http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA

Watch it all.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA

Dang!

Was there actually someone inside the plane at the end, trying to power
it out of the water?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA
>
> Watch it all.

The end was actually pretty funny. Would have been cool in a Willie
Coyote cartoon.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA
>
> Dang!
>
> Was there actually someone inside the plane at the end, trying to power
> it out of the water?

I didn't see anyone in the cockpit. Granted, the video quality sucks, but
there are a few places where you can see straight through the cockpit from
one window to the other side, and there's no sign of someone in there.

Also, only one engine was powered up. It seems like if someone was actually
trying to drive the airplane out of the water, they'd get both engines
started and then use them both. With just the one engine, the airplane just
turns and makes no real progress toward the shore.

Unfortunately, the accident report offers no commentary on the
after-accident high-power operation of the engine. It does mention that
"the right throttle lever was bent to the right at the idle stop", but I
don't know whether that would have anything to do with the engine throttling
up on its own. Maybe the lever itself somehow became disconnected from the
control mechanism, resulting in the uncommanded power-up?

I would ordinarily say that I can't imagine any person, after having landed
long like that, actually doing something so foolhardy as to sit in the
cockpit and try to power a half-submerged jet to shore, but after reading
the accident narrative, I have to say that if anyone would do such a thing,
maybe the pilot involved in this accident would.

Apparently, even in zero wind, the runway was 52 feet too short for the
attempted landing, and the tailwind added almost 600 feet to the
requirement. In addition, apparently the pilot made a low pass over the
runway, followed by a low-altitude (200-300') circling maneuver at 180
knots, before trying to land. Even a normal circle-to-land would likely
happen at a higher altitude, and conditions were VMC and the pilot had been
cleared for a visual approach. As if that weren't enough, the airport was
closed to jets, and the pilot had the airport diagram right in front of him
that said so.

Clearly, this was a pilot not operating on all cylinders.

But even so, it doesn't appear that the power-up in the water was
intentional (or even occurred while anyone was still on the airplane).

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050526X00676&key=1

Interestingly, while trying to find this accident in the NTSB database
(hint: it didn't happen at a place called "Atlanta Bay", assuming there even
is such a place), I came across a surprisingly similar one that happened in
Montana:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060802X01078&key=1

I wonder how many other Citations have gone into the drink after being
landed long. :)

Pete

I don't think so. I think that the throttles were pulled into "reverse" and
some how the left engine never lost it's fire.
Jim

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA
>
> Dang!
>
> Was there actually someone inside the plane at the end, trying to power
> it out of the water?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

No, it was shutdown, but the throttle lever was bent and not
in cutoff, this may have happened after in the water and as
the passengers and crew escaped. The Cessna Citation has
had a number of electrical shorts and they have had engines
self-start in hangers and while on jacks if the throttles
are not fully in cut-off.

The video shows and you can also hear the engine starting up
and then the whoomp as ignition happens and the flames
starts out the exhaust. Then it spools up more and begins
to move.

I think it stopped when out of fuel, which might explain why
the pilot landed downwind and at an airport closed to jet
traffic.


"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
|I don't think so. I think that the throttles were pulled
into "reverse" and
| some how the left engine never lost it's fire.
| Jim
|
| "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA
| >
| > Dang!
| >
| > Was there actually someone inside the plane at the end,
trying to power
| > it out of the water?
| > --
| > Jay Honeck
| > Iowa City, IA
| > Pathfinder N56993
| > www.AlexisParkInn.com
| > "Your Aviation Destination"
| >
|
|

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:rDNKg.6845$SZ3.2959@dukeread04...
> [...]
> I think it stopped when out of fuel, which might explain why
> the pilot landed downwind and at an airport closed to jet
> traffic.

That would be a good guess, except that the accident report doesn't say
anything about the fuel being low or empty. Checking the fuel state is SOP
for an accident report (even if no engine failure occurred), so the lack of
any comment regarding that strongly suggests that fuel wasn't a factor at
all in the incident.

On 3 Sep 2006 13:44:25 -0700, wrote:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA
>
>Watch it all.

Are you kidding...The camera handeling was so poor I was getting
motion sick. I gave up after about half way though.

That wasn't much of a tail wind. I'd guess either the runway was short
or something else went wrong. It was wet so hydroplaning also could
have been a problem.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

That is true, but the engine did finally quit and it did not
appear that there was any water ingestion to drown the
engine. Once a jet is running, it takes shutting down the
fuel supply to kill it, there was no one on the airplane.
Since it was filmed, non-fatal and only minor injuries, it
is possible that it was just left out of the report.

Clearly the PIC failed to calculate properly, to know his
airport restrictions, but he sure did provide a great bit of
video.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:rDNKg.6845$SZ3.2959@dukeread04...
| > [...]
| > I think it stopped when out of fuel, which might explain
why
| > the pilot landed downwind and at an airport closed to
jet
| > traffic.
|
| That would be a good guess, except that the accident
report doesn't say
| anything about the fuel being low or empty. Checking the
fuel state is SOP
| for an accident report (even if no engine failure
occurred), so the lack of
| any comment regarding that strongly suggests that fuel
wasn't a factor at
| all in the incident.
|
|

"Roger" > wrote
>
> Are you kidding...The camera handeling was so poor I was getting
> motion sick. I gave up after about half way though.

You missed the funny part. The engine starts up, and goes to full power,
just as they are getting everyone out of the plane. It does a 360 or so, in
the water, with mist being thrown out the back.
--
Jim in NC

On 3 Sep 2006 13:44:25 -0700, wrote:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA
>
>Watch it all.


That was crazy!

Glad no one got hurt.

z

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:jVSKg.6851$SZ3.5261@dukeread04...
> That is true, but the engine did finally quit and it did not
> appear that there was any water ingestion to drown the
> engine.

The video is not of high enough quality to know whether there was any water
ingestion, especially since the engine doesn't shut down until the airplane
has turned so that the engine is on the far side of the airplane from the
camera.

> Once a jet is running, it takes shutting down the
> fuel supply to kill it,

There are plenty of ways for a jet engine to stop running other than simply
cutting off its fuel supply. Heck, you already mentioned one (water
ingestion). And for that matter, there are ways for the fuel supply to be
cut off other than actually exhausting the fuel supply.

> there was no one on the airplane.
> Since it was filmed, non-fatal and only minor injuries, it
> is possible that it was just left out of the report.

I agree it's possible. But not nearly as likely as the engine shut down for
a reason other than fuel exhaustion. Accident investigators are generally
pretty thorough, to the point of including whether a pilot had filed a
flight plan or not, even when there's almost never any relevance to that
question.

> Clearly the PIC failed to calculate properly, to know his
> airport restrictions, but he sure did provide a great bit of
> video.

Eh. The video was okay, IMHO. Obviously in a situation like this, it's
unreasonable to expect a professional production value, but even simple
things like having image stabilization (clearly not in use here) and
deinterlacing the video for computer display (something that would have been
done in post-processing) would have gone a long way toward making the video
more watchable.

I found it interesting enough to not feel I completely wasted the ten
minutes it took to watch it, but I wouldn't call it "great".

Pete

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> That wasn't much of a tail wind. I'd guess either the runway was short
> or something else went wrong. It was wet so hydroplaning also could
> have been a problem.

There was enough of a tailwind to add 500 feet to the landing distance, when
the airplane was already going to require more distance to land than there
was runway.

Read the accident report. What "went wrong" is that the pilot tried to land
at that airport.

Pete

It would be nice if, like the USNavy, a professional crew,
with the finest cameras filmed every TO and landing at
every airport. These guys were just some airport bums with
a camera and pickup truck. So the camera isn't stabilized,
at least it was there.

Had there been water ingestion, you would have seen steam.
Also, the engine was well above the water when it was
visible. There was no person on the airplane to shut it
down. The pilot had come a long distance, northern Maine to
Atlantic City.

Water ingestion doesn't always kill a turbine engine, they
run just fine in heavy rain. Even being submerged doesn't
always kill the engine, it is still running after a 400 mph
crash into the Pacific Ocean and comes up to menace Tom
hanks in CASTAWAY and Hollywood certainly has the best
technical advisors, cameras and they would not just make
things up [humor].



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:jVSKg.6851$SZ3.5261@dukeread04...
| > That is true, but the engine did finally quit and it did
not
| > appear that there was any water ingestion to drown the
| > engine.
|
| The video is not of high enough quality to know whether
there was any water
| ingestion, especially since the engine doesn't shut down
until the airplane
| has turned so that the engine is on the far side of the
airplane from the
| camera.
|
| > Once a jet is running, it takes shutting down the
| > fuel supply to kill it,
|
| There are plenty of ways for a jet engine to stop running
other than simply
| cutting off its fuel supply. Heck, you already mentioned
one (water
| ingestion). And for that matter, there are ways for the
fuel supply to be
| cut off other than actually exhausting the fuel supply.
|
| > there was no one on the airplane.
| > Since it was filmed, non-fatal and only minor injuries,
it
| > is possible that it was just left out of the report.
|
| I agree it's possible. But not nearly as likely as the
engine shut down for
| a reason other than fuel exhaustion. Accident
investigators are generally
| pretty thorough, to the point of including whether a pilot
had filed a
| flight plan or not, even when there's almost never any
relevance to that
| question.
|
| > Clearly the PIC failed to calculate properly, to know
his
| > airport restrictions, but he sure did provide a great
bit of
| > video.
|
| Eh. The video was okay, IMHO. Obviously in a situation
like this, it's
| unreasonable to expect a professional production value,
but even simple
| things like having image stabilization (clearly not in use
here) and
| deinterlacing the video for computer display (something
that would have been
| done in post-processing) would have gone a long way toward
making the video
| more watchable.
|
| I found it interesting enough to not feel I completely
wasted the ten
| minutes it took to watch it, but I wouldn't call it
"great".
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:lLZKg.6888$SZ3.5001@dukeread04...
> It would be nice if, like the USNavy, a professional crew,
> with the finest cameras filmed every TO and landing at
> every airport. These guys were just some airport bums with
> a camera and pickup truck. So the camera isn't stabilized,
> at least it was there.

What's your point? Just having the camera there doesn't make it "great".
It just means the camera was there. And besides, it's not like you can even
buy a video camera today that doesn't have some sort of image stabilization.
I'm not talking about professional standards here, which if you'd bothered
to actually READ my post you'd understand.

> Had there been water ingestion, you would have seen steam.

I saw LOTS of stuff that could've been steam. Again, the video quality is
not sufficient to know what did or did not happen.

> Also, the engine was well above the water when it was
> visible.

Again, what's your point? The engine didn't shut down when it was visible.
What you can see when it WAS visible is irrelevant.

> There was no person on the airplane to shut it
> down. The pilot had come a long distance, northern Maine to
> Atlantic City.

Again, so what?

> Water ingestion doesn't always kill a turbine engine,

I never said it does.

> they run just fine in heavy rain.

I never said they don't.

> Even being submerged doesn't
> always kill the engine, it is still running after a 400 mph
> crash into the Pacific Ocean and comes up to menace Tom
> hanks in CASTAWAY and Hollywood certainly has the best
> technical advisors, cameras and they would not just make
> things up [humor].

Whatever. You just managed to post a 4K article that failed completely to
add *anything* to the discussion. Good job.

I'll add some more, this video was given to the NTSB and not
sold to CNN. The camera was not the most modern, perhaps a
law should be passed to require all video buffs to buy a new
camera every month or so just so they'll have a camera that
suits you.

It was great that there was in fact video at all. It was a
fun video to watch, to see a Citation seaplane. To see tyhe
Boston Whaler boat. To find the NTSB report just Google
"NTSB Bader Citation" without the quotes.


NYC05LA085
On May 15, 2005, at 1548 eastern daylight time, a
Danish-registered (OY-JET), Cessna Citation 525A, was
substantially damaged during a runway overrun at Atlantic
City Municipal Airport/Bader Field (AIY), Atlantic City, New
Jersey. The certificated private pilot received minor
injuries, and three passengers received no injuries. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight
rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the flight which
originated at the Burlington International Airport (BTV),
Burlington, Vermont. The business flight was conducted under
14 CFR Part 91.

The pilot reported to a Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) inspector, that he performed "one circle" around the
airport, observed the windsock, and then performed a landing
on runway 11. During the landing roll, approximately 2/3
down the runway, the pilot "lost the brakes," and was unable
to stop on the remaining runway. The airplane then continued
off the departure end of the runway and impacted the water.

A review of recorded radar data and air traffic control
(ATC) communications revealed the pilot contacted Atlantic
City (ACY) Approach Control at 1538, and stated he was
inbound to "alpha charlie yankee." The pilot was instructed
to descend to an altitude of 2,000 feet, and fly heading 220
degrees.

At 1540, ATC instructed the pilot to "proceed direct Bader,
descend and maintain 1,500 feet. Expect visual approach."
The pilot read back the instructions, stating, "thank you,
direct Bader, descend to 1,500."

At 1544, ATC informed the pilot that "the airport is 12
o'clock and 4 miles." The pilot responded that he had the
airport in sight, and the controller then cleared the pilot
for a "visual approach at Bader airport."

Radar data indicated that the airplane was at an altitude of
800 feet, at 1545, continuing on a heading of 220 degrees.
About 1 minute later, the airplane made a 360-degree right
turn, and rolled out on it's previous heading of
220-degrees. At 1547:10, the airplane crossed abeam the
departure end of runway 11, at AIY, at an altitude of 100
feet. The airplane then continued on a westerly (downwind)
heading and climbed to an altitude of 300 feet.

The airplane then initiated a right turn back toward runway
11, at an altitude of approximately 200 feet. During the
turn, the airplane's groundspeed was approximately 180
knots.

At 1548:42, the airplane was at an altitude of 200 feet,
1.24 nautical miles from the approach end of runway 11, with
a groundspeed of 155 knots. Over the next 10 seconds, the
airplane's altitude decreased to 0 feet, and the airspeed
decreased to 140 knots. The last radar return was recorded
approximately 1,000 feet beyond the approach end of runway
11, at an airspeed of 128 knots.

A witness, who was an employee at AIY, was inside a trailer,
located about 400 feet to the right of the midfield point of
runway 11, at the time of the accident. The witness was in
communication with a Cessna 182, on a downwind leg of the
traffic pattern for runway 29, when he looked out the window
and observed the accident airplane make a "low pass on
runway 29 with a climbing right turn out." The witness went
outside the trailer and observed the accident airplane
touchdown "about halfway down" runway 11. The airplane
appeared to slow as it approached the end of the runway;
however, it did not stop, and subsequently impacted the
water. The witness further reported that the pilot of the
accident airplane did not communicate any intentions on the
UNICOM frequency.

Several other witnesses reported that as the airplane
touched down, they thought braking was occurring, since
smoke was coming from the airplane's tires.

Examination of a video recording, which was taken by a
witness at the airport, revealed the airplane touched down
about 800-1,000 feet beyond the approach end of runway 11.
The video also displayed the windsock at the airport, and
according to the witness, it indicated a tailwind at 10-15
knots.

The airplane was examined by an FAA inspector after the
accident. According to the inspector, the brake system and
emergency brake system were functionally checked, and no
abnormalities were noted. The anti-skid system could not be
tested, due to salt water damage. Examination of the
emergency brake system revealed it had not been used, and
the nitrogen bottle gauge indicated 1,800 psi. The flap
selector was in the "ground" position, but the indicator was
in the 15 degree position. The left throttle lever was
observed in idle cut off, and the right throttle lever was
bent to the right at the idle stop.

Examination of the runway revealed tread marks beginning
approximately two-thirds down the runway, and continuing off
the departure end into the grass and dirt.

The winds reported at Atlantic City International Airport
(ACY), 9 miles to the northwest, at 1554, were from 280
degrees at 9 knots.

A review of the FAA Airport/Facility Directory for the
Northeast U.S., revealed the following notation listed in
the Airport Remarks section of the Atlantic City/Bader Field
Airport entry, "Arpt CLOSED to jet traffic." Additionally,
runway 11 was a 2,948 foot-long, 100 foot-wide, asphalt
runway.

Additionally, the airport diagram for Bader Field, was
observed attached to the pilot's control column after the
accident. A notation, which read, "airport closed to jet
aircraft" was observed on the diagram.

According to the Cessna 525A Landing Distance Chart, an
airplane with a landing weight of 11,400 pounds required
3,000 feet of landing distance, in a no wind situation. With
a 10 knot tailwind, the airplane required 3,570 feet of
landing distance.


Use your browsers 'back' function to return to synopsis
Return to Query Page
"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:lLZKg.6888$SZ3.5001@dukeread04...
| > It would be nice if, like the USNavy, a professional
crew,
| > with the finest cameras filmed every TO and landing at
| > every airport. These guys were just some airport bums
with
| > a camera and pickup truck. So the camera isn't
stabilized,
| > at least it was there.
|
| What's your point? Just having the camera there doesn't
make it "great".
| It just means the camera was there. And besides, it's not
like you can even
| buy a video camera today that doesn't have some sort of
image stabilization.
| I'm not talking about professional standards here, which
if you'd bothered
| to actually READ my post you'd understand.
|
| > Had there been water ingestion, you would have seen
steam.
|
| I saw LOTS of stuff that could've been steam. Again, the
video quality is
| not sufficient to know what did or did not happen.
|
| > Also, the engine was well above the water when it was
| > visible.
|
| Again, what's your point? The engine didn't shut down
when it was visible.
| What you can see when it WAS visible is irrelevant.
|
| > There was no person on the airplane to shut it
| > down. The pilot had come a long distance, northern
Maine to
| > Atlantic City.
|
| Again, so what?
|
| > Water ingestion doesn't always kill a turbine engine,
|
| I never said it does.
|
| > they run just fine in heavy rain.
|
| I never said they don't.
|
| > Even being submerged doesn't
| > always kill the engine, it is still running after a 400
mph
| > crash into the Pacific Ocean and comes up to menace Tom
| > hanks in CASTAWAY and Hollywood certainly has the best
| > technical advisors, cameras and they would not just make
| > things up [humor].
|
| Whatever. You just managed to post a 4K article that
failed completely to
| add *anything* to the discussion. Good job.
|
|

Peter Duniho schrieb:

> There was enough of a tailwind to add 500 feet to the landing distance, when
> the airplane was already going to require more distance to land than there
> was runway.

And most probably to shift the touch down point a couple of hundred feet
down the runway, too. Don't ask me why I know this.

My guess is that the same water which caused the short circuit by
creeping into the electrics and launched the engine creeped further and
cut the fuel pump. Just my guess, not better nor worse than other guesses.

Stefan

Stefan wrote
> My guess is that the same water which caused the short circuit by
> creeping into the electrics and launched the engine creeped further
> and cut the fuel pump.

Jet engines run rather well with no electric power what-so-ever.
Mechanical fuel pumps. A more likely situation would be that
water entered the fuel tank vent system and jets don't like to
run on water very well.

Bob Moore

> The last radar return was recorded
> approximately 1,000 feet beyond the approach end of runway
> 11, at an airspeed of 128 knots.

I assume they mistyped, and meant ground speed? (the difference would
be important)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA
>
> Watch it all.
>
I know it's not right to say this, but...

Somehow, the registration number is nearly perfect for the situation.
The only thing better/worse might have been OY-VEY

Peter

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:50:15 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>Peter Duniho schrieb:
>
>> There was enough of a tailwind to add 500 feet to the landing distance, when
>> the airplane was already going to require more distance to land than there
>> was runway.

How much did he need? We had a Falcon 900 in here on our 3500 foot
runway. He did use most of it getting stopped and it wasn't wet.

>
>And most probably to shift the touch down point a couple of hundred feet
>down the runway, too. Don't ask me why I know this.

I don't have to<:-)) I spent some time flying the back course at MKG
(Muskegon) with a 20 knot tail wind and actually landed. I fly the ILS
at 120, plus the 20 knot tail wind was bringing me down to the MM at
140. A VFR final is 80 minus one MPH for each 100# under gross, so I
had to lose almost 60 knots from the MM to the roundout let alone
touchdown. I'd guess it added between 1500 and 2000 feet to my touch
down distance. On a normal VFR final it would have added about 800
feet with 20 knots from the stern.

>
>My guess is that the same water which caused the short circuit by
>creeping into the electrics and launched the engine creeped further and
>cut the fuel pump. Just my guess, not better nor worse than other guesses.
>
>Stefan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:34:32 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

>Stefan wrote
>> My guess is that the same water which caused the short circuit by
>> creeping into the electrics and launched the engine creeped further
>> and cut the fuel pump.
>
>Jet engines run rather well with no electric power what-so-ever.
>Mechanical fuel pumps. A more likely situation would be that
>water entered the fuel tank vent system and jets don't like to
>run on water very well.

Aren't they supposed to turn the igniter on in that case?

He was in a situation where the engine was ingesting water droplets
and the igniter wasn't on. Suppose they'll fault the pilot for that as
well? <:-))




>
>Bob Moore
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

It looks to me like the nose cone and electronics have been removed.
Can anyone explain that (or am I not seeing it correctly)?


Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA
>> Dang!
>>
>> Was there actually someone inside the plane at the end, trying to power
>> it out of the water?
>
> I didn't see anyone in the cockpit. Granted, the video quality sucks, but
> there are a few places where you can see straight through the cockpit from
> one window to the other side, and there's no sign of someone in there.
>
> Also, only one engine was powered up. It seems like if someone was actually
> trying to drive the airplane out of the water, they'd get both engines
> started and then use them both. With just the one engine, the airplane just
> turns and makes no real progress toward the shore.
>
> Unfortunately, the accident report offers no commentary on the
> after-accident high-power operation of the engine. It does mention that
> "the right throttle lever was bent to the right at the idle stop", but I
> don't know whether that would have anything to do with the engine throttling
> up on its own. Maybe the lever itself somehow became disconnected from the
> control mechanism, resulting in the uncommanded power-up?
>
> I would ordinarily say that I can't imagine any person, after having landed
> long like that, actually doing something so foolhardy as to sit in the
> cockpit and try to power a half-submerged jet to shore, but after reading
> the accident narrative, I have to say that if anyone would do such a thing,
> maybe the pilot involved in this accident would.
>
> Apparently, even in zero wind, the runway was 52 feet too short for the
> attempted landing, and the tailwind added almost 600 feet to the
> requirement. In addition, apparently the pilot made a low pass over the
> runway, followed by a low-altitude (200-300') circling maneuver at 180
> knots, before trying to land. Even a normal circle-to-land would likely
> happen at a higher altitude, and conditions were VMC and the pilot had been
> cleared for a visual approach. As if that weren't enough, the airport was
> closed to jets, and the pilot had the airport diagram right in front of him
> that said so.
>
> Clearly, this was a pilot not operating on all cylinders.
>
> But even so, it doesn't appear that the power-up in the water was
> intentional (or even occurred while anyone was still on the airplane).
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050526X00676&key=1
>
> Interestingly, while trying to find this accident in the NTSB database
> (hint: it didn't happen at a place called "Atlanta Bay", assuming there even
> is such a place), I came across a surprisingly similar one that happened in
> Montana:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060802X01078&key=1
>
> I wonder how many other Citations have gone into the drink after being
> landed long. :)
>
> Pete
>
>

Stubby > wrote:

>It looks to me like the nose cone and electronics have been removed.
>Can anyone explain that (or am I not seeing it correctly)?

That could have happened when it made initial contact with the water
(nose hit first at a highish speed).

Ron Lee