Honda jet crash KFFZ, 5 fatal

knot4u said:
Lawyers only get one chance to profit from a tragedy, they sue everyone tangentially responsible regardless of anything. Not all lawyers are money sucking vampires but many are, it's their business.
Click to expand...

Know a guy who invests in “litigation financing” like private equity, but also complains about lawsuits.

The contortion required for that is impressive.
 
Malko said:
started that way but has turned into another version of Facebook unfortunately
Click to expand...

Indian Facebook at least.

The LinkedIn Cringe Reddit and other subs is always great for a laugh...

1752689387087.png
+
 
Richman said:
Know a guy who invests in “litigation financing” like private equity, but also complains about lawsuits.

The contortion required for that is impressive.
Click to expand...
Guarantee that anyone who rants about litigious society and nonsense lawsuits is going to be at the front of the line if weird • like being hit by an airplane overrunning happens to them.
 
Roger Roger said:
Guarantee that anyone who rants about litigious society and nonsense lawsuits is going to be at the front of the line if weird • like being hit by an airplane overrunning happens to them.
Click to expand...

He exhibits a character trait I was mostly unfamiliar with until the last couple of years. Rants about specific issues but then makes specific choices that only serve to make those issues worse in the long run.

This isn’t a case of benign ignorance or even a willful disregard with excuses (“no drop of rain believes it’s responsible for the flood”), but a full on embracing of a divergent philosophy for personal profit. “I don’t care what problems it causes, I’m personally profiting, so eff you all, and I’m still going to bitch about lawsuits”.

Very peculiar. A few years ago, people with such an outlook would just lie to make themselves philosophically consistent and/or acceptable to others, but that cloak has apparently been completely discarded.
 
Not exactly sure what the City of Mesa could have done to mitigate or prevent this, insofar as KFFZ design is concerned. Other than prohibit fixed wing jet ops from the airfield, due to its two fairly short parallel runways. With the jet having made a very high speed abort, either nearly 80% of runway used, for an (to date) unknown reason(s), the aircraft departed the runway at an extremely high rate of speed. Even if there had been an EMAS, it would’ve sailed through the EMAS at those speeds. Anything beyond just a chain link perimeter fence, such as a wall, would’ve instantly killed those onboard at impact, so that wouldn’t be an option. The only option would’ve been some form of military departure end high speed barrier such as a BAK-15 / 61QSII, or an MA-1A pop net. Which no civilian fields have, if just for the build and maintenance costs, especially a field like FFZ. With those speeds at the departure end, the jet was going to go where it was going to go….through the fence and across Greenfield Rd. It’s happened before there, on that runway many decades ago.

I expect that there might come to be some restriction or even prohibition on jet fixed wing ops coming.
 
YIKES!

Higher pressure means higher PSI on the ground contact patch.
Crunchy concrete needs a certain pressure per square inch to fail, thus absorbing energy (momentum)

Kinda why you use skinnier tires at a higher pressure for winter tires.
 
Ya'll suck at math.

There is no FAA guideline for minimum weight, only manufacturer specs that vary per airport.

The higher pressure per square inch on any structure, the more likely the failure of said structure.
 
MikeD said:
Not exactly sure what the City of Mesa could have done to mitigate or prevent this, insofar as KFFZ design is concerned. Other than prohibit fixed wing jet ops from the airfield, due to its two fairly short parallel runways. With the jet having made a very high speed abort, either nearly 80% of runway used, for an (to date) unknown reason(s), the aircraft departed the runway at an extremely high rate of speed. Even if there had been an EMAS, it would’ve sailed through the EMAS at those speeds. Anything beyond just a chain link perimeter fence, such as a wall, would’ve instantly killed those onboard at impact, so that wouldn’t be an option. The only option would’ve been some form of military departure end high speed barrier such as a BAK-15 / 61QSII, or an MA-1A pop net. Which no civilian fields have, if just for the build and maintenance costs, especially a field like FFZ. With those speeds at the departure end, the jet was going to go where it was going to go….through the fence and across Greenfield Rd. It’s happened before there, on that runway many decades ago.

I expect that there might come to be some restriction or even prohibition on jet fixed wing ops coming.
Click to expand...

There was another crash there about a decade ago. T6 Texan with an engine failure on takeoff, augered in to Greenfield. Killed the pilot, who was an AA guy, and a passenger going for a ride. Only reason I remember it is because I was at FFZ that day working on my PPL. Thankfully, I didn't see it happen.
 
DropTank said:
YIKES!

Higher pressure means higher PSI on the ground contact patch.
Crunchy concrete needs a certain pressure per square inch to fail, thus absorbing energy (momentum)

Kinda why you use skinnier tires at a higher pressure for winter tires.
Click to expand...

I’m not bad at math, but I think you’re right on the min weight. I was thinking of an FAA study that looked at EMAS and said it might not be effective for aircraft under 25k.

When you are calculating contact PSI, tire PSI is not a factor.

Pressure = Force/Area^2

You could triple the tire psi and it doesn’t affect the contact psi if contact area doesn’t change. The force is the mass of the aircraft.

Where it could matter in an EMAS is if there was a curb at start of the EMAS pad to initiate a plowing effect.

With winter tires, you may want to increase contact psi, so skinnier tires, less contact area. The tire must carry a sufficient tire pressure to carry the load. The constraint is reducing contact area also reduces traction, so it’s an optimization problem.
 
FlyingAccountant said:
There was another crash there about a decade ago. T6 Texan with an engine failure on takeoff, augered in to Greenfield. Killed the pilot, who was an AA guy, and a passenger going for a ride. Only reason I remember it is because I was at FFZ that day working on my PPL. Thankfully, I didn't see it happen.
Click to expand...

There’s been a few that have crashed past both runways after getting airborne for a short time there, there was a 210 that went into a house off of 4R a number of years back. And of course the Lockheed 1049 Constellation that crashed after takeoff, it’s crash site now mostly paved over with the 202 freeway north of the airport. 22L has had at least two overruns through the fence and across Greenfield into the orange grove on the west side, including a DC-4 a number of decades back.

EMAS would’ve done nothing for this accident what with the speed the jet was moving at when exiting the runway. Would’ve sailed over and through the short bed, and still ended up where it did. FFZ won’t spend the money for EMAS, given the limited amount of jet traffic the airport gets with its short runways. Easier to just restrict traffic. They want the corporate jet traffic, but they have zero expansion room.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I’m not bad at math, but I think you’re right on the min weight. I was thinking of an FAA study that looked at EMAS and said it might not be effective for aircraft under 25k.

When you are calculating contact PSI, tire PSI is not a factor.

Pressure = Force/Area^2

You could triple the tire psi and it doesn’t affect the contact psi if contact area doesn’t change. The force is the mass of the aircraft.

Where it could matter in an EMAS is if there was a curb at start of the EMAS pad to initiate a plowing effect.

With winter tires, you may want to increase contact psi, so skinnier tires, less contact area. The tire must carry a sufficient tire pressure to carry the load. The constraint is reducing contact area also reduces traction, so it’s an optimization problem.
Click to expand...

Contact pressure I understand. His original post said…

DropTank said:
Their tire pressure is over 200 PSI.
It'll squish EMAS just fine.
Click to expand...



It’s obvious that you don’t understand the difference between tire pressure and contact pressure when you post this:

DropTank said:
YIKES!

Higher pressure means higher PSI on the ground contact patch.
Crunchy concrete needs a certain pressure per square inch to fail, thus absorbing energy (momentum)

Kinda why you use skinnier tires at a higher pressure for winter tires.
Click to expand...

Higher tire pressure, in and of itself, does not increase contact pressure. It’s the “skinnier” part that increases contact pressure, not the air pressure inside the tire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top