A plane has overshot a runway while landing at TEB and gotten stuck in the arrester bed. No further details yet.
Printable View
A plane has overshot a runway while landing at TEB and gotten stuck in the arrester bed. No further details yet.
Yeah....I just heard of this as well on ABC news.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...cal&id=7700932
Plane registration is N923CL. Shot a couple pictures as I drove past and intended to park and get up close. They were snappy in removing the plane. By the time I parked and walked over (around 4PM) it was already being towed away.
http://horriblephotography.com/album...IMG_8030ps.jpg
http://horriblephotography.com/album...IMG_8029ps.jpg
http://horriblephotography.com/album...IMG_8044ps.jpg
http://horriblephotography.com/album...IMG_8037ps.jpg
Click for full version of panorama.
http://horriblephotography.com/album...orama1ps12.jpg
Surprised the EMAS didn't eat up the nosegear! Glad all are ok.
Great shots, Mark!
It's gotta be a real interesting sensation to run into an EMAS. I wonder how it feels.
So what happens now? How long until the EMAS is replaced and the runway reopened?
Saw it happen live. G-IV landing on Runway 6 went a little too far and into the EMAS. The EMAS did it's job well and everyone exited the aircraft unharmed. AFAIK Runway 6 is still closed.
that's kinda the point. no damage to airplanes or property and usually no injuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
I hope I never find out!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Futterman
The goal is to slow the aircraft so it doesn't go BEYOND the EMAS and hit something like a building or a car. Most every EMAS video and post-crash photos I've seen almost always make the nosegear collapse. Maybe it was just slow and on a lighter plane in this situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by cancidas
See some footage at 4:00...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jH8g-qJK3w
Judging from footage taken of passengers in that video's EMAS test, I'd say it's just a jolt, some minor trembling, and rapid deceleration.Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07
Was listening to LiveATC, and the callsign was Gotham 92. That would make this aircraft part of Meridian Air Charter based in Teterboro.Quote:
Originally Posted by heeshung
Actually, the nose gear is supposed to be protected so the aircraft can be "removed from the arresting system easily, with minimal effects". It just looks like it collapses because the aircraft sinks through to the bottom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
I'd imagine it feels something like riding a bike through loose sand, except the pilots aren't even trying to power through.
Any word on the current status of the EMAS at TEB? I'm curious to know how long it takes them to repair it. (Photos would be SUPER cool, Mark!)
http://www.esco.zodiacaerospace.com/...ages/main2.jpg
http://aviationsafetynetwork.files.w.../04/n246ps.jpg
Brian
NTSB factual report
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...04X11133&key=1
Quote:
The PIC further stated that in the landing flare, the copilot announced the speed was ref plus 10 knots and the PIC reduced the throttles to idle power. At ref speed, just prior to touchdown, a gust of wind caused the airplane to "float up" approximately 15 feet above the ground, before descending back down to the runway. The PIC further stated that at no point did either pilot believe there was not adequate runway remaining to continue the landing. The airplane touched down at 120 knots and the copilot stated a red crew advisory system (CAS) message generated for ground spoiler deployment. Thrust reversers then deployed and braking began immediately, with activation of the anti-skid system. At that point the airplane was decelerating through 80 knots and the pilots still felt the airplane would stop on the remaining runway; however, the airplane departed the end of the runway at 40 to 50 knots. The airplane traveled about 100 feet into an engineered materials arresting system (EMAS), located immediately beyond the runway, and came to rest
I'm very surprised to hear the speed was that high, especially when the Gulfstream barely used up half of the EMAS distance. I'd say without the EMAS the plane would've definitely gone through the fence and into Rt. 46.Quote:
Originally Posted by NTSB
Interesting report... On a 6,000 foot runway, runway remaining is at a premium.. Landing more than 1/2 down the runway, in a jet aircraft at 120+ knots with only approximately 2,000 feet remaining isn't a good decision, as demonstrated here. I'm not sure what the minimum runway requirement is of a G-IV, or what the calculated landing distance was in this case, but when dealing with a shorter runway, (no matter how experienced the crew was) and especially with a final approach speed additive for gusty winds, I'm surprised the crew wasn't more "go-around" oriented, especially after a float down the runway.
It's easy to get wrapped up on the landing as the pilot flying and let distance remaining or certain other things fall out of your crosscheck, but that's where the pilot not flying should come in and call a go-around.. It's something I always brief, especially on shorter runways - like "Hey we have 7,000 feet of runway to work with here, if we're not wheels on the ground by X,XXX feet (depending on what our calculated landing distance is), call a go-around and we'll go around and try it again"..
Good to see the EMAS worked as advertised though and no one was hurt!