Aircraft down at Blackbushe?

Aircraft down at Blackbushe?

Author
Discussion

Vaud

50,503 posts

155 months

Friday 14th August 2015
quotequote all
onyx39 said:
Why?
(I believe) that the aircraft had operated from Blackbushe previously without incident.

Why would you spend additional landing fees on using an airport with a longer runway if you did not need to, just because you could afford to?
I don't think you will get a reply. wink

eharding

13,711 posts

284 months

Friday 14th August 2015
quotequote all
onyx39 said:
Tartarus said:
You would have thought a billionaire family who have lost several family members to private jet crashes would stipulate a higher quality of operation.
Why?
(I believe) that the aircraft had operated from Blackbushe previously without incident.

Why would you spend additional landing fees on using an airport with a longer runway if you did not need to, just because you could afford to?
I think you'll find Tartarus is no longer in a position to respond. It'll be interesting to see if his next incarnation gets beyond 4 posts.

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

262 months

Friday 14th August 2015
quotequote all
77 minutes, is that a record?

Bill

52,762 posts

255 months

Friday 14th August 2015
quotequote all
Nope, not even a PB. wink

anonymous-user

54 months

Friday 14th August 2015
quotequote all
eharding said:
I think you'll find Tartarus is no longer in a position to respond. It'll be interesting to see if his next incarnation gets beyond 4 posts.
hehe

I hope he gets medical help, he's a bit of a worry really.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

261 months

Friday 14th August 2015
quotequote all
onyx39 said:
Why?
(I believe) that the aircraft had operated from Blackbushe previously without incident.

Why would you spend additional landing fees on using an airport with a longer runway if you did not need to, just because you could afford to?
Precisely.

If it had overrun after touching down slightly late or slightly fast and there would be an argument that the safety margin had been shown to be insufficient. But since it actually landed far too fast and about two thirds of the way down the runway, I can't think you can expect runway length regulations to allow for that.

Chrisgr31

13,478 posts

255 months

Friday 14th August 2015
quotequote all
Tartarus said:
Nevertheless he was posting accurate and insightful comment well before it was public domain.

Probably the same with the Gnat discussion.

So how do we feel about single pilot ops to small runways now we know the facts?

Edited by Tartarus on Friday 14th August 08:32
We already knew the facts, which were he landed too fast and too far down the runway. The runway could have been twice as long still wouldn't help him if he landed 400m from the end!

Dr Interceptor

7,786 posts

196 months

Thursday 8th December 2016
quotequote all

red_slr

17,234 posts

189 months

Thursday 8th December 2016
quotequote all
Not great that F&RS had to wait for a key, surprised they did not just drive through the locked gate. AAIB suggest it made no difference to outcome though.

Also pretty nasty to read they were alive and trying to get the door open post impact.

Dr Interceptor

7,786 posts

196 months

Thursday 8th December 2016
quotequote all
red_slr said:
Not great that F&RS had to wait for a key, surprised they did not just drive through the locked gate. AAIB suggest it made no difference to outcome though.

Also pretty nasty to read they were alive and trying to get the door open post impact.
Nope, even if they'd got to it quicker, the severity of the fire made rescuing impossible.

Horrible to read though that the occupants were likely burned alive frown