Aircraft down at Blackbushe?
Discussion
onyx39 said:
So they COULD technically fly, ie CAA would allow it?
No. The CAA would, possibly still will, take your money to register just about anything, someone was rumoured to have got a manhole cover on the register a few years back. But getting a permit to fly is the stumbling block. converted lurker said:
The runways gash for Phenom scale ops yes. They should pay a little more and go up the road to Farnborough and pay TAG.
Oh dear, yet again CL you are making s
t up as you go along. I've never flown a Phenom, but a wee bit of research shows that the LDR (Landing Distance Required) for a Phenom 300 at MLW (max landing weight) is 2621 ft at Sea level in ISA conditions (+15C, 1013.25mb).
Given that the a/c went into the car auction site, I'm guessing it was attempting to land on R/W 25. The LDA (Landing Disance Available) on that R/W is 3474 ft. I don't have the TDZE (Touchdown Zone Elevation) to hand but it's moot anyway since the field elevation is 324 ft. Now, I don't have access to a Phenom ODM (Operating Data Manual) but I would seriously doubt that the elevation of Blackbushe would eat up the spare 850 odd ft (and that's if the a/c was landing at MLW which is pretty bloody unlikely since the a/c had flown in from Milan).
So gash? No. Marginal R/W? Not really.
The point is that Performance A is bloody Performance A, you don't need to go around adding extra meningy feet of tarmac, it's already built in to the performance calculation.
converted lurker said:
What happens when you're flying is that you can get very goal focussed.
Only if you are a fking idiot.converted lurker said:
That's why single pilot ops are dangerous in high performance aircraft. It's essentially a ten ton kinetic weapon guided by someone who is not making rational judgements. If there were two professional pilots on that flightdeck the other one would have been telling Ahmed to bloody well go around as they merrily sailed over the threshold following Ahmeds fairly gash circuit.
So you are saying that single pilot biz jet ops are inherently dangerous?Hmm, strange that given that the RAF did exactly that for 45 years with the Dominie. Not only that, but for an awful lot of that time it was operated in the LL environment. Oh, and into some short fields.
Or are you making a Cultural reference, given the way that you dismiss the pilot as 'Ahmed' ?
Now, if he was hot and high on the approach and didn't throw it away he's a bloody fool but until such time as the ADR and CVR are accessed you don't know that for certain. You say you have 'hard data' but you don't.
converted lurker said:
RAF fighter pilots are extensively medical screened then tested routinely in considerable depth and then retired by 40 from Ops. Some Jordanian guy in his mid 50's whose cousin is his AME flying who knows what flight rosters is - once again - a completely different thing.
There you go, making st up again. If you were a Military pilot you would, no doubt, have heard of PAS (Permanent Aircrew Spine), what in my day was termed 'Specialist Aircrew'. For the non RAF types, Aircrew who do 16 years service or get to age 38 (whichever comes later) and who have not been promoted to Sqn Ldr may get the option to come out of the 'Promotion Game' and concentrate solely upon flying until age 55.So the idea that the RAF retires its pilots at age 40 is utter horlicks.
converted lurker said:
And yes, anything larger than Beechcraft should be two pilot in my opinion.
As I said on the Gnat thread, when you start spouting made up crap sunshine, I stop believing anything you say. Personally I don't think your opinion is worth jack.Non
t up as you go along.
I've never flown a Phenom, but a wee bit of research shows that the LDR (Landing Distance Required) for a Phenom 300 at MLW (max landing weight) is 2621 ft at Sea level in ISA conditions (+15C, 1013.25mb).
Given that the a/c went into the car auction site, I'm guessing it was attempting to land on R/W 25. The LDA (Landing Disance Available) on that R/W is 3474 ft. I don't have the TDZE (Touchdown Zone Elevation) to hand but it's moot anyway since the field elevation is 324 ft. Now, I don't have access to a Phenom ODM (Operating Data Manual) but I would seriously doubt that the elevation of Blackbushe would eat up the spare 850 odd ft (and that's if the a/c was landing at MLW which is pretty bloody unlikely since the a/c had flown in from Milan).
So gash? No. Marginal R/W? Not really.
The point is that Performance A is bloody Performance A, you don't need to go around adding extra meningy feet of tarmac, it's already built in to the performance calculation.
king idiot.
Hmm, strange that given that the RAF did exactly that for 45 years with the Dominie. Not only that, but for an awful lot of that time it was operated in the LL environment. Oh, and into some short fields.
Or are you making a Cultural reference, given the way that you dismiss the pilot as 'Ahmed' ?
Now, if he was hot and high on the approach and didn't throw it away he's a bloody fool but until such time as the ADR and CVR are accessed you don't know that for certain. You say you have 'hard data' but you don't.
t up again. If you were a Military pilot you would, no doubt, have heard of PAS (Permanent Aircrew Spine), what in my day was termed 'Specialist Aircrew'. For the non RAF types, Aircrew who do 16 years service or get to age 38 (whichever comes later) and who have not been promoted to Sqn Ldr may get the option to come out of the 'Promotion Game' and concentrate solely upon flying until age 55.
So the idea that the RAF retires its pilots at age 40 is utter horlicks.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
converted lurker said:
The runways gash for Phenom scale ops yes. They should pay a little more and go up the road to Farnborough and pay TAG.
Oh dear, yet again CL you are making st up as you go along. I've never flown a Phenom, but a wee bit of research shows that the LDR (Landing Distance Required) for a Phenom 300 at MLW (max landing weight) is 2621 ft at Sea level in ISA conditions (+15C, 1013.25mb).
Given that the a/c went into the car auction site, I'm guessing it was attempting to land on R/W 25. The LDA (Landing Disance Available) on that R/W is 3474 ft. I don't have the TDZE (Touchdown Zone Elevation) to hand but it's moot anyway since the field elevation is 324 ft. Now, I don't have access to a Phenom ODM (Operating Data Manual) but I would seriously doubt that the elevation of Blackbushe would eat up the spare 850 odd ft (and that's if the a/c was landing at MLW which is pretty bloody unlikely since the a/c had flown in from Milan).
So gash? No. Marginal R/W? Not really.
The point is that Performance A is bloody Performance A, you don't need to go around adding extra meningy feet of tarmac, it's already built in to the performance calculation.
converted lurker said:
What happens when you're flying is that you can get very goal focussed.
Only if you are a fking idiot.converted lurker said:
That's why single pilot ops are dangerous in high performance aircraft. It's essentially a ten ton kinetic weapon guided by someone who is not making rational judgements. If there were two professional pilots on that flightdeck the other one would have been telling Ahmed to bloody well go around as they merrily sailed over the threshold following Ahmeds fairly gash circuit.
So you are saying that single pilot biz jet ops are inherently dangerous?Hmm, strange that given that the RAF did exactly that for 45 years with the Dominie. Not only that, but for an awful lot of that time it was operated in the LL environment. Oh, and into some short fields.
Or are you making a Cultural reference, given the way that you dismiss the pilot as 'Ahmed' ?
Now, if he was hot and high on the approach and didn't throw it away he's a bloody fool but until such time as the ADR and CVR are accessed you don't know that for certain. You say you have 'hard data' but you don't.
converted lurker said:
RAF fighter pilots are extensively medical screened then tested routinely in considerable depth and then retired by 40 from Ops. Some Jordanian guy in his mid 50's whose cousin is his AME flying who knows what flight rosters is - once again - a completely different thing.
There you go, making st up again. If you were a Military pilot you would, no doubt, have heard of PAS (Permanent Aircrew Spine), what in my day was termed 'Specialist Aircrew'. For the non RAF types, Aircrew who do 16 years service or get to age 38 (whichever comes later) and who have not been promoted to Sqn Ldr may get the option to come out of the 'Promotion Game' and concentrate solely upon flying until age 55.So the idea that the RAF retires its pilots at age 40 is utter horlicks.
converted lurker said:
And yes, anything larger than Beechcraft should be two pilot in my opinion.
As I said on the Gnat thread, when you start spouting made up crap sunshine, I stop believing anything you say. Personally I don't think your opinion is worth jack.richw_82 said:
converted lurker said:
As CAA personnel have already admitted - they wouldn't have allowed the Gnat now.
If that were the case, they wouldn't have allowed the Lightning flight, or considered Bucanneer, and we certainly wouldn't have the Vulcan. Or if you want to start looking at really grim accident statistics for aircrew, the Meteor. Show us where they admitted Gnat wouldn't be allowed - if indeed you can. Present evidence - as thats what the CAA work with - not just more forum posts with suspect claims presented as facts.Looking at Gnat accidents in civilian hands you can count them on one hand, since they started operating in 1982. By contrast how many simple category aircraft (Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, etc) have been lost in the same period? Hardly what you would expect from a jet that the CAA were so worried about.
Lightning one-off flight was a very special instance.
Buccaneer has been approved for test and ferry flights; it took a lot of work to get them to agree to proper operation of one and the single airframe that got that far has yet to fly in civilian hands.
Vulcan another special instance - lots of industry support, and years and years of work to get there.
AAIB bulletin published: https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media...
Is this jet especially floaty and low drag? The database is all runway over-runs:
https://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Embraer...
That said 150 kts over the threshold gets a very long touchdown.
https://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Embraer...
That said 150 kts over the threshold gets a very long touchdown.
DM stating the pilot had to avoid a microlight on final approach which caused him to try and land too far up the runway.
Notice that the AAIB report doesn't say how significant a part that was. Surely, it could all be down to the microlight pilot?
Notice that the AAIB report doesn't say how significant a part that was. Surely, it could all be down to the microlight pilot?
Edited by pidsy on Thursday 6th August 20:03
pidsy said:
DM stating the pilot had to avoid a microlight on final approach which caused him to try and land too far up the runway.
Notice that the AAIB report doesn't say how significant a part that was. Surely, it could all be down to the microlight pilot?
Doesn't explain why he chose not to go around though?Notice that the AAIB report doesn't say how significant a part that was. Surely, it could all be down to the microlight pilot?
Edited by pidsy on Thursday 6th August 20:03
No, it doesn't. This was a very hot landing and the reasons behind it will take some time to determine, if they can be at all.
11,000 hours flying time is a lot of experience and to answer the above I don't personally think only 5 hours in the previous 4 weeks is particularly relevant given the well-ingrained experience behind that. You don't just forget all the basics of 11,000 hours of history by having a quiet month.
I think this also demonstrates that the length of runway is not at all relevant either. Touching down 3/4 way down any runway is indicative of other failings but I'm not going to throw guesses at why that happened.
11,000 hours flying time is a lot of experience and to answer the above I don't personally think only 5 hours in the previous 4 weeks is particularly relevant given the well-ingrained experience behind that. You don't just forget all the basics of 11,000 hours of history by having a quiet month.
I think this also demonstrates that the length of runway is not at all relevant either. Touching down 3/4 way down any runway is indicative of other failings but I'm not going to throw guesses at why that happened.
pidsy said:
DM stating the pilot had to avoid a microlight on final approach which caused him to try and land too far up the runway.
Notice that the AAIB report doesn't say how significant a part that was. Surely, it could all be down to the microlight pilot?
My reading of the report is that the microlight was passed by the Phenom on the downwind leg of the circuit - nothing to indicate that the microlight was doing anything other than flying a standard downwind leg.Notice that the AAIB report doesn't say how significant a part that was. Surely, it could all be down to the microlight pilot?
Edited by pidsy on Thursday 6th August 20:03
pidsy said:
DM stating the pilot had to avoid a microlight on final approach which caused him to try and land too far up the runway.
Notice that the AAIB report doesn't say how significant a part that was. Surely, it could all be down to the microlight pilot?
The microlight triggered TCAS which may have distracted him but not their fault imo. Either way he was long and fast with a crazy sink rate so should have gone around. Why he didn't is the question.Notice that the AAIB report doesn't say how significant a part that was. Surely, it could all be down to the microlight pilot?
Edited by pidsy on Thursday 6th August 20:03
I have seen a microlight pilot post somewhere who said he flew over shortly after the accident. Assume he would not have posted had he felt responsible in any way.
Reality is that for whatever reason the pilot hit the tarmac too fast and too late, we need the full report to see if there are any other explanations
Reality is that for whatever reason the pilot hit the tarmac too fast and too late, we need the full report to see if there are any other explanations
From what's been published thus far, the microlight is only mentioned as context for lots of changes to rates of climb and descent.
The microlight pilot isn't responsible for an accident following being overtaken in the same way that it's not your fault if a car overtakes you on the road then crashes afterwards - unless of course there was an airspace infringement by the microlight pilot but that would be determined immediately, isn't mentioned in the AAIB bulletin (downwind leg suggests the microlight may have been in the circuit already - either way there is no suggestion that the microlight pilot shouldn't have been there. If if he shouldn't have been there, it still doesn't explain the decision to carry on with an approach.
The microlight pilot isn't responsible for an accident following being overtaken in the same way that it's not your fault if a car overtakes you on the road then crashes afterwards - unless of course there was an airspace infringement by the microlight pilot but that would be determined immediately, isn't mentioned in the AAIB bulletin (downwind leg suggests the microlight may have been in the circuit already - either way there is no suggestion that the microlight pilot shouldn't have been there. If if he shouldn't have been there, it still doesn't explain the decision to carry on with an approach.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff