Honda jet crash KFFZ, 5 fatal

knot4u said:
I'd assume it's either locked or unlocked, but I've never worked on a HondaJet.
Click to expand...
Well, haha, sure. But like. How does it work? What does it look like? For example, the Hawker had this weird little claw that came out of the panel (if I remember correctly) and kind of latched onto the bicycle yoke. Whereas a Cessna has the famous stamped sheet-metal flag-attached-to-a-pin, etc. But those things have manual flight controls, and wikipedia (AFAICT) doesn't even tell us whether the Honda's flight controls are manual, hydraulic, or (like a Falcon 50 or (I think) an EMB-145 series) a little bit o' both. It may not even HAVE a control lock, for all I know. I would guess based on its weight class that it's likely to have manual, un-boosted controls, but I don't know. Was hoping someone else might.
 
FFZ has two short runways that to me, aren’t very suitable for fixed wing jet ops. Little room for error at that field.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
It’s Corpie gonna Corp.



“Corpses gonna Corp” is just dark.
Click to expand...

This is Mesa, my dude. It's more like Mormons going to Mormon.

FFZ has two short runways that to me, aren’t very suitable for fixed wing jet ops. Little room for error at that field.
Click to expand...

Nah. I read somewhere today that a HJ needs 4k ft of runway to take-off and 2k ft to come to a stop from Vr. 22L at FFZ is only 5500 ft.

If I had the scratch for a light jet, I'd probably choose to operate out of Willie with those 10k ft runways.
 
Last edited:
FlyingAccountant said:
This is Mesa, my dude. It's more like Mormons going to Mormon.



Nah. I read somewhere today that a HJ needs 4k ft of runway to take-off and 2k ft to come to a stop from Vr. 22L at FFZ is only 5500 ft.

If I had the scratch for a light jet, I'd probably choose to operate out of Willie with those 10k ft runways.
Click to expand...


Ok, if we are gonna make a dark joke, then it should read:


Corpie gonna corpse.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Well, haha, sure. But like. How does it work? What does it look like? For example, the Hawker had this weird little claw that came out of the panel (if I remember correctly) and kind of latched onto the bicycle yoke. Whereas a Cessna has the famous stamped sheet-metal flag-attached-to-a-pin, etc. But those things have manual flight controls, and wikipedia (AFAICT) doesn't even tell us whether the Honda's flight controls are manual, hydraulic, or (like a Falcon 50 or (I think) an EMB-145 series) a little bit o' both. It may not even HAVE a control lock, for all I know. I would guess based on its weight class that it's likely to have manual, un-boosted controls, but I don't know. Was hoping someone else might.
Click to expand...

No hydraulically boosted controls on any light jets.

000957ed90b8df1d4b1f076b1108d625.jpg
 
knot4u said:
How did pilots ever fly without ground spoilers and anti-skid? That must've been a rodeo on every flight.
Click to expand...

I know you are trying to make some weird point here but these modern light jets (of which I am actually typed in multiple of them and was a check airmen in) have some very weird ground handling characteristics. Skinny, low profile tires that love to hydroplane both DRY and wet, electric steering, electric brakes with zero feedback, no lift dump, so the tires are about useless for actual doing anything related to slowing down. The Honda also can’t handle crosswinds. You can not dip a wing or you will drag the wing or flaps on the runway, and the engine pylons act like big ass sails.

The HJ is the worse of the two big offenders. The EMB100 being the other.

These are very light airplanes that need 6500 feet to stop when wet. We’re talking about a ref speed of 105. That’s absurd.

My favorite light jet to fly was the mustang, big fat tires, trailing link gear and manual steering + wing speed brakes. You could stop them in sub 1000ft if you stood on the brakes. Incredible safety record.

This isn’t a pilot problem as much as a bad design and marketing problem.

I taught owner pilots entire type ratings in their airplane in both the Mustang and the EMB100. Quit about the time the Honda came out, but no one wanted one because it’s even worse on paper.
 
FlyingAccountant said:
This is Mesa, my dude. It's more like Mormons going to Mormon.



Nah. I read somewhere today that a HJ needs 4k ft of runway to take-off and 2k ft to come to a stop from Vr. 22L at FFZ is only 5500 ft.

If I had the scratch for a light jet, I'd probably choose to operate out of Willie with those 10k ft runways.
Click to expand...
Yikes, I remember barely thinking twice about 5500’ in the Lear unless it was wet
 
T/O w/FSII said:
I know you are trying to make some weird point here but these modern light jets (of which I am actually typed in multiple of them and was a check airmen in) have some very weird ground handling characteristics. Skinny, low profile tires that love to hydroplane both DRY and wet, electric steering, electric brakes with zero feedback, no lift dump, so the tires are about useless for actual doing anything related to slowing down. The Honda also can’t handle crosswinds. You can not dip a wing or you will drag the wing or flaps on the runway, and the engine pylons act like big ass sails.

The HJ is the worse of the two big offenders. The EMB100 being the other.

These are very light airplanes that need 6500 feet to stop when wet. We’re talking about a ref speed of 105. That’s absurd.

My favorite light jet to fly was the mustang, big fat tires, trailing link gear and manual steering + wing speed brakes. You could stop them in sub 1000ft if you stood on the brakes. Incredible safety record.

This isn’t a pilot problem as much as a bad design and marketing problem.

I taught owner pilots entire type ratings in their airplane in both the Mustang and the EMB100. Quit about the time the Honda came out, but no one wanted one because it’s even worse on paper.
Click to expand...
The 100 is a good airplane. But its limitations have to be respected. And the acceptable margin of error is slim. You cannot push the envelope. If one can understand that and adjust accordingly you can stay on the runway every time. I have. I enjoyed flying ours and was never worried about it because I ran the numbers and knew that if I did my part right the airplane would perform as asked according to the book.
 
Wardogg said:
The 100 is a good airplane. But its limitations have to be respected. And the acceptable margin of error is slim. You cannot push the envelope. If one can understand that and adjust accordingly you can stay on the runway every time. I have. I enjoyed flying ours and was never worried about it because I ran the numbers and knew that if I did my part right the airplane would perform as asked according to the book.
Click to expand...

That does not sound like a good design for an airplane designed to be owner flown into GA airports. I understand how weight critical these airplanes are, but not installing a lift dump, or at least strong ground spoilers, was incredibly short sighted. I'd love to know how much weight is actually on the wheels at V1 in a 100 or Hondajet.

I will echo what was said about the Mustang, what it lacks in climb performance, speed, and range, it makes up for in stopping power. I could teach a 10 year old how to land and stop it in 2000'.

Alex.
 
Skåning said:
View attachment 80506

Holy Scheiße. That’s even worse than the POS Guppy. Are the brakes made out of paper plates?
Click to expand...
The electronic brakes on the 100 are interesting. Basically you have to think of them like a light switch on a wet runway. Get down. Apply the brakes and let the computers control the application. You can feel the brakes let go on the initial application as the anti skid goes to work. Just hold what you got and have faith the system works as long as you’ve run the numbers and the book says you’re A-OK
 
Wardogg said:
The electronic brakes on the 100 are interesting. Basically you have to think of them like a light switch on a wet runway. Get down. Apply the brakes and let the computers control the application. You can feel the brakes let go on the initial application as the anti skid goes to work. Just hold what you got and have faith the system works as long as you’ve run the numbers and the book says you’re A-OK
Click to expand...
Is this the same faith that says the Tesla won't hit the playground full of children?
 
Wardogg said:
The electronic brakes on the 100 are interesting. Basically you have to think of them like a light switch on a wet runway. Get down. Apply the brakes and let the computers control the application. You can feel the brakes let go on the initial application as the anti skid goes to work. Just hold what you got and have faith the system works as long as you’ve run the numbers and the book says you’re A-OK
Click to expand...

Yup. And the number one reason in the phenom was this wasn’t taught to pilots. Pilots would release pressure and the system would then reset, a delay would happen and rinse and repeat until you are in the grass/gravel/EMAS.

Luckily the figured that out and changed the training. Hence the 100’s aren’t going off the end as frequently.

The Honda jet needs a redesign. But I have a feeling they won’t be able to carry insurance very easily after this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CK said:
I will echo what was said about the Mustang, what it lacks in climb performance, speed, and range, it makes up for in stopping power. I could teach a 10 year old how to land and stop it in 2000'.

Alex.
Click to expand...
Hey it’ll do 3 hours with full fuel, about 1000nm.

I know someone who landed it on a 3500’ runway with standing water, in the rain, and said he has plenty of margin. No it wasn’t me but I’ve had my share of wet runway landings in this.
 
PGT said:
Hey it’ll do 3 hours with full fuel, about 1000nm.
Click to expand...

Not bad numbers at all…for a King Air. Not so hot for a jet. But it was a very easy airplane to fly and comfortable upfront.

Alex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top