Honda Jet Crash - Mesa

[FROGMAN524]

 

[coolchange]

I really like those jets. Be interesting to find out the cause.

 

[JDKRXW]

Poor guy in the car.

 

[Dan Lorenze]

sucks

 

[beerrun]

I really like those jets. Be interesting to find out the cause.

I thought I heard it was an aborted take off

 

[FlyByWire]

I thought I heard it was an aborted take off

Rejected take off well after V1, but I’d be curious to know why the pilot rejected it, for sure.

I have a buddy that left being a cop in AZ to go be a commercial pilot, and he flys Honda jets, when I saw the news I was terrified it was him (it wasn’t).

 

[mesquito_creek]

As a low hour pilot I have never rejected a take off. It is also not taught or tested as part of you PPL. I imagine you never get the chance to experience or practice a rejected TO on someone’s 5 million dollar small jet? (But I could be wrong). Does any rating include the requirement to demonstrate a reject TO in a real plane? I also imagine demonstrating it in a 172 is almost worthless compared to a small jet…. Also the safer runways to practice a RTO would most likely be long and controlled and I am not sure I could request an RTO. But if I could a nice trip to KIFP bullhead would be a good long RWY to train for it. Does your basic CFI/II have real world demonstrated RTO experience?

 

[Enen]

As a low hour pilot I have never rejected a take off. It is also not taught or tested as part of you PPL. I imagine you never get the chance to experience or practice a rejected TO on someone’s 5 million dollar small jet? (But I could be wrong). Does any rating include the requirement to demonstrate a reject TO in a real plane? I also imagine demonstrating it in a 172 is almost worthless compared to a small jet…. Also the safer runways to practice a RTO would most likely be long and controlled and I am not sure I could request an RTO. But if I could a nice trip to KIFP bullhead would be a good long RWY to train for it. Does your basic CFI/II have real world demonstrated RTO experience?

I was taught if you are not at 70% of V1 by the time you reach 50% of your calculated ground roll, reject the takeoff.

 

[mesquito_creek]

I was taught if you are not at 70% of V1 by the time you reach 50% of your calculated ground roll, reject the takeoff.

I should have been more specific, not taught outside of ground school or discussion. I was not physically taught in the plane how to hit the marks and demonstrate. I say it out loud every time that if we are not at IAS of x by the time we hit the rwy marking of x we abort, but have never had to do it. I couldn’t tell you how many actual feet it takes (demonstrated) in my plane to stop it on a ground roll from 65knots beyond the POH. I have never flat spotted or locked up my brakes, so I don’t know where that line to cross is either. More stuff to follow up with my mentor Cfi I suppose.

 

[mesquito_creek]

BTW, in the crash video the pilot appears to be in full wheel/brake lock up smoking the tires which would have also contributed to 90kn speed at the numbers and additional stopping distance required. I guess ABS is not standard on these small jets.

 

[JDKRXW]

My $0.02.
Pilot had an engine failure right before rotating at V1, and kept rolling in an attempt to reach V2 - which didn't happen for the 7 seconds Juan talks about.
When he got on the brakes - it was too late.

 

[Mack]

When a jet is going 90 plus very little weight on tires to be used for breaking very sad not expert but plane was not going to stop in that distance at those speeds wing providing to much lift

 

[rrrr]

I should have been more specific, not taught outside of ground school or discussion. I was not physically taught in the plane how to hit the marks and demonstrate. I say it out loud every time that if we are not at IAS of x by the time we hit the rwy marking of x we abort, but have never had to do it. I couldn’t tell you how many actual feet it takes (demonstrated) in my plane to stop it on a ground roll from 65knots beyond the POH. I have never flat spotted or locked up my brakes, so I don’t know where that line to cross is either. More stuff to follow up with my mentor Cfi I suppose.

It's something your instructor should demonstrate and then coach you through.

Another procedure in which one must be proficient is a go around. It's going to occur at sometime in your career, and familiarity is critical. You'll have to manage application of throttle, an unexpectedly strong pitch up, and the proper method of retracting flaps.

More than a few pilots have mismanaged this manuever. There are several things that need attention, and doing it improperly can result in loss of control, a stall, and crash. I won't go into detail, your instructor is the person that will educate and train you. I will say that performing a training go around is something that shouldn't be done just once or twice. It's a critical procedure that must be ingrained in your thought processes.

 

[rrrr]

I was taught if you are not at 70% of V1 by the time you reach 50% of your calculated ground roll, reject the takeoff.

Yes. It's easy to become complacent and ignore the need to know the required takeoff parameters like gross weight, density altitude, rotation speed, awareness of runway length, and identification of the RTO decision point before the throttle is advanced.

Based on ADSB readouts, the pilot's belated reaction to the failure of liftoff at the normal rotation speed and continued acceleration after that point made it impossible to reject the takeoff on the remaining runway.

Multiple fatality mishaps cast a wide net of pain and and grief across families and friends. They're awful.

 

[mesquito_creek]

It's something your instructor should demonstrate and then coach you through.

Another procedure in which one must be proficient is a go around. It's going to occur at sometime in your career, and familiarity is critical. You'll have to manage application of throttle, an unexpectedly strong pitch up, and the proper method of retracting flaps.

More than a few pilots have mismanaged this manuever. There are several things that need attention, and doing it improperly can result in loss of control, a stall, and crash. I won't go into detail, your instructor is the person that will educate and train you. I will say that performing a training go around is something that shouldn't be done just once or twice. It's a critical procedure that must be ingrained in your thought processes.

I had 400 ish TandGs and several dozen go arounds before my check ride but my Cfi never pulled the mix or throttle approaching V1 to see if I would do what I said I would do if it happens. I would like to go to a long runway get about 50 feet up and kill the power to see if I could land and stop at 4500 feet since that’s what most of the rwys I use are….

 

[traquer]

I heard the pilot survived? If so then we'll know at least. I'm thinking either engine failure as pointed out, or he was overweight?

I heard these planes were great, but they don't have thrust-reversers or spoilers, and the brakes aren't the best. So as someone pointed out here, it's really hard to get the thing stopped. Not really a problem in the southwest if all goes to plan, but I don't think I'd get one if I lived in Seattle or someplace with a lot of rain and snow on the runway

Always sad to see a crash like this.

 

[Cobalt232]

The newest Honda Jet will have ground spoilers that will help with landings or RTO. That will put quite a bit more weight on the wheels while on the ground at speed.

 

[boatpi]

Sad part as I read that four or five people died and including a child

 

[Bigbore500r]

Whats really wierd is that the plane was already to 133 knots, well past rotation speed, and didn't begin slowing down for quite a bit according to the data Juan Brown showed.

 

[rrrr]

I had 400 ish TandGs and several dozen go arounds before my check ride but my Cfi never pulled the mix or throttle approaching V1 to see if I would do what I said I would do if it happens. I would like to go to a long runway get about 50 feet up and kill the power to see if I could land and stop at 4500 feet since that’s what most of the rwys I use are….

That's good. I didn't know where you were in the learning process.

 

[mesquito_creek]

That's good. I didn't know where you were in the learning process.

Thanks, I fully appreciate the loss of life and the tragedy… but as a pilot (green) I immediately go to what can I learn from it and how can I be better prepared for my occupants safety.

 

[Orange Juice]

The pilot was 18 years old. His dad was riding shotgun. Experience is going to play a factor.

 

[n2otoofast4u]

That’s a lot of aircraft for someone that young. Hopefully he is certified.

 

[Orange Juice]

This is what he was flying. I think they are $7M new.

Honda HA-420 HondaJet - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Orange Juice]

That’s a lot of aircraft for someone that young. Hopefully he is certified.

That aircraft requires a Type Rating. You have to figure the pilot was a very bright kid, with a lot of exposure to aviation.

 

[SkyDirtWaterguy]

I had 400 ish TandGs and several dozen go arounds before my check ride but my Cfi never pulled the mix or throttle approaching V1 to see if I would do what I said I would do if it happens. I would like to go to a long runway get about 50 feet up and kill the power to see if I could land and stop at 4500 feet since that’s what most of the rwys I use are….

Are you talking about a single engine airplane or multi engine airplane?
At 50’ in a multi engine airplane having an engine failure there is no thought process that should cross your mind as to try to pull the power on the operating engine and land. In a single engine airplane it’s your only choice.
V1 VR V2 pertain to multi engine airplanes.
In that airplane those 3 speeds are going to be very close to one another. The Vspeeds are going to vary based on runway and environmental conditions. To initiate an RTO at 133kts most likely would be well above V1.
Low time and experience along with pilot error will be a factor in this accident.

See Balanced field length:

Balanced field takeoff - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Orange Juice]

Are you talking about a single engine airplane or multi engine airplane?
At 50’ in a multi engine airplane having an engine failure there is no thought process that should cross your mind as to try to pull the power on the operating engine and land. In a single engine airplane it’s your only choice.
V1 VR V2 pertain to multi engine airplanes.
In that airplane those 3 speeds are going to be very close to one another. The Vspeeds are going to vary based on runway and environmental conditions. To initiate an RTO at 133kts most likely would be well above V1.
Low time and experience along with pilot error will be a factor in this accident.

See Balanced field length:

Balanced field takeoff - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is also an issue with hitting the reverse thrust, before applying the brakes, on those short body jets.

It looks like the jet hit the reverse thrusters, at the moment the jets nose lifted. It might have been an aborted take off, and the father hit the reverse thrust, before applying the brakes, causing the nose to lift shortly, increasing the stopping distance.

Other small jets have similar issues.

You’re suppose to hit the brakes first, which lowers the nose, and then apply reverse thrust.

 

[SkyDirtWaterguy]

There is also an issue with hitting the reverse thrust, before applying the brakes, on those short body jets.

It looks like the jet hit the reverse thrusters, at the moment the jets nose lifted. It might have been an aborted take off, and the father hit the reverse thrust, before applying the brakes, causing the nose to lift shortly, increasing the stopping distance.

Other small jets have similar issues.

You’re suppose to hit the brakes first, which lowers the nose, and then apply reverse thrust.

The Honda Jet does not have reverse thrust.
What you are seeing is most likely the speed brakes deploying which are uniquely in the lower tail section of this airplane. (Unlike most airplanes with speed brakes that are on top of the wing) This design when deployed automatically during an RTO may initially cause the nose to pitch up at the speed at which they decided to abort the takeoff. Also, not sure if auto brakes are an option on this model and were armed before takeoff which they should have been to assist in an RTO.
A lot going on here and a rejected takeoff in that airplane at the speed is a recipe for disaster.

Pic is with the speed brake deployed

 

[PamAm Bob]

May Iclarify a couple of points about the HONDA JET and what it can, and cannot do. First, it does not have Thurst Reversers on the engines. It relies on brakes and tail spolier to slow down. For this reason it MUST be flown "by the book". There a pre-flight calulation that is done using runway lenght, air temp, wind speed and direction, aircraft weight, and feet above sea level of the departure airport. That calulation gives you two speeds. The first is "V1" speed, followed have quickly by "Rotation speed". In the Honda Jet you must make a go/no go decision at V1 or this crash is the result. The fact that the aircraft traveled approx 1380 ft further down the runway, doomed the flight. As for why the jet was certified by the FAA?

 

[ChumpChange]

This is what he was flying. I think they are $7M new.

Honda HA-420 HondaJet - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Had a client on the list to get one of the first few. Just to add to the other planes he had. Business expense of course.

 

[rrrr]

Are you talking about a single engine airplane or multi engine airplane?
At 50’ in a multi engine airplane having an engine failure there is no thought process that should cross your mind as to try to pull the power on the operating engine and land. In a single engine airplane it’s your only choice.

That makes a lot of sense. It's a better choice than managing a single engine go around and return to the airport for more than a few piston twin pilots. Statistics illuminate the result of unpreparedness and lack of training.

 

[Angler]

May Iclarify a couple of points about the HONDA JET and what it can, and cannot do. First, it does not have Thurst Reversers on the engines. It relies on brakes and tail spolier to slow down. For this reason it MUST be flown "by the book". There a pre-flight calulation that is done using runway lenght, air temp, wind speed and direction, aircraft weight, and feet above sea level of the departure airport. That calulation gives you two speeds. The first is "V1" speed, followed have quickly by "Rotation speed". In the Honda Jet you must make a go/no go decision at V1 or this crash is the result. The fact that the aircraft traveled approx 1380 ft further down the runway, doomed the flight. As for why the jet was certified by the FAA?

AI post?

 

[Fun Times]

AI post?

Maybe and usually when reading "Viewing articles"
State/Region: Georgia
City: Snellville
Last seen 11 minutes ago · Viewing articles
Benefit of the doubt at the moment.

 

[Ziggy]

AI post?

I don't think so, AI doesn't use improper words in a sentence like this.....The first is "V1" speed, followed have quickly by "Rotation speed".

 

[FROGMAN524]

I don't think so, AI doesn't use improper words in a sentence like this.....The first is "V1" speed, followed have quickly by "Rotation speed".

I love when people join a forum such as this to comment on one specific thread and then disappear again for all of eternity.

 

[Ziggy]

I love when people join a forum such as this to comment on one specific thread and then disappear again for all of eternity.

I assume it's just people who find the posts/threads on google that are seeking more info on the particular subject.

 

[yz450mm]

I had 400 ish TandGs and several dozen go arounds before my check ride but my Cfi never pulled the mix or throttle approaching V1 to see if I would do what I said I would do if it happens. I would like to go to a long runway get about 50 feet up and kill the power to see if I could land and stop at 4500 feet since that’s what most of the rwys I use are….

Try VCV, The main runway has over 15000 ft of asphalt. Usually pretty quiet, and the four or five times I got to land there the tower was super nice.