:( Thoughts and prayers.
There was a ground hold program in effect for ASE on the Dec 27th. We had a pop up to ASE and ground control said 4 hour wait. I told dispatch to advise customers or Rifle no problem. Customers got butt hurt and canceled the entire trip. Yes its tricky, but you just have to be fully configured by Red Table AND HAVE COOPERATING WEATHER! If not, dont go or divert to RIL. Im willing to bet that there is going to be a less than legit post accident investigation from the NTSB. First leg might be a possible cabotage issue.
Cabotage shouldn't be an issue (although it's a tricky area, for sure)-- they were repo-ing after clearing customs, and heading straight back to Mexico when they picked up pax. Plus, it's a US-registered airplane. If they were 135 (I don't know if they were), then they should have been on a US air carrier certificate. If they were 91, then it was a US airplane flying a leg in the US. The ones who should have an issue with cabotage would be the Mexicans, if they went point to point in Mexico. One thing I don't know the answer to is if they had US licenses. At least one of the crewmembers did not.
This has become a big issue in Mexico in the last years, a lot of people go the easy way they buy a plane have it N registered under a trust in the US and operate out of Mexico with mexican crew who in most cases have a mexican license and get a FAA license based on the mexican one. Laws in Mexico for operating airplanes are a bit tough and very time consuming, but it is un fair for operators that have their mexican planes with taxes paid and comply with all the rules when guys come with N registered planes and just charter in a kind of black market. Also what I have noticed is that a lot of this N registered planes operating in Mexico dont follow the correct maintenance programs as the FAA is not down there and they dont check those planes and neither do mexican authorities
The other question that I have; is the training/licensing in Mexico up to US standards, or is it like some other countries? Were the pilot(s) proficient? Was there a language issue? The tower apparently told them to 'Go Around!'; instead he slammed the plane onto the runway, nosewheel first, too fast, too far down the runway and this is the result. (I heard part of the communication recording and he was speaking passable English it sounded like.)
His 'Boss' was waiting in the terminal anxiously waiting to head back to Mexico, "Right NOW". He'd probably lose his job if he diverted. Culture.
Update: im in recurrent training as I type. The pilots just got their type ratings....as in within the last 2-3 weeks. Neither of them had any time to speak of in type. The Grapevine says they struggled with the type rating.
I think this accident, if attributed to strong tail wind, has less to do with "time in type" and more to do with "stupid pilot trick". Any plane is going to have problems with a 30 knot tail wind. They managed to do 1 missed before going for it again. The missed in Aspen is no joke. "Pilot error". Always keep it in mine.
More time in type usually results in LESS pilot error. The word is while trying to land in a 30 knot tailwind (Max is 10), he pushed it down landing nose first, thus the flip. Ill reserve any judgement for the NTSB, but the instructors are dissecting the crash fairly heavy here, as they did the training on the two pilots. Most modern day crashes fall in to the pilot error category after making a bad decision after a minor malfunction or feeling pressure to continue a mission into a known risk.
The information that has been circulating here in Mexico in the biz jet community: The plane was bought last October, pilots went for type rating to the US (most pilots from Mexico go to the US for type ratings there is not a Flight Safety or similar equivalent in Mexico) The 2 pilots were brothers, both of them were in their 50's and are ex Mexicana airline pilots for years, so they had a lot of experience. They had just taken delivery of the plane and flew to Mexico on December 19th, they did their first flight the next day to Eagle County and came back to Toluca, then flew to Aspen via Tucson (to clear customs) when the accident happened. There was a 3rd pilot on board who is type rated and has a lot of Challenger time he was working as an advisor to the crew as they were new to the Challenger The word is (not confirmed) they fueled in Toluca and did not refuel in Tucson, maybe fuel was a factor? Maybe and this is just a guess, what Tcar is suggesting might have played a role on the accident, brand new plane to the owner, waiting for it to pick him up in Aspen, a mexican registered Falcon landed just in front of the Challenger, the pilots could think if they did it so can we, what are we going to tell the owner that we could not land in Aspen and he needs to drive a couple hours to the alternate? Just guessing but have seen this happen so many times and pilots are just afraid to loose their job
Wow... their third flight in type... literally. And their first landing at Aspen... the "To" flight was to Eagle County, almost a 2 hour drive away. As lear60 said... "continuing a mission (landing) into a known risk"... He lost his job anyway, plus his brother and the plane. Very, very sad.
it's not the tailwind / airspeed while flying, it's the ground speed at touchdown... the runway becomes too short all too soon...
very true. I landed a little 180 in 45G55KT & was none too excited about attempting the turn off the runway.
Aspen airport releases video of Jan. 5 jet crash | Aspen Journalism Video of crash from airport cams. Look at the wind blowing the snow in cam 4. Straight tailwind.
I thought I detected a bounce at the end of camera 2 and the beginning of camera 3. Camera 5 makes it entirely clear that was the case. Difficult to believe anyone survived the final impact. >8^| ER
The infrared images lend a certain psychological distance to the tragedy... until you see in camera 4, the witness' physical reaction to what he's just seen. Hands on knees, staring at ground in disbelief, and then kicking a piece of equipment.
The big News radio station here in Denver is talking about the video... An 'expert' saying that he should have gone around after the bounce instead of trying to plant it on the runway. The infrared is haunting; it's about noon and feels like midnight.
exactly, look at last video, clear to me it was typical over correction oscillations, first flare was too much and plane floated up, he corrected, but again too much and plane started diving into ground, but he caught it again and looked liked he was going to try go around. plane had already gained a bunch of height, but was at high angle of attack and a stall then caused it to nose back over? I don't think he was trying to plant it on the last one, I think he tried to on the first one, oscillating overcorrections, and then stall when trying to go around. I did sleep in my own bed last night, not a Holiday Inn Express.
The Challenger has a stick pusher, which could also have been a factor if it fired off during the last bounce. He may also have done structural damage to the tail on the first impact.
I'll look again, but I don't see a stall. Looks to me like a commanded pitch down. Of course, taking into account the downwind enviro, that could be it.
I didn't see a stall either... maybe just an overcorrection? The infraread heat signature from the engines seems to show that he might have powered up for a go-around, though. I'm not familiar enough with infrared to know... they might not be powered up. ...and Don might be right; tail damage at first impact might have preordained the crash.
Appeared to me he powered up as well at the point of the bounce. Do planes like these contain a black box of sorts, or is that only for large commercial craft? >8^) ER
