GIV N121JM Crashes at KBED. 7 dead


#1

48 minute flight to KBED/KACY.

Pilot error or equipment?

flightaware.com/live/flight/N121JM


#2

Engines look ok from the air.

Looks like the fire was from wing tank(s) and/or center cabin?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpJIuKTIYAAk2Wf.jpg:large


#3

We may never know the real reason for this unless recorders reveal. If I were guessing the first thing I would look is the stab trim position. The cockpit may have some evidence of that remaining. This isn’t the first GIV to go off the end.


#4

The engines look alright from all the way over here, so that can’t be the fault.
I would say that the fire didn’t start in the cockpit or the tail as they aren’t burned as much as the fuselage and wings, maybe the fuel burned after the crash.


#5

That’s my guess. Equipment failure caused plane to try emergency landing, caught on fire, good night Gracie.


#6

Ah… no… from the a news report “…of a Gulfstream IV private jet, which went down on takeoff from Hanscom Field outside Boston on its way to Atlantic City…”

So… guess again, maybe?


#7

I guess on one noticed the sarcasm in my comments concerning the absolutely ridiculous comments from the OP.

  1. Right after a crash and the OP is asking was it "pilot error or equipment?"
    At this point no one knows for sure, anything would be pure speculation, the news media thrives on speculation, go there for your “answers”.
  2. " Engines look ok from the air" how can you or anyone else tell from a photo that the engines were operating normally?
  3. “Looks like the fire was from wing tanks and or center cabin”.
    Well Duh, where else is the fuel carried, but in the wings and center section.
    And then another poster says "equipment failure caused plane to try emergency landing"
    They never left the ground, this was an aborted takeoff, not a landing.

#8

The lastest:

  • Brake pressure increased consistent with deceleration
  • Reversers deployed
  • CVR has something about “control issues” between PLT and FO. No details yet, of course.

“The flight recorder indicated the aircraft reached a speed of 165 knots (190 mph) before deceleration began, Schiada said, and 49 seconds elapsed from the beginning of ground roll until the sound of impact. The pilot indicated the plane had reached a safe speed for takeoff, according to the data.”


#9

I can’t speak for anyone else, but what I meant was that the fire didn’t start in the engines… because they still look shiny and whole in the photo. I wasn’t trying to say they were operating normally. Or at all.


#10

So… what you’re saying is that a plane taking off that has a sudden emergency, say a fire in the cabin or wiring, would not immediately try to land? Just because they were taking off does not mean they didn’t need an emergency landing. In any case, they got one.


#11

Thanks for the “lastest”. You’re the bestest.


#12

Try again… they never got off the ground.

As to your question, no. I would not call that an emergency landing and I don’t think anyone else around here would either. It would be called an aborted takeoff. In this case, an aborted takeoff that resulted in an accident. If they made it into the air and instituted a go-around, that would, for your sake, be called an emergency landing.

Any more semantics you wish to slice?


#13

Pot calling the kettle black. You sliced me first because I said “emergency landing” instead of “aborted takeoff”. Because you nit-pick every single word of my comments, you can’t really be surprised when I reply.

What I was trying to say was that the body of the aircraft was laid flat out, as if it “landed” or “aborted takeoff”, rather than plummeting nose-first. My observation is that several recent photos and stories about other aircraft that “aborted takeoff” ended up nose-first in the dirt, and this one looked different.

I’ve already established (in other comments that you’ve picked apart) that I’m a former flight attendant and a current aeronautical radio operator. I’m not a pilot, nor a mechanic. But I’m part of the aviation industry, nonetheless. If you intend on jumping in to point out every aspect of the industry that I’m unfamiliar with, it will take a very, very long time. But have at it, if that’s what floats your pontoons.

There seems to be a sentiment around here that only pilots are “worthy” to be part of this site. I would just like to remind you that without me and my co-workers, many pilots would not make their flights across the ocean. I’m the one who gets MedLink on the line to help pilots and their passengers when there’s a medical emergency on board. I’m the one that answers the “MAYDAY” call when a flight is out in the middle of the ocean and one of the engines starts to fail. Maybe I don’t know every make and model of airplane, or every seat configuration, but I know how to help a pilot find his bearings when his instruments fail, I make sure that each pilot and ATC have all the information they need to reroute around bad weather, I deliver requests and clearances that allow flights to get to a better altitude, whether for fuel conservation or a better ride. I make sure the police are waiting to meet a flight when there’s a security issue on board.

I think that pretty well entitles me to be a part of this site.


#14

I guess I struck a nerve. Not once did I question your place here. I could care less whether you are here or not. I was simply commenting on and correcting inaccuracies in your comments. Your rant above alludes to accuracy does it not? My pontoons are fine. Yours seem a tad bent.


#15

They don’t make bras like they used to… :open_mouth:


#16

ntsb.gov/investigations/summ … inary.html

Initial review of CVR and FDR data revealed that the airplane’s ground roll began about 49 seconds before the end of the CVR recording. The CVR captured callouts of 80 knots, V1, and rotate. After the rotate callout, the CVR captured comments concerning aircraft control. FDR data indicated the airplane reached a maximum speed of 165 knots during the takeoff roll and did not lift off the runway. FDR data further indicated thrust reversers were deployed and wheel brake pressures increased as the airplane decelerated. The FDR data ended about 7 seconds after thrust reverser deployment, with the airplane at about 100 knots. The FDR data did not reveal evidence of any catastrophic engine failures and revealed thrust lever angles consistent with observed engine performance. Review of FDR data parameters associated with the flight control surface positions did not reveal any movement consistent with a flight control check prior to the commencement of the takeoff roll. The flap handle in the cockpit was observed in the 10 degree detent. FDR data indicated a flap setting of 20 degrees during the takeoff attempt."