Bizjet Tailstrike

[pelmet]

Bit of an unusual one. I know there can be some situations on the bigger jets where a partial lack of spoiler deployment(after a hydraulic loss) can lead to the nose pitching up as written here..."Extend the ground spoilers manually and slowly. Automatic extension of the outboard ground spoilers, without automatic extension of the inboard ground spoilers, causes the nose to pitch up". Class 3 investigation so we should get a report on it.

C-GKCP, a privately registered Bombardier Challenger 605, was conducting a flight from Palm
Beach International Airport, Florida USA (KPBI) to Calgary Intl., AB (CYYC), with three crew
members and 10 passengers on board. During the final descent into CYYC, the flight crew
selected flaps 20 and immediately received a flaps fail caution message. The decision was made
to abandon the approach, and the crew received clearance from ATC to proceed NW of the CYYC
airport and troubleshoot the issue. The crew executed the applicable QRH procedure and
subsequently received clearance from ATC to proceed with the landing. A flaps 0 landing was then
executed. During the landing roll, after ground spoiler and thrust reverser deployment, the nose of
the aircraft attained a significant nose high attitude. The rear fuselage of the aircraft struck the
runway, and during the recovery, the nose landing gear subsequently impacted the runway. The
aircraft taxied clear of the runway and to the intended parking area. Subsequent inspection
revealed that the aircraft sustained significant structural damage to the forward fuselage and minor
damage to the rear fuselage. There were no injuries.

[Jet Jockey]

This can happen easily when landing a Challenger with Flap 0 at a higher than usual landing speed.

Because the centre of trust is quite high on a Challenger, if you go in trust reverse and there is no forward pressure put on the elevator especially at higher speeds like in the case of a flap 0 landing, the nose will pitch up and the aircraft may even get airborne again.

It as happened in the past and I even read a report that two engineers wanted to do some checks that required high speed rejects and since none of them knew about this characteristic, when they rejected at high speed and went into full reverse the aircraft's nose pitched up and went airborne momentarily.

Needless to say that ended that foolish test and I think their shorts needed to be changed. Can't remember if damage occurred during those ground runs.

[PanEuropean]

The plane is registered to Canadian Pacific Railway - perhaps they should have taken the train home from Palm Beach.

[Roar]

Bombardier has a habit in their QRH of putting very critical information in CAUTION NOTES at the end of the emergency/abnormal procedures. One must be very diligent to carefully read the entirety of the applicable procedure, not just the numbered check items.
Here is the caution note from the QRH: CL604.

Improper landing technique during a flaps failure can generate nose gear loads sufficient to cause structural damage.
To prevent damage:
- After main gear touchdown gently lower nose to the runway.
- Apply brakes only after nose wheel touchdown.

Before selecting reverse thrust, ensure that nose wheel touchdown is achieved, with nose down elevator applied.
END

I can also state through direct experience of having had a flaps fail at zero in a Challenger 604 that if the QRH is followed to the letter it’s a non event. If fact the Sim over simulates the elevator control forces needed making it a more difficult maneuver than it is in real life.

[JL]

TSB final report: https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports- ... W0016.html

[notwhoyouthinkIam]

Bombardier has a habit in their QRH of putting very critical information in CAUTION NOTES at the end of the emergency/abnormal procedures. One must be very diligent to carefully read the entirety of the applicable procedure, not just the numbered check items.
Here is the caution note from the QRH: CL604.

Improper landing technique during a flaps failure can generate nose gear loads sufficient to cause structural damage.
To prevent damage:
- After main gear touchdown gently lower nose to the runway.
- Apply brakes only after nose wheel touchdown.

Before selecting reverse thrust, ensure that nose wheel touchdown is achieved, with nose down elevator applied.
END

I can also state through direct experience of having had a flaps fail at zero in a Challenger 604 that if the QRH is followed to the letter it’s a non event. If fact the Sim over simulates the elevator control forces needed making it a more difficult maneuver than it is in real life.

Wait, you mean to say that when running the QRH we should be vigilant and make sure we follow it as written? BLASPHEMY!

[Roar]

Bombardier has a habit in their QRH of putting very critical information in CAUTION NOTES at the end of the emergency/abnormal procedures. One must be very diligent to carefully read the entirety of the applicable procedure, not just the numbered check items.
Here is the caution note from the QRH: CL604.

Improper landing technique during a flaps failure can generate nose gear loads sufficient to cause structural damage.
To prevent damage:
- After main gear touchdown gently lower nose to the runway.
- Apply brakes only after nose wheel touchdown.

Before selecting reverse thrust, ensure that nose wheel touchdown is achieved, with nose down elevator applied.
END

I can also state through direct experience of having had a flaps fail at zero in a Challenger 604 that if the QRH is followed to the letter it’s a non event. If fact the Sim over simulates the elevator control forces needed making it a more difficult maneuver than it is in real life.

Wait, you mean to say that when running the QRH we should be vigilant and make sure we follow it as written? BLASPHEMY!

Mock me all you want but 13 months before the report came out I not only called what happened but also the specific part of the appropriate checklist that was stated in the Accident report. So it may be blasphemy but it would seem the checklist was not followed.

[digits_]

Bombardier has a habit in their QRH of putting very critical information in CAUTION NOTES at the end of the emergency/abnormal procedures. One must be very diligent to carefully read the entirety of the applicable procedure, not just the numbered check items.
Here is the caution note from the QRH: CL604.

Improper landing technique during a flaps failure can generate nose gear loads sufficient to cause structural damage.
To prevent damage:
- After main gear touchdown gently lower nose to the runway.
- Apply brakes only after nose wheel touchdown.

Before selecting reverse thrust, ensure that nose wheel touchdown is achieved, with nose down elevator applied.
END

I can also state through direct experience of having had a flaps fail at zero in a Challenger 604 that if the QRH is followed to the letter it’s a non event. If fact the Sim over simulates the elevator control forces needed making it a more difficult maneuver than it is in real life.

Wait, you mean to say that when running the QRH we should be vigilant and make sure we follow it as written? BLASPHEMY!

It's not just about that. There are other manufacturers as well where you basically have items, numbered, which are usually "read and do" items on an emergency checklist.

You "do" number X and then afterwards there is a note saying "You shouldn't have done X if situation Y applies". It's extremely annoying and makes an emergency cheklist a whole lot less valuable.

If I recall correctly, Cessna likes to do that on their jets paperwork.