Local news was reporting a mechanical issue upon landing, but I don't know where that information came from. The perspective they showed from the end of the runway to where the plane stopped looks to be a very long distance, way more than the plane just rolled off the end of the runway. I don't know if that indicates anything or not. It went through the fence, and slid for a long distance down the side of the highway leaving burning jet fuel in its wake. The plane was on fire when it came to rest and had the runway fence wrapped around part of it. First responders said they were fortunate it wasn't obstructing them from opening the door to the plane. Cell phone video from motorists shows them climbing out and running away as the plane burns. The highway is shut down for however long it takes NTSB to investigate. Is the number of plane crashes in the NASCAR world unusual? It seems like a lot over the years, and this isn't the first time a driver has been in a plane crash en rout to Bristol.
Not sure a about that airplane but a 747 landing close to max landing weight at 760,000 lbs doesn’t need much more than 5000’ to land...
So I've read a few things about this one. The runway was recently lengthened to 5010 feet. This was done to allow more jets in as lots of time insurance or operators require 5000 ft of runway. This is done for safety even if "the book" says 3500 or 4000 is enough. So there should have been plenty of runway if things went normal. I've also heard from local pilots that there is steep terrain to the NE the way they were coming in. They also said most jets land going the other way since tou can fly up the valley and make a more normal approach. They then take off the other way to avoid the steep terrain/hills. Someone also pointed out from a pic that the thrust reversers didn't look to be deployed (not opened to produce reverse thrust). Maybe they did use them but they shut when the crash happened. There was a other corporate jet crash a few years ago where the plane had an issue with the abs system (I think it was abs) and the crew didn't recalculate the required runway length. They overran the runway by a lot. I mention as some report claim they had a mechanical issue. They could have had a braking, thrust reverser, spoiler etc issue and that's what caused this ine. Just glad everyone got out.
Reversers; I can only compare to a 747 since that as far my memory goes, but on a normal landing on a dry runway the reversers doesn’t help to shorten the landing distance, the only time it helps then is when you stand on the brakes and trying to land in the shortest distance available and you might reduce the distance by a few hundred feet. Max manual braking is probably something you would only use in a some kind of an emergency landing. The reason we use them on dry runways is just to keep the brake temperatures down at reasonable levels. But on contaminated runways reversers helps a lot to reduce the landing distance. I don’t even what kind of airplane was involved in the accident and does it even have reversers?
Pilots are alive, wreckage location is known, no need to speculate. We will have answers and soon enough.
Yes it is certified for 2 pilots. https://cessna.txtav.com/-/media/cessna/files/citation/latitude/latitude_brochure.ashx