King Air down at Essendon?
Moderator
what and where is the obstacle that gives the 5-something % gradient for that runway?
One would need to check with the airport or the relevant surveyor to identify the specific obstruction. However, a quick looksee at the RDS data indicates that it is likely to be the boundary fence or associated lights. Simple matter to run the trig to get an approximate distance from end TODA .. but probably not necessary in this case.
wouldn't it be operating under CAO 20.7.4
Probably
would it or would it not be required to meet that 5-something % obstacle gradient?
Not at all. It is most likely that one of the earlier STODA figures would be used or, if one is a bit clever, run the sums and use an intermediate distance/gradient if the calculations are reasonably defining. In this case I would anticipate that the STODAs cross at the one critical obstacle.
A case of matching weight limitations for TODR against climb gradient capability. One would need to check the POH figures to make a more definite assessment. Not that it makes for much value as the reconfiguration puts it out of reach unless the runway has lots of spare distance ... In practical terms, a FAR23 twin doesn't have much OEI value until it is somewhat above the aerodrome and other obstacle levels ie for the typical GA aerodrome the pilot should be in silent prayer that nothing quits in the first how ever many hundred feet of climb .. Hence the oft-referred to "grey" area of the takeoff.
under 20.7.4 is that it must be able to make 6% normal ops
Correct. If that is a limit for the particular model, there will be a climb weight limit chart of some sort in the POH data.
and 1% with prop feathered and gear & flap up.
Actually, better than that .. the 1% for charter is determined at 5000 ft ISA. The gotcha, in practical terms, is the distance taken to effect the configuration and speed changes .. for the typical runway it doesn't work out and we just go on the AEO case with the OEI looking from sometime after the initial takeoff.
The OEM accel-go data, where provided, usually is sufficiently alarming ... if we were concerned about an early failure, we would go back to the office for a coffee instead of going flying.
Quite different to 20.7.1B.
Significantly so
One would need to check with the airport or the relevant surveyor to identify the specific obstruction. However, a quick looksee at the RDS data indicates that it is likely to be the boundary fence or associated lights. Simple matter to run the trig to get an approximate distance from end TODA .. but probably not necessary in this case.
wouldn't it be operating under CAO 20.7.4
Probably
would it or would it not be required to meet that 5-something % obstacle gradient?
Not at all. It is most likely that one of the earlier STODA figures would be used or, if one is a bit clever, run the sums and use an intermediate distance/gradient if the calculations are reasonably defining. In this case I would anticipate that the STODAs cross at the one critical obstacle.
A case of matching weight limitations for TODR against climb gradient capability. One would need to check the POH figures to make a more definite assessment. Not that it makes for much value as the reconfiguration puts it out of reach unless the runway has lots of spare distance ... In practical terms, a FAR23 twin doesn't have much OEI value until it is somewhat above the aerodrome and other obstacle levels ie for the typical GA aerodrome the pilot should be in silent prayer that nothing quits in the first how ever many hundred feet of climb .. Hence the oft-referred to "grey" area of the takeoff.
under 20.7.4 is that it must be able to make 6% normal ops
Correct. If that is a limit for the particular model, there will be a climb weight limit chart of some sort in the POH data.
and 1% with prop feathered and gear & flap up.
Actually, better than that .. the 1% for charter is determined at 5000 ft ISA. The gotcha, in practical terms, is the distance taken to effect the configuration and speed changes .. for the typical runway it doesn't work out and we just go on the AEO case with the OEI looking from sometime after the initial takeoff.
The OEM accel-go data, where provided, usually is sufficiently alarming ... if we were concerned about an early failure, we would go back to the office for a coffee instead of going flying.
Quite different to 20.7.1B.
Significantly so
Thanks John.
Ok here's a couple of very basic numbers. A quick look so I'm not saying it's 100% accurate.
We don't know whether he took of flapless or with flap, so this has nothing to do in relation to the accident aircraft.
Let's assume flap is used for takeoff. Raisbeck FAR 25 info.
20 degree day, 500 elevation, nil slope and wind, 50ft obstacle height, MTOW.
TODR 2600ft (790m).
Net climb gradient, inop feathered, gear up, flaps t/o: 3.6%
Balanced field (obst height 35ft), 3850-4250ft (1170-1290m) [depends on your brake/tyre combination].
V1 Vr 99, V2 100, V50 105.
Accelerate go, to 35ft, non FAR25 info.
Max weight, flap up, nil wind and slope, 500 elevation, 20 degrees- 3800ft (1160m).
Ok here's a couple of very basic numbers. A quick look so I'm not saying it's 100% accurate.
We don't know whether he took of flapless or with flap, so this has nothing to do in relation to the accident aircraft.
Let's assume flap is used for takeoff. Raisbeck FAR 25 info.
20 degree day, 500 elevation, nil slope and wind, 50ft obstacle height, MTOW.
TODR 2600ft (790m).
Net climb gradient, inop feathered, gear up, flaps t/o: 3.6%
Balanced field (obst height 35ft), 3850-4250ft (1170-1290m) [depends on your brake/tyre combination].
V1 Vr 99, V2 100, V50 105.
Accelerate go, to 35ft, non FAR25 info.
Max weight, flap up, nil wind and slope, 500 elevation, 20 degrees- 3800ft (1160m).
Last edited by Car RAMROD; 28th Feb 2017 at 09:03.
For the questions above, I will see what I can dig out of the books. To say i'm no expert would be being honest. I must admit ignorance but can I have explained why FAR 25 is relevant in a VH registered aircraft, operating on an increased weight STC operating to 20.7.1b - I have published gradients to meet - the Raisebeck supplements give me the numbers and gradients I will achive. If they achieve the requirements of CAO 20.7.1B, AND they meet the runway gradient requirements, what is the issue when I lose an engine and fly away achieving the gradients offered in the manual.
I for one always love talking performance, and always love to learn more. So hopefully I will gain some good stuff out of it. But will it change my next 13,000lb takeoff when I need a gradient off 17 of 3.93% and the performance manual says I will get 4.72%.
I for one always love talking performance, and always love to learn more. So hopefully I will gain some good stuff out of it. But will it change my next 13,000lb takeoff when I need a gradient off 17 of 3.93% and the performance manual says I will get 4.72%.
Moderator
Accelerate go, to 35ft, non FAR25 info. Max weight, flap up, nil wind and slope, 500 elevation, 20 degrees- 3800ft (1160m).
(a) I would have expected non FAR25 (ie FAR23) to be for 50 ft ?
(b) let me guess .. that distance is R mod data ?
(c) by comparison, for the standard OEM manual (for the earlier serials), accel-go at 12500lb and the same other details, ... gives a bit under 7000 ft. Climb gradient at 121kt is around 4.5% or a bit better. It's that speed thing that causes the problem ...
Interesting, is it not ?
why FAR 25 is relevant in a VH registered aircraft, operating on an increased weight STC operating to 20.7.1b
A bit of history is useful.
In the beginning (when the world was without form), the US did some sensible things such as have regs for certification and operations. DCA (the original precursor of CASA) came up with a rather strange amalgam of certification documents which either were stand alone or drew on the overseas (US or Brit) standards but with local tinkering at the edges which drove many in the local Industry to distraction. These, progressively and now, totally, have been consigned to the WPB-round. Ron Yates (ref The Yates' Report) had a bit to do with starting up some enthusiasm for getting this process finalised.
Operational documents, such as 20.7.1b, written by folks who didn't understand the certification documents, came up with a strange array of requirements which sometimes, but not always, mirrored the certification requirements. A far better approach would have been just to state .. observe the certification requirements. Great stuff for young engineers on both sides of the table who had to try and work it all out. I can't complain .. it made me a few dollars over the years ...
Back to the story ...
Courtesy of one of the posters, whom I know well but wasn't aware that he had changed his username, I now have a copy of the R STC .. will take some time to digest the rather large document. I am presuming that R has redone the basic performance work to be compliant with parts of Part 25. The FMS doesn't appear, explicitly, to state the certification basis (as is the usual case) so one would need to look at the STC package and associated certification data to form an opinion on that one. Depending on the detail in the FMS, it may/may not be open to claim compliance with all of 20.7.1b unless further data be sought.
For some years now, Australia has adopted the country of origin NAA approved AFM/POH as the book .. did I mention Ron Yates ? .. that's why FAR25 be relevant. The R STC has been signed off by an FAA delegate .. or so the front page states .. and it, thus, forms part of the FAA approved AFM/POH so that ties the two together.
Now, the loss of the various local certification documents resulted in the 20.7 docs having to relate to the foreign requirements .. otherwise we would have been in some sort of totally confused limbo. If you download 20.7.1b (makes it easier to search) and look for "flight manual", you will find a reference or two to "foreign flight manual" and lots of references to "flight manual". Now, I am a tad out of touch with the day to day activities in respect of flight manual approvals but, if I am correct, Australia no longer issues flight manuals for overseas sourced aircraft, requiring the owner to use the relevant foreign flight manual.
So, providing that the foreign STC does, in fact, meet the requirements of 20.7.1b, all should be fine and beaut. Just how do you know that it does .. when the foreign documents are based on the foreign design standards ? It may well do so .. but one ought not just to presume such is the case.
operating on an increased weight STC operating to 20.7.1b
Be careful .. the STC probably knows naught about 20.7.1b. At the end of the day, Australia is a bit of a backwater so far as the US Industry is concerned. Rather, it is the operator's responsibility to show that there is a compliance at audit. This is why I referred earlier to CAR(1988) 139(3) .. if your aeroplane doesn't carry the POH then you (as a pilot) are pretty well covered if you abide by the operator's Operations Manual. The problem then reverts to where it should lie .. with the operator/owner.
If it sounds like I am making a mountain out of a molehill .. I'm not ... it will be very interesting if and when a major prang leads to a Royal Commission and the lawyers really get stuck into all this stuff.
(a) I would have expected non FAR25 (ie FAR23) to be for 50 ft ?
(b) let me guess .. that distance is R mod data ?
(c) by comparison, for the standard OEM manual (for the earlier serials), accel-go at 12500lb and the same other details, ... gives a bit under 7000 ft. Climb gradient at 121kt is around 4.5% or a bit better. It's that speed thing that causes the problem ...
Interesting, is it not ?
why FAR 25 is relevant in a VH registered aircraft, operating on an increased weight STC operating to 20.7.1b
A bit of history is useful.
In the beginning (when the world was without form), the US did some sensible things such as have regs for certification and operations. DCA (the original precursor of CASA) came up with a rather strange amalgam of certification documents which either were stand alone or drew on the overseas (US or Brit) standards but with local tinkering at the edges which drove many in the local Industry to distraction. These, progressively and now, totally, have been consigned to the WPB-round. Ron Yates (ref The Yates' Report) had a bit to do with starting up some enthusiasm for getting this process finalised.
Operational documents, such as 20.7.1b, written by folks who didn't understand the certification documents, came up with a strange array of requirements which sometimes, but not always, mirrored the certification requirements. A far better approach would have been just to state .. observe the certification requirements. Great stuff for young engineers on both sides of the table who had to try and work it all out. I can't complain .. it made me a few dollars over the years ...
Back to the story ...
Courtesy of one of the posters, whom I know well but wasn't aware that he had changed his username, I now have a copy of the R STC .. will take some time to digest the rather large document. I am presuming that R has redone the basic performance work to be compliant with parts of Part 25. The FMS doesn't appear, explicitly, to state the certification basis (as is the usual case) so one would need to look at the STC package and associated certification data to form an opinion on that one. Depending on the detail in the FMS, it may/may not be open to claim compliance with all of 20.7.1b unless further data be sought.
For some years now, Australia has adopted the country of origin NAA approved AFM/POH as the book .. did I mention Ron Yates ? .. that's why FAR25 be relevant. The R STC has been signed off by an FAA delegate .. or so the front page states .. and it, thus, forms part of the FAA approved AFM/POH so that ties the two together.
Now, the loss of the various local certification documents resulted in the 20.7 docs having to relate to the foreign requirements .. otherwise we would have been in some sort of totally confused limbo. If you download 20.7.1b (makes it easier to search) and look for "flight manual", you will find a reference or two to "foreign flight manual" and lots of references to "flight manual". Now, I am a tad out of touch with the day to day activities in respect of flight manual approvals but, if I am correct, Australia no longer issues flight manuals for overseas sourced aircraft, requiring the owner to use the relevant foreign flight manual.
So, providing that the foreign STC does, in fact, meet the requirements of 20.7.1b, all should be fine and beaut. Just how do you know that it does .. when the foreign documents are based on the foreign design standards ? It may well do so .. but one ought not just to presume such is the case.
operating on an increased weight STC operating to 20.7.1b
Be careful .. the STC probably knows naught about 20.7.1b. At the end of the day, Australia is a bit of a backwater so far as the US Industry is concerned. Rather, it is the operator's responsibility to show that there is a compliance at audit. This is why I referred earlier to CAR(1988) 139(3) .. if your aeroplane doesn't carry the POH then you (as a pilot) are pretty well covered if you abide by the operator's Operations Manual. The problem then reverts to where it should lie .. with the operator/owner.
If it sounds like I am making a mountain out of a molehill .. I'm not ... it will be very interesting if and when a major prang leads to a Royal Commission and the lawyers really get stuck into all this stuff.
Sorry John, "R mod data" I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I've got no data handy for, and never flown, a non-Raisbeck B200 so can't really comment there. I'll believe your figures. Goes to show a King Air with the Raisbeck goodies are better
As for that 35ft, well, can't tell you much more other than that's what it says on the chart, and it wasn't in the section with FAR25 info. Unless certification criteria changed at some stage?
I've got no data handy for, and never flown, a non-Raisbeck B200 so can't really comment there. I'll believe your figures. Goes to show a King Air with the Raisbeck goodies are better
As for that 35ft, well, can't tell you much more other than that's what it says on the chart, and it wasn't in the section with FAR25 info. Unless certification criteria changed at some stage?
Moderator
R mod data
Sorry, my apologies ... shouldn't use shorthand without defining it .. Raisbeck modification.
Goes to show a King Air with the Raisbeck goodies are better
I have only a minor familiarity with KingAir Raisbeck stuff, being the 350 strakes and locker mods .. and they appear to be good value.
As for that 35ft
Don't worry about it for the moment .. only a sideshow issue. I'll have a read of the FMS and see what I can make of things.
Sorry, my apologies ... shouldn't use shorthand without defining it .. Raisbeck modification.
Goes to show a King Air with the Raisbeck goodies are better
I have only a minor familiarity with KingAir Raisbeck stuff, being the 350 strakes and locker mods .. and they appear to be good value.
As for that 35ft
Don't worry about it for the moment .. only a sideshow issue. I'll have a read of the FMS and see what I can make of things.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'shoppers' wouldn't think for a second that, although shopping less than 250m from the runway centreline of a busy regional airport, they were at any greater risk of being involved in a tragic aviation accident, or losing their own life
John, "R mod..." Yes I get you now. Somewhat obvious in hindsight 
And yes the numbers I got were from the Raisbeck manual.
From reading your posts you've got a very good understanding on all the certification criteria etc, much more so than me, so unfortunately I won't be able to get too in-depth in conversation with you there.
And yes the numbers I got were from the Raisbeck manual.
From reading your posts you've got a very good understanding on all the certification criteria etc, much more so than me, so unfortunately I won't be able to get too in-depth in conversation with you there.
Don't worry Ramrod, youre not Robinson Carusoe there.
Thanks John T. Fabulous info and history there. Particulalrly of major interest is where you say does 20.7.1b meet the requirements of the FAR. It really is incredible stuff what you are saying.
I guess I still fly knowing that with an engine out, and because of appropriate sim training, I can fly away knowing I can meet the gradients and get to a safety height. You may be interested to know that up to about 13000lb the performance requirements out of YMEN are met fairly comfortably - but above 13,000, they drop off dramatically and we are limited to 08/26 and often having to use STODAs to get the gradient requirements.
Thanks John T. Fabulous info and history there. Particulalrly of major interest is where you say does 20.7.1b meet the requirements of the FAR. It really is incredible stuff what you are saying.
I guess I still fly knowing that with an engine out, and because of appropriate sim training, I can fly away knowing I can meet the gradients and get to a safety height. You may be interested to know that up to about 13000lb the performance requirements out of YMEN are met fairly comfortably - but above 13,000, they drop off dramatically and we are limited to 08/26 and often having to use STODAs to get the gradient requirements.
Posted for those who want to crunch numbers. (Raisbeck modded aircraft, which a B200 pilot who has looked at a photo of the aircraft is fairly sure is so equipped). Then again, the aircraft may, or may not, have had the 1,000 gross weight increase. So many unknowns, which the report will reveal.
Temp at the time was 18° and pressure altitude 42 feet.
Temp at the time was 18° and pressure altitude 42 feet.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An airport terminal, which is legitimate aviation infrastructure is understandable. A shopping centre or DFO is a totally different proposition.
Last edited by Datum; 1st Mar 2017 at 22:39.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as many as everyone else, I guess.
How many missed approaches, diversions, holding patterns, second/third approaches have I flown in a large RPT jet due to mechanical turbulence caused by non-aviation infrastructure?
None.
That's why I asked you for statistics, which you have not provided.
How many missed approaches, diversions, holding patterns, second/third approaches have I flown in a large RPT jet due to mechanical turbulence caused by non-aviation infrastructure?
None.
That's why I asked you for statistics, which you have not provided.
Last edited by Datum; 1st Mar 2017 at 22:39.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched the second film in the links below over 30 years ago during a flying safety officers’ course. Some days you just shouldn’t get out of bed and go to work. Although the accident captured in these YouTube videos was caused by a flap failure on final at Heathrow (details in the Wikipedia link) the situation became much the same, asymmetric out of control at low height and in this case, irrecoverable once it got going. There are numerous other cases of really bad outcomes where all you can do is feel sorry for the guys and gals involved eg a wing breaking off in turbulence due to metal fatigue, an uncontained fire on the flightdeck, maintenance not done properly, etc. In hindsight and we do have the benefit of hindsight when reflecting on the Essendon accident (it’s not an incident) whereas the PIC last week had just seconds before everything turned pear-shaped, when normal flight is impossible, pulling back both throttles to idle and crashing ahead roughly wings level with the gear up in the best place available is all you can do. You have to be ready for that every day or, don’t go flying! Once when double asymmetric just after gear retraction hot and heavy I had to dive below runway level into a valley to get to engine out climb speed. Yep, I never briefed that one nor practised it in the sim! Recovered in ground effect manoeuvring to avoid two towns. Saw something similar at the movies years later. That’s why the guys on the 380 out of Singapore earned their superannuation that day. Sometimes, anything can happen. Maybe the owners of those offices beside runway 35 at Canberra should reflect on that in their spare time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPTg86r9aw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLZYR2d-WO4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Heathrow_BKS_Air_Transport_Airspeed_Ambassador_crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPTg86r9aw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLZYR2d-WO4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Heathrow_BKS_Air_Transport_Airspeed_Ambassador_crash
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join the naive club, Tank.
As I've said, I'd rather have airports retain their Commonwealth land, but if DFO's are what it takes to prevent airports like Essendon from closing altogether, then so be it.
In fact I would have to say that pretty much all man-made threshold turbulence I've experienced at Australian airports has been caused by aviation infrastructure.
For example:
Sydney 16R in a SW wind - international terminal and freight terminal.
Canberra 35 in a NW wind - big hangar (often a warning on the ATIS).
Brisbane 01 in a NE wind - big hangar.
These situations make me work slightly harder but have never caused me or any others I know a missed approach or any other type of delay or diversion. Just life as a pilot...
Edit: Datum, our conflict is a little off topic with respect to this accident, which had nothing to do with man-made turbulence caused by non-aviation infrastructure. In the interest of keeping the thread on topic, I will move on and will not comment further on the subject.
As I've said, I'd rather have airports retain their Commonwealth land, but if DFO's are what it takes to prevent airports like Essendon from closing altogether, then so be it.
In fact I would have to say that pretty much all man-made threshold turbulence I've experienced at Australian airports has been caused by aviation infrastructure.
For example:
Sydney 16R in a SW wind - international terminal and freight terminal.
Canberra 35 in a NW wind - big hangar (often a warning on the ATIS).
Brisbane 01 in a NE wind - big hangar.
These situations make me work slightly harder but have never caused me or any others I know a missed approach or any other type of delay or diversion. Just life as a pilot...
Edit: Datum, our conflict is a little off topic with respect to this accident, which had nothing to do with man-made turbulence caused by non-aviation infrastructure. In the interest of keeping the thread on topic, I will move on and will not comment further on the subject.
Last edited by Derfred; 3rd Mar 2017 at 12:31.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Between the hottest and coldest places on earth.
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acrux326
Very interesting. Thank you for your comments.
Whilst not commenting on this accident, I once had an asymetric flap extension (in a Baron). An experienced pilot and I were flying the aircraft and we both struggled to land the aircraft safely. The difference in the flap extension when we measured it, was less than 5 cm. We did not have long to react and we were two up on final. We landed safely and going around was not an option.
Very interesting. Thank you for your comments.
Whilst not commenting on this accident, I once had an asymetric flap extension (in a Baron). An experienced pilot and I were flying the aircraft and we both struggled to land the aircraft safely. The difference in the flap extension when we measured it, was less than 5 cm. We did not have long to react and we were two up on final. We landed safely and going around was not an option.
Last edited by Once Were Warriors; 17th Jun 2017 at 15:03. Reason: Clarification
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: FL370
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Current sim training requirements?
Sorry if this has been mentioned previously, but what are the current simulator training requirements, if any, for B200 operators if operating charter only?
I know that after the Air North Braz crash, mandatory simulator training and checking (2 sessions of each within 12 months) was introduced for aircraft such as King Airs, Metros, Brazs etc, if a suitable sim was present within Australia. Unfortunately the way the CAO was applied, was I my opinion, poorly done.
Some quick background.
Now it's been almost 2 years since I've been closely involved with this so it may have changed, but this CAO only applied to operators that had a CAR 217 check and training system in place. My previous company operated B200s charter only, but required a C&T system as they also conducted single engine turbine ASETPA and RPT ops. As such all our King Air pilots had to use the sim in Mel. The frustrating thing from the companies perspective was other operators we were directly competing with regarding B200 ops were also charter only, but had no C&T system, and therefore no sim training or checking requirements.
The obvious training advantages aside, this was a completely ridiculous setup that imposed additional requirements on operators with qualified instructors and approved training systems, whilst not applying any to operators that had minimal systems in place at all.
Has this changed with the new part 61, 141/142 rules or is this still the case?
Secondly, I don't know to much about operators down south, but did this operator conduct ongoing sim training, and were they required too?
If this has already been asked and answered than I apologise.
I know that after the Air North Braz crash, mandatory simulator training and checking (2 sessions of each within 12 months) was introduced for aircraft such as King Airs, Metros, Brazs etc, if a suitable sim was present within Australia. Unfortunately the way the CAO was applied, was I my opinion, poorly done.
Some quick background.
Now it's been almost 2 years since I've been closely involved with this so it may have changed, but this CAO only applied to operators that had a CAR 217 check and training system in place. My previous company operated B200s charter only, but required a C&T system as they also conducted single engine turbine ASETPA and RPT ops. As such all our King Air pilots had to use the sim in Mel. The frustrating thing from the companies perspective was other operators we were directly competing with regarding B200 ops were also charter only, but had no C&T system, and therefore no sim training or checking requirements.
The obvious training advantages aside, this was a completely ridiculous setup that imposed additional requirements on operators with qualified instructors and approved training systems, whilst not applying any to operators that had minimal systems in place at all.
Has this changed with the new part 61, 141/142 rules or is this still the case?
Secondly, I don't know to much about operators down south, but did this operator conduct ongoing sim training, and were they required too?
If this has already been asked and answered than I apologise.
gretzky99
From my understanding the operator you refer to simply hired aircraft from owners. It was a one pilot operation. The flight in question type of operation was Private according to the flight plan.
From my understanding the operator you refer to simply hired aircraft from owners. It was a one pilot operation. The flight in question type of operation was Private according to the flight plan.