Dassault Falcon 900EX crash, San Diego

[capngrog]

This past Saturday, 13th February, 2021, a Dassault 900EX Falcon was substantially damaged when it overran the runway at KMYF (San Diego, Calif., USA) during a rejected takeoff. All three gear legs were sheared off; however, miraculously, there were no serious injuries.

Here's a link to the Aviation Safety Network Report:
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20210213-0

Here's a link to to the Kathryn's Report which includes links to videos of the crash:
Kathryn's Report: Dassault Falcon 900EX, N823RC / N718AK: Incident occurred February 13, 2021 at Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport (KMYF), Kearny Mesa, San Diego County, California (http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/02/dassault-falcon-900ex-n823rc-n718ak.html)

If those links prove to not be "active", just copy and paste to your browser.

Cheers,
Grog

[capngrog]

I've watched another video of a Dassault 900 EX takeoff and noted that there is considerable stabilizer nose up trim used. In the video supplied by Aviationking95, it appears that the stabilizer is trimmed flat, with perhaps even a bit of nose down trim dialed in. Again, referring to Aviationking95's video, at the approximately 0:37 mark, it appears that considerable nose up elevator is being used, yet, the aircraft does not rotate.

I've been wrong before, but this could be a case of a missed checklist item: the stabilizer trim setting.

Just my opinion/conjecture.

Cheers,
Grog

[B2N2]

Grog,
All (modern) jet aircraft are required to be equipped with a Takeoff Configuration Warning.
Elevator trim out of range is DEFINITELY ​​​​​​ one of the items that will trigger it.
:suspect:

Top of page 13:
https://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/F900EX-Flight_Controls.pdf

[capngrog]

Grog,
All (modern) jet aircraft are required to be equipped with a Takeoff Configuration Warning.
Elevator trim out of range is DEFINITELY ​​​​​​ one of the items that will trigger it.
:suspect:

Top of page 13:
https://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/F900EX-Flight_Controls.pdf

I totally agree, but, however rare, incidents and accidents due to aircraft takeoff misconfiguration continue to occur. A quick search of the internet reveals several crashes that have occurred over the years due to misconfiguration of wing flaps, slats, trim etc. Here is a link to a report of Bombardier CRJ rejected takeoff/overrun that occurred in January of 2010:

https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/unprofessional-behavior-cited-in-overrun/

Here's a link to an FAA "Safety Alert For Operators" (SAFO) dated November 25, 2014:

http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USAFAA/2014/12/02/file_attachments/345439/SAFO14005.pdf

Thank you for the link to the Systems Summary for the Dassault 900EX. As designed, it seems to be a foolproof system; however, there doesn't seem to be any safeguard or interlock system that cannot be ignored, disabled or "worked around" by human beings.

Cheers,
Grog

[Capt Scribble]

Spanair Madrid 2008, flaps not set, config unknowingly disabled, delayed. Sadly all the holes lined up.

[Teddy Robinson]

I'm seeing "Takeoff runway length requirement for the 900EX is 5200' at maxGW and 28R at MYF is 4600'." in the comments on Kathryns report

[7XDriver]

“I've watched another video of a Dassault 900 EX takeoff and noted that there is considerable stabilizer nose up trim used. In the video supplied by Aviationking95, it appears that the stabilizer is trimmed flat, with perhaps even a bit of nose down trim dialed in. Again, referring to Aviationking95's video, at the approximately 0:37 mark, it appears that considerable nose up elevator is being used, yet, the aircraft does not rotate.”



I flew a 900EX for 10 years. And I can tell you at heavy weights, full fuel, you need as much allowable (in the green band) nose up trim as possible. Full fuel runs the cg pretty far forward. And even with that much trim you’ll still have the yoke in your gut to achieve rotation, and that rotation will be much more sluggish that what you’ve been used to at much lighter weights. It’s a real eye opener if you’ve not experienced it beforehand!

[Old Boeing Driver]

“I've watched another video of a Dassault 900 EX takeoff and noted that there is considerable stabilizer nose up trim used. In the video supplied by Aviationking95, it appears that the stabilizer is trimmed flat, with perhaps even a bit of nose down trim dialed in. Again, referring to Aviationking95's video, at the approximately 0:37 mark, it appears that considerable nose up elevator is being used, yet, the aircraft does not rotate.”



I flew a 900EX for 10 years. And I can tell you at heavy weights, full fuel, you need as much allowable (in the green band) nose up trim as possible. Full fuel runs the cg pretty far forward. And even with that much trim you’ll still have the yoke in your gut to achieve rotation, and that rotation will be much more sluggish that what you’ve been used to at much lighter weights. It’s a real eye opener if you’ve not experienced it beforehand!
I heard they were going to Hawaii. About 2,700 NM. Would they have had a full load of fuel?

[Less Hair]

Beginning of the takeoff roll:
https://youtu.be/W69xSQlH2l8

Actual overrun:
https://twitter.com/flying_briann/status/1360704100103430145

[7XDriver]

I heard they were going to Hawaii. About 2,700 NM. Would they have had a full load of fuel?

probably not, I know nothing about their Weight and Balance numbers, Basic operating weight (BOW) etc. My own 900 for example, had a BOW of 26,300#, and cg 24.8% Mac. My old AFM shows a maximum T/O weight of 45,500#, based on 0’PA, 4,600’ runway @ 15°C, zero wind, zero slope, no anti ice. So, 45,500-26,300 leaves 19,200# for fuel and pax. Call the pax load @ 600#, leaves 18,800# fuel(200# taxi). The max fuel capacity for an EX is 21,000#. So if their BOW is anywhere close to mine +/-, they would have had a relatively forward cg, enough so that max allowable nose up trim would be not out of the question. 2,700nm is not a stretch for an EX, but in this case, there are no diversion airports. IIRC, KSAN-PHNL is one of the longest overwater routes. ETP’s in case of engine loss, or worse, pressurization problems that would force a lower altitude would add to fuel considerations.

[sprite1]

4500’ TORA is not much.

That take-off roll looked sluggish to me also. It just appeared it was being held back with weights or something.

Is the application of full/calculated take-off thrust on the brakes a common take-off procedure for these jets? It makes me think the crew felt it was going to be tight from the off.

edited to add; as the aircraft passes abeam the videographer standing on the ramp, you can see the elevators deflect upwards and then hear the engines move to idle. Appears the trim/nose heavy issue mentioned by others above could play a part.

[7XDriver]

4500’ TORA is not much.

Is the application of full/calculated take-off thrust on the brakes a common take-off procedure for these jets? It makes me think the crew felt it was going to be tight from the off.


only if you’re runway limited. Usually a rolling takeoff if available runway exceeds BFL buy a good margin. BFL in the AFM are computed using T/O thrust set before brake release.

From my copy of the 900EX AFM, “Full takeoff thrust is set before brake release.”
Section 5, subsection 150, p3. Additionally there is a T/O CONFIG warning light on the MCS illuminates if:

Flaps more than 22°
Airbrakes not retracted
Slats retracted
Trim outside authorized range (-4.5° to -7.5°)
Park brake engaged
Uncommanded brake press in #2 system

this warning only triggered on the ground with at least one power lever > 82°PLA
accompanied by master caution and aural warn, “NO TAKEOFF” cannot be silenced as long as T/O Config is illuminated.

[sprite1]

Ok. Interesting. Thanks. I’d say all those parameters were within limits, tbh.

Is the inherent requirement for pronounced nose-up trim due to small elevators? Or the number 2 engine’s thrust line?

As I mentioned previously, you can see what looks like elevators deflect upwards just as it passes abeam the videographer that’s standing on the apron to the south of the runway and then the thrust reduces.

[capngrog]

As I mentioned previously, you can see what looks like elevators deflect upwards just as it passes abeam the videographer that’s standing on the apron to the south of the runway and then the thrust reduces.

Yes I agree and, if we are looking at the same video (the one linked below), I had the below comments in another Forum (Kathryn's).

https://jetcareers.com/forums/threads/falcon-900-accident-san-diegos-montgomery-field-2-13-2021.307938/#post-3044662

Notice that at 0:17 of the video, upward deflection of the elevators is not apparent; however, upward deflection is apparent starting at 0:18 in the video. I'm not expert on the Falcon 900EX, but in my recent reading, I've found information to the effect that the 900EX is pretty sensitive to improper takeoff stabilizer trim. Whether or not it was a factor in this crash, remains to be seen.

Another contributor ("Anonymous") to the Kathryn's discussion thread was able to blow up a frame in this video that showed the setting of the elevator trim relative to the painted marks on the vertical stabilizer Here's a copy of his post, including the link:

"Here is the CBS 8 video link, screen grab it at 29 seconds on 1080p and take into a photo editor":
https://youtu.be/a-1HraosffU?t=29

The trim setting is exactly as that shown on page 13 of the Dassault Falcon 900EX Easy Systems Summary Manual (see B2N2's post above for the link to the manual). In light of 7XDriver's remarks above, that may not have been sufficient nose up elevator trim.

Cheers,
Grog

[7XDriver]

Ok. Interesting. Thanks. I’d say all those parameters were within limits, tbh.

Is the inherent requirement for pronounced nose-up trim due to small elevators? Or the number 2 engine’s thrust line?

As I mentioned previously, you can see what looks like elevators deflect upwards just as it passes abeam the videographer that’s standing on the apron to the south of the runway and then the thrust reduces.

sorry, can’t answer that one. Elevator effectiveness would be a contributing factor I would think. I went back and pulled the NTSB report on the SBA accident.

“A post accident inspection of the airplane revealed that all systems were operating within allowable tolerances. Post accident simulator testing revealed that when configured for takeoff in the accident conditions, stabilizer trim set to -5.5 degrees and V speeds set for 45,400 pounds, a delay of 2 to 4 seconds was noted from the time an up elevator input was made to the time the airplane reacted in pitch. When the simulator was configured with the stabilizer trim set to -7.0 degrees and the V speeds set for 46,480 pounds, there was no delay in airplane response to elevator input.”

”In a statement dated June 22, 2007, the pilot in command reported "...an interesting call was made by the chief test pilot at Dassault to our local investigative rep. He said that at gross weight takeoffs you will not get rotation at Vr (rotation speed) and [an] anomaly occurs with the Falcon 900. That it will only occur after holding the yoke full aft for 2 or more seconds.”

”According to information provided by Dassault representatives, the Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom (CAA-UK) performed an evaluation of the MF900 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), which resulted in the CAA-UK including in their AFM findings, “There must be a simple chart relating c.g. to take-off trim position.” (Refer to “Operation of Horizontal Stabilizer” chart attached). The CAA-UK requirement was taken into account and reflected in specific AFM pages for UK-registered aircraft, which included the MF900. Had such a chart been available and used prior to the accident flight’s take-off for a calculated c.g. of 15.73% MAC, the referenced stabilizer trim setting would have been between -7 and -7.5 degrees.”

I retired in 2010, I cannot recall such a chart existed for U. S. registered a/c, neither did the other two F900 drivers I’ve been corresponding with.

The first time it happened to us, we were at a higher weight, probably in the neighborhood of 48,000#. At that weight we experienced the delay described, just a couple seconds, but definitely unexpected. I made damn sure the rest of my guys knew. 49,000# is the maximum takeoff gross weight with no runway/2nd segment, or SID gradient limitations.

[Zeffy]

Links to reports of the 2007 overrun at SBA:

The UK AFM chart for stab trim setting vs. CG was not in FAA AFMs at the time of the crash.
Full Docket :
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=SEA07LA152

Summary:
​​​​​​https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2007/20070610-0_F900_N914DD.pdf

[7XDriver]

sorry, can’t answer that one. Elevator effectiveness would be a contributing factor I would think. I went back and pulled the NTSB report on the SBA accident.

“A post accident inspection of the airplane revealed that all systems were operating within allowable tolerances. Post accident simulator testing revealed that when configured for takeoff in the accident conditions, stabilizer trim set to -5.5 degrees and V speeds set for 45,400 pounds, a delay of 2 to 4 seconds was noted from the time an up elevator input was made to the time the airplane reacted in pitch. When the simulator was configured with the stabilizer trim set to -7.0 degrees and the V speeds set for 46,480 pounds, there was no delay in airplane response to elevator input.”

”In a statement dated June 22, 2007, the pilot in command reported "...an interesting call was made by the chief test pilot at Dassault to our local investigative rep. He said that at gross weight takeoffs you will not get rotation at Vr (rotation speed) and [an] anomaly occurs with the Falcon 900. That it will only occur after holding the yoke full aft for 2 or more seconds.”

”According to information provided by Dassault representatives, the Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom (CAA-UK) performed an evaluation of the MF900 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), which resulted in the CAA-UK including in their AFM findings, “There must be a simple chart relating c.g. to take-off trim position.” (Refer to “Operation of Horizontal Stabilizer” chart attached). The CAA-UK requirement was taken into account and reflected in specific AFM pages for UK-registered aircraft, which included the MF900. Had such a chart been available and used prior to the accident flight’s take-off for a calculated c.g. of 15.73% MAC, the referenced stabilizer trim setting would have been between -7 and -7.5 degrees.”

I retired in 2010, I cannot recall such a chart existed for U. S. registered a/c, neither did the other two F900 drivers I’ve been corresponding with.

The first time it happened to us, we were at a higher weight, probably in the neighborhood of 48,000#. At that weight we experienced the delay described, just a couple seconds, but definitely unexpected. I made damn sure the rest of my guys knew. 49,000# is the maximum takeoff gross weight with no runway/2nd segment, or SID gradient limitations.

I gotta make a correction! My statement re the wt/cg/stab trim chart is not totally correct! As chief pilot of a 10 man department I oversaw document revisions as they arrived. Two 900EX, and a G200. I would copy the revisions before having them inserted in the appropriate manuals, and email the revisions to the troops. This is a copy of that email, date 5/19/08

“Just received temp change # 90 to the AFM and # 29 to Operating Procedures Manual.

#90 is no big deal, DFJ revised the operations in Russian airspace and deleted the previous temp change regarding the same

#29 is regarding trim settings for takeoff with various C.G. settings and several notes pertaining to same. There is also a graph to set trim vs. C.G.

These are not in any of the appropriate manuals yet”

note the revision was to the operations manual not the AFM

[capngrog]

Here's a link to the NTSB Preliminary Report on this accident:

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/102629/pdf

It looks like this report was released just to "check a box" on some sort of check list form, because it says essentially nothing. It also appears that the author of the report did not bother to proof read his work.

Cheers,
Grog

[340drvr]

Here's a link to the NTSB Preliminary Report on this accident:

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/102629/pdf

It looks like this report was released just to "check a box" on some sort of check list form, because it says essentially nothing. It also appears that the author of the report did not bother to proof read his work.

Cheers,
Grog

That's all any NTSB Preliminary report ever really says, bare bones situation statement, with in-depth analysis not until the Final report, months or a year later. I agree with the proofreading comment, though, you'd think they'd get that right.

[Santiago60]

Does anybody knows what was the flaps setting?

[Tailspin45]

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/faa-pilots-werent-certified-to-fly-corporate-jet-that-ran-off-runway-in-kearny-mesa-last-year/2938883/?fbclid=IwAR0nH41VAqIGvaFMGVUeo8Dk6bmMy-fhVg_Ae0QK0LD3lFBLSbiibjkRWZs

[zambonidriver]

Interesting... Is the full report released?

One has to wonder how those gentlemen ended up in the pointy end of such an expensive piece of hardware 🤔

[hans brinker]

Interesting... Is the full report released?

One has to wonder how those gentlemen ended up in the pointy end of such an expensive piece of hardware 🤔

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?????

[fdr]

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?????

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.

[A0283]

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.
The insurer was not amused indeed => Case 3:21-cv-00758-GPC-BLM Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 as you can see the case is still running.

[BFSGrad]

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 (https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/102629/pdf)

[hans brinker]

hard to believe that people wealthy enough to have a private jet are stupid enough to hire TWO unqualified people to fly themselves around.

[atakacs]

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

[BFSGrad]

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.

[hans brinker]

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.

Value of said jet is around $15-$20 million. Hourly charter rate is $10K, so if you fly the plane at least 200 hours a year (fairly typical for owner, if you fly less you go 135/91k), it's at least $2M/yr in cost. They probably saved a $100K a year hiring these two "pilots". (all according to the internet, I am not knowledgeable in this field). I am pretty sure if I was the insurance claims guy on this, I would not pay a dime. I think the owners should be prosecuted for negligence in operating the plane with these pilots. It is a stakeholder responsibility.

[Concours77]

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??

[megan]

Aircraft is owned by Dodson International Aircraft Parts so they're well placed to part it out if necessary.

[20driver]

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.

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.

[atakacs]

I beg to differ. The NTSB reports are a real goldmine of exactly this sort of behavior.
Really ? Do you have multiple examples of pilots trying (and failing) to perform an impossible takeoff (performance wise) with a high end bizjet ?

[Asturias56]

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!!!

[BFSGrad]

Really ? Do you have multiple examples of pilots trying (and failing) to perform an impossible takeoff (performance wise) with a high end bizjet ?Just from memory, here’s a few from the U.S.:

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.

[20driver]

Really ? Do you have multiple examples of pilots trying (and failing) to perform an impossible takeoff (performance wise) with a high end bizjet ?

Do a bit of home work and use the NTSB database and search for overuns and you will find plenty.

https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/Results.aspx?queryId=7fb6bad3-17a3-42ce-9633-08474cfd436f



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.

[20driver]

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.

[First_Principal]

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 (https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2008/20080201-1_C525_N102PT.pdf) is the one you meant to post?

FP.

[20driver]

Thanks for the heads up.

Correct link is here.

https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/Results.aspx?queryId=7fb6bad3-17a3-42ce-9633-08474cfd436f

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.

[hans brinker]

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.

Without the pilots salary data that is unproven......
(many of these outfits don't pay very well)

[20driver]

Both pilots had been with them for a while. I suspect they paid well but have no knowledge.

What they did pay for was a SMS to monitor their operations. That is how they 175 trips worth of data stored. If the SMS company had done what they were paid for the owners should have received warning that their crew was dropping the ball. I seriously wonder who the company was and if they had to settle or just went out of business. That was an expensive plane with some high worth individuals on board,

[FlightDetent]

(many of these outfits don't pay very well)His original point being the owner paid for 3rd party FOQA-like process which caught the missing F/CTL checks but the fact never reached the front seat?

Although truth be told, monitoring the data is only the beginning. Setting up a checking algorithm to look for a pattern (either persistent or missing) is the key part. I don't think on my middle-jet there is a standard one that watches over flight control check.

[lossiemouth]

"with some high worth individuals on board,"

I'd rather like to think that all individuals are of high worth.

[96flstc]

Just from memory, here’s a few from the U.S.:

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.

And I recall the Falcon 50 that overran Greenville, killed both flight crew. Recall neither were typed/current

[BFSGrad]

And I recall the Falcon 50 that overran Greenville, killed both flight crew. Recall neither were typed/current

N114TD. Left seat was ATP, FA50 typed, but only SIC. Right seat PPL, non-typed.