[Roosta]

940 Long is enough to put it down.

I would say that he popped the brakes in the wet conditions as his speed indicates going across the screen & distance traveled to do so is 3 to 4 seconds before breakup of the fuselage.

May have also helped if he had some reverse thrust, tried to save some fuel, or used it too late after his brakes popped, but it looks like he didn't use it at all as he's traveling way to fast.

I'm pretty sure that he popped the brakes though as there's no other plausible excuse.

Luckily the family survived !

[Hogmann]

Originally Posted by Roosta ↗

940 Long is enough to put it down.

I would say that he popped the brakes in the wet conditions as his speed indicates going across the screen & distance traveled to do so is 3 to 4 seconds before breakup of the fuselage.

May have also helped if he had some reverse thrust, tried to save some fuel, or used it too late after his brakes popped, but it looks like he didn't use it at all as he's traveling way to fast.

I'm pretty sure that he popped the brakes though as there's no other plausible excuse.

Luckily the family survived !

I'm fairly certain the CJ1 does not have reverse thrust. the runway was 900m long but only less than 600 of that was actually available for landing because of a displaced threshold. And what do you mean popped the brakes? Do you mean popped the tires?

[kellyhound]

Originally Posted by Hogmann ↗

I'm fairly certain the CJ1 does not have reverse thrust. the runway was 900m long but only less than 600 of that was actually available for landing because of a displaced threshold. And what do you mean popped the brakes? Do you mean popped the tires?

https://www.phenompilots.org/threads...-control-issue
Maybe left or right brake valve popped and in the link they're discussing it, also in wet conditions, on another plane. He maybe slammed to hard on the brakes.

[akham]

Originally Posted by kellyhound ↗

https://www.phenompilots.org/threads...-control-issue
Maybe left or right brake valve popped and in the link they're discussing it, also in wet conditions, on another plane. He maybe slammed to hard on the brakes.

Phenom 100 is a different aircraft, so difficult to see how that would be relevant.

Also, when you're trying to land on a runway that is far far too short, and in wet weather, when you crash off the end its not because you had a brake problem. Its because the runway should have been nearly twice the length.

[kellyhound]

yeah it's usally a combination of multiple things causing an accident. Imagine how many times it ended well and we never hear of it.

[Roosta]

Originally Posted by Hogmann ↗

I'm fairly certain the CJ1 does not have reverse thrust. the runway was 900m long but only less than 600 of that was actually available for landing because of a displaced threshold. And what do you mean popped the brakes? Do you mean popped the tires?

Popped the Brakes.
You never heard the saying.
What's your rating

https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.RYO92...6&pid=3.1&rm=2

Popping the brakes is when you pop the brake pads, rings & bearings while applying the breaks & you break them whilst breaking & because of this, you have no brakes because you applied too much pressure & POPPED THEM !

In a last-ditch effort to recover the aircraft, this is if you are facing a larger obstacle that would definitely cause more or greater significant damage to the aircraft & it's souls aboard, than retracting the nose gear & digging in you should make the most reasonable decision given all the factors & best possible chances of survivability.

I would, like before, state that the investigation findings will find that the brakes popped, (Failed) !

The engines are the Williams FJ44-1A.

Here's some verifiable info on you Turbo's.

WIKI.
The Williams FJ44 is a family of small, two-spool, turbofan engines produced by Williams International for the light business jet market. Until the recent boom in the very light jet market, the FJ44 was one of the smallest turbofans available for civilian applications. Although basically a Williams design, Rolls-Royce was brought into the project at an early stage to design, develop, and manufacture an air-cooled high-pressure (HP) turbine for the engine. The FJ44 first flew on July 12, 1988 on the Scaled Composites/Beechcraft Triumph aircraft.

The Williams FJ33 is a newer, smaller engine based on the basic FJ44 design.

Development
Production started in 1992 with the 1,900 lbf (8.5 kN) thrust FJ44-1A. The FJ44-1C is derated to 1,500 lbf (6.7 kN). The uprated to 2,300 lbf (10 kN) FJ44-2A was introduced in 1997. The 2,820 lbf (12.5 kN) thrust FJ44-3A was introduced in 2004. In 2005, a new low end version, the FJ44-1AP, was introduced, with a 1,965 lbf (8.74 kN) takeoff thrust. Released in 2007 was the new 3,600 lbf (16 kN) thrust FJ44-4. In 2010 this engine was in use on the Cessna CJ4, and since 2018 also on the new Pilatus PC-24.

Design
The FJ44-1A has a single stage blisk fan plus a single intermediate pressure (IP) booster stage, both driven by a 2 stage low pressure (LP) turbine, and supercharging a single stage centrifugal high pressure (HP) compressor, driven by a single stage uncooled high pressure (HP) turbine. The combustor is an impingement cooled annular design. Fuel is delivered to the combustor through an unusual rotating fuel nozzle system, rather than the standard fuel-air mixers or vapourisers. The bypass duct runs the full length of the engine. The FJ44-2A has two additional booster compressor stages.

You also say a lot of words & your hypothesis isn't bound by facts as you have not proposed a plausible reason as to why this unfortunate event took place except for some unintelligible jargon.

State your case or move on !

[akham]

Originally Posted by Roosta ↗

Are you a Pilot. NO !

It is foolish to make assumptions about people you do not know. And, in this instance, you are incorrect.

I would suggest that when you do fly, make sure its RC & not anything that can get off the ground. There's a good boy !

I don't know what is wrong with you, but whatever it is seems to have caused you to overlook the most basic facts about this incident - that the length of runway available for landing was far less than was necessary for the aircraft. Particularly since the runway was wet.

My advice would be to calm down and behave in a more reasonable manner. Or, at least, take your medication and hope that helps.

[wildaxboxer]

Would have been better with a couple of floats, and landing in the sea, i know nothing about flying planes, but 600m sounds very short even to me..

[Hogmann]

Originally Posted by Roosta ↗

Popped the Brakes.
You never heard the saying.
What's your rating

https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.RYO92...6&pid=3.1&rm=2

Popping the brakes is when you pop the brake pads, rings & bearings while applying the breaks & you break them whilst breaking & because of this, you have no brakes because you applied too much pressure & POPPED THEM !

In a last-ditch effort to recover the aircraft, this is if you are facing a larger obstacle that would definitely cause more or greater significant damage to the aircraft & it's souls aboard, than retracting the nose gear & digging in you should make the most reasonable decision given all the factors & best possible chances of survivability.

I would, like before, state that the investigation findings will find that the brakes popped, (Failed) !

The engines are the Williams FJ44-1A.

Here's some verifiable info on you Turbo's.

WIKI.
The Williams FJ44 is a family of small, two-spool, turbofan engines produced by Williams International for the light business jet market. Until the recent boom in the very light jet market, the FJ44 was one of the smallest turbofans available for civilian applications. Although basically a Williams design, Rolls-Royce was brought into the project at an early stage to design, develop, and manufacture an air-cooled high-pressure (HP) turbine for the engine. The FJ44 first flew on July 12, 1988 on the Scaled Composites/Beechcraft Triumph aircraft.

The Williams FJ33 is a newer, smaller engine based on the basic FJ44 design.

Development
Production started in 1992 with the 1,900 lbf (8.5 kN) thrust FJ44-1A. The FJ44-1C is derated to 1,500 lbf (6.7 kN). The uprated to 2,300 lbf (10 kN) FJ44-2A was introduced in 1997. The 2,820 lbf (12.5 kN) thrust FJ44-3A was introduced in 2004. In 2005, a new low end version, the FJ44-1AP, was introduced, with a 1,965 lbf (8.74 kN) takeoff thrust. Released in 2007 was the new 3,600 lbf (16 kN) thrust FJ44-4. In 2010 this engine was in use on the Cessna CJ4, and since 2018 also on the new Pilatus PC-24.

Design
The FJ44-1A has a single stage blisk fan plus a single intermediate pressure (IP) booster stage, both driven by a 2 stage low pressure (LP) turbine, and supercharging a single stage centrifugal high pressure (HP) compressor, driven by a single stage uncooled high pressure (HP) turbine. The combustor is an impingement cooled annular design. Fuel is delivered to the combustor through an unusual rotating fuel nozzle system, rather than the standard fuel-air mixers or vapourisers. The bypass duct runs the full length of the engine. The FJ44-2A has two additional booster compressor stages.

You also say a lot of words & your hypothesis isn't bound by facts as you have not proposed a plausible reason as to why this unfortunate event took place except for some unintelligible jargon.

State your case or move on !

Why are you such a blowhard? I stated in my first comment exactly what went wrong here the runway was not nearly long enough for that plane to land on. And get your facts straight, the runway was 900 M long but the LDA was 600. (That stand for Landing Distance Available for the non-pilots)
I asked a simple question because I've never heard the term popping the brakes. I appreciate your picture of a Skyhawk having maintenance done on its brakes but that's not applicable in this situation. I've heard of popping tires, either from locking the tires and burning through the rubber or by generating so much heat during braking that the fuse plugs melt and deflate the tires to prevent them from exploding, but that happens long after the landing. It's also possible to generate so much heat that you boil the brake fluid which causes it to leak out, but that takes repeated overuse. But a catastrophic failure of the brake mechanisms because of hard application isn't a thing. Not in airplanes and not in cars.
One of my hobbies is performance track driving and I've used my brakes to the complete limit multiple times in my cars never once have I had the brakes "pop". I have overheated brake fluid brake discs and pads and experienced break fade but never brake "popping".

Speaking of unintelligible gibberish all that data about the airplanes engines. What's the point of that none of those engines have reversers this plane did not have reverse but you suggested they use it. you're the one who's making wild ass comments.

[Hogmann]

Roosta
Following up on your brakes popping comment I read the reference to the Phenom 100 website which is not this aircraft those brakes aren't failing or "popping" because they're being used too hard, a valve in the braking system was defective and was failing under heavy usage. that's not failure of the brakes due to overuse it's a failure of a defective part in the brakes.