Aspen, Colorado Canadair crash

[brianw999]

A comment on crosswind component. From the AAIB investigation into AAIB Bulletin No: 10/2002 INCIDENT

Bombardier Canadair CL600-2B19, G-MSKP
28 January 2002 at 1430
AAIB Bulletin No: 10/2002 INCIDENT
Aircraft Type and Registration:
28 January 2002 at 1430 hrs

As the aircraft approached the top of descent point for Birmingham the crew obtained the current ATIS information. Identified as 'Hotel' and timed at 1355 hrs, the following conditions were reported: surface wind 250°/23 kt, visibility greater than 10 km, cloud broken at 3,000 feet. Runway 33 was the designated runway in use and the aircraft crosswind limit was 27 kt. The crew considered Runway 24 but were unable to use it because of performance limitations.

They talk about max wind speed but not crosswind offset angle.

[Gabriel]

They talk about max wind speed but not crosswind offset angle.

The crosswind is taken as the component of the wind that is perpendicular to the track (or the runway in this case), and hence the offset angle is not important in the definition of the limitation. You can have the same crosswind component with a given wind which is 90° off the runway or with a much stronger wind that is a bit offset.

In this specific case, the wind was from 250 and the runway was 330, which is 80° offset, so most of the wind speed will bein the crosswind component, but the wind was reported 23kts, so no matter what angle, the crosswind component would be below the 27kts limit.

[elaw]

But you can compute it from the information given. Runway heading = 330 degrees, wind direction = 250 degrees, difference = 80 degrees meaning the wind is coming almost directly from the left. Basically the aircraft would be traveling north-northwest and the wind would be coming from west-southwest.

Interestingly, those numbers indicate no tailwind - in fact a very slight headwind.

[3WE]

Interestingly, those numbers indicate no tailwind - in fact a very slight headwind.

Um yeah...

The tailwind component will kick when the angle difference hits about 91 degrees.

[elaw]

Heh... something that I, and maybe a few others, have missed... the item that Brian posted doesn't relate to this accident! I think he meant it only as an example of the data that is provided.

Regarding the headwind/tailwind thing, 3WE is quite correct, although with a wind coming from 91 degrees off your heading, the tailwind component will be insignificant - about 0.4 knots with a 23-knot wind.

[3WE]

mispost

[guamainiac]

Perhaps the FAA should start using terminology such as ...... "maximum demonstrated crosswind component, Good Lord a' willing and the creek don't rise".

[Highkeas]

Latest from NTSB:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140106X95024&key=1

[B757300]

In response to a Colorado Open Records Act request from Aspen Journalism, the Aspen/Pitkin County airport has released video of the fatal jet crash that occurred on Sunday, Jan. 5, 2014.

The video was captured by five different cameras normally used by airport officials to monitor activity on the ramps, or aprons, outside the general aviation and commercial aviation terminals.

https://vimeo.com/84713706

[3WE]

WOW...not unlike the Narita DC-10 crash.

[Evan]

WOW...not unlike the Narita DC-10 crash.

Yes and no. The way the nose pitches down (or tail pitches up) after the bounce looks much more pronounced, like full forward control column. It looks like it hits nose first rather than nose gear first. I wonder if the pilot was badly injured or impaired after that hard bounce, or if the elevator control was damaged.

[brianw999]

You can also see the wind direction and speed on cameras 3 and 4. Looks like quite a severe tailwind with heavy gusts.
After the bounce the aircraft slows very quickly and seems to dive into the ground at about 40 degrees.

[3WE]

...The way the nose pitches down (or tail pitches up) after the bounce looks much more pronounced...

Would a much shorter and much lighter aircraft be able to pitch in a much more pronounced matter...

[Gabriel]

Yes and no. The way the nose pitches down (or tail pitches up) after the bounce looks much more pronounced, like full forward control column. It looks like it hits nose first rather than nose gear first. I wonder if the pilot was badly injured or impaired after that hard bounce, or if the elevator control was damaged.

You've stolen my post. That's exactly what I was going to say.

[Gabriel]

Would a much shorter and much lighter aircraft be able to pitch in a much more pronounced matter...

I agree with Evan that, unlike the FedEx crash, in this case the last strong pitch down after the last bounce doesn't look like the result of PIO. It doesn't seem the result of the pilot's intentional inputs. More like, with the last bounce (which was quite violent itself) the pilot slumped on the yoke or something in the plane got damaged, bent or something.

Keyword: "looks like"