Green Hornet wrote:

RobBurson wrote:To kinds of pilots. Those who have bent one and those who are going to bend one.

I do believe Mr. Roush may be wise to hire a good pilot. The one he was using seems to be ah, um, how do you say it nicely..............lacking the needed skills.

It's not like he was at Mile Hi or Dewey Moore

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it is required to have two pilots on a jet?

You're wrong....

Lots of relatively small jets out there that are single pilot certified. Single pilot certification is required of BOTH the aircraft and the pilot, however.

All Turbojet powered aircraft require a type rating, but a type rating does not dictate that two pilots fly the airplane, nor does a maximum takeoff weight of greater than 12,500 pounds. Greater than 12,500 requires a type rating as well, but again, does not dictate two pilots. There are airplanes out there approved for single pilot ops that weigh over 12,500.

Gump, you are precisely correct, and that is my point. While many Alaska operations are operated under VFR rules, they are in fact operated in a sort of never-never land, and depend heavily on the pilot's skills and decision making. By comparison, actual IFR flying in Alaska is a lot more "civilized". Certainly there are a few sort of unusual features of IFR flight in Alaska, but most of those have to do with the transition to VFR, as in flying an approach to FYU, then scud running to Chalkyitsik, for example. Not done a whole lot in the Lower 48, but only because so many airports here have approaches. More and more airports now have GPS approaches as well, so much of that type stuff will go away as well.

VFR flying leaves the vast majority of decisions up to the pilot, often without a lot of help from the "system". IFR flight is much more regimented, and fewer of the decisions are left to the pilot, though pilots often depart from procedures and get themselves into deep kim chee. My point is that the argument that general aviation doesn't do a very good job of managing safety as compared to the airlines is somewhat of a specious argument.

MTV

Not the first time and and if I want to keep learning it won't be the last I appreciate you taking the time to explain the finer points.
Thanks

anyone here fly Cessna N 2797D?

Crap!!! I wonder if the Cessna pilot even knew what was going on behind him??? Wow, what a trip!!

Aircraft registry says Wayne Eberhart from Amboy MN owns it (since 1984!).

ASW.

How long does it take for NTSB to post a preliminary report?

"58". Actually, I think he saw it all. The first several sequence pictures show it headed for them. There was another 170 taxing in front of this one. It contacted the ground out in front of the cessnas (one o'clock) and then slid past them.

patrol guy wrote:"58". Actually, I think he saw it all. The first several sequence pictures show it headed for them. There was another 170 taxing in front of this one. It contacted the ground out in front of the cessnas (one o'clock) and then slid past them.

I see now. I didn't notice all the dust and dirt flying all over the place in front of the Cessna earlier.

Still wish we can see a video. Maybe they will surface again when the dust settles.

GeorgeM wrote:Since you were there, I would be curious as to what you saw and think happened, and given how hard it is to sort this stuff out from a fleeting glance, it will be good fun to compare that to what the NTSB ultimately says after looking at all available photographs, video and data.

I was there and watched the entire event from his approach to the crash. We were standing in the warbird area at the nose of "Panchito" and a buddy of noticed a jet with his gear down and landing lights on headed right at us. This was odd because we were south of RWY 27 and we had not seen any other jest fly the base leg for 18. As the jet got closer we did not notice any flaps down so we assumed it would be some sort of demonstration as the field had just re-opened from the airshow. The jet made a base to final turn at what looked to be no more than 100 ft AGL, slow and at a high angle of bank. It was at this point that I noticed it was JR as he comes in to my home field routinely for the races. I made the comment to the others "hey that is Jack Roush" and "this does not look like it will end well". At this point we still did not notice any flaps down...they may have been down at approach setting, but from our vantage point we could not tell that any were hanging. He rolled wings level at about 50 ft AGl with a high descent rate and this was the first time I noticed flaps...at this point we were about 45 degrees off his right rear. I do not know if they were down the entire time and we just could not tell from our sight angle or if he dumped them as he rolled on final.

We would have been looking at his belly at this point

He rolled out on final at what looked to be a bit right of 18 (overshot) and appeared to correct it with a bit of left bank and the plane looked unstable followed immediately with his right wing dropping and the rest is in photos. I did hear the engines spool up, but at this point we were well behind him and the power / sound delay was in full effect so I cannot accurately say when the engines actually spooled up.



It looked to all of us (all pilots, 2 of which are airline and 1 ex military instructor) that he was never stabilized on the approach and well behind the aircraft the entire time. Should have gone around when he made the base to final turn. Classic low and slow stall spin...he was lucky that it did not happen 15 feet higher or he would have either cartwheeled or been inverted on impact.

I think lowflybye has the best analasys so far. I missed all the approach part. When I had the presence of mind to pull out the camera, the plane was stopped and the engines were at full power. Here's the first pic I got.

NTSB Identification: CEN10FA443
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, July 27, 2010 in Oshkosh, WI
Aircraft: Hawker Beechcraft 390, registration: N6JR
Injuries: 2 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On July 27, 2010, approximately 1816 central daylight time (all times referenced as central daylight time), a Hawker Beechcraft model 390 (Premier IA) business jet, N6JR, registered to and operated by Roush Fenway Racing, LLC, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain during landing to runway 18R at Wittman Regional Airport (KOSH), Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The business flight was being conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The airline transport certificated pilot and his passenger were seriously injured. The cross-country flight had departed Willow Run Airport (KYIP), near Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 1729 with KOSH as the intended destination.

The pilot was flying to KOSH to attend the Experimental Aircraft Association’s Airventure 2010 fly-in convention. Air traffic control (ATC) data indicated that the accident flight entered the Oshkosh area under visual flight rules and was cleared to land on runway 18R (8,002 feet by 150 feet, concrete).

A review of amateur video taken at KOSH showed the accident airplane in a left base turn to final for runway 18R. The airplane appeared to overshoot the runway centerline during this turn and then level its wings momentarily before entering a slight right bank simultaneously as the nose of the airplane pitched up. The airplane then turned left toward the runway centerline and began a descent. During this descent the airplane’s pitch appeared to increase until the airplane entered a right bank and struck the grass area west of the runway in a nose down, right wing low attitude.

The pilot and passenger were assisted out of the aircraft and transported to the hospital for treatment of their serious, but non-life-threatening injuries.

An on-scene investigation was immediately initiated after the accident. The air traffic controllers working the final portion of the accident flight were interviewed and the recorded ATC voice transmissions were secured for further review. The final segments of the accident flight were below available radar coverage, and as such no radar track data was available for review. The wreckage debris path and accident site were surveyed before the airplane was eventually recovered to a secured area where further inspections were performed the following day. No preimpact malfunctions or anomalies were noted during the on-scene inspections of the airframe structure, flight control systems, or two turbo-fan engines. Several non-volatile memory devices were removed from the airplane and were retained for future download. A cockpit voice recorder was recovered and shipped to the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Division in Washington D.C. for readout. The remaining wreckage was released back to the aircraft owner/operator on July 29, 2010.

by mtv » Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:00 pm

The tower tape's on line. Controller questioned whether the spacing between the jet and the airplane on takeoff was enough. Jet pilot said it was good enough. Controller responded "I don't think so". Controller is probably wishing he'd told him to go around. JR is probably wishing he'd chosen to go around.

This sheds some light on the confusion of the ATC tape, it was two controllers talking, not Roush and a controller.

Roush Blames Crash On Landing 'Conflict'


Click for more moment-of-impact photos

Click for more photos of Roush's Beech
NASCAR racing legend Jack Roush appears to blame air traffic controllers working EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh for the events that led to the crash landing of his Beech Premier jet on July 27. "The reality of it -- on a trip arrival into Oshkosh, Wisc., I was put in conflict with the flight plan of another airplane close to the ground, and I was unable to address the conflict and keep the airplane flying. I ground-looped the airplane..." Roush told the car racing publication Motorsports. Tower recordings do seem to suggest a clipped discussion between two controllers in which one wonders whether instructions issued to Roush could be successfully accomplished. "Is 6JR (Roush's plane) going to be OK with this?" a controller asks. "Affirmative," says the controller working Roush's aircraft. "Don't think so," says the other controller. Seconds later the first controller begins ordering traffic on final to go around. The NTSB has issued its preliminary report and says, based on amateur video it has seen, Roush apparently overshot the centerline of the runway and made several course corrections.

"The airplane appeared to overshoot the runway centerline during this turn and then level its wings momentarily before entering a slight right bank simultaneously as the nose of the airplane pitched up," the report says. "The airplane then turned left toward the runway centerline and began a descent. During this descent the airplane's pitch appeared to increase until the airplane entered a right bank and struck the grass area west of the runway in a nose down, right wing low attitude." The aircraft had a cockpit voice recorder and it's being analyzed. Meanwhile, Roush is out of hospital after two weeks of surgeries and treatments for severe facial injuries. He lost the sight in his left eye in the accident and suffered multiple broken bones, including a broken jaw. Roush, who survived a previous plane crash, told Motorsport he's counting his blessings. "I feel very lucky," Roush said. "I've had several bites at the apple."

GeorgeM wrote:NASCAR racing legend Jack Roush appears to blame air traffic controllers working EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh for the events that led to the crash landing of his Beech Premier jet on July 27. "The reality of it -- on a trip arrival into Oshkosh, Wisc., I was put in conflict with the flight plan of another airplane close to the ground, and I was unable to address the conflict and keep the airplane flying. I ground-looped the airplane..."

Sad to read this press release - poor form on the part of Mr Roush. Doesn't matter how many controllers were talking or what they cleared him for, he should not have requested, accepted, commenced, or continued an approach to land that he wasn't entirely comfortable with. The magic word is "unable" - it might cost you time, fuel, and additional comm as you work out an alternative that works for you and your controller. The moment he recognized that he was high, tight, wrapped up, and slow on base he should have taken it around, the fact that he didn't reflects poorly on him as PIC.

I flew a jet into OK and said "unable" a number of times. Wasn't trying to be difficult about things, but given the exceptionally busy state of the pattern(s) there and the vast differences in performance of those in the pattern I was very cautious about about where we put the jet. The tower controllers were on their game but the bottom line was they were juggling knives and things were very busy, all things considered I think they did an amazing job. They had no heartache when we told them we couldn't do something - they just pitched alternatives until we were satisfied we were set up for success.

"Roush Blames Crash On Landing 'Conflict'

I was put in conflict with the flight plan of another airplane close to the ground, and I was unable to address the conflict and keep the airplane flying. "

We're real happy to have you here in aviation, Jack, but you're going to have to understand that you're the guy in charge of flying the airplane safely, not the tower controllers. They take a lot of the responsibility for keeping you safe, and they are almost always very very concerned with doing the right thing... but at any time there is a problem that you see and they don't, you are expected to make a decision to go around (in this case) or not take off, or turn right instead of left, etc so the airplane does not hit the ground

You see, Jack,. in the left seat of an airplane on final approach, you can usually see a lot of things that the guys in the tower cannot.

Guys like you do that whole authoritative "I'm the boss and I say X!" thing in the boardroom all the time. Shouldn't be anything outside of your ability.

Forgot to comment on his characterization of the mishap as a "ground loop". Classic. Ground loops generally result in a scuffed wingtip and a bruised ego. This was not a ground loop, it was a crash he was lucky to survive.

Vick wrote:Forgot to comment on his characterization of the mishap as a "ground loop". Classic. Ground loops generally result in a scuffed wingtip and a bruised ego. This was not a ground loop, it was a crash he was lucky to survive.

Not to mention that in order to have a ground loop you must actually be on the ground, otherwise it is just called a loop. Neither of which was the case in this accident...this was a crash, plain and simple. He screwed up and there is no-one else to blame in this one but old Mr. Roush himself. I am glad he walked away from it without more serious injury, but own up to the mistake and thank God you did not take anyone else along to the hospital.

It will be interesting to see the video...if it is ever released.

A "ground loop"????? Holy cats--I could have sworn it as a "smack down" from my perspective. This guy has waaaaaayyyy too many witnesses out there to try to pull off that kind of BS. Good luck convincing the insurance company that it was just a "ground loop".

MTV

mtv wrote:Good luck convincing the insurance company that it was just a "ground loop".

MTV

The insurance company will pay the same amount either way...just makes him look foolish to try and say it was a ground loop.