There is no official published recommendation for an add-on for wind/gusts in the Eclipse that I'm aware of. Many use the same add-on applied to other jets: half the headwind and all the gust factor up to Vref + 20.

The manual does call for delaying the normal reduction in speed at 50' from Vref to Vtd in the face of headwinds.

Ken

Ken, that's a really nice write up. I like how you included pictures, that adds some merit, but still Borders would have to categorize it under "Fiction." As interesting as your opinion might be, I'll think I'll trust the findings of the NTSB's investigation. Anyone can read it if they search the tail number.

I'll point out that Eclipse has blocked me from the fancy iPad app, but when I use an AFM, my calculations show that it was legal and within the limitations of the aircraft to land at that airport, barely, but not 50 feet short as you suggest. I'm quite certain the NTSB came to the same conclusion, as there is no mention of this in their very extensive report.

Probable cause was determined as:



And I don't know where you get ref + 15, according to the NTSB's review of the DSU data, he was flying 147 knots on final, or ref + 50 give or take. Yes, he touched down 'only' 15 knots fast, 1/3 of the way down the runway.

This was a case of poor airmanship, and nothing else.

Back to the IVP. Michael if you PM me I can give you the contact info for two guys in my hanger bay that fly their IVPs in and out of a dirt strip in Mexico regularly. The one pilot has a home there, the other IVP goes in and out of Cabo mostly which used to be dirt, and flies to the other pilots home too.

They have both been doing this for over 18 years. I have been in and out many times with them in the dirt and their gear has held up. If properly cared for, the evidence I see, is the gear is strong. These pilots both have a lot of experience, and fly well, so they know what they are doing. I am not sure why so many guys feel the need to bash you so hard.

Maybe my buddies have had some issues I am not aware of, or have strengthened them in some fashion. You could ask them yourself.

I look at the IVP like the two wheel drive Porsche Turbos,... develop skill and respect!

Mike, sorry, but you're remembering your Eclipse days incorrectly. The manual calls for Vref on final:




That's not unique to the Eclipse. Every plane is certificated on the basis of crossing the threshold at 50 feet and following approximately a 3 degree glidepath, which inevitably means touching down at about 1000 feet down the runway. That's not Eclipse-specific at all; as a CFI, I suspect you know all that.

I'm not suggesting that it wasn't pilot error at Brandywine. He attempted a landing at a runway too short for the aircraft's current weight, violating an aircraft limitation. Then he came in too fast, though not nearly as fast as Ted said. The result was predictable.

What I am suggesting is that Ted's comments on the cause of the accident were wildly inaccurate. IMHO his assertion that most Eclipse pilots land the plane incorrectly is also inaccurate, but we'll see what, if anything, he produces to back that assertion.

Ken

Ted, all that stuff came came out of the supporting material for the NTSB investigation or the DSU data directly. The details of this accident are very well-known. The graphic that you disagree with--the one showing that you were way off on your estimate of the speeds and altitudes involved in this accident--was from the NTSB docket itself . It's colorful to suggest it came from the Borders fiction department, but it's your version that seems to be lacking in any support from an independent source.

Ditto the nasty suggestion you made that most Eclipse pilots land the plane incorrectly. I don't know what you're talking about. Do you?

Ken

Mike, in the jet world, "duck under" is considered bad technique, and some examiners will flunk you for that on a checkride.

That said, yeah sure if the runway is short, I try to cross the threshold below 50 feet and touch down nearer the numbers. We're in complete agreement on that point.

Ken

I agree with you about DPEs that's why I was told to fly fast and high. I flew to his liking and did what was right for real life.

Fly an airplane like an airplane and you really can't go wrong; all are the same regardless of engine type.

True statement. And it ought to be a criminal offense to do it that way, notwithstanding the fact that most pilots do it that way.

They do that because "Everyone does it that way," and "That's what the book says."

Fact: All TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT are certificated and have published information in accordance with the 3D sketch in this thread (below), V-Ref at 50', on GS, and with an aiming point 1000" down the runway. It is the standard. FOR CERTIFICATION.

I don't think there are ANY LEGAL REQUIREMENTS to USE those speeds and reference points. If I'm wrong, please point me to the FAR, or the LIMITATION in the POH. It's an important point, so if it exists, it WILL BE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. I don't think you'll find it anywhere. Well, you may find it in a company SOP, but not official.

I last fought this battle more than 15 years ago, when I got into it in a big way with a Gulfstream copilot, who insisted that we LEGALLY had to remain on or above the glide slope until touchdown. Even 1 inch below the GS was a violation so he was always above the GS. He also insisted that we HAD to maintain V-Ref or more to the same point, and even 1 knot slower was a bust. He maintained V-Ref + 10, for a "cushion." For evidence, he pointed out that every landing airplane followed the same profile.

He said if I ever did it again, he'd report me to management, which he did. The CP backed me up. He threatened to take it to the local (VNY) FSDO, which he did. Big meeting, and they backed me up, to my pleased surprise. He appealed it to the General Counsel in DC, and was shortly after that fired.

The actual techniques are still up to the pilot. If you stub your toe on the threshold (KAL in SFO), or land so long and hot you slide off the other end, you may be violated for Careless and Reckless.

True statement.

What would possess him to be so anal about that and go through all that? Just a stickler for the 'rules'? That doesn't even make sense. Unless he believed in it so much he thought you were putting him in personal danger.

With colleagues like that, who needs enemies ?

Was he trying to get your job.

Speeds, yeah, but reference point? Well there's FAR 91.129. The pilot is required by FAR to fly the plane at or above the visual glide path "until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing."

Now you can argue that crossing the threshold below the roughly 50 feet that the VASI or PAPI would bring you is okay because otherwise the landing would be unsafe. That's a persuasive argument at an airport with a short, contaminated runway, but as a general rule, you're supposed to cross the threshold at or above the visual glide path, and in a jet flying a stabilized approach, that's going to dictate a touchdown point well beyond the numbers.

Ken

You are correct, meant to go back and add it, and forget. HOWEVER, it is almost universal to fly Ref+10, in as excess of zeal to "avoid the minimum speed."

Lotsa folks out there like that, Brian.

I think so.