LAX02LA252

On a final approach to runway 26 the flight crew was advised by a flight instructor in the traffic pattern that a wind shear condition existed about one-quarter of the way down the approach end of the runway, which the flight crew acknowledged. On a three mile final approach the flight crew was advised by the instructor that the automated weather observation system (AWOS) was reporting the winds were 060 degrees at 8 knots, and that he was changing runways to runway 08. The flight crew did not acknowledge this transmission. The captain said that after landing smoothly in the touchdown zone on Runway 26, he applied normal braking without any response. He maintained brake pedal pressure and activated the engine thrust reversers without any response. The copilot said he considered the approach normal and that the captain did all he could to stop the airplane, first applying the brakes and then pulling up on the thrust reversers twice, with no sensation of slowing at all. Considering the double malfunction and the mountainous terrain surrounding the airport, the captain elected not to go around. The aircraft subsequently overran the end of the 5,860 foot runway (5,260 feet usable due to the 600 displaced threshold), went through the airport boundary fence, across the perimeter road, and came to rest upright in a dry lakebed approximately 400 feet from the departure end of the runway. With the aircraft on fire, the five passengers and two crew members safely egressed the aircraft without injuries before it was consumed. Witnesses to the landing reported the aircraft touched down at midfield, was too fast, porpoised, and was bouncing trying to get the gear on the runway. Passengers recalled a very hard landing, being thrown about the cabin, and that the speed was excessive. One passenger stated there was a hard bang and a series of smaller bangs during the landing. Federal Aviation Regulations allowed 3,150 feet of runway for a full stop landing. Under the weather conditions reported just after the mishap, and using the anticipated landing weight from the load manifest (12,172.5 pounds), the FAA approved Cessna Flight Manual does not provide landing distance information. Post-accident examination and testing of various wheel brake and antiskid/power brake components revealed no anomalies which would have precluded normal operations.

History of flight

On August 13, 2002, at 1120 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna S550 Citation twin-engine jet, N50BK, was destroyed while landing at the Big Bear City Airport (L35), Big Bear, California. The airplane was registered to Melita Eagle Inc., of Wilmington, Delaware, and was operated by Corporate Flight International, of Las Vegas, Nevada. The airline transport rated pilot, commercial pilot, and their five passengers were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the 14 CFR Part 135 on-demand air-taxi flight. The cross-country flight originated from the McCarran International Airport (LAS), Las Vegas, Nevada, at 1038.

After departing LAS, the flight, operating as Vegas 850, climbed to FL220 for the 137 nautical mile trip. At 1101 and 43 nautical miles northeast of L35 (elevation 6,748 feet), the aircraft began a descent to 14,000 feet. At 1107 and 8 nautical miles north-northeast of L35, the pilot reported the airport in sight. Air Traffic Control (ATC) instructed the aircraft to squawk 1200 and change to the advisory frequency. The aircraft continued descending and turned to the east, then back to the west for a landing on runway 26. At 1110:45, the aircraft was at 9,400 feet mean sea level, 7 nautical miles from the airport and heading west toward L35. The last radar return at 1111:57, 3 nautical miles from the airport, indicated the aircraft descended to 7,700 feet mean sea level at an average rate of descent of 1,478 feet per minute and at an average groundspeed of 156 knots.

Approaching the airport, the Citation crew called for local traffic advisories. A certified flight instructor, who was in the traffic pattern practicing landings with a student to Runway 26, reported that he advised the Citation crew that a wind shear condition existed approximately one-quarter of the way down the approach end of the runway. The flight instructor said the Citation crew confirmed his transmission. On his downwind to runway 26 the instructor further advised the Citation crew that he would extend his downwind leg and let the Citation land first. The Citation crew acknowledged his radio call, confirming that they [the Citation] would land first. While the instructor pilot was downwind he stated that he observed the east and mid-field wind socks were indicating winds out of the east. He checked the Automatic Weather Observing System and noted the winds were 060 degrees at 8 knots. When the Citation was on an approximately 2 to 3 mile final approach to Runway 26, the instructor said he radioed the Citation crew that the winds had changed to 060 degrees at 8 knots and that he was changing to runway 08. The Citation crew did not acknowledge this transmission.

The aircraft subsequently landed on Runway 26 (5,260 feet usable) and overran the departure end of the runway. After overrunning the runway, the aircraft went through the airport boundary fence, across an airport perimeter road, and came to rest upright in a dry lakebed approximately 400 feet from the departure end of Runway 26. A post-impact fire ensued, after which all occupants exited the aircraft successfully through the main cabin door.

According to a statement supplied to the NTSB investigator-in-charge (IIC), the captain reported that prior to departure he and his first officer had determined that the flight could be made. The captain stated that during the descent the landing performance data was updated, he entered downwind for runway 26, and the approach was stable on the 4-degree glide path. The captain related that the airplane landed "smoothly" in the touchdown zone, normal braking was applied without any response, and that he maintained brake pressure and activated the engine thrust reversers, but there was no response. The captain said he manipulated the thrust reverse handles, placing them in the closed position and confirming the throttles were in the idle position, then applied thrust reverse for a second time while applying brake pressure, still with no response. The captain said he immediately decided that aborting was not an option, given the double malfunction, the terrain surrounding the airport, the airport's elevation of nearly 7,000 feet, his five male passengers, and a temperature of between 78 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The captain stated that he applied reverse thrust a third time about two-thirds of the way down the runway, again with no response. The captain further said he opted not to activate the emergency brakes due to the steep runway shoulders and having no asymmetrical control or anti-skid capabilities. The captain reported the airplane went off the runway, up an embankment and hitting a fence which ripped into the wings resulting in a post-impact fire. The captain said he and the first officer assisted the five passengers out of the airplane and that there were no serious injuries.

In a statement provided to the IIC, the first officer reported that prior to landing the crew had figured their landing weight at just under 12,000 pounds, temperature of between 78 degrees and 80 degrees Fahrenheit, with a headwind of 9 to 16 knots, and 3,100 feet of runway required to land. The first officer said he considered the captain's approach "very normal," and that he was responsible for the speed brakes upon touching down. The first officer stated that he believed the captain did all he could to stop the airplane, first by applying the brakes, and then by pulling up on the thrust reversers. The first officer further stated that while the captain was "standing on the brakes," they had no sensation of slowing and he was pushing back on the speed brake hoping this would help them stop. The first officer said there was a 75-foot dirt overrun and then a fence about 8 feet tall off the end of the runway, and that the airplane probably caught on fire after hitting the fence. After the airplane came to a stop the first officer said he opened the door and everyone escaped.

Four of the five passengers submitted a Passenger Statement form (NTSB form 6120.9) to the IIC:

Passenger #1 reported that the flight was uneventful prior to the accident, but on approach over the top of the trees another passenger shouted "hang on guys." The passenger stated that there was a very hard bang and he hit his head to his left. He continued by saying another passenger seated behind him was thrown about more than anyone, and at one point "his head banged into my right upper arm, giving me a big black and blue mark." The passenger reported that after the first "bang" there was a series of "smaller bangs" and then a much harder "crash". He further stated that there was another series of smaller crashes before they stopped.

Passenger #2 reported that another passenger yelled out "we are going to miss the runway." He continued by saying the airplane slammed into a fence and bounced along until it came to a stop in a field. The passenger stated that after the co-pilot opened the door and exited the plane, the passengers evacuated in an orderly fashion.

Passenger #3 reported that he recalled a very hard landing and being thrown about the cabin because his seat belt was loose. After the airplane had stopped, he said he believed the airplane was on fire. The passenger reported that other passengers later told him that the wings had caught on fire when the plane went through the fence at the end of the runway.

Passenger #4 reported the landing appeared "regular" as they approached the runway, but when the wheels touched down the aircraft jerked to the left significantly, but then appeared to come back in line with the runway as they began to roll. The passenger stated the speed seemed fast for the landing and it didn't decrease immediately. The passenger related "we slowed somewhat, but the speed was clearly excessive and was not decreasing as rapid