Aspen, Colorado Canadair crash

[AVION1]

Just in, a CL-600 just crashed in Aspen, Colorado. One person is dead.

[AVION1]

A private plane crashed and burned Sunday at an airport in Aspen, Colo., the Federal Aviation Administration said.

Emergency crews were at the scene at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, which was closed after the crash at 12:30 p.m. MT, the FAA said. Pitkin County Sheriff Joe DiSalvo told The Aspen Times that one person was killed and another seriously injured. NBC-TV, also citing sheriff officials, said one person died and at least two survived.

"I just saw a huge plume of smoke," said Jay Sills, who was at the airport and saw the plane moments after it crashed. "I came around the corner and the plane was upside down, rocking back and forth, next to the runway."

Sills says it appeared the cabin was still intact. He says a firetruck was on scene almost immediately after crash. FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer said the plane appeared to be a twin-engine Bombardier Challenger 600 en route to from Tucson, Ariz., to Aspen, about 100 miles southwest of Denver.

Comedian Kevin Nealon tweeted from the scene: "Horrible plane crash here at Aspen airport. Exploded into flames as it was landing. I think it was a private jet."

Later he tweeted: "Fire trucks and other emergency vehicles still at scene. No word on survivors or who was on jet but I can't imagine there are survivors."

Singer LeAnn Rimes tweeted: "So sad! Horrible plane crash we just saw happen at the Aspen airport."

[ErwinS]

N115wf....... Rip

[James Bond]

[James Bond]

A Canadair Challenger 601 corporate jet, reported by Flightaware to be N115WF, sustained substantial damage in a landing accident at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, CO (ASE). The airplane came to rest upside down on runway 15. The right hand wing had broken off and a fire erupted. Three people were on board the airplane, the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office said. One person died in the crash, one person has major to severe injuries and one person has minor to moderate injuries.
Flightaware data show that Challenger N115WF arrived at Tucson International Airport, AZ (TUS) about 08:47 MST following a flight from Toluca (TLC), Mexico. The airplane then departed at 10:04 MST, bound for Aspen, CO.
Audio from the Aspen Tower frequency shows N115WF being cleared to land about 12:10 but the flight executed a missed approach: "Missed approach November one one five Wiskey Fox .. Thirty three knots of tailwind." Other flights had also reported low level windshear and a gain of 5-20 knots on approach.
Following the missed approach procedure, N115WF was again cleared to land about 12:20: "November one one five Wiskey Foxtrot wind three three zero at one six, runway one five cleared to land. One minute average three two zero, one four, gust two five." This clearance was confirmed by N115WF: "Roger one one five Wiskey Fox."
The FAA confirmed to ABC News that the airplane was a "Bombardier Challenger 600, coming from Tucson to Aspen".

The last automated weather report before the accident read:
KASE 051853Z 31009G28KT 270V360 9SM HZ FEW035 BKN046 OVC050 M11/M20 A3007 RMK AO2 PK WND 33028/1851 SLP243 T11111200 $
18:53 UTC (11:53 LT): Wind 310 degrees at 9 knots, gusting to 28 knots; wind variable between 270 and 360 degrees; Visibility: 9 miles in haze; few clouds at 3500 feet AGL, broken clouds at 4600 feet AGL, overcast cloud deck at 5000 feet AGL; Temperature: -11°C, Dew point -20°C; pressure 30.07 inches Hg.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140105-1

[James Bond]

http://newsbcpcol.stb.s-msn.com/amnews/i/74/b26449858d04d6770c7a930f0b08b/_h2539_w4828_m2_bwhite.jpg

https://twitter.com/janet15ou/status/419963911098490880/photo/1

[TeeVee]

sad but it sounds like a case of impatient pilots. my buddy that flies a challenger says max tailwind is 10 knots, so these poor slobs exceeded the manual by a factor of more than 3.

[3WE]

It might be a bit too simplistic to say "excessive tailwind".

If it was the the tailwind- then "the crash" should have been an over run off the end of the runay- but what from I'm reading they crashed on the runway.

All that being said- it was first class nasty windy and I'd bet on the mountains having it all stirred up.

[Highkeas]

It might be a bit too simplistic to say "excessive tailwind".

If it was the the tailwind- then "the crash" should have been an over run off the end of the runay- but what from I'm reading they crashed on the runway.

All that being said- it was first class nasty windy and I'd bet on the mountains having it all stirred up.

With a high enough tailwind gust couldn't the aircraft stall, hit the ground, and tumble?

[3WE]

With a high enough tailwind gust couldn't the aircraft stall, hit the ground, and tumble?

A strong enough gust yes- but the comment was made that the ~30 kt tailwind was 3X what the plane could handle- that's not a gust.

Of course- that too may be overly simplistic. Delta 191 encountered a 70 kt speed-loss-wind-shear and never stalled.

[TeeVee]

there's a reason the manufacturer assigns a maximum cross and tail wind and i'm sure they're not arbitrary.

perhaps these guys got scared by a strong gust close to touchdown and over-reacted.

whatever turns out to be the cause, there can be no question that they broke the regs. bet they are both out of the flying biz forever.

[3WE]

there's a reason the manufacturer assigns a maximum cross and tail wind and i'm sure they're not arbitrary.

So there's a statement worthy of a thread hijack.

There's some pretty interesting fine print on "the maximum demonstrated crosswind component"...

...including the fact that one may make a legal landing in a higher crosswind.

If Gabriel chimes in, we've got our bedtime reading taken care of.

[TeeVee]

So there's a statement worthy of a thread hijack.

There's some pretty interesting fine print on "the maximum demonstrated crosswind component"...

...including the fact that one may make a legal landing in a higher crosswind.

If Gabriel chimes in, we've got our bedtime reading taken care of.

so, i'll take the bait.

are you saying that it was ok for them to violate the manufacturer's written max landing just because it is theoretically possible that they could have made it despite the monster tailwind while landing at an already challenging field even in good weather?

[Gabriel]

So there's a statement worthy of a thread hijack.

There's some pretty interesting fine print on "the maximum demonstrated crosswind component"...

...including the fact that one may make a legal landing in a higher crosswind.

If Gabriel chimes in, we've got our bedtime reading taken care of.

The maximum demonstrated crosswind is the max crosswind that the manufacutrer demonstrated during certification. It's not a limitation. And hence, it cannot be violated.

That said, it is usually considered a good practice not to attempt to do what test pilots didn't attempt themselves.

Good night.

[3WE]

The maximum demonstrated crosswind is the max crosswind that the manufacutrer demonstrated during certification.

Shortening a Gabriel post...just because I can