Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Breaking: Phenom Jet Crash At Blackbushe Airport
57 Answers
BBC website sometimes flashes breaking news at you. No one else has posted about this.
http://
Not a lot to debate, this is a JFYI. There is a car auction site at the end of the runway and it may have overshot in the landing.
http://
Not a lot to debate, this is a JFYI. There is a car auction site at the end of the runway and it may have overshot in the landing.
Answers
Sounds like a routine landing that went tits up. Maybe a failure of the breaks or reverse thrust.
19:19 Fri 31st Jul 2015
Bouncer33. The Bin Laden Group is one of the largest businesses in the middle east. It is worth £billions . They do a huge amount of trade with the UK. Osama Bin Laden was one of the sons , he became a terrorist leader and was disowned by the family, just because one member of a family becomes a criminal does not make criminals of the rest of the family.
it might have been cheaper to buy Heathrow, tonyav; it's closer to Knightsbridge.
Some bafflement here (it quotes the website kindly linked to by Eddie last night)
http://
Some bafflement here (it quotes the website kindly linked to by Eddie last night)
http://
Air crash tragedy is not new to the Bin Laden family.
http://
http://
-- answer removed --
@EDDIE51
Over-familiarity with ones surroundings does impinge on safety. Statistics bear out that most car accidents happen within a few miles of home. A punch of salt with that though, since the school run (a recent innovation, from my perspective) will be short, many work commutes are under 10 miles and the headline of the statistic was "under 25 miles", which allows for longer weekend jaunts.
I hesitate to apply this factor to aircraft. Being casual or careless with a car, at commuter speeds has relatively minor consequences. Being airborne should sharpen the senses to the point that no mistakes are made.
I don't know for certain but I would be willing to bet that Auto-Land is heavily dependent on Instrument Landing System (ILS) equipment at the airport. It is uneconomic to have such expensive gear at an airport which has very little daily traffic and a cursory internet search shows Blackbushe doesn't have one.
Auto-Land would also require full control of the throttles in order to regulate the approach speed. I am sure it would take more than 18 seconds on final to reduce any excess speed, stabilise the powered glide and it would take some fancy software to *reliably* decide that an auto-go-around was appropriate.
The PPRUNE thread continued with much discussion of this 1.43 multiplier (of landing roll, compared to manufacturer specifications). One pointed out that, whilst the runway length was fine, on the face of it, there was no margin for error and, by the time the pilot realises it is time to reject the landing, there is not enough time to spool up the engines to take off power. Whether the multiplier is intended to include extra runway required for go around I hope to find out later.
Anyway, this is the long-winded way of saying that all the onboard high-tech equipment in the workd won't save you if you hand-fly the thing and go too fast (PPRUNE thread again; mention of 149kts, over the runway threshold).
Over-familiarity with ones surroundings does impinge on safety. Statistics bear out that most car accidents happen within a few miles of home. A punch of salt with that though, since the school run (a recent innovation, from my perspective) will be short, many work commutes are under 10 miles and the headline of the statistic was "under 25 miles", which allows for longer weekend jaunts.
I hesitate to apply this factor to aircraft. Being casual or careless with a car, at commuter speeds has relatively minor consequences. Being airborne should sharpen the senses to the point that no mistakes are made.
I don't know for certain but I would be willing to bet that Auto-Land is heavily dependent on Instrument Landing System (ILS) equipment at the airport. It is uneconomic to have such expensive gear at an airport which has very little daily traffic and a cursory internet search shows Blackbushe doesn't have one.
Auto-Land would also require full control of the throttles in order to regulate the approach speed. I am sure it would take more than 18 seconds on final to reduce any excess speed, stabilise the powered glide and it would take some fancy software to *reliably* decide that an auto-go-around was appropriate.
The PPRUNE thread continued with much discussion of this 1.43 multiplier (of landing roll, compared to manufacturer specifications). One pointed out that, whilst the runway length was fine, on the face of it, there was no margin for error and, by the time the pilot realises it is time to reject the landing, there is not enough time to spool up the engines to take off power. Whether the multiplier is intended to include extra runway required for go around I hope to find out later.
Anyway, this is the long-winded way of saying that all the onboard high-tech equipment in the workd won't save you if you hand-fly the thing and go too fast (PPRUNE thread again; mention of 149kts, over the runway threshold).
Looks like something similar happened ( with a beechcraft light jet ) a few years ago at Blackbushe.
http://
http://
Thanks tony.
That piece shows what little understanding the press has: "runway fitted with safety equipment", for instance. Reiterated a paragraph later, specifying PAPI which is only an indication of too-high/low on the approach, not arrestor gear, which might just save your hide if you land too fast.
That said, I am still cautious over the AIS data from which one of the PPRUNE correspondents got that thing about the approach speed. When I use Flightradar24, the AIS data sometimes pauses for a few seconds then catches up in a burst of information. Only the onboard data recorder (if fitted) can tell us the truth.
As divebuddy first pointed out, we should await the investigation findings. Second guessing the outcome may be normal, on AB, in regard to criminal investigations but is frowned upon, in the case of transportation accidents, probably for reasons of taste and deference to the deceased. My own desire to learn new things sometimes makes me neglect matters of taste. I apologise to anyone adversely affected by that.
That piece shows what little understanding the press has: "runway fitted with safety equipment", for instance. Reiterated a paragraph later, specifying PAPI which is only an indication of too-high/low on the approach, not arrestor gear, which might just save your hide if you land too fast.
That said, I am still cautious over the AIS data from which one of the PPRUNE correspondents got that thing about the approach speed. When I use Flightradar24, the AIS data sometimes pauses for a few seconds then catches up in a burst of information. Only the onboard data recorder (if fitted) can tell us the truth.
As divebuddy first pointed out, we should await the investigation findings. Second guessing the outcome may be normal, on AB, in regard to criminal investigations but is frowned upon, in the case of transportation accidents, probably for reasons of taste and deference to the deceased. My own desire to learn new things sometimes makes me neglect matters of taste. I apologise to anyone adversely affected by that.
@Tony
The witness in the MSN story refers to an incident involving a Beechjet *nearly* hitting the fuel dump. I haven't found any online news related to that so we'll treat it as apocryphal, for now.
As a non-damage incident, it has not made it into the ASN database. User-added data is welcomed there but they do insist on reliable reference material like wikipedia.
This, for instance, was a Beechcraft Super King Air, not a Beechjet. It's unlikely that a spotter-ish witness would get the two muddled up.
http://
In the meantime, I remain puzzled by the lack of eyewitness testimony from control tower staff but, if it is light on traffic, it may be an uncontrolled field, with ATC provided by Farnborough or another neighbour.
Can anyone clarify that point?
The witness in the MSN story refers to an incident involving a Beechjet *nearly* hitting the fuel dump. I haven't found any online news related to that so we'll treat it as apocryphal, for now.
As a non-damage incident, it has not made it into the ASN database. User-added data is welcomed there but they do insist on reliable reference material like wikipedia.
This, for instance, was a Beechcraft Super King Air, not a Beechjet. It's unlikely that a spotter-ish witness would get the two muddled up.
http://
In the meantime, I remain puzzled by the lack of eyewitness testimony from control tower staff but, if it is light on traffic, it may be an uncontrolled field, with ATC provided by Farnborough or another neighbour.
Can anyone clarify that point?
After further browsing, I found this. Listed as Raytheon but, superficially, similar to Beechjet. (Insert your corrections here).
http://
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.