All jets (and in fact all airplanes which require two pilots) have a cockpit voice recorder, and I'm sure this airplane did as well. A flight data recorder, which would be more useful, is probably not required, and I would be surprised if it had one.
Anybody know the response time of these engines? If he pushed the levers after the first bounce would he have had sufficient thrust by the second to climb out?
I didn't even think of that until I read this. The first touchdown was pretty serious and could have affected the function of the elevator controls. Hmmmmm. Good catch.
Gotcha - thanks. I was more interested in the capturing of what the pilot was doing with the controls and wasn't sure at what level they started build that into planes. Would it be possible too if his hand was on the throttle as he landed that the force of the bounce could have caused him to push it forward without intending to? I've only flown inside the cockpit a couple of times and wasn't "in control" for more than a minute of straight and level flight with a couple of lightly banked turns. >8^) ER
I'm having trouble making a determination. But, to me it looks like a plane with a lot of energy to bleed. I see oscillations on final. It's like he's trying to touch down too fast. I see what looks like pilot input to get out of a flare and try and set her down nose low. I think that's why the hard impact and the bounce. After the bounce it doesn't look like a stall to me. Once again it looks like control surface input. I'm not sure if the pilot did it intentionally or was injured and incapacitated. To me this looks like pilot error all around starting from the decision to put her down.
I think the reference frame of the camera, fixed on the ground, can be misleading. Need to remember there is a 30 knot wind on his tail. So although he appears to be going fast relative to the ground, which he is, his airspeed could be dangerously low after bleeding energy in the oscillations. Someone is probably trying to analyze the film to determine airspeed.
Valid points... I am aware of the conditions and tail wind. It will be interesting to review the full NTSB report.
Looks like the initial touchdown was nose first, then mains. Following the bounce....that sure was a rapid pitch down! Wow. I'm guessing plenty of airspeed. If he was slow, he probably would have touched down on the mains first. Possible scenario: fast approach with a tailwind making for a fast GS. Pilots sees he's going long and decides to fly it on, pushing the nose over. The nose hits hard and he immediately tries pulling back to soften the impact. This actually makes it worse, driving the main landing gear into the ground harder. As he feels that impact and pitch up, he pushes the nose over hard trying to stabilize everything. The final impact. Sort of an ossilation that gets progressively worse. You push forward....bang. Better pull back then...bang. Better push forward then....big bang. I haven't ever flown taildraggers, so can't speak from experience. But I have seen "wheel" landings that seem to get out control pretty quickly. Maybe it's the same thing, but magnified by the speed and impacts Just my 2 cents.......
Jim- I was thinking the same thing. Taking off with a tail wind can be really scary, which is why we do not do it very often. Feels like the thing will never get to rotation speed. I can imagine he had very little lift if he did try to go around.
I have no experience in this level of flying but I had the feeling that he may have stalled due to the lack of lift in the tailwind, hit the runway and bounced , and then tried to stabilize by pushing over too aggressively and then hit hard nose first. I have seen blown landings in tail draggers that the first bounce amplified the second bounce that amplified the third bounce that....
A stall is always a possibility. The tailwind wouldn't have any effect on stalling though, as IAS is IAS, whether in a headwind or tailwind. The tailwind would require a higher rate of descent to maintain the glideslope or glidepath. This would mean an approach at lower than normal power settings. Also, the bounce would have induced a significant G load. Stall speeds increase with G load. While the G load was temporary, the stick pusher computer would have sensed it and could have activated, hence the rapid nose down. In the 747 we have a shaker, but no pusher. Apparently the stalls relatively benign. Anyways, while flying in moderate to severe turbulence, you'll occasionally get the shaker. As G loads increase and decrease, you can see the stall speed (red on the IAS tape) increase and decrease. All this is just a guess. I have no Challenger experience. I don't know whether it has a shaker, pusher, etc, or how it works.
the infared may be misleading in how much power the engines were making, it shows a hot exhaust plume... not knowing what heat signature is associated with different throttle settings... guessing they could have been trying to make power by the illusion of brightness of the exhaust... the video clip is shorter than the time it takes typically to spool up to full power, if they were aborting the landing guessing there were too many mistakes going way wrong in a complex situation by "green" pilots
...and they were 'green'... very green... only the third flight (leg) in that type. So only the third landing. First landing in Mexico, second at Eagle, CO and the third at Aspen. With an excessive tailwind. Didn't turn out well.
Wow. I'm not a pilot but I've been on a Challenger. It's big plane and i'm surprised it could rise and fall that fast. Maybe a small Cessna but something that big? RIP.
I like Lou's explanation best. I believe I read there were reports of windshear. Which would account for a higher than normal approach speed, leading to a nose landing, leading to overcorrection and a hard bump on the mains, leading to a bounce and an overcorrection nose down pitch to the final impact. I think the nose down landing indicates they were well above stall speed at the first impact and probably still at flying speed in the bounce. This is coming from a pilot with quite a few hard landings, but no crashes....thank god. Which reminds me of my instrument check ride some two decades ago. I did a pretty good job on the check if I may say so, but really bounced it on the runway on the landing. After reaching the ramp the D.E. looked at me and said, "I've got good news and bad news. The good news is you passed your instrument check. The bad news is after that landing I'm going to have to take away your PPL." Fortunately he was kidding.
