Back to Squawk list

Aspen Challenger Jet crash captured on video

Soumis
 
Airport surveillance video has been released that captured the crash of the Challenger Jet at Aspen on January 5th. (vimeo.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


tellyys
Cameron Feary 3
I have a question. I'm only 16 but is there only one direction to land at aspen? Because the approach looked very fast and he was landing with the wind. This also means there could've been windshear. Is it not possible to land on that particular runway going the other way? Because isn't it common logic to land going into the wind?
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Good question. I had the same question immediately upon hearing about the accident. My suspicion about the need to land in that particular direction were later confirmed.

There's a huge mountain on the other end of the runway. So yeah, they are pretty much restricted in landing from and taking off from the one end. Even on the side that's used for flight operations, you can see quite a bit of fairly steep mountainous terrain. Still it's the better option.
lsharpe69
lsharpe69 2
Quickie? Aspen (KASE) has one runway (15/33). Rapid change in elev and town of Aspen to south [Google Earth to explore terrain/alt.]. Aspenairport.com has rather detailed operating procedures 'and' noise abatement plan. Copy/pasted: "Meteorological conditions permitting, use Runway 15 for all landings. NOTE: Using Runway 33 necessitates a high approach without overflying the town of Aspen". No noisy night flights here either! So large population of skiers who don't like noisy planes bringing in more skiers can be found on mountainous terrain south of rwy 33? This may shed light on desire for rwy 15. This approach appears to be safer (elev), skier friendlier (quieter), and overall 'preferred'. Sounds to me like hot/fast landings are fairly common.
bizjets101
biz jets 1
N535PC Learjet 35A Feb 13 1991 crashed r/w 15 3 dead
XA-ICA Learjet 60 Jan 6 1996 overrun landing r/w 15 crew survived
N303GA Gulfstream III Mar 29 2001 18 dead crash landing r/w 15
N500SW Learjet 60 Jun 7 2012 went off side of runway - all survived
N115WF Challenger 601 Jan 5 2014 1 dead landing r/w 15
lsharpe69
lsharpe69 2
There is a lot more to this than simple runway preference. Watching media coverage of this event and making inferences is foolish and I am guilty. The way I have this pictured in my mind is not close to the reality. This is not a sleepy airport with bored ATC like mine is. This is Aspen during ski season. The airport is hopping with plenty of traffic, metal and comm. There are planes lined up for departure on 33 and a stream of arrivals on 15. There are also wind shear issues. You can listen to archived ATC on LiveATC.net. I joined this forum because I saw something in the IR camera video that no one mentioned in media or online. I didn't see a busy airport, other traffic, or pireps. This accident did not occur in the vacuum of my mind! I will say one thing with certainty before I crawl back under my rock, 'I've learned a lot about flying into Aspen'.
bizjets101
biz jets 2
I watched the videos earlier today - took me a few minutes to recover after watching them.

Captain is still in critical condition, the passenger was released from the hospital in Colorado - not sure if he was flown to a Mexican hospital or home?

RIP condolences again to the co-pilot - NTSB has stated investigation final report should be released in 18 months.
mikeap
mikeap 1
I'm not a pilot, could someone explain what he attempted to do here? Did he try and do a touch and go? Or did he bounce off the ground?

I see touch and go with small planes often. I'm assuming they can't be done in a biz jet? Can someone explain why?

At what point is a go-around too late to try...50 ft? Is there a point at which its better to just land and see what happens versus trying to go around?

Genuinely interested.
bizjets101
biz jets 2
It will be 18 months before we know what happened.

Though we can see the flight path, we don't know why it occurred.

Factually the aircraft was landing with a tail wind above the legal requirements for landing a Challenger 601. So you have changing winds, tailwind, windshear, pressure to land, stress from previous missed approach.

We don't know if the dive to the runway after the highspeed bounce - was caused by the pilots attempt to land, a pilot slamming into the controls after the bounce, combination of windshear, if they applied power to go around????

On an extensive investigation can answer your question - both Black Boxes were recovered and will be eventually released.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Touch and goes can be done in bizjets/airliners etc., no problem.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In an emergency a go around can occur until you run out of runway and crash - it can be split second decision with life and death results.

Here is a crash of a Hawker with a tail wind, landing on a wet runway, who attempted a go around and ran out of runway;

https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/AAR1101.pdf
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Lately, I've been interested in this very question, about the split second decision to stick a landing or go around in the last seconds of flight.

Seems like a good question to consider in pilot training to improve pilot decision making under pressure in difficult situations.

[There are a number of recent incidents that bring the question to mind, from Asiana trying to go around too late, to the Drwamlifter and SW 737 sticking their landing at unexpectedly short runways at he wrong airports, to this Challenger going around once, then bouncing hard an crashing on the second attempted landing, and many more.]
bizjets101
biz jets 1
Just watched the videos again, small bounce, followed by a big bounce with sparks coming from the nose wheel, followed by possible aerodynamic stall???
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
The video from camera #5 is almost unbelievable. The approach is quite steep and fast, they flare, bounce hard and then abruptly nose-dive and burst into flames on impact.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Ya know, it looks like after the bounce they pushed the nose down. With all that speed you wouldn't think it was the result of stalling. That was a carrier landing X 2.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 2
I thought the same at first, but I doubt the control surfaces have that much authority. I'm guessing the tail got dislocated during the hard landing and bounce, resulting in static down elevator from the vertical stabilizer.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
There's a reason the jet isn't certified to land with this much tail wind.

1. The more the tail wind, the faster the approach speed. The more the speed, the greater chance to mess things up.

2. Whenever you have this much wind, it is always always invariably gusty. Variability in wind is even worse, than een greater but constant wind. Especially at critical moments, like at touchdown, variability is even more dangerous.

I didn't look at the video close enough to make a definitive determination, but it seemed that the plane was beij thrown around in the wind as it descended. Seemed to me it was reflective of the gusty and variable nature of the wind.

What exactly happened inside the cockpit, I'll leave to others to guess. We'll learn more definitive info on that front when the eventual NTSB report is issued.

Clearly, the conditions weren't among the best. The pilots were completely new to the aircraft (except for the contracted pilot with type experience).

Given the difficulty of the conditions, and the fact that there had been already one go around, one would hope the experienced pilot took over the landing. Who knows? If it were an evaluation flight (for the purpose of making a purchase decision), maybe the pilots, who would be expected to make these landings regularly, may have wanted to perform all landings themselves.

Some pilots make landings like these all the time, so might not think much of it. But the winds may have exceeded the capabilities of the plane and/or the pilots.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
We are only seeing a few seconds of the approach, the ones that count. I wonder if they ever achieved a "stabilized approach" ? In conditions like that the plane better be very familiar: as the saying goes, like an extension of yourself.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Yup, that's exactly where I'm going with my comment.

Only one person on that plane could've known the plane so well. But not sure if he was flying, or just around to explain the plane and to teach the other guys how to handle it.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Hard as they hit that very well could be.
karterhickling
Ya that makes sense cause it was too abrupt for a stall
lj35capt
Josiah Waters 1
Maybe now that this video has been released, some of the censure I received in the other initial thread regarding this crash will be edited/removed - you guys know who you are;) I placed a strong emphasis on crew incompetency, making the case in several of my posts that I was quite certain that the investigation would show that approach was not a "stabilized approach", and that lack of experience and incompetency (given the conditions) was the likely culprit. I stated that, at best a crew with more experience could have (and most likely would have) made a determination that the landing was unsafe long before they got behind the aircraft and faced the inevitable outcome of a forced landing outside of the crew's abilities.

Instead of being willing to entertain the incompetency theory, several who replied to my posts downplayed my interest on their time in type, training, FAA records, and total time as PIC, and singularly blamed the windshear conditions as the crash cause.

It is so sad that this happened, and while the official report is still forthcoming I am not making any specific predictions, other than the simple observation of the unstabilized approach, and subsequent decision making to continue with the forced landing.

(On side note: What do you think the chances are that the spoilers and TR's were possibly deployed on the initial ground contact? I can't tell from the video, but if you look at the size of the heat signature after first contact with the runway it appears that there is a significant increase in signature around the engines on the "bounce" prior to the aggressive nosedown attitude and impact. Infrared heat signature dramatically increase in visibility and diameter when viewed from the front of the aircraft anytime TR's are in use. A mere addition of thrust could also explain this, but just a thought to throw out there...)
lj35capt
Josiah Waters 2
Here is an example:

Carlos Bea 21 days ago -3 DownvoteUpvote
Some of your statements are idiotic. You were not here. I was and still am. I flew a Hawker in here 3 days ago. Weather was not a factor? My God!!!!! Tailwind gusts over 30 knots with wind shear over 20 & a ceiling that precluded a circle to 15? I flew a Hawker in here 3 days ago. The weather yesterday was hazardous.
Btw, I've also landed Learjets on runway 33 here. Have you? It's not a cakewalk.....weather permitting.
I spoke with several long time line guys this morning who witnessed the crash and the arrivals of the aircraft preceding it. They had never seen such treacherous & dicey arrivals or wind conditions before. Ever!
No pilot, regardless of their experience level, was safe attempting such a landing except perhaps you. Ridiculous!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent Thread•Report

lj35capt
Josiah Waters 21 days ago 2 DownvoteUpvote
I never said I was there. However, you almost make it sound like the crash was the only possible/inevitable outcome. I stand by what I said, and I don't believe an experienced crew would have had the same outcome. Your statement in the last sentence is also refuted by evidence in the fact that the Lear 45 successfully landed under what was nearly the same conditions roughly 10 minutes before the first attempt by the 115WF crew.

I stand by my statements and am quite confident that the NTSB report will point out one important issue: I do not believe the crew was flying a stabilized approach, nor do I think the crew had the experience or confidence necessary to make the appropriate calls leading to the failed outcome.

Keep in mind, I agree that the conditions were not a cakewalk, nor did I say such in my post. Care to share which statements were idiotic?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent Thread•Report

treehouse4rent
Carlos Bea 21 days ago -2 DownvoteUpvote
Are you even a real pilot or one of those virtual pilots? Your smug rationale and disrespect for fellow aviators & overwhelming immaturity on this forum is eye opening.

Btw, I'm rated in A Lear 45 as well.

Idiotic statements:
1- weather was not a factor
2- ceiling was adequate
3-incompetence lead to crash. No, how about stupidity.

Most idiotic statement yet: A more experienced crew would have precluded such an accident.

Do yourself a favor and review the NTSB database of Learjet accidents the past 30 years. Many pilots, some with over 8,000 hours in Learjets alone, are deceased. But, according to you, that can't happen.

Professionalism is about decision making. What the arriving crews did was not professional. Period.

I predict one day, with your attitude, you'll quite possibly join that unenviable group.

Good luck!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent Thread•Report
lj35capt
Josiah Waters 1
My reply:

Josiah Waters 21 days ago 5 DownvoteUpvote
Your ad hominem response is a little surprising given that I didn't attack your credentials, nor did I (or would I) make predictions about your aviation career ending in ignominy.

You said that I stated: "A more experienced crew would have precluded such an accident." I never said that. I said: " I don't believe an experienced crew would have had the same outcome." Very different.

You said that I SAID the following idiotic statements (I answer in parentheses)

"1- weather was not a factor" (that is not exactly as I stated it but if poor wind conditions CAUSE one to make poor decisions that lead them to the outcome experienced by N115WF maybe they should surrender their certs before such a pilot jeopardizes anyone's lives.)

"2- ceiling was adequate" (how is this idiotic? Read your approach plates and tell me what you find out. Oh yes, well above minimums, and you say you just flew in there? The ceiling WAS adequate.)

"3-incompetence lead to crash. No, how about stupidity." (I didn't use the word stupidity because, unlike your statement "Your smug rationale and disrespect for fellow aviators..." I DO respect my fellow aviators and don't label a lack of experience as stupidity)

I am sorry that I stepped on your toes by sharing my post about training/proficiency. My intent was to shine the light on an issue of training and competency that I feel is lacking in certain countries, and I am disappointed at the misuse of my words to trigger racist remarks from some, and ire from other individuals like such as yourself. I do respect my fellow aviators, including you, and wish you all the best in your career.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent Thread•Report
marinesteban
Esteban Marin 1
Look at the wind gust on camera #4, you can see it on the ramp
lsharpe69
lsharpe69 1
Play the video start-pause repeatedly at/after nose gear touchdown. You will see (at least I do) damage to nose gear (possible collapse) and accompanying sparks. This is closely followed in sequence by a fire in left engine (possibly both). Nose gear did not break off as it appears to be visible in post-accident photo. Apparent nose strut orientation here is clearly aft in the wheel well. This is what 'I' observe. You may see this differently. I make no assertions as to the root cause of the accident. See NTSB preliminary for reported weather. I look forward to NTSB release of CVR/DFR data and final report. Any accident with fatalities and/or serious injury is tragic. Hopefully knowledge will be gained and/or lessons learned here to prevent a recurrence.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Thanks for taking the time to look it so closely.

Nose gear , hiwever, wouldn't account for the hard landing, bounce, attaining significant post contact altitude and then pitching nose down into the ground.
lsharpe69
lsharpe69 1
Attitude at touchdown appears to me to be nose down and nose wheel first. Be sure to watch camera with dedicated view of final approach. If the nose gear collapsed as it appears (to me), there would have been tremendous vibration. One can only imagine the terror in the cockpit while skidding nose down with blinking warning lights and audible alarms. Pilot clearly attempts abort (nose up. Did pilot see engine fire indication and attempt to abort 'the abort' (nose down)? Panic is conceivable. What actually happened in mind of pilot during these precious seconds we may never know. Was there sufficient engine performance to maintain abort thrust? Were both engines on fire? One can speculate here with 'many' scenarios. It is best to wait for the NTSB to make a thorough evaluation of this one. Also, I meant 'FDR' in earlier comment (not 'DFR'). The recorded flight data and timeline here will provide many answers to our questions.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
With events like this we do a lot of guessing and speculating here. I usually learn something even from the speculating, someone else's is usually different than mine. I think most is done in earnest and I doubt anybody on here knows it all so I personally enjoy hearing everyone's take. One thing that hits me looking at the film is that after the initial touchdown (??) there was never a chance of a go around and the pilots knew it. Even if there was a chance of limping back to airborne who would want to given weather, terrain, damage, etc. Sometimes you got to accept what you got. At least 2 lived and that looks damn lucky to me.
lsharpe69
lsharpe69 1
I certainly agree. When you consider how fast this happened the pilot response is remarkable. I can think of a thousand places I would rather be 'limping back to' than Aspen in winter with gusty winds. My gut feeling is pilot reacted to fire warning light(s). [view courtesy ABC News] This accident presents more questions than answers. There are plenty of 'knowns' we could discuss and likely result in more questions. Until release of cockpit data we are stuck. Even ATC transcript would help. You can bet this squawk will heat up as facts become available.
karterhickling
It looks as though when they first touched down that there was a problem with the nose wheel and that they tried to lift off and go around again. The nose dive at then end looked way to abrupt to be a stall there had to be elevator malfunction or something..... There didn't seem to be much of a flare so it could have been a hard enough landing to damage the nose wheel. The wind gusts look significant though I'm not sure how much wind that aircraft could take. It will be interesting to see what they say in the final report.
bizjets101
biz jets 0
Looking at it closely it appears the aircraft landed on it's nose wheel first, then mains, and bounced, came back down hard and porpoised - same accident that occurred to N611FE FedEx MD-11F - http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19970731-0 .

I don't believe anything 'broke', but the pilots missed their chance to save it, not sure if someone added power or not - two Captains up front - who knows - they would have had a second between them to react.
ccthorp
ccthorp 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

New Video Shows Fatal Aspen Plane Crash

Newly released video may provide clues about what caused a private plane to crash off a runway in Aspen, Colo., earlier this month, leaving one person dead and two others injured. The black-and-white video, captured by five infrared cameras, shows the plane exploding in flames after it landed off the side of the runway and flipped over.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/01/new-video-shows-fatal-aspen-plane-crash/
nuconrad
george bruton 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

video of the Aspen crash 5 views.

The video was released in response to a Colorado Open Records Act request from Aspen Journalism, which provided 9NEWS with the video.

One person was killed and two injured when the Canadair CL-600 crashed while attempting to land at the airport.

Sergio Carranza Brabata was killed.

Investigators say all three were pilots from Mexico and were flying to Aspen from Toluca, Mexico, to pick up family and friends. They were the only ones aboard.

Investigators haven't said who was in control of the plane at the time of the crash.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5cc_1390360523#G4K7Huo8EykLXfAy.99

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5cc_1390360523
ccthorp
ccthorp 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Video shows plane’s fatal crash landing in Aspen, Colorado

The plane is only in the shot for a few seconds. But in that time, it goes from just another small aircraft landing at a Colorado airport to a horrific fireball.
New video from the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport may provide clues about what went wrong on January 5 when the crash killed a co-pilot. Two other people on board the small plane were injured.

http://fox4kc.com/2014/01/22/video-shows-planes-fatal-crash-landing-in-aspen-colorado/

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!