Five people aboard a HondaJet were hospitalized after the plane went off the end of the runway at North Bend-Southwest Oregon Regional Airport and into Coos Bay. The extent of their injuries was not immediately released. It was the latest in what seems to be an unusual number of Hondajet overruns. According to Aviation Week, this was the ninth overrun by the type in the last two years.
I flew the AF T-39 for 3 years while stationed in Europe a few millennia ago. That, of course, was the Sabre N-265. The engines were good but no thrust reverse. Add to that the fact that the tires were small and that girl would hydroplane gear up, on jacks, in the hanger. I tried to land at EDAF once in moderate to heavy rain. 25L was 15k’ long at the time and after 3 touch and rolls forever and go again, we had lost maybe 15 kts of airspeed. I never liked the idea of no thrust reverse, especially on planes like that. Then, conversely. in 1976 I had landed the C-141 at RPMK in a driving super heavy rainstorm on the edge of a typhoon. We had lost #2 hyd for a fitting failure and the #3 system brakes were questionable for a mechanical reason. Touched down on brick 2, full reverse, stopped in about 8500’ with no brakes used. I am a supporter of thrust reverse even if you opt not to use it.
Looking at this accident and the fatal rejected takeoff crash of a Honda jet at my home airport FFZ, there are similarities that should be investigated.
The claim is that that aircraft had a mechanical failure in a hydraulic system that disabled all the hydraulics making braking and steering impossible. I cannot find the actual final report to determine the cause. What I can say is that the aircraft would fly very nicely without hydraulics. When they found they had no brakes, simply adding power and completing a T&G would have permitted them to use a military airport with a barrier for landing. I do recall most of the blame being placed on the young IP. I cannot verify that though without the final report. I also recall a bit of fuss over that result as a means of covering for the General.
This has been an issue with VLJ’s (Very Light Jets) for a while. I was with Avantair in 2005 when they were leasing some Beech Premier 1’s as a trial to offer their customers a step up plane from the P180. The BE390 was having landing overrun issues as well at that time. Just like the HondaJet, NO T/R’s and no lift dump, only a speed brake. Same with the Eclipse and the Cessna Citation Mustang although the CJ’s do at least have lift dump. Juan Browne covers the HJ overrun history on his Blancolirio YT channel. There also appears to be some common thread of a sort of hydraulic issue with the brakes.
Apparently these guys don’t get the memo about a stabilized approach below 500’ VFR or 1000’ IFR is a great practice; Final landing configuration on GS with landing checklist completed and VSI less than -1000’ at Vapp. -0to+5 knots. These planes can be flown professionally even if the pilot isn’t being compensated. Given the time of the day fatigue could be an issue that I’m sure they will evaluate. Arriving the evening prior and staying in a hotel could have been an option.
Sparky, I wholeheartedly agree with your points. However, these planes (VLJ’s) present issues that all jets have. They are very clean aerodynamically, so they do not slow down much after touchdown. A jet engine at idle thrust is still producing thrust, not drag the way a windmilling prop on say a Baron would at idle. They should have a lift dump system, I.E. spoilers and flaps that extend in such a manner that they add drag and spoil lift. Also, they use high pressure tires that contribute to hydroplaning. Finally, operating from airfields that do not have grooved runways in wet conditions increases the risk of an overrun.