After 3 aborted landings, I'm calling it and heading to my alternate. Hell I've bailed on a landing after 2 attempts due to weather.

The FAA MA criteria is for SE climb, and having adequate terrain clearance over a large area.  Yes, he could have done a bounce and go.  It's not even a question.      If he had fuel that is.  

From the first camera, it looks like they initially touched down about 2000ft down the runway and they should have gone around to begin with.  After that it looks like that FedEx DC-10/MD-11 crash that was caught on video at Tokyo/Narita a few years back.

That's what I gathered from looking at the approach plate. I know Aspen is a unique and challenging airport on the best days.

Nasty.

Yep. I did that ONCE early in flight training before I knew about Pilot Induced Oscillation. That is some scary shit. And from then on I knew that the throttle and sky are my friend.

Dumbest, most ignorant thing I've seen on the internet do far today. Good job, I think you could hang on for the win.

The Mexican pilot may well have made the same mistake.   He was no doubt focused on sticking the landing.

Another thing happens when the weather is like that.   You begin to act on instinct.  You don't have time to make rational decisions second by second.    That's why you have to make your decisions ahead of time.  

Also, Aspen has a 2% upslope on runway 15. That probably helped the bounce. People used to a 6 degree angle on approach to a flat runway are now going from 6 down to 2 up on landing.

Aftermath.

It's a matter of semantics. If it's an instrument approach you're shooting you do a missed approach at the end if you can't land. If it's a visual approach youd do a go around. He had shot 2 missed approaches prior to this because he'd been flying the loc dme 15 (if I recall correctly) because nighttime and weather conditions dictated its use. So the appropriate thing to do would have been a missed approach. Conducting a visual go-around off of that approach in those conditions probably would have resulted in all three dying. How would they maintain obstacle clearance? You'd have needed a Saturn V. Nearly impossible to guarantee obstacle clearance, especially for 3 strangers to that airport, in a go around in those conditions. And this is exactly why they never should have been there to begin with.

Vne, the missed approach altitude is almost 2400 feet above field elevation if I read the approach plates correctly.  At the point that the pilot touched down and the landing was botched, I am calling that a go around.  My term may be wrong.  You suggest that it was not a realistic option.  At least one other person said it should be easy.

I have no idea for that aircraft or if that would have resulted in a CFIT event.

Looking at the IR footage, it appears the pilot applied power after touching down, and was making significant power during the bounce.

Those acft have ground spoilers for landing, could they have been deployed during the initial ground contact and still out during the bounce?

I love it how there were a bunch a people just standing around on the side of the runway with their hands in the pockets doing nothing to help. The one guy on the left kicks something and just stands there.

What are they to do?  The field probably has a fire department which should be equipped to handle the crash.

Honestly I'm just waiting for the arf-pilots to chime in about how this was a VX attack or some other nonsense.

I still giggle over that hypothesis on the BHM UPS crash.

I'm not sure why you keep saying Saturn V.     It's a really weird thing to say.     You could do bounce and goes all day long at Aspen in a 2 engine jet.  Yes, even with a tailwind.  

A promptly executed bounce and go is preferable to crashing ever single time.  

What do you think they should do?  Run 1/4 mile down a snowy taxiway toward a burning puddle of Jet A without any firefighting training or apparatus?  At that point, you're just in the fucking way.  

Or maybe the sensible thing to do is just stand there and kick a rock while the people who are trained and equipped to handle the situation do their job?

He bent over, hands on knees with head hung, then kicked something. Looked like shock & frustration at what happened to me.

Then you don't get out much, do you?

 

Wtf are you talking about?

When I seen the wind blowing on the tarmac before plane landed, I  knew then what was going to happen.

Out of left fucking field. How old were you and do you remember it?

The AOA exceeded the stall limit.   Slow airspeed, high pitch, swept wing jet = crash. Doesn't matter how much power is applied.   He needed to hold the pitch at about 4 degrees after the first nose-wheel bounce. - until v2+10. For some pilots, this is instinctive, for others, not so much apparently.

Pic from a different incident shows why a go-around at night could easily result in CFIT. I know that Flight Options disallowed night landings in to Aspen for years because of this. A steep climb that gives them 2 miles to beat the rapidly rising terrain while making a sharp turn... at night...

Here's the radio audio... Approach

To keep from jacking this thread, I discussed in this thread a while back (about 1/3 down page):

Airline Horror Stories

As a young private pilot, I may or may not have hotdogged a long-final landing on an 8200' runway (KCOD), dropped the nose gear before I'd bled enough airspeed off, and porpoised down half the runway. The airplane (C172) was fine. My pride was a casualty though.


Btw... my buddy/bandmate has flown into Aspen many times over his near 20 years as a NetJets Citation Excel captain (flew the Ultra before the Excel came-out). He's always remarked how that airport is a big boy airport in terms of commitment and skills required for safety in a jet. And he flies a straight wing!

This thread makes me realize, I've never done Aspen in all my years of flying FSX. Time to crank up the Lear 45 tonight and fly in there!

If you don't know anything about airplanes, all small jets are Leer. Kinda like Kleenex and Xerox.

Back when UPS crashed in BHM earlier this year there were some people (IIRC) hypothesizing that some sort of nerve agent had incapacitated pilots based on the crash photos or some other such nonsense.

It was wild ass speculation and amusing.

Was waiting for someone to opine some truly wacky shit here.

Wow.  I'm surprised you still fly.

Not to mention that Bombardier is the parent company that owns/builds both Lears and Challengers.

I always affectionately use the term "BIZJET" when referring to my favorite segment of aviation.

I am certain the plane was laying down chemtrails prior to landing at KASE. So there....

Oh really?  Like the topic of the thread wasn't a giveaway?  

Nice pic.  I'm telling you how it actually is, flying jets, into Aspen.     It's what I did for a living just prior to my current job.  

You can see the hurt, and anger of those guys on camera 4. What a shitty situation to witness.

I read about things like this and it breaks my heart.  I have been flying high performance jets for over 30 years.  When your flying into an airport like that one you don't push it and always have a back up plan.  One of my flight instructors from UPT  shared this advice.  A superior pilot uses superior judgement not superior skills.  Sometimes diverting early is the best option and trying again when the weather is better.

Yeah, those Flight Options guys are stupid.

Yes and yes.  I'm typed in the Challenger 601 and currently am employed flying one.  A coworker has a few thousand hours in that very airplane.  The ground spoilers on the 601 will deploy when in the armed position with both thrust levers at idle and one of two following conditions satisfied; weight on wheels in ground mode or wheel spin up beyond 35 knots.  If you bounce a landing those spoilers will deploy and remained deployed until the thrust levers are advanced, or the wheels slow down to less 35 knots with the airplane airborne.







 

The yellow accident site marking is hard to see but appears to be north of the runway. From the cameras, the resting location seems to be in the region of the southern half of the runway.

I think you have nailed it, thanks for the very insightful and informative post.





Canadair Challenger 601 TRAINING GUIDE pdf.

Auto Ground Spoiler Deploy

Neat

Yes, that picture is from the north.  The indications of the crash site are 100% inaccurate.

When I lived there I watched one of the UA BAe 146s execute a downwind/base/final/landing on 33 in an impossible amount of space.  That was the only time I ever witnessed it.

It made me pucker watching from the ground.

The pic is from a different incident (as it clearly states in the post quoted). Just using it to show the mountains at the end of the runway.

I believe that was the site of the Gulfstream crash a few years back.

It's called hyperbole. Exaggeration if you will. I'm attempting to illustrate that the only way to guarantee obstacle clearance is by climbing straight up. There's actually nothing weird about it if you understand the subject matter.

I agree that a balked landing at Aspen is possible given ideal circumstances. 30 knot tailwind at night ain't ideal. Think it could be done? I say prove it. I can say that because I know for a fact you can't prove it. As AmericanPeople has observed, the MDA on that approach is 2400' agl. There's a reason it's that high. You are correct that such altitudes are based on guaranteeing obstacle clearance on a single engine climb but that doesn't guarantee you could do it from 2400' below the MDA on two engines and still be in the clear. You don't even know how heavy the plane was. That aircraft has a limitation of a maximum 10 knot tailwind for takeoff and landing so climb capability in such conditions is impossible to calculate. Imagine trying to perform a takeoff from that runway with a 30 knot tailwind. The ballanced field length couldn't even be extrapolated for such a tailwind. Bombardier flat out doesn't give you the data or any way to guess at it for such an extreme scenario. So I'm impressed you're so confident it could be done.
When I used to fly into Aspen it was a daytime, vfr only destination specifically for this scenario. Even if you couldn't comply with the missed approach procedure then at least you'd have the visibility to steer away from granite. These guys couldn't even do that.
You seem to think these guys would have been fine and dandy had they successfully gotten airborne again. That's a giant maybe that nobody knows the answer to because it can't be calculated and because it was nighttime. The only point I was trying to make was that at the time those guys crossed the threshold with a 30 knt tailwind, at night, they were already waaaay outside the boundaries and a successful outcome was dubious at best. How could they even know if they had enough runway to stop the aircraft in those conditions even if they nailed the landing at the 1000' mark? I don't recall what the required runway length correction factor is for a flaps zero landing but it would be very similar to this scenario as a flaps zero landing has an increased Ref speed of thirty knots. I did a flaps zero landing once at IND on 23R in the summer time and the amount of runway you eat up is staggering. I wouldn't expect it to work at Aspen. Especially given the field elevation.
Nope. These guys screwed themselves from the get-go. What would have been preferable is them having never left the MDA to conduct a highly illegal approach.

Interesting that they apparently violated the tailwind allowances.   Assuming that they had no choice but to land.   The winds were reported at 14 gusting 25 from the audio link.

Would your approach speed be increased about 20 knots because of the tailwind?

Then add that 20 knots with the 20 knots of increased ground speed from the wind and your approach speed would be 40 knots higher than normal.  Correct?

IIRC it was not a nighttime crash either.  around noon I believe.

Not that it matters