Awesome crash video from Aspen.

[Calvin19 0]

Good old PIO takes another victim. (combined with a semi-technical visual approach and a fun gusting tailwind)

Landing at Aspen is not very sketchy, but with wind and a fast plane I bet it gets fun.

http://aspenjournalism.org/2014/01/21/aspen-airport-releases-video-of-jan-5-jet-crash/

[flyhi 24]

Quote

The jet had a tailwind of at least 19 knots and the tower advised the pilots of gusts of up to 25 knots, according to a preliminary report issued on Jan. 17 by the National Transportation Safety Board.

. . .

"The crew executed a missed approach, and then requested to be vectored for a second attempt," the NTSB's preliminary report said.

Interesting.

Shit happens. And it usually happens because of physics.

[wmw999 2,119]

Quote

Shit happens. And it usually happens because of physics.

OK, I love your tagline

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[JohnMitchell 14]

I've known some Denver controllers that work the airspace into Aspen. It's a tricky little airport, demanding respect. Too many crashes there.

[dpreguy 14]

I have heard of the difficult approach problem at Aspen; but don't pilots endeavor to land INTO the wind? From the videos the wind is a tailwind almost directly down the runway, (not a crosswind). And brisk.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Depending on weather and terrain, sometimes your options are limited. You simply can't get lined up into the wind under certain conditions, but you can get to the airport. . . downwind. Aircraft CAN land downwind, just like we can, but it's trickier and there are limits.

Mountain flying has sets of hazards you don't see in flat land flying. They bite pilots all the time.

[Calvin19 0]

dpreguy

I have heard of the difficult approach problem at Aspen; but don't pilots endeavor to land INTO the wind? From the videos the wind is a tailwind almost directly down the runway, (not a crosswind). And brisk.

the norm at aspen is to land on the southbound runway, there is terrain south that makes an approach from the south more interesting. It is possible to land northbound but its a bit complicated. I have landed and departed a few times there and it's not that bad in a small, slow airplane. Fast movers like this crash aircraft usually try to land with the published approaches. Land south, depart north.

-SPACE-

[SethInMI 145]

[inline AspenAppr.png]

Google earth of Aspen runway looking south. You can see from the skid marks everyone lands heading south, like Calvin said.

The other direction, the ground falls away.

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[airdvr 197]

Back in the 80's I spent a bit of time at Stapleton waiting for Aspen Airways to be cleared into PIO. After about 5 hours in a room that looked like a refugee camp we decided to rent a car. I remember driving past the airport thinking it looked tight. Flight back was a non-starter. I think they were using 4 engine turboprops.

BTW, I'm sure the family of the deceased wouldn't desrcibe the vid as 'awsome'. I'm just sayin'.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Boogers 0]

I'm not sure that "awesome" is a good word to use in a crash that killed someone...

[Calvin19 0]

Boogers

I'm not sure that "awesome" is a good word to use in a crash that killed someone...

Quote

***
awe·some
ˈôsəm/Submit
adjective
1.
extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension, or fear.

No disrespect intended toward family of the fatality, of course, or anyone who has lost a person to aviation. I have lost a best friend, two very close friends, and several other friends to aviation accidents. I watched my best friend of 20 years, neighbor throughout growing up, die in a giant fireball over my head. I knew he was flying in the area and after seeing the explosion my first thought was "holy crap I bet Alex got an awesome view of that"... it only took me a few more seconds to realize it was from his fuel tank. The fact that my brother was burned and scattered throughout a few acres does not make the explosion any less awesome.

[Boogers 0]

Calvin19

***I'm not sure that "awesome" is a good word to use in a crash that killed someone...

Quote

***
awe·some
ˈôsəm/Submit
adjective
1.
extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension, or fear.

Right, I think most people equate "awesome" to the "admiration" part of that definition.

[LuckyMcSwervy 0]

Boogers

******I'm not sure that "awesome" is a good word to use in a crash that killed someone...

Quote

***
awe·some
ˈôsəm/Submit
adjective
1.
extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension, or fear.

Right, I think most people equate "awesome" to the "admiration" part of that definition.

I think most people who are aware of the definition of awesome realize Calvin's intention was the apprehension and/or fear descriptive. The admiration thought never crossed my mind.

Always be kinder than you feel.

[EatSleepFly 0]

Calvin19

Landing at Aspen is not very sketchy, but with wind and a fast plane I bet it gets fun.

Clearly you haven't been there in a "fast plane." It is sketchy on anything but a rare calm, cool and clear day and even then it demands utmost respect. Anyone who thinks that airport is no big deal doesn't know what they don't know.

Anyway- F that airport. Been going there semi-regularly for years and we train for it in the sim every six months. I absolutely hate it (as does just about everyone else who has to go there). Nothing makes me happier than telling the passengers, "sorry, can't get into Aspen today, we'll arrange transportation for you from Rifle."

Personal hatred of the airport aside, landing with anything more than a 10 knot tailwind component is illegal in just about every jet out there, and doing it at Aspen is just stupid. 20+ knots is absurd, abject stupidity, especially since it was their second attempt in the same winds. Circling to 33 is not a very desirable option in most jets and not an option at all for many types/operators. Bottom line- they should never have even made a first attempt- there is nothing and no one that important in Aspen. If there's even a sliver of doubt, it's better to bag it and go to Rifle- much safer and not that bad of a drive for the passengers.


Oh, and spin it all you want, but your thread title is extremely lame.

[Calvin19 0]

I'll agree to disagree on semantics, my intention was not to offend anyone. And you're right, never been there in anything faster than a Pitts. I have a lot of respect to the crews who put up with passenger or carrier pressure to get there or anywhere in the mountains. I was not aware the high tailwind landings are illegal though, that makes the decision even worse. AND after a go around. Screw approach, rollout will be LONG. Av safety is quoting 33kts with 20kt shear.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140105-1


Also, forgive my ignorance, but are larger aircraft legally prohibited from landing north? I could have sworn I've seen twin turboprops coming in over the city, right pattern. Not that that would be a great alternative with 33kt guesting winds and shear.

[EatSleepFly 0]

Calvin19

I was not aware the high tailwind landings are illegal though, that makes the decision even worse. AND after a go around. Screw approach, rollout will be LONG. Av safety is quoting 33kts with 20kt shear.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140105-1


Also, forgive my ignorance, but are larger aircraft legally prohibited from landing north? I could have sworn I've seen twin turboprops coming in over the city, right pattern. Not that that would be a great alternative with 33kt guesting winds and shear.

No worries.

10 knots is the max tailwind component limitation for pretty much all turbojets, big and small (I've read that a couple Airbus models might be 15)- making landing with anything over that illegal.

The ability to circle and land north depends on the airplane- it's much safer and more feasible in a big turboprop with slow approach speeds and a tighter turning radius. Different story in a swept wing jet with higher approach speeds and thus larger turning radius. While it is technically doable in some jets that can slow way down safely, it's just not really a great idea in my opinion. There are a very few locals/regulars that do it in jets, but to my knowledge, most do not. We as a company, do not, despite being fairly frequent visitors.

It's simply not worth the risk- especially with Rifle- a much better airport in almost every respect (approaches, runway, parking, FBO services, prices)- only a 90 minute drive away. I've heard idiots holding for almost that long hoping to get in to Aspen.

I think most of us approach Aspen trips almost planning on not getting in. If we happen to, great, but it's because everything was just right to do it safely. If there are any red flags, we say screw it and divert.

I have my theories on what led up to this Challenger crash, but I'd prefer to keep them to myself. I doubt the investigation will take too long anyways.

Sorry if I came across a little snarky in my first response.

[Calvin19 0]

That makes total sense, I suppose I over-estimated the alpha capabilities of a challenger or similar jets.

And I also apologize for my seemingly psychopathic lack of empathy toward this crash and thus for the crew and the deceased pilot. That is not the case. The loss of life is an awful thing, no matter how it comes about. I'm saying that the video and event is very very dramatic, full of awe, as air crashes usually are. I see things like the recent mid-air collision of two formation Cessna jump planes as equally or even more 'awesome'/aweful, and it's just bonus points that no one was seriously hurt. I assume everyone else would also prefer that these events never took place, but I do not think I am alone in my fascination with giant crashes and accidents.

On a similar note, what is the motivation to publish such footage for public viewing? It provides a dialogue for interested people (like me) but it gives no beneficial return for the airport. It's CCTV images undoubtably maintained for accident investigation and/or security.
I was a small part of my friends' mid-air investigation as a direct eyewitness with experiential knowledge of aircraft involved, and there was footage taken by the civilian passengers in the glider he was towing. The FAA took it, copied it, then gave it back. Pretty moving, 'intense' images and audio that the passengers then sold to good morning america, or some show like it along with their interview. I don't see an airport selling that.

Edit: I thought Rifle was a bit closer than that. Doing Demos into an Aspen golf course we take off from Rifle, and it feels like a 60 min drive. And Google maps claims 72 min airport to airport. Even more of a reason to skip a sketchy landing.

-SPACE-

[SethInMI 145]

Calvin19

On a similar note, what is the motivation to publish such footage for public viewing? It provides a dialogue for interested people (like me) but it gives no beneficial return for the airport.

The article stated that the footage was turned over in response to a Open Records Act request. Like an FIOA I guess, so it sounds the airport did not do so willingly. Why did the journalists wanted to publish it? What is the old saying, "If it bleeds, it leads...". Or on a more introspective note, like Walt Kelly said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".