Canadair Crash at ASE / Aspen Eagle, Colorado

[MikeD]

@MikeD
A question was posed on another forum as to why CFR chose to pull the windscreen to access the cockpit instead of cut through the skin. Any particular reason?

A couple of reasons probable:

1. Fire hazard. Cutting with a K-12, especially if there aren't marked "CUT HERE" outlines like many larger aircraft have, make cutting a large hazard if there's spilled fuel, or unknown location of hazards such as hitting an aircraft structural beam with the saw blade (severe sparking and possible destruction of the saw blade), fuel crossfeed lines or center tank lines [in the mid to aft fuselage area], or electrical hazards. [see the 1976 crash of Mercer Airlines DC-6, near KVNY]

2. Access through the windscreen is easier if there's damage or the windscreen can easily pulled or popped, and the crew is right there....its the most direct access to them. The Main cabin door may have been warped so it may have taken some work to get open due to the crash dynamics on the airframe.

3. Cutting, in this situation, can't be done on the cockpit due to how the aircraft is at rest, with the weight of the forward fuselage resting on the top of the cockpit. Some serious cribbing and stabilization would need to be done before attempting this, and thats fairly time consuming.

 

[MikeD]

Just an observation from the photo and without seeing the right side of the aircraft (opposite side, in the photo), but there does appear to be a fair amount of loss of vertical occupiable space in the FO crew position area; I can't tell the horizontal loss without observing the other side of the photo. While the rest of the fuselage left side (camera side of the photo) appears fairly intact, it's difficult to see warping or other structural damage due to the dark exterior paint scheme.

 

[A Life Aloft]

Just an observation from the photo and without seeing the right side of the aircraft (opposite side, in the photo), but there does appear to be a fair amount of loss of vertical occupiable space in the FO crew position area; I can't tell the horizontal loss without observing the other side of the photo. While the rest of the fuselage left side (camera side of the photo) appears fairly intact, it's difficult to see warping or other structural damage due to the dark exterior paint scheme.

Sadly, it appears the FO died in the crash.

"A failed landing attempt at the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport on Sunday ended in a fiery crash, killing the plane's co-pilot and injuring the other two people on board, authorities said.

The pilot of the private twin-engine plane, identified as a 1994 Canadair Challenger twin-engine business jet, reported high winds during its final approach to the western Colorado airport, KDVR-TV reported

. The crash occurred as the plane made a second landing attempt.

“Missed approach, N115WF. 33 knots of tail wind,” the pilot is heard saying a few minutes before the 12:22 p.m. crash, the station reported, citing a recording of the air traffic control radio transmission.

The Pitkin County Sheriff's Office identified the man killed in the crash as Sergio Carranza Brabata, 54, a Mexican native.

The other two people onboard the plane, whom authorities did not immediately identify, were also Mexican men, officials said. A spokeswoman for Aspen Valley Hospital earlier Sunday said one patient was in fair condition and one was listed as critical, though she later said both had been transferred elsewhere, The Associated Press reported.

Burchetta added that the injuries were "traumatic in nature, but they were not thermal," indicating that the fire never reached inside the cabin.

Authorities said the flight originated in Mexico and stopped in Tuscon, Ariz. before heading to Aspen".

 

[MikeD]

Authorities said the flight originated in Mexico and stopped in Tucson, Ariz. before heading to Aspen".

They cleared Customs here, yes.

 

[scooter2525]

I can't imagine why people actually pay for this crap newspaper after this Pulitzer-worthy headline:

Local news did a bit that Kevin Nealon and LeAnn Rimes tweeted about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Capt. Chaos]

That's all good until you get a Pax with a SE Private that thinks he is Chuck Yeager, and won't leave the cockpit cause he is backseat flyin'. Part 91 flying at its finest....

I have made Yeager sit in back.. he was quite cool with it. The pilot on the private jet he came off of about had a heart attack over it though.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

Doubt it's much more than 10.

I've heard, though never experienced it personally, that ASE tower can get "creative" with wind reports to help guys out.

So this will simply start my candid rant on ASE - and it will be quite long.

Experienced this one personally:

Aspen Tower: wind 310/XX

Captain: our tailwind limit is ten knots

Apsen Tower: wind 310/10

Captain: land, bitch

Me:

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

I don't know... Same could be said for SUN, MMH, etc. We (SkyWest) even operate in there 121. So does Eagle. Now I've only been in there 20 or so times so far, but the key is to NOT be complacent and fully expect to bail at any time. We also have some very good balked landing procedures, which really should be mandatory for anybody going there. Otherwise you're playing test pilot if you have to go around after the MAP.

For the airlines. ASE calls for special approaches, crew training and aircraft loading. Corporate ASE calls for increased pressure to reach your destination and the client usually wants to get in during bad weather. 91/135 is a nightmare getting into ASE. I feel the safety requirements should be the same. However they are not.

 

[gne in prog]

For the airlines. ASE calls for special approaches, crew training and aircraft loading. Corporate ASE calls for increased pressure to reach your destination and the client usually wants to get in during bad weather. 91/135 is a nightmare getting into ASE. I feel the safety requirements should be the same. However they are not.

Your characterization of 91/135 into Aspen has not been my experience.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

Your characterization of 91/135 into Aspen has not been my experience.

Well you sir are lucky. And I should note that my only trip into ASE as the PIC who signed for the airplane, I wound up at Grand Junction after diverting to RIL. I don't mess with that place.

I've seen one passenger throw a temper tantrum in the FBO. Stomping her feet shouting that "MY HOUSEKEEPER SAYS THE WEATHER IS FINE"

To say that the training in any 135 environment that I have been involved with is thorough is a joke and remember I worked for that platinum ARGUS WVERN or whatever operator that had all kinds of safety certificates on the wall.

I never once did a day of classroom discussion or special training that dealt with ASE.

 

[lr31apilot]

At my mom and pop 135 company we do the approach and departure with an engine failure every 6 months in the sim at flight safety. We also have company minimums for wind, ceilings, and visibility all well above the published minimums at ASE. After all that, we need a verbal release from the D.O. or C.P. the day of departure. I would not be harassed at all if I said we are going to riffle. I think on average people, passengers included, take it seriously.

 

[staledog]

At a 91/135 operator I worked for, we actually did get special training and had procedures set in place for Aspen, and other mountain airports. We also did sim training for Aspen. And no pressure. Actually if the WX at ASE was anywhere close to mins we wouldn't attempt it.

I've been in there many times with no problems, and diverted to Rifle or Eagle many times too. Anybody who goes in there better know what they are doing. If not, then you are going to have problems.

 

[arkflyr]

Not to say that it doesn't happen but, I would say that only 2/3s of the time did I actually land in ASE when I was headed up there doing a mix of 91/135 stuff. Never got questioned once by anyone for it. We did sim training on all types for it every six months alternating between the LR35/45 and had our own WX mins and crew requirements. That isn't to say my last 135 gig wasn't without warts but ASE wasn't one of them.

All that said at my current job we don't go there, and I don't miss it at all.

 

[Nick]

I've seen one passenger throw a temper tantrum in the FBO. Stomping her feet shouting that "MY HOUSEKEEPER SAYS THE WEATHER IS FINE"

My next sentence is one that's not seen often when discussing customers, airport experiences, and traveling in general, but it holds true for what I've quoted here.

I'm glad I fly 121.

Under no circumstances would I ever be expected to hold a legitimate conversation with a customer behaving as is described above.

I don't doubt that that is also probably an anomaly of a corporate jet passenger, the most of which probably understand that there are just some airports out there that are not viable destinations a couple days a year. But a temper tantrum is for three year olds. They get a pass, not someone who rents a jet to themselves.

 

[T/O w/FSII]

CNN "reporting" the one pax was also a pilot and it was a Mexican crew.

RIP to the FO.

What a wild ride that must have been. The survivors were lucky to make it out alive.

 

[Itchy]

Never been there, but do know it is a challenging place. The guy who taught me how to fly lost his life there in a Lear some time in the '80's.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

It's the same issue when dealing with eyewitnesses who are pilots or have a flying background. There's the danger (unintentional) that what they describe is what they either expect to see based on their own experience, or they'll give an opinion of, for example, what "the pilot was doing", for the same aforementioned reasons; rather than simply describing only what they saw. Oftentimes, I'd have to separate the wheat from the chaff by asking the same question or confirming the same piece of information by inquiring about in two or three different ways, just to filter the "opinion" out vs what was "actually seen".

It is indeed a facinating human factor. That's why I've always said that pilots make both the best, as well as the worst, witnesses to an aviation accident.

Context matters. When a pilot says "it looked like a classic yada-yada-yada" accident, he understands that he's just drawing on his limited knowledge and experience and playing the odds a bit. The more knowledge and experience you have, the more likely your off-the-cuff remarks are to be accurate. There is certainly a different mindset if you are party to an investigation. The only danger to off-the-cuff remarks is not considering the audience.

Also, even when the pilot witness is wrong about cause, they often add something valuable by accurately describing flight dynamics that are associated with what they believed happened.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

A couple of reasons probable:

1. Fire hazard. Cutting with a K-12, especially if there aren't marked "CUT HERE" outlines like many larger aircraft have, make cutting a large hazard if there's

.... a LOX tank.

 

[MikeD]

Context matters. When a pilot says "it looked like a classic yada-yada-yada" accident, he understands that he's just drawing on his limited knowledge and experience and playing the odds a bit. The more knowledge and experience you have, the more likely your off-the-cuff remarks are to be accurate. There is certainly a different mindset if you are party to an investigation. The only danger to off-the-cuff remarks is not considering the audience.

Also, even when the pilot witness is wrong about cause, they often add something valuable by accurately describing flight dynamics that are associated with what they believed happened.

While the above is true, as an investigator, what I needed from them was to be a witness; that is, tell me what they saw, not what they "think" was going on. While both are important, I needed to have a separation of what was seen, as opposed to what do they surmise Those are separate and distinct entities as you well know, even though both are useful in their own particular ways, whether said pilot is experienced in the accident type or not. It's making this distinction in the information given during the interviews, and keeping said information separate from one another and not mish-mashed, that was my biggest challenge in interviewing these witnesses. Hence my contenion that pilots are both the best, as well as the worst, eyewitnesses. They can be the greatest source of information, or the worst; depending. And you find the full spectrum of this demonstrated.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

I think on average people, passengers included, take it seriously.

While true, as an investigator, what I needed from them was to be a witness; that is, tell me what they saw, not what they "think" was going on. While both are important, I needed to have a separation of what was seen, as opposed to what do they surmise Those are separate and distinct entities as you well know, even though both are useful in their own particular ways, whether said pilot is experienced in the accident type or not. It's making this distinction in the information given during the interviews, and keeping said information separate from one another and not mish-mashed, that was my biggest challenge in interviewing these witnesses. Hence my contenion that pilots are both the best, as well as the worst, eyewitnesses.

Not to nitpick, but once you establish what a witness saw, you often benefit from asking what a witness thinks if it yields objective data.
"Why do you think it was a yada-yada-yada?"
"I SAW x, y, and z."

It is interesting to note how much speculation does creep into accident reports, both civil and military. Investigations go full circle. Speculation. Calls to end speculation. Accident report with speculation.