Mexican Air Force Learjet 45XR, Xalapa Airport, Mexico

Sure, for the sake of argument. Although I'd be interested in either scenario.

One of the big problems I see off the bat is access to the wreckage. You notice in the first video that the E-One crash truck stopped at the end of the runway has nowhere to go. The Lear wreckage is down a hill and across a tree line, out of reach of the truck turrets and likely beyond the length of the handlnes stored on the truck. Looking at the google earth of that airport, there isn’t really any good access to that area from the airport surface area in this very situation of an aircraft overrun off the departure end of RW26. That’s the biggest problem. Getting crews around that back dirt road ahead of the wreckage would be a priority, so just getting to the wreckage site is consuming precious time......time the survivors do not have on their side.

But for the crash truck crew for where they are at the end of the runway there, it’s start humping equipment down that hill to the wreck, specifically the PKP dry chem and Foam extinguishers, as well as a forced-entry tool such as the K12, as well as a med bag. You aren’t going to be able to fully extinguish the fire with those items, but fire control of spread and intensity is key to being able to begin a rapid cutting operation and extrication if the the main entry door and emergency exit are not useable, as they weren’t here. Spend very little time trying to open them normally, if you see any fuselage buckling. If these doors don’t work on two pulls, they aren’t going to.....just go for the cutting right there, while at the same time having one crewman fighting fire in one spot.....likely mid to aft fuselage, and holding that spot as best as possible against further forward fire spread, as I said, you won’t have enough extinguishing agent with you having been carried by hand from the truck, to fully extinguish anything. You‘ve got to be judicious with what you have and employ it smartly. Cutting-wise, I’d forego the forward windscreen and instead cut a large hole around a cabin window frame, or if I happen to have access to the top of the plane, through the cabin roof offset to one side of center, and into the ceiling......easier and quicker to accomplish.

The initial question on any survivability would be time that has elapsed, though. Signs would be clear on any survivability at the moment you arrived. For example, by the time you reached the wreckage, had the fire crowned through the fuselage? If it had, that means the cabin already flashed over and anyone inside was gone at that instant. If it hadn’t, and was only being fed through oxygen by breaks in the fuselage, there’s still a short chance that anyone inside hasn’t succumbed from thermal burns, but unfortunately have most likely already succumbed to toxic fumes.

In short, this particular accident, for where it geographically occurred and the challenges that presented on response time/ability and what could show up to the scene, would be a losing battle from the start most likely. But you still give it your best effort. If the truck itself could have reached the scene on initial response, time may not have been as much of a factor and more would have been able to have been done.
 
Last edited:
Here, it can easily be seen the non-survivable nature of the wreckage by this time. It appears that at some point, through one of the fuselage break points, that at least one person from the cabin area did egress the aircraft, but most likely once there was already intense fire and toxic fumes, as their facedown deceased body can be seen at about 0:25 next to the fuselage break where the leading edge of the wing would connect to the fuselage. Reinforcing this being a likely survivable accident impact-force wise, but non-survivable very shortly thereafter due to thermal and toxic factors.


Watching the first video in this thread it seems like the time required get to the wreck might have been a major contributor. I'm not going to watch the video you posted, seeing dead people isn't my jam and I try to avoid it whenever possible.

Edit: I think I wrote this when @MikeD posting his thoughts above mine.
 
Watching the first video in this thread it seems like the time required get to the wreck might have been a major contributor. I'm not going to watch the video you posted, seeing dead people isn't my jam and I try to avoid it whenever possible.

Edit: I think I wrote this when @MikeD posting his thoughts above mine.

Yeah, the second video shows a lot better how they’re trying to access the fuselage, but they have very little equipment with them at that time to either do that or to control fire. Unfortunately, the deceased is there, hence why I put the disclaimer and caution in the text.
 
One of the big problems I see off the bat is access to the wreckage. You notice in the first video that the E-One crash truck stopped at the end of the runway has nowhere to go. The Lear wreckage is down a hill and across a tree line, out of reach of the truck turrets and likely beyond the length of the handlnes stored on the truck. Looking at the google earth of that airport, there isn’t really any good access to that area from the airport surface area in this very situation of an aircraft overrun off the departure end of RW26. That’s the biggest problem. Getting crews around that back dirt road ahead of the wreckage would be a priority, so just getting to the wreckage site is consuming precious time......time the survivors do not have on their side.

But for the crash truck crew for where they are at the end of the runway there, it’s start humping equipment down that hill to the wreck, specifically the PKP dry chem and Foam extinguishers, as well as a forced-entry tool such as the K12, as well as a med bag. You aren’t going to be able to fully extinguish the fire with those items, but fire control of spread and intensity is key to being able to begin a rapid cutting operation and extrication if the the main entry door and emergency exit are not useable, as they weren’t here. Spend very little time trying to open them normally, if you see any fuselage buckling. If these doors don’t work on two pulls, they aren’t going to.....just go for the cutting right there, while at the same time having one crewman fighting fire in one spot.....likely mid to aft fuselage, and holding that spot as best as possible against further forward fire spread, as I said, you won’t have enough extinguishing agent with you having been carried by hand from the truck, to fully extinguish anything. You‘ve got to be judicious with what you have and employ it smartly. Cutting-wise, I’d forego the forward windscreen and instead cut a large hole around a cabin window frame, or if I happen to have access to the top of the plane, through the cabin roof offset to one side of center, and into the ceiling......easier and quicker to accomplish.

The initial question on any survivability would be time that has elapsed, though. Signs would be clear on any survivability at the moment you arrived. For example, by the time you reached the wreckage, had the fire crowned through the fuselage? If it had, that means the cabin already flashed over and anyone inside was gone at that instant. If it hadn’t, and was only being fed through oxygen by breaks in the fuselage, there’s still a short chance that anyone inside hasn’t succumbed from thermal burns, but unfortunately have most likely already succumbed to toxic fumes.

In short, this particular accident, for where it geographically occurred and the challenges that presented on response time/ability and what could show up to the scene, would be a losing battle from the start most likely. But you still give it your best effort. If the truck itself could have reached the scene on initial response, time may not have been as much of a factor and more would have been able to have been done.
Would you ever consider taking the crash truck off road instead of stopping at the end of the runway? I know in this case it probably would have been too little too late anyway but maybe they could have gotten hoses on it before people died, and just had to right off a truck if it got wrecked?
 
Would you ever consider taking the crash truck off road instead of stopping at the end of the runway? I know in this case it probably would have been too little too late anyway but maybe they could have gotten hoses on it before people died, and just had to right off a truck if it got wrecked?

Of course, those trucks are designed for off road. However in this case, the off road you see is a steep incline drop off that the truck.....no vehicle.....can safely negotiate, nor can any vehicle get across that dense tree line foliage located in the same area and separating the crash site from the end of runway area. The crash site area needs to be approached from the other (western) side of the accident site, which was eventually done. The truck was as close as it could get to the accident site from the airport side. Nothing gained by driving it over the cliff too.
 
The truck was as close as it could get to the accident site from the airport side. Nothing gained by driving it over the cliff too.
The accident is no laughing matter, but I did find this wonderfully dry, obvious statement to itself be funny.

That aside: ARFF scene access has been a decisive factor in survivability in quite a few accidents, no?
 
The accident is no laughing matter, but I did find this wonderfully dry, obvious statement to itself be funny.

That aside: ARFF scene access has been a decisive factor in survivability in quite a few accidents, no?

Ha! I didn’t notice it until you pointed it out here! There honestly was no pun intended, I was just answering the question.

Regards your second part, yes. Including some high profile ones: SUX used to have corn fields right next to the runways. When UA232 had its crash landing there, wreckage and survivors were strewn that direction, and ARFF had a heck of a time finding wreckage pieces and survivors in the fields, as did survivors being disoriented being within the fields. Those cornfields no longer exist in those areas so close to the runway.

Two of the main contributors to deaths following the accident of UA232 was the interference of the agricultural crops in the cornfield to both ARFF truck access as well as firefighting and rescue efficiency. And the failure of the ARFF resupply firefighting/tender truck, which was unable to resupply the crash trucks during the most critical phase of firefighting, and caused a cessation of firefighting activity for a period of time where the fire in the center wingbox area where multiple passengers were trapped re-intensified from having been just about under control.

Post #4 in the below old thread explains the latter:

 
Other than this one being a takeoff accident, this accident eerily reminds me of the landing accident of the Lear 24 that went off the end of the runway and down the cliff at Catalina Island in 1984.

 
Other than this one being a takeoff accident, this accident eerily reminds me of the landing accident of the Lear 24 that went off the end of the runway and down the cliff at Catalina Island in 1984.


Wow. I never heard of this one before, and that writeup you did is totally insane. I can’t possibly fathom what those two were thinking.
 
Wow. I never heard of this one before, and that writeup you did is totally insane. I can’t possibly fathom what those two were thinking.
Maybe it’s just caution as a relatively new FO, but I can’t imagine even considering a 3000’ runway in a Lear. Maybe the 20 series did a little better than the 31 does, I don’t know, but 3000’ makes me put down my coffee and think about doing piloty things even in the Pilatus. In the Lear? Fuggeddabowdit
 
Wow. I never heard of this one before, and that writeup you did is totally insane. I can’t possibly fathom what those two were thinking.

Pretty sobering accident. Buried in the Tech Topics forum section here are a bunch of accident write ups of mine similar to this one, of accidents that many haven’t heard of before.
 
Wow. I never heard of this one before, and that writeup you did is totally insane. I can’t possibly fathom what those two were thinking.
Kinda blows my mind.

Even though my King Air job was Part 91, we did a takeoff and landing analysis for every single leg, and complied with commuter category and Part 135 operating limitations concerning performance.

'cause the tree/obstacle does not care which part of 14 CFR you're flying under.
 
Pretty sobering accident. Buried in the Tech Topics forum section here are a bunch of accident write ups of mine similar to this one, of accidents that many haven’t heard of before.
They’re well done and worth a read for those of you that haven’t already done so.
 
Kinda blows my mind.

Even though my King Air job was Part 91, we did a takeoff and landing analysis for every single leg, and complied with commuter category and Part 135 operating limitations concerning performance.

'cause the tree/obstacle does not care which part of 14 CFR you're flying under.

I did the same with the 200 flying 135. It was 1 lb shy of requiring it. Too many took performance for granted.
 
Kinda blows my mind.

Even though my King Air job was Part 91, we did a takeoff and landing analysis for every single leg, and complied with commuter category and Part 135 operating limitations concerning performance.

'cause the tree/obstacle does not care which part of 14 CFR you're flying under.

This is a fun subject in the 91/135 circles. "We'll just take off VFR, see and avoid then pick up our clearance en route." Did you do a runway & obstacle analysis? i know you didn't because the mountains don't care if you're VFR or IFR.
 
Back
Top