Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
       #1  

    Phenom 100 N661EP off the runway at KCRG

    Saw this on the PJP group on Facebook. N661EP off the runway at KCRG. 4000ft runway, wet conditions. There is NOTAM that 14/32 is closed since 15:04.

    Name:  IMG_8004.JPG
Views: 1410
Size:  71.5 KB
  2. Username Protected
    Really Frequent Poster

    Posts
    161 Posts
    Thanked 77 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #2  
    Oh no! Hope everyone is ok. Here is another picture found online. From beechtalk, someone shared that it was heavy rain at the time of the accident.

    Name:  SD5JFASQPFE23JANFD3L3NREXE.jpg
Views: 1436
Size:  72.2 KB
  3. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
       #3  
    https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/l...C6WZAYCDYBS4A/

    https://www.firstcoastnews.com/artic...d-4dc6fa02676a

    News report says that no-one was hurt, which is great! Plane was leaking fuel.

    Bad landing week overall for light jets - two Eclipse jets went off the runways in KHIO (Hillsboro, OR) and KLVX (Leadville, CO).
  4. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
       #4  
    Skid marks in the last photo.

    Name:  fuel.jpg
Views: 2838
Size:  72.9 KB
    Name:  fuel2.jpg
Views: 1453
Size:  86.5 KB
    Name:  skidmarks.jpg
Views: 1321
Size:  62.2 KB
  5. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
       #5  
    This reminder is a good reason for all Phenom Pilots to re-read FOL PHE500-002/15, which I am attaching here as it relates to safety.

    Name:  contaminated.jpg
Views: 1325
Size:  48.4 KB
    Attachments Attachments
  6. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    12 Posts
    Thanked 7 times
    Phenom Instructor/Mentor
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #6  
    This will be interesting. I don't see any recent changes to the registration.

    This airplane was for sale during Q1 of 2020. At the time, it was OPF based advertised with:
    - 2,400TT & 2,700 cycles
    - 10 year complete
    - EEC Enhanced
    - ESP Gold
    - Enhanced T/O
    - ChartView
    - Rigid Lav Door
    - Premium Entry
    - Recent interior refresh

    I know someone in the N.E. that flew a 300 AFTER a similar looking mishap* at CXO. It will be interesting to see what the fate of SN 123 holds.

    * By no means am I speculating on any facts about this incident or any other incident.

    ** I remember the CXO situation well because I was departing Houston the same time the incident happened.
    Edit - Replaced Sugarland with CXO.
  7. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    31 Posts
    Thanked 7 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #7  
    APG says roughly 3,200 feet to stop, wet runway , unfactored.......I guess JAX 10 miles away was too much of an inconvenience
  8. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    12 Posts
    Thanked 4 times
    Other
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #8  
    Couple of rank newbie questions...

    Looks like a great plane with a lot going for it. But there appear to be some real limitations and issues with regard to braking action and runway performance. I understand that there may be some decision making issues in this particular case. But at the same time, there do appear to be some real limitations, even for a VLJ, when it comes to braking and runway for the 100.

    Questions
    Gent above says 3,200' landing distance on wet runway. Another gent, Phenom owner, on another forum says 4,000' wet is a no go. Which is correct?

    Second question, why don't they put carbon brakes (like the 300) and a ground flaps setting (like the M2) on this airplane to improve runway performance? These appear to be potential improvements that do not require a complete re-design. I realize of course that carbon brakes are much more expensive, but do not know if it would be cost prohibitive. Also realize that it would likely require another upgrade or mod to the BCU software.

    I understand that mods cost $$ in development and approval. But how many sales does Embraer lose for reasons of real or perceived runway/braking performance issues? ( I guess that is three questions)
  9. Username Protected
    Really Frequent Poster

    Posts
    199 Posts
    Thanked 103 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #9  
    The 3200 feet un-factored number is if flown by a test pilot with a perfect plane perfectly on speed at 50' above threshold and then locking it up immediately (carrier landing). The 'book' provides greater than the length of the runway for a wet 'factored' landing which is typically ~1.5x the un-factored for wet and 2.0x or more for contaminated. The other consideration is the runway itself. KCRG is ASPH but isn't listed as grooved which is a big consideration when landing in a downpour. In my opinion landing on an un-grooved runway during a downpour is contaminated. Just wait for a little while for the deluge to end.
  10. Username Protected
    Really Frequent Poster

    Posts
    161 Posts
    Thanked 77 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #10  
    I don't have a lot of response to your questions (Username Protected). They are good questions. I trust Embraer has evaluated options and determined they are insignificant for the wing, too costly, or just don't work for the design.

    Take my comments for what they are, which is the desire to learn and help others learn from accidents such as this. To (Username Protected)'s point, you better have been right on Vref above the threshold with power coming to idle to achieve those books numbers. Let's just all assume we are going to be less than perfect. I typically always use the factored numbers of 1.67, which means something closer to 5300 feet to be conservative.

    Keep in mind that landing distance assumes you are landing 1000 feet down the runway and really stopping in 2200 feet. Based on the report that it was heavy rain during landing, I'm guessing they were coming on the ILS and would not have the opportunity to touch down on the numbers.

    I'm over 500 hours in Phenom's and only a little over a year in my 300. I would have to sit and think about this one if I would have decided to make the landing there. My initial gut is that I would not. Can it be done? Of course. Probably get it done 95/100 times. I just don't like the idea of the other 5 times. Again, easy to monday morning quarterback this, not my intent. I'm hoping to provide others with my perspective.

    In general, this is why I think in my head that I want 5000 feet of runway if it is wet.
  11. Username Protected
    Really Frequent Poster

    Posts
    208 Posts
    Thanked 64 times
    Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
    #11  
    The FAA does require a number of factors to adjust from the "test pilot" to something closer to real world considerations but with that said.... I see the issue not with the brakes themselves, but the electronics operating the brake by wire, the slow spool up time, lack of reversers, thrust attenuators, effective spoilers, no feedback through the rudders, a very narrow track between the main wheels. If you are on a wet runway and you don't stay on the center of the center line and a main wheel hits the wet paint, you have a handful. The "phenom dance" is the Achilles heal of this aircraft in an otherwise great airplane. One out of 100 going off the side of the runway is dangerous....and hurting our insurance rates. Note that most of these runway excursions are by professional pilots.
  12. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    19 Posts
    Thanked 18 times
    Phenom Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #12  
    A rule of thumb that has kept me safe for 2000+ P100 hours is simply not to land on a wet runway that is less than 5,000 ft. We had this exact KCRG scenario a few weeks ago and we elected to utilize KJAX. A minor inconvenience that resulted in a 15 minute longer drive to our destination. I really don’t see an issue with Phenom brakes and I’ve never experienced the “Phenom Shuffle” that I’ve heard other pilots talk about. The CJ3 we owned felt the same to me as the Phenom 100 on wet runways. Be on your numbers and fly with a disciplined approach. Arriving at Vref over the threshold, on centerline, isn’t reserved for test pilots.
  13. Username Protected
    Member

    Posts
    12 Posts
    Thanked 4 times
    Other
    Join Date
    Joined Nov 2020
    #13  
    No disputing any of the points others have made about decision making and flying the numbers with regard to this particular accident,.
    However, real or perceived, (probably some combination) the 100 suffers from runway performance issues. Why wouldn't Embraer at least fabricate some carbon ceramic brakes and try them out on the 100? Seems like it would be relatively straightforward to do so, test them and look at the results. The 300 has likely 1.5x the units in service of the 100, and half as many runway over runs.
  14. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
       #14  
    NTSB Final report is out.

    Report_ERA21LA077_102425_2_11_2023 8_26_32 AM.pdf

    Docket: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?Project...iqnPgPTrA-Gnr0

    The flight crew performed an instrument landing system approach in heavy rain. The published unfactored landing distance, which assumes ideal conditions for airplane speed, flightpath, and maximum braking immediately after touchdown, was about 330 ft shorter than the landing distance available. The factored landing distance, which 1) provides a safety margin and 2) allows for some variance from the ideal conditions, was about 1,360 ft longer than the landing distance available. During the approach, when the airplane was about 50 ft above the runway, the airspeed was about 4 knots higher than the target speed.

    After touchdown, the pilot(s) began braking within 1-2 seconds; however, the brake pedals did not reach their maximum braking position until about 8 seconds after touchdown. The brake pedals remained in the maximum position for 3 seconds before the parking/emergency brake was applied. The parking brake activation, which is not protected by the anti-skid system, resulted in the locking of both main landing gear wheelsets, reducing braking performance significantly. As a consequence of the wheels locking, the anti-skid system was deactivated, as designed. The airplane departed the end of the runway at a speed of about 60 knots and sustained substantial damage.

    Probable Cause and Findings

    The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

    The flight crew’s failure to apply maximum braking immediately upon touchdown, which resulted in a runway excursion. Contributing to the accident were 1) the slightly excessive approach airspeed and 2) the flight crew’s decision to land on a wet runway during heavy rain with little margin between the unfactored landing distance required and the landing distance available.
  15. Username Protected
    Star Contributor

    Posts
    745 Posts
    Thanked 507 times
    Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
    Join Date
    Joined Oct 2020
       #15  
    Interestingly the NTSB report references the Flap 3 WET unfactored landing distance of 3,679 ft and brings up the factored distance of 5,368 ft as an additional safety margin. The runway at CRG is 4008 ft.

    They don't emphasize the language from PHE500-002/15 (and re-inforced by Tom Norton in our recent webinar) that light rain on NON-GROOVED runways needs to be treated as Contaminated/Standing Water. That distance happens to be the same as the Factored Wet number - but that should always be the go-to number for landing on wet NON-GROOVED runways!

    Attachment 6373





    Attachment 6374

Posting Permissions