20210218001419A

Accident · Substantial damage

FAA accident report · Gates Learjet 55C · Sellersburg, IN · February 18, 2021

Date
February 18, 2021 · 20:05 local
Place
Sellersburg, IN
Airport
Clark Regional
Phase of flight
Landing: Approach
Operating rules
Air taxi and commuter (Part 135)
Operator
BUHA
Damage
Substantial damage
Aircraft
N559RA
NTSB investigation
NTSBCEN21LA136
Reported as
Gates Learjet 55C
Reported engine
Honeywell TFE-731-SER
People aboard
2
Fatal injuries
0
Other injuries
0
Pilot’s certificate
Airline transport
Pilot’s flight hours
18,800 total3,696 in this make and model112 in the last 90 days

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

The aircraft was inbound to jvy from fort myer, FL. The crew stated that prior to departure they had received the NOTAM stating that jvy runway 32 was closed. As they approached jvy, they received a heading for the ILS-18, although they planned to break out prior to the approach and maneuver for a visual approach to 36 due to more favorable winds. About 8 miles southeast of the airport, as they broke out of the clouds at 5000?MSL, the PIC activated the pilot controlled lighting and the SIC reported that he had the airport in sight. (He stated that it was easy to find the airport, because they were already lined up with the runway.) The PIC did not immediately see the airport, but with the SIC?s help, eventually found it. The SIC was pilot flying, so the PIC reported the airport in sight to ATC, canceled IFR, squawked VFR, and reported their position on UNICOM. The crew reported they only saw one lit runway, so they proceeded toward it. (Unbeknownst to the flight crew, the airport manager was preparing to plow runway 32, the closed runway, and had turned on the runway lights.)

On approach, the PIC became concerned because the SIC, who was flying, was a little high and fast on final, and ?things became rushed.? Also on short final, the PIC noticed high tension power lines that he wasn?t expecting, so he advised the SIC to stay a little high and land slightly longer than normal, because he believed they were landing on runway 36 and had 7000? Of runway available. The aircraft approached with full flaps and 10 knots faster than normal approach speed. By the time the landing lights lit the pavement and the PIC could see that it appeared to be white, he first thought the runway was made of concrete, but then figured there was probably a ?light dusting? Of snow from recent weather. The aircraft touched down on runway 32 approximately 1800? Down the runway, with approximately 2000? Remaining. (The crew had previously calculated a required landing distance of 3500?.) The PIC said he realized there was an issue when the aircraft hit the snow bank at the runway intersection and once again became airborne. The aircraft porpoised several times and the main gear departed the airplane. As the aircraft slid down the runway, both the PIC and SIC were on the flight controls. They both reported applying thrust reversers and using the rudder as much as possible to steer the aircraft and maintain the runway centerline. The aircraft came to a stop approximately 150? Off the departure end of runway 32. Both pilots, separately, admitted to failing to reference the heading indicator to confirm that they were landing on the intended runway.

As the FAA filed it

THE AIRCRAFT WAS INBOUND TO JVY FROM FORT MYER, FL. THE CREW STATED THAT PRIOR TO DEPARTURE THEY HAD RECEIVED THE NOTAM STATING THAT JVY RUNWAY 32 WAS CLOSED. AS THEY APPROACHED JVY, THEY RECEIVED A HEADING FOR THE ILS-18, ALTHOUGH THEY PLANNED TO BREAK OUT PRIOR TO THE APPROACH AND MANEUVER FOR A VISUAL APPROACH TO 36 DUE TO MORE FAVORABLE WINDS. ABOUT 8 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE AIRPORT, AS THEY BROKE OUT OF THE CLOUDS AT 5000?MSL, THE PIC ACTIVATED THE PILOT CONTROLLED LIGHTING AND THE SIC REPORTED THAT HE HAD THE AIRPORT IN SIGHT. (HE STATED THAT IT WAS EASY TO FIND THE AIRPORT, BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY LINED UP WITH THE RUNWAY.) THE PIC DID NOT IMMEDIATELY SEE THE AIRPORT, BUT WITH THE SIC?S HELP, EVENTUALLY FOUND IT. THE SIC WAS PILOT FLYING, SO THE PIC REPORTED THE AIRPORT IN SIGHT TO ATC, CANCELED IFR, SQUAWKED VFR, AND REPORTED THEIR POSITION ON UNICOM. THE CREW REPORTED THEY ONLY SAW ONE LIT RUNWAY, SO THEY PROCEEDED TOWARD IT. (UNBEKNOWNST TO THE FLIGHT CREW, THE AIRPORT MANAGER WAS PREPARING TO PLOW RUNWAY 32, THE CLOSED RUNWAY, AND HAD TURNED ON THE RUNWAY LIGHTS.)

ON APPROACH, THE PIC BECAME CONCERNED BECAUSE THE SIC, WHO WAS FLYING, WAS A LITTLE HIGH AND FAST ON FINAL, AND ?THINGS BECAME RUSHED.? ALSO ON SHORT FINAL, THE PIC NOTICED HIGH TENSION POWER LINES THAT HE WASN?T EXPECTING, SO HE ADVISED THE SIC TO STAY A LITTLE HIGH AND LAND SLIGHTLY LONGER THAN NORMAL, BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THEY WERE LANDING ON RUNWAY 36 AND HAD 7000? OF RUNWAY AVAILABLE. THE AIRCRAFT APPROACHED WITH FULL FLAPS AND 10 KNOTS FASTER THAN NORMAL APPROACH SPEED. BY THE TIME THE LANDING LIGHTS LIT THE PAVEMENT AND THE PIC COULD SEE THAT IT APPEARED TO BE WHITE, HE FIRST THOUGHT THE RUNWAY WAS MADE OF CONCRETE, BUT THEN FIGURED THERE WAS PROBABLY A ?LIGHT DUSTING? OF SNOW FROM RECENT WEATHER. THE AIRCRAFT TOUCHED DOWN ON RUNWAY 32 APPROXIMATELY 1800? DOWN THE RUNWAY, WITH APPROXIMATELY 2000? REMAINING. (THE CREW HAD PREVIOUSLY CALCULATED A REQUIRED LANDING DISTANCE OF 3500?.) THE PIC SAID HE REALIZED THERE WAS AN ISSUE WHEN THE AIRCRAFT HIT THE SNOW BANK AT THE RUNWAY INTERSECTION AND ONCE AGAIN BECAME AIRBORNE. THE AIRCRAFT PORPOISED SEVERAL TIMES AND THE MAIN GEAR DEPARTED THE AIRPLANE. AS THE AIRCRAFT SLID DOWN THE RUNWAY, BOTH THE PIC AND SIC WERE ON THE FLIGHT CONTROLS. THEY BOTH REPORTED APPLYING THRUST REVERSERS AND USING THE RUDDER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO STEER THE AIRCRAFT AND MAINTAIN THE RUNWAY CENTERLINE. THE AIRCRAFT CAME TO A STOP APPROXIMATELY 150? OFF THE DEPARTURE END OF RUNWAY 32. BOTH PILOTS, SEPARATELY, ADMITTED TO FAILING TO REFERENCE THE HEADING INDICATOR TO CONFIRM THAT THEY WERE LANDING ON THE INTENDED RUNWAY.

NTSB investigation

The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.