Dassault Falcon 900EX crash, San Diego
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The gentleman (not pilot, he didn't have a license) in the left seat was the one that purchased the insurance for the aircraft. According to the insurance company he was specifically listed as someone not allowed to operate the aircraft. How do you get rich enough to buy a plane while stupid enough to let someone like that"fly" it?????
The gentleman (not pilot, he didn't have a license) in the left seat was the one that purchased the insurance for the aircraft. According to the insurance company he was specifically listed as someone not allowed to operate the aircraft. How do you get rich enough to buy a plane while stupid enough to let someone like that"fly" it?????
On the rotation comments, another aircraft with a curious rotate is the IAI Westwind I/II; the initial rotate requires nearly full back stick to get any movement of the nose in rotation, and then the aircraft starts to behave normally as the nose rises. Using small inputs will end up in a high-speed taxi towards the end fence. The trim setting is correct for the initial climb, it is just getting that nose to come off the ground that is curious. Lesser falcons than the 900 rotate beautifully, like most planes.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That seems a little untidy, but fortuitous for the insurer in this case. I would be denying the payout if that is true.
On the rotation comments, another aircraft with a curious rotate is the IAI Westwind I/II; the initial rotate requires nearly full back stick to get any movement of the nose in rotation, and then the aircraft starts to behave normally as the nose rises. Using small inputs will end up in a high-speed taxi towards the end fence. The trim setting is correct for the initial climb, it is just getting that nose to come off the ground that is curious. Lesser falcons than the 900 rotate beautifully, like most planes.
On the rotation comments, another aircraft with a curious rotate is the IAI Westwind I/II; the initial rotate requires nearly full back stick to get any movement of the nose in rotation, and then the aircraft starts to behave normally as the nose rises. Using small inputs will end up in a high-speed taxi towards the end fence. The trim setting is correct for the initial climb, it is just getting that nose to come off the ground that is curious. Lesser falcons than the 900 rotate beautifully, like most planes.
Final report issued 6/8/23.
Key findings:
Airplane 2975 lbs over max weight for available runway length
Incorrect stabilizer trim setting
Attempted rotation 23 kts lower than calculated
Available runway 575 ft shorter than required runway for takeoff weight
PIC held no valid pilot certificates due to revocation 2 years prior
N823RC Final Report
Key findings:
Airplane 2975 lbs over max weight for available runway length
Incorrect stabilizer trim setting
Attempted rotation 23 kts lower than calculated
Available runway 575 ft shorter than required runway for takeoff weight
PIC held no valid pilot certificates due to revocation 2 years prior
N823RC Final Report
As others have mentioned this is quite incredible in many ways. This level of negligence and incompetence is rarely seen, especially in the context of (relatively) high end private jets
Odd that the PIC was able to eventually produce a pilot certificate for investigators even though the 13Feb19 emergency revocation order required immediate certificate surrender with substantial daily fine for non-compliance.
Also dubious is the PIC claim that all the accident flight performance calculations were performed on his tablet, which he claims had been “destroyed.” The accident flight was certainly not of sufficient severity to destroy a tablet.
What are the insurance implications for the owner allowing a non-certificated pilot to operate the accident aircraft? Looked to be a nice, low-time jet worth some bucks.
Also dubious is the PIC claim that all the accident flight performance calculations were performed on his tablet, which he claims had been “destroyed.” The accident flight was certainly not of sufficient severity to destroy a tablet.
What are the insurance implications for the owner allowing a non-certificated pilot to operate the accident aircraft? Looked to be a nice, low-time jet worth some bucks.
Odd that the PIC was able to eventually produce a pilot certificate for investigators even though the 13Feb19 emergency revocation order required immediate certificate surrender with substantial daily fine for non-compliance.
Also dubious is the PIC claim that all the accident flight performance calculations were performed on his tablet, which he claims had been “destroyed.” The accident flight was certainly not of sufficient severity to destroy a tablet.
What are the insurance implications for the owner allowing a non-certificated pilot to operate the accident aircraft? Looked to be a nice, low-time jet worth some bucks.
Also dubious is the PIC claim that all the accident flight performance calculations were performed on his tablet, which he claims had been “destroyed.” The accident flight was certainly not of sufficient severity to destroy a tablet.
What are the insurance implications for the owner allowing a non-certificated pilot to operate the accident aircraft? Looked to be a nice, low-time jet worth some bucks.
Disclosure
What it boils down to. What did they know, and when did
they know it... willful negligence is kinda like ... fraud. Who doesn't do due diligence when hiring custodians of a 20 million dollar asset?? The lives of all involved??
they know it... willful negligence is kinda like ... fraud. Who doesn't do due diligence when hiring custodians of a 20 million dollar asset?? The lives of all involved??
Dodson
I looked them up. They claim to be very familiar with FAA regulations. Hard to understand how they could put the company at such risk.
I beg to differ. The NTSB reports are a real goldmine of exactly this sort of behavior.
This level of negligence and incompetence is rarely seen, especially in the context of (relatively) high end private jets
I beg to differ. The NTSB reports are a real goldmine of exactly this sort of behavior.
FAA records indicated that the reason for the emergency revocation was because he had
violated 14 CFR §61.59(a)(2) while employed as a check pilot for a Part 135 operator by
falsifying logbook entries and records for pilot proficiency checks, competency checks, and
training events on 15 separate occasions.
FIFTEEN!!!
violated 14 CFR §61.59(a)(2) while employed as a check pilot for a Part 135 operator by
falsifying logbook entries and records for pilot proficiency checks, competency checks, and
training events on 15 separate occasions.
FIFTEEN!!!
N237WR (H25B)
N452DA (LJ35)
N121JM (GLF4)
N560AR (C56X)
N880Z (LJ35)
N605TR (CL60)
N777TY (GLF5)
You might quibble that not all of the above examples are “high-end” or that only one was in the take-off phase, but all were flown by professional, 2-pilot crews and involved negligent ADM as a causal element in the accident.
The N777TY accident is the only one (like N823RC) that did not produce fatalities but will certainly leave you slack-jawed after reading the full accident report.
https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/Results.a...3-08474cfd436f
Searching for 135 operations and fatalities is a rogues gallery of dodgy operations including Payne Stewart.
This one involved a Part 91 owner operator - clearly a very accomplished women who killed herself and her son.
I have flown out of Augusta several times and like this pilot was on a ski trip to Sugarloaf.
Last edited by 20driver; 12th Jun 2023 at 23:06. Reason: incorrect link removed
N121JM was a case of the Swiss Cheese model.
-Gulfstream designed a gust lock that did not work
-The FAA approved it.
-The pilots used no check list and missed that the gust lock was on - and these were experienced pilots.
-The kicker was the owners were paying for a SMS service to monitor the operation which was Part 91.
From the NTSB
"A review of data from the airplane’s quick access recorder revealed that the pilots had neglected to perform complete flight control checks before 98% of their previous 175 takeoffs in the airplane, indicating that this oversight was habitual and not an anomaly."
So there was bucket load on information available that said the pilots had "normalized their deviance" but no one picked it up.
The owner of the plane was on board. He did not get what he paid for.
-Gulfstream designed a gust lock that did not work
-The FAA approved it.
-The pilots used no check list and missed that the gust lock was on - and these were experienced pilots.
-The kicker was the owners were paying for a SMS service to monitor the operation which was Part 91.
From the NTSB
"A review of data from the airplane’s quick access recorder revealed that the pilots had neglected to perform complete flight control checks before 98% of their previous 175 takeoffs in the airplane, indicating that this oversight was habitual and not an anomaly."
So there was bucket load on information available that said the pilots had "normalized their deviance" but no one picked it up.
The owner of the plane was on board. He did not get what he paid for.
20driver the link you posted appears to be to a local file on your computer, it doesn't resolve to a website. Given a user's name is present you may also be revealing something you wouldn't normally want to...
I guess the link to this report is the one you meant to post?
FP.
I guess the link to this report is the one you meant to post?
FP.
Thanks for the heads up.
Correct link is here.
https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/Results.a...3-08474cfd436f
A crew overloaded a Challenger and ran off the runway at Teterboro, across a highway and into a big box store.
Amazing no one was killed.
Correct link is here.
https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/Results.a...3-08474cfd436f
A crew overloaded a Challenger and ran off the runway at Teterboro, across a highway and into a big box store.
Amazing no one was killed.
