Citation missing after departure from Burke Lakefront in Cleveland

[eastern wiseguy]

Search underway for missing plane that originated at Burke Lakefront Airport | WKYC.com


US Coastguard and Canadian assets on site .

[DaveReidUK]

ASN quotes a report from FlightAware that the final ADS-B transmission showed an altitude of 3100 ft and a vertical rate of -3750 ft /min.

ASN Aircraft accident Cessna 525C Citation CJ4 N614SB Cleveland-Burke Lakefront Airport, OH (BKL)

[gleaf]

Depth

Depth in that area is about 19 meters.

[robbreid]

Question???? Reported owner was flying with wife - two sons, neighbour and her child. So sounds like single pilot.

FAA pilot database shows ppl date as Jan 2015 - so is that the date he received his ppl or the last date of entry - which would be C510 rating.

Owner bought Citation Mustang N814WS in 2014 and just sold it last month - the CJ4 he just registered on Oct 14 2016.

[peekay4]

That's the date the certificate was last (re-)issued, which isn't necessarily the initial date. Even a change of address could trigger a re-issue (I just checked my own FAA entry since I changed my address a couple of years back.)

[robbreid]

Thanks for response.

Sales brochure when aircraft was for sale earlier this year.

http://www.whitneyjet.com/files/119198767.pdf

[MarcK]

The date of certificate issue would be the date of the latest change (e.g. type rating).

[Airbubba]

A sad footnote, today is the pilot's 46th birthday.

Here's a briefing on the search by Coast Guard Captain Mike Mullen, the audio is echoed for some reason for the first six minutes or so:

https://www.facebook.com/WKYC.Channe...4983389084274/

Captain Mullen says the primary search sensor is the Mark One Mod One eyeball.

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

ASN quotes a report from FlightAware that the final ADS-B transmission showed an altitude of 3100 ft and a vertical rate of -3750 ft /min.

FR24 has a similar plot showing a right turnout over the lake with a last data point of 1750 feet at 259 knots.

[vmandr]

Single pilot IFR ops in IMC, and perhaps one of his sons in the RH seat ? I wonder...

[Almostfamous]

The chain

Long night at sporting event, fatigue
Dark overwater
Icing conditions
Snowing
IMC
Recently purchased aircraft
Wanting to get home that night

It routinely amazes me that people can afford these aircraft but are too cheap to hire a safety pilot or add up all the aforementioned circumstances and decide the right move is to spend the night in the Presidential suite of the four seasons and fly out the next morning after daybreak. If you can afford that aircraft you can afford to be cautious.

[galaxy flyer]

It's been years since I operated a Citation out of Lakefront, but it doesn't look like the departure is any different. You depart a well-lighted airport environment with a large city (albeit Cleveland) in the background, turn north immediately into pitch black Lake Erie with a few ship lights to add to the distractions. A setup for SD. The lake isn't frozen yet, but when it is and ATC holds you down low, it's real disorienting, ice and snow below in and out of the cloud base.

[thcrozier]

It routinely amazes me that people can afford these aircraft but are too cheap to hire a safety pilot...

Me too, as one who could afford it and had a safety pilot. Probably why I'm still here.

Also, for me a big part of the joy of flying was the pleasure of learning new things. My safety pilot was always teaching me.

Now, if only I could find someone as qualified for my sailboat. And yes - this is a job offer.

[vmandr]

I would like to beg those visitors of the site that do single pilot IFR flights, to take the time and read carefully the suggestions of this excellent document. my 2c.

https://www.caa.govt.nz/Advisory_Circulars/AC091_11.pdf

[B2N2]

Whats wrong with engaging the autopilot at 400' before you turn.
Tired at night is no time to be a handfly-hero..

[thcrozier]

May have not understood how it worked..

[vmandr]

...why not use the autopilot below 400'....maybe the below is relevant ?

§ 135.93 Minimum altitudes for use of autopilot.
(a) Definitions. For purpose of this section -

(1) Altitudes for takeoff/initial climb and go-around/missed approach are defined as above the airport elevation.

(2) Altitudes for enroute operations are defined as above terrain elevation.

(3) Altitudes for approach are defined as above the touchdown zone elevation (TDZE), unless the altitude is specifically in reference to DA (H) or MDA, in which case the altitude is defined by reference to the DA(H) or MDA itself.

(b) Takeoff and initial climb. No person may use an autopilot for takeoff or initial climb below the higher of 500 feet or an altitude that is no lower than twice the altitude loss specified in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), except as follows -

(1) At a minimum engagement altitude specified in the AFM; or

(2) At an altitude specified by the Administrator, whichever is greater.

(c) Enroute. No person may use an autopilot enroute, including climb and descent, below the following -

(1) 500 feet;

(2) At an altitude that is no lower than twice the altitude loss specified in the AFM for an autopilot malfunction in cruise conditions; or

(3) At an altitude specified by the Administrator, whichever is greater.

(d) Approach. No person may use an autopilot at an altitude lower than 50 feet below the DA(H) or MDA for the instrument procedure being flown, except as follows -

(1) For autopilots with an AFM specified altitude loss for approach operations -

(i) An altitude no lower than twice the specified altitude loss if higher than 50 feet below the MDA or DA(H);

(ii) An altitude no lower than 50 feet higher than the altitude loss specified in the AFM, when the following conditions are met -

(A) Reported weather conditions are less than the basic VFR weather conditions in § 91.155 of this chapter;

(B) Suitable visual references specified in § 91.175 of this chapter have been established on the instrument approach procedure; and

(C) The autopilot is coupled and receiving both lateral and vertical path references;

(iii) An altitude no lower than the higher of the altitude loss specified in the AFM or 50 feet above the TDZE, when the following conditions are met -

(A) Reported weather conditions are equal to or better than the basic VFR weather conditions in § 91.155 of this chapter; and

(B) The autopilot is coupled and receiving both lateral and vertical path references; or

(iv) A greater altitude specified by the Administrator.

(2) For autopilots with AFM specified approach altitude limitations, the greater of -

(i) The minimum use altitude specified for the coupled approach mode selected;

(ii) 50 feet; or

(iii) An altitude specified by Administrator.

(3) For autopilots with an AFM specified negligible or zero altitude loss for an autopilot approach mode malfunction, the greater of -

(i) 50 feet; or

(ii) An altitude specified by Administrator.

(4) If executing an autopilot coupled go-around or missed approach using a certificated and functioning autopilot in accordance with paragraph (e) in this section.

(e) Go-Around/Missed Approach. No person may engage an autopilot during a go-around or missed approach below the minimum engagement altitude specified for takeoff and initial climb in paragraph (b) in this section. An autopilot minimum use altitude does not apply to a go-around/missed approach initiated with an engaged autopilot. Performing a go-around or missed approach with an engaged autopilot must not adversely affect safe obstacle clearance.

(f) Landing. Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this section, autopilot minimum use altitudes do not apply to autopilot operations when an approved automatic landing system mode is being used for landing. Automatic landing systems must be authorized in an operations specification issued to the operator.

(g) This section does not apply to operations conducted in rotorcraft.

[Doc. No. FAA-2012-1059, 79 FR 6088, Feb. 3, 2014]

and of course the legendary :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10

[galaxy flyer]

FAR 91 only has to apply the AFM limitations, not FAR 135 restrictions, however advisable.

[vmandr]

Maverick Air LLC (owner) holding 'Commuter' type airworthiness, wouldn't fly under part 135 ?

some additional info about the company and owner at:

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/1...j4-n614sb.html

stangely reads 'operation 91'

also interesting...

http://blog.privatefly.com/us/part-91-vs-part-135

[malabo]

I would like to beg those visitors of the site that do single pilot IFR flights, to take the time and read carefully the suggestions of this excellent document. my 2c.

Really? Some mickey-duck CAA authority like NZ is any kind of authority on SPIFR over the industry experience of the FAA? Lots of single-pilot complex aircraft IFR flown here every day, normal. Not sure why you add "in IMC", are you even familiar with IFR? Find another windmill.

[_Phoenix]

Strange, they veered on the opposite direction of the flight path planned.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...614sb/#c077e55