gear problem before landing — or if they declared an emergency before the incident.

The names of the pilots have not been released.

The plane landed at 8:35 p.m. and someone aboard radioed: "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday Talon Air 941 crash-landing runway 1-4, we're still occupying, send vehicles out," according to the Aviation Safety Network's website.

Police said First Precinct officers responded to the airport shortly before 9 p.m. for a report that a small plane landed off the runway. The two occupants were transported to Nassau University Medical Center in East Meadow for treatment of minor injuries, authorities said.

East Farmingdale Fire Department Chief Duane Welliver said the plane "crashed on landing and slid across the runway. We don’t have any details on what caused the crash."

33 comments:

  1. The landing gear failed to deploy? Or did the pilots fail to deploy the landing gear?

    Flight tracking shows the airplane did not circle the airport. Rather just performed a normal "one shot" approach. Where there was a problem with the landing gear you would expect them to circle the airport and make several attempts to bring down the landing gear. Not the case here.

    Looks like the pilots forgot to put wheels down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. If the gear had been down the mail gear doors would have been closed thereby preventing the gear from retracting completely into the well.

      Delete
    2. The official FAA accident and incident notification came out after the comment above was offered, AIN says it was a skid off, so it would appear that the gear was down.

      As noted in the KR-updated top of this page: "AIRCRAFT SKIDDED OFF RUNWAY, NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED AND BUCKLED UNDER FUSELAGE"

      Delete
    3. There’s no point to circling the airport, that’s tv bs. Once you’ve had a gear malfunction, and the checklist has driven you to doing a manual deployment then there’s no screwing around with the wheels again anyway. They’re either down and locked or they’re down and dangling. What’s the tower going to do for you at night anyway? They’re gonna tell you that they think they might see the gear down but can’t be certain.

      Delete
    4. What's the point in spending 5 minutes troubleshooting a landing gear problem?? As it turns out there wasn't a landing gear problem. News had it wrong. The gear was down but then the airplane skidded off the runway.

      Where you had a landing gear problem you would certainly enter a holding pattern for any variety of reasons. (1) Troubleshoot. (2) Burn off fuel.

      Give me a break.

      Delete
    5. Burning off fuel on that situation would be extremely dumb. While crash landing with almost 0 fuel is advisible for obvious reasons, it would have been stupid to do this when you have to shoot an approach on those conditions.

      Delete
    6. Your assumtpion is completely baseless. On those planes, especially with 2 pilots, it’s very hard to forget the gear. I’d say it’s more than liekly that plane has some sort of system to warn the pilots.

      Delete
    7. Mr Smith ... The original report read that it was a gear up landing ... that the landing gear failed to deploy. The news got it wrong. They corrected the story a few days ago. Wake up.

      Delete
  2. It will be interesting to read the pilot's account of how the departure from the runway happened. Unbalanced braking or reverse thrust seem like possible causes if surface contamination or deer on the field wasn't it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The airport was well below minimums for the approach. That could have a lot to do with the departure from the runway & gear collapse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From weather.gov 3 day scrolling history:
      Dy/ EST / Wind / Vis / WX / Sky / T /Dp/Rh/ Altimeter
      20 19:53 NE 3 0.75 Fog/Mist OVC002 34 32 92% 30.04
      20 20:53 Calm 0.25 Fog VV002 33 31 92% 30.02

      https://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KFRG.html

      Delete
    2. The flight was likely Part 91 (I say this because they were returning home with no pax) so they are legal to attempt the approach regardless of the weather (just because its legal doesnt mean its safe).
      The tower reported 1/4 mile vis (vis is controlling, ceiling is not) which is below the 3/4 mile minimum on the approach plate - but the the visibility is "flight visibility" and not tower visibility (so if they got to minimums of 200' and can see the lights, they can continue).

      Delete
  4. At 20:32 local time the flight was cleared for an ILS approach to runway 14. The Tower controller reported wind calm and stated that the aircraft that landed five minutes prior had reported that the cloud base was at minimums.

    She then reported that visibility had dropped to 1/4 mile in fog, indefinite ceiling with a vertical visibility of 200 feet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Records list the Raytheon Hawker 800XP as being able to seat 15..."

    Where did Talon Air get that information from? This is no Gulfstream. At best the interior is typically fitted with two sets of four facing club seats for a total of eight belted seats. The other typical one is a facing club set of four with one forward facing seat opposite a three place divan (sofa) for eight total cabin seats - nine in either configuration if you include the belted toilet seat in the back. Not sure I'd want Talon Air servicing my jet if they don't even have accurate data on its capabilities of passenger seats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Max 17 occupants per The original HS125 Type Certification (FAA A3EU // EASA.IM.A.085 )

      Delete
    2. The TCDS shows the aircraft is certified for 15 pax. Most are ordered with an 8,9 or occasionally a 10 seat configuration.

      Delete
    3. I have never seen Any Hawker 700/800/800XP that carried 17 I worked on them.

      Delete
    4. I'm sure you can cram 30 in there like chickens if you wanted to. Just remove the seats. But good luck taking off with any fuel. And I've seen the cabin of one of these: no way in hell you can lay out a small commuter seating configuration to seat 17 PAX. Stupid reference point for a certificate that can confuse rescue workers on preparations for dealing with the possible amount on board.

      Delete
    5. Well, "Anonymous," you're right that it's no Gulfstream, but you're wrong about the capacity and you don't appear to know much about this airplane despite your rather officious and pompous statement. In the early 60s, Hawker Siddeley designed the airplane to be a wartime conversion from VIP if needed. Stripped down interior would allow 15 troops strapped into racks on the fuselage. So in fact the reporting was correct, and you were not.

      Delete
  6. They were likely low on fuel from their flight up from FL. Also an no reversers on any of the Hawkers, I don't believe. But BIG breaks to help with stopping. The emergency gear extension is a "Blown down" if memory services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This one has thrust reversers. The telltale fish mouth nozzle exit profile and outline of the reverser clamshell panels are clearly visible in the photos.

      Delete
    2. This one has reversers but they are not deployed in the pics.

      Delete
    3. Only the Viper-powered HS.125s didn't have reversers, and even then it was available as an after-market addon (though few took it). All of the H25B and H25C series (700 - 1000) with the Honeywell/Garrett TFE731 were delivered standard with reversers.

      Delete
    4. The reason the reversers are not deployed in the post crash photos is because the pilots secured and shut down the engines. What hasn't been determined is whether the landing had a normal weight on wheels and thrust reverser control input after whatever flare, bounce or collapse scenario they experienced.

      Delete
    5. So much misinformation in this statement. A Hawker 800XP can fly from LA-NY no problem. Florida to NY? Don't even need ventral fuel. TRs were an option on 800As. This was an 800XP; they all had reversers. It's brakes, not breaks. Brake usage is light when landing a Hawker unless it's a short runway, as Lift Dump is extremely effective. Rwy 14 is 6833', little to no brake usage required on a runway that long. Emergency gear extension is done via hand pump, like a hydraulic floor jack, using the rudder gust lock rod. 50 or so pumps does it.

      Delete
  7. Looks like by the pictures, to me, that he slammed the plane into to ground and sheared the gear off, the one picture from the left front you can see the remnants of the nose gear strut. I think since the airport was at mins he just descended into the ground. And yes Hawker 800XP's have reversers the older Hawker 700 didn't have reversers. I am a former Hawker Beechcraft Technician.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With the XP being extra performance to support shorter runway fields, reversers had to be included to be XP.

      Delete
    2. reversers had nothing to do with it being called an XP. Besides reversers are not considered when determining landing distance required so whether you had reversers or not made no difference in the book numbers. The lift dump system was just as effective in slowing the a/c as reversers

      Delete
    3. @dwn - yeah well if there's one thing we pilots know well it is that book numbers do not count for every condition and situation. Bottom line: if you get in a bind outside of the "book" numbers, thrust reversers when deployed still in time can save the aircraft vs. no thrust reversers and using wheel brakes only. Especially during contaminated runway conditions.

      Delete
    4. Hmm, I flew 700s with reversers. They were borderline "completely ineffective" but they had them. Often pinned. Of course there were 700s without them, as well.

      Delete
  8. Sounds as if they needed autoland for what they were trying. Did they use their HUD if one is installed?

    ReplyDelete

All messages must be civil in tone; if critical, must be constructive. This is a place where we learn what not to do next time. Personal attacks and hate speech directed at the NTSB and FAA investigators, as well as other members of the aviation blog, are unacceptable because they are not constructive. Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other persons, such as threats to cause bodily harm, or that contain obscene or otherwise objectionable content, may result in the loss of your posting privileges.