Kansas Aviation Attorneys

Destroyed On Impact With Terrain And Post Impact Fire During Initial Climb From Runway 19R At Wichita Mid-Continent Airport

Canadair Challenger CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) (Canadian registration C-FTBZ and operated by Bombardier Incorporated) was destroyed on impact with terrain and postimpact fire during initial climb from runway 19R at Wichita Mid-Continent Airport (ICT) , Wichita, Kansas.  The flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)  Part 91 as an experimental test flight. [2]   The pilot and flight test engineer were killed.  The copilot was seriously injured and died 36 days later.

A review of air traffic control (ATC)  and cockpit voice recorder (CVR)  transcripts from the accident flight indicated that the pilot in the left seat was performing the pilot-in-command (PIC)  and pilot-flying (PF)  duties and that the copilot was performing the radio communications and other related pilot-not-flying (PNF)  duties. The flight test engineer was to perform test flight configuration and monitoring duties at his workstation in the cabin. The flight crew was to initiate a standard takeoff and climb and conduct flight testing of modified pitch feel simulator  (PFS)  units above 8,000 feet above ground level (agl) . The test required that the airplane be configured with an aft center of gravity (c.g.) .

The accident flight was the second flight to collect data to obtain certification by the United Kingdom’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)  for two customer airplanes in the United Kingdom. Following the first flight in 1999, the CAA provided a list of unacceptable items that Bombardier needed to correct before the Challenger 604 could obtain CAA certification, including modification of the PFS units.

On September 29, 2000, about 1806, the airplane returned to Wichita from other flight test operations in Fairbanks, Alaska, and was not flown for about 1 week in preparation for the flight testing of the modified PFS units. On October 6, 2000, the production PFS units were removed and the modified PFS units were installed. The airplane was loaded with 1,100 pounds of water ballast and 734 pounds of tail ballast for an aft c.g. test configuration.

A ground test with the modified PFS units was performed to determine the control column travel needed for full elevator travel in both directions. The test also repeated the baseline tests that were previously conducted with the production PFS units. The ground tests were designed to measure and record force at the control column in pitch at different column positions and at different stabilizer positions. Two systems engineers from company headquarters in Montreal (who also attended the preflight briefing for the accident flight) were present during the static ground tests.  Documentation indicated that no anomalies were noted with the PFS installations.

About 1330 on October 10, 2000, a preflight briefing was held at the Bombardier Flight Test Center (BFTC)  for the first flight with a modified PFS aboard the airplane. The preflight briefing was attended by the three flight crewmembers, a BFTC aircraft controller, a systems engineer, an avionics engineer, the project engineer, and the two systems engineers from Montreal. The BFTC aircraft controller stated that the briefing had been postponed several times because the airplane was not ready.  However, he added that there was no rush to fly that day and that the airplane had no outstanding maintenance items when it was released about 1330.

Statements from briefing participants indicated that several minutes before the briefing, the accident pilot asked the accident flight test engineer to obtain a risk analysis from BFTC’s manager of flight test operations and safety.  The manager of flight test operations and safety stated that he first learned about the test flight at this time.  He stated that he assessed the flight’s risk level as low because the airplane was operating within its c.g. range and because “the modification was stabilizing.”

The briefing began with a description of the airplane’s configuration and the presentation of load sheet information.  The accident copilot reportedly asked, “why are we so far aft?”.  The flight test engineer responded that this configuration (with the production PFS units) was previously flown on airplane number 5991 (the accident airplane) with the CAA test pilot during the 1999 flight test. The flight crew reportedly responded, “okay.” The briefing continued with a presentation comparing the characteristics of the production PFS and modified PFS units.  The pilot reportedly stated that the airplane was going to “handle like a pig.” According to briefing participants, flight test maneuvers and procedures to address potential anomalies in the modified units were not discussed. The briefing concluded about 1400 and flight crewmembers boarded the airplane about 1415.

At 1420:33, the CVR recorded a sound similar to several warning systems being checked, followed by the “before engine start” checklist items and conversations about the airplane’s systems. The right engine was started at 1432:07. The PIC performed two flight control sweeps at 1434:24. The first sweep included the aileron, rudder, and elevators. The second sweep was a slow control sweep of the elevators.

Contact an Aviation Attorney in Kansas to find out more about your legal rights.