Cessna business jet crash near French Valley Airport in Murrieta, California
Thread Starter
Cessna business jet crash near French Valley Airport in Murrieta, California
So far all I can find is on CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/08/us/ce...nia/index.html
Appears it went down in a field and all 6 on-board died. Only info is it is alleged to be a "Cessna business jet".
- GY
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/08/us/ce...nia/index.html
Appears it went down in a field and all 6 on-board died. Only info is it is alleged to be a "Cessna business jet".
- GY
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Age: 59
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like they came up short on a second approach.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N819KR
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2023/0...french-valley/
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N819KR
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2023/0...french-valley/
Aircraft initially cancelled IFR with ATC based on F70 weather of 10 / CLR, reported as late as 1035Z. By 1055Z, F70 weather degraded to 3/4 / 300. Aircraft picked up IFR for RNAV 18 approach, standard missed, repeat.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reuters … six-dead-corporate-jet-crash-outside-los-angeles-2023-07-08 … including NTSB statement
The airplane was built in 1979.
RNAV 18 with weather that was at or below minima at night.
Names released apparently show only one pilot rated with a 550 type that required an SIC.
There is an LLC in the name of the alleged pilot which is different from the LLC that owns the airplane.
FAA airmen database shows last certificate event was April ‘23, possibly type rating issuance.
Second approach and crash site only 500’ from the threshold. They almost made it.
RNAV 18 with weather that was at or below minima at night.
Names released apparently show only one pilot rated with a 550 type that required an SIC.
There is an LLC in the name of the alleged pilot which is different from the LLC that owns the airplane.
FAA airmen database shows last certificate event was April ‘23, possibly type rating issuance.
Second approach and crash site only 500’ from the threshold. They almost made it.
The Daily Bulletin photo of the wreckage shows street signs that are in line with the approach to 18. The KTLA video referenced by aviation safety net shows the wings consistent with runway heading.
I see no damage to the substantial 8-10' high airport fence. Long lens foreshortening makes it difficult to estimate distance from fence. There seem similarities to the crash of a Navaho in Grand Manan where early morning darkness and fog were also in play.
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r.../a14a0067.html
Except for a possible higher descent rate.
I see no damage to the substantial 8-10' high airport fence. Long lens foreshortening makes it difficult to estimate distance from fence. There seem similarities to the crash of a Navaho in Grand Manan where early morning darkness and fog were also in play.
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r.../a14a0067.html
Except for a possible higher descent rate.
If this was a C550 I find it interesting how people manage to do RNAV procedures. When I researched the process some time ago it did not matter what FMS CDU was fitted to the aircraft the Primus 1000 was not capable of displaying sufficient information to be RNP1 compliant. Something to do with the display screen drivers and screen capability. This might be why Cessna quickly upgraded the XLS to Primus 2000 and beyond and why Bombardier upgraded the LR45 to the 75 which is a 45 with Garmin screens.
I do wonder?
I do wonder?
“We lost six wonderful souls (who) unfortunately left behind 11 kids,” Morris said. They range in age, he added, from newborn to 11 years old.
French Valley plane crash victims are mourned.
French Valley plane crash victims are mourned.
Under part 135 turbojet PIC requires an ATP which neither one had so the assumption is that this was a flight operating under Part 91.
Previous for sale ad lists a Garmin 625 as part of the avionics suite.
Last edited by B2N2; 10th Jul 2023 at 17:34.
If this was a C550 I find it interesting how people manage to do RNAV procedures. When I researched the process some time ago it did not matter what FMS CDU was fitted to the aircraft the Primus 1000 was not capable of displaying sufficient information to be RNP1 compliant.
This little detail seems to cause a lot of confusion. My radio can do it, why cannot the aircraft????
Last edited by mnttech; 13th Jul 2023 at 03:48. Reason: Spelling of RNAV
mntech
Thank you for a good reply. there is also a requirement for the necessary information to be displayed within +/- 15 deg of the pilot's line of sight straight in front of the seating position.
Thank you for a good reply. there is also a requirement for the necessary information to be displayed within +/- 15 deg of the pilot's line of sight straight in front of the seating position.
Install a CDI that can display the GPS guidance information.
If a G430 can be installed and certified in a Pa28 to fly GPS approaches then so can another unit in a Citation II.
Undated picture of the panel of the mishap aircraft:
Source:
https://www.aircraft.com/fr/aircraft/212605449/n819kr-1979-cessna-citation-ii
Last edited by B2N2; 12th Jul 2023 at 21:36.
Just a small thought here, the PA28 is to Part 23, the 550 is to Part 25 per the TCDS. I have no idea what the difference in requirements are between the two certification basis is, nor do I want to go dig at this time of night.
Are you thinking the GPS display is behind the yoke in the above picture?
Other pictures on line show the turn and slip there.
My next thought would be what does the big fancy display show when the GPS is on the little 3 inch indicator? (assuming it is behind the top of the yoke)
What would the flight director be doing at that point? (hello miss leading data)
A quick check of the GTN TSO install manual shows that if "The autopilot can provide vertical guidance, fly a vertical coupled LPV approach"
Then we go into the long standing issue of the roll steering output for the AP.
My though was the 550 had a glass cockpit (duh, I know) and I was not sure that that age of glass would have ARINC labels 117/327 for vertical guidance as required for the approach.
While this is interesting to discuss, it may be a little of the cart in front of the horse
Can it, yes. Should it... Maybe.....
Just a small thought here, the PA28 is to Part 23, the 550 is to Part 25 per the TCDS.
Just a small thought here, the PA28 is to Part 23, the 550 is to Part 25 per the TCDS.
It’s clear however that the mishap aircraft had a GPS installed. Question is if it was capable of LPV or LNAV as that changes the minima slightly for the approach.
Though we don't yet know what exact avionics the Citation had installed, it seems reasonably fair to assume they were LPV capable. With weather at 300 - 3/4, just lower than the 300 - 7/8 LPV mins, you wouldn't think they'd try a 2nd approach with only LNAV mins of 500, or LNAV/VNAV to 600.
