Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : Falcon 50 Overrun at KGMU


galaxy flyer
10-05-2018, 06:22 PM
This fatal accident hasnít made it on the radar, but pretty horrible preliminary report. Crew wasnít qualified to fly the plane, perhaps anti-skid inoperative.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/foxcarolina.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/f5/0f538e78-c8de-11e8-a1fb-07323b2496df/5bb7cb108bc11.pdf.pdf


JohnBurke
10-06-2018, 04:27 AM
It was flown by unqualified, unrated pilots, one of them a private pilot without an instrument rating, who was also the operator of the airplane. The flight was conducted under part 135. The "captain" had only a SIC rating, and the first officer had no rating. The pilot who had been assigned the trip had refused it, due to the condition of the brakes. The operator of the falcon, the private pilot, took the trip as the copilot, and hired an unrated pilot to fly it. From the video it's plain to see the aircraft wasn't slowing when it went off the end. The engines ran for almost 45 minutes after final impact, before fire-rescue was able to gain entry and shut it down.

The operator had a long history of conducting illegal charters.

1wife2airlines
10-06-2018, 06:20 AM
It was flown by unqualified, unrated pilots, one of them a private pilot without an instrument rating, who was also the operator of the airplane. The flight was conducted under part 135. The "captain" had only a SIC rating, and the first officer had no rating. The pilot who had been assigned the trip had refused it, due to the condition of the brakes. The operator of the falcon, the private pilot, took the trip as the copilot, and hired an unrated pilot to fly it. From the video it's plain to see the aircraft wasn't slowing when it went off the end. The engines ran for almost 45 minutes after final impact, before fire-rescue was able to gain entry and shut it down.

The operator had a long history of conducting illegal charters.

The NTSB preliminary report says it was under Part 91. Would that depend on what the pax say they agreed to pay?
So the pilot who refused the trip dropped a dime to the FAA and they had someone at KGMU ready to ramp check on arrival:)


rickair7777
10-06-2018, 07:06 AM
Attempted GA with spoilers left out?

JohnBurke
10-06-2018, 11:29 AM
The NTSB preliminary report says it was under Part 91. Would that depend on what the pax say they agreed to pay?


No.

The operator is a 135 operator, with passengers carried for compensation or hire. Unless the operator happened to be going to that destination and the passengers just tagged along, any flight carrying passengers for compensation or hire (the logging of flight time is considered compensation), then the flight was an illegal charter.

The passengers aren't likely to be particularly generous to the operator or illegal crew, given that this negligence nearly killed them. Standby for the law suit.


So the pilot who refused the trip dropped a dime to the FAA and they had someone at KGMU ready to ramp check on arrival:)

No.

The FAA wasn't "standing by," and the pilot didn't "drop a dime."

He had refused the trip, however, due to brakes.

galaxy flyer
10-06-2018, 12:51 PM
Sounds like you know some details, John?

GF

JohnBurke
10-06-2018, 12:53 PM
Some of this may become public, but I suspect that the law suit to follow will be more enlightening than the mishap investigation.

1wife2airlines
10-06-2018, 01:26 PM
No.

The FAA wasn't "standing by," and the pilot didn't "drop a dime."

He had refused the trip, however, due to brakes.

That was "tongue in cheek" and I wouldn't castigate that pilot for not alerting the FAA as he might not even be aware of the violations and if he was might be reluctant due to possible retaliation in that job market.
You say the operator had a long history of illegal charters. Was the FAA powerless to stop that or was he penalized but the the fines were not onerous?

tommy2toes
10-06-2018, 01:30 PM
Very in-depth discussion on this accident here: https://forums.propilotworld.com/showthread.php?122292-Falcon-50-overrun-KGMU

galaxy flyer
10-06-2018, 01:36 PM
That was "tongue in cheek" and I wouldn't castigate that pilot for not alerting the FAA as he might not even be aware of the violations and if he was might be reluctant due to possible retaliation in that job market.
You say the operator had a long history of illegal charters. Was the FAA powerless to stop that or was he penalized but the the fines were not onerous?

FSDOs are the red headed stepchild of the FAA when it comes to 135/ corporate operators. I couldnít meet my POI (91 large cabin) for months at a time. Theyíre staffed with hard pressed individuals who frequently have little or no GA experience. Iím not sure which was worst, ex-airline or ex-mil POIs. I battled over LOAs where the FSDO had little idea of current equippage or capabilities. One told me not to worry about a RVSM letter being delayed for weeks because bizjets fly in the US and ATC can clear thru RVSM to F430. Excuse me, my plane has a trip to India next week, LOA, please.

GF

JohnBurke
10-06-2018, 06:37 PM
That was "tongue in cheek" and I wouldn't castigate that pilot for not alerting the FAA as he might not even be aware of the violations and if he was might be reluctant due to possible retaliation in that job market.


You're really not getting it.


You say the operator had a long history of illegal charters. Was the FAA powerless to stop that or was he penalized but the the fines were not onerous?

The FAA would have to be aware that the illegal charters were happening, you see. That's really the point.

People tend to fly below the radar until they do something that garners attention. Something like, say, crashing a Falcon 50 without brakes with two unqualified pilots at the controls on an illegal charter...

skruts
10-07-2018, 01:40 PM
FSDOs are the red headed stepchild of the FAA when it comes to 135/ corporate operators. I couldn’t meet my POI (91 large cabin) for months at a time. They’re staffed with hard pressed individuals who frequently have little or no GA experience. I’m not sure which was worst, ex-airline or ex-mil POIs. I battled over LOAs where the FSDO had little idea of current equippage or capabilities. One told me not to worry about a RVSM letter being delayed for weeks because bizjets fly in the US and ATC can clear thru RVSM to F430. Excuse me, my plane has a trip to India next week, LOA, please.

GF

The POI at my old shop endorsed illegal rolling rest because "that's the way it's always been done here." No hard days off, rest not known in advance, and a 24/7 on-call status to the company making all rest not valid (as it involved an obligation to the company at all times). Granted, the shop was the dirtbag operator but doing so with the POI's blessing is still a major issue.

Seriously hope to see more stringent oversight of 135 operators in the future. Even though this flight may have been operated under Part 91 (still unsure on this), I have no reason to believe the company was not willing to send the same illegal crew on a 135 charter.

JohnBurke
10-07-2018, 02:35 PM
Even though this flight may have been operated under Part 91 (still unsure on this), I have no reason to believe the company was not willing to send the same illegal crew on a 135 charter.

This "crew" wasn't a crew, and wasn't able to operate under 135, because neither one was legal to do so. There was no possibility of operating under the certificate, because to do so would have been a violation. The "captain" had no type rating and wasn't qualified to act as PIC under Part 91 or 135. The "first officer" had no type rating and no instrument rating, and was only a private pilot (with those privileges granted on the basis of his Canadian license). Regardless of the operating rule, the flight was illegal.

It was conducted as as a revenue charter, off the books, like many of the flights. The "first officer," and owner/operator of the certificate, had been making illegal charter flights in other aircraft such as the King Air for a long time, and involving others in taking charter flights off the books, too.

It was an illegal 135 flight. Not done under the certificate because nobody was qualified (neither was the aircraft airworthy), yet none the less a charter. The company routinely did that off the books with pilots who had no 135 training and no 135 certificate, but were willing to take flights.

It's ironic that the owner/operator was killed on this particular flight that crashed.

galaxy flyer
10-07-2018, 06:13 PM
Ironic or Instant Karma?

GF

JamesNoBrakes
10-07-2018, 09:30 PM
The FAA would have to be aware that the illegal charters were happening, you see. That's really the point.


Well, not just "aware of", but have "evidence of" that would stand up in court. That can be a pretty tall order at times. Sure, one may know of or have a pretty good idea of certain things going on, but bound by the legal field and rules, you have to "drop and forget" what you can't prove. Anything else is an over-reach and staying up at night over it doesn't do any good.

In any case, this is getting plenty of visibility outside of internal FAA. Depends on what newsletters and services you subscribe to.

JohnBurke
10-07-2018, 11:39 PM
Ironic or Instant Karma?

GF

A bit of both, it seems.

Far better that karma might return to the bearer, rather than dragging passengers into the crash, though.

Well, not just "aware of", but have "evidence of" that would stand up in court. That can be a pretty tall order at times. Sure, one may know of or have a pretty good idea of certain things going on, but bound by the legal field and rules, you have to "drop and forget" what you can't prove. Anything else is an over-reach and staying up at night over it doesn't do any good.


Aaah...no. This has been occurring with this operator for years, with multiple pilots. Very simple observation, surveillance, would have garnered ample data.

The FAA has a long history of taking action without a leg to stand on, so lack of "evidence" has never stopped the Administrator's minions before. Evidence only comes into play in the appeal process, after the action has already begun. It is, after all, the airman's first opportunity to defend. It's the nature of administrative law.

In this case, the airman had long operated outside the certificate. Again, these events do not happen in a vacuum, and this certainly wasn't the first time the operator had elected to work off the reservation.


In any case, this is getting plenty of visibility outside of internal FAA. Depends on what newsletters and services you subscribe to.

I don't subscribe to any.

TiredSoul
10-08-2018, 04:00 AM
The FAA has a long history of taking action without a leg to stand on, so lack of "evidence" has never stopped the Administrator's minions before. Evidence only comes into play in the appeal process, after the action has already begun. It is, after all, the airman's first opportunity to defend. It's the nature of administrative law.

God forbid you omit something on your medical from 30 years ago yet Capt Fearless over here is flying passagiers wearing a pilots uniform in a C206 and heís not on anybodies 135 certificate.

Sorry JnB, please donít mention FAA and the need for evidence in the same sentence.

pokey9554
10-08-2018, 06:14 AM
But but but, they were Argus and Wyvern.

BarrySeal
10-08-2018, 07:05 AM
But but but, they were Argus and Wyvern.

actually I think they just cut and pasted the logos onto their site and had no such endorsements

Captain Slow
10-13-2018, 11:05 AM
actually I think they just cut and pasted the logos onto their site and had no such endorsements

Or they just paid for them like everyone else does.


Oh, I'm sorry. Did I let a cat out of the bag?

Falcondrivr
10-17-2018, 11:44 AM
I heard today that an FAA Inspector gave the guy in the left seat a .299 PIC check 2weeks prior to this flight, even though he only had an SIC type. Apparently the inspector missed it.
What a $hit show.

badflaps
10-17-2018, 01:39 PM
I heard today that an FAA Inspector gave the guy in the left seat a .299 PIC check 2weeks prior to this flight, even though he only had an SIC type. Apparently the inspector missed it.
What a $hit show.

Would that incorporate a removal of the SIC limitation and the check is in the mail?

rickair7777
10-17-2018, 03:58 PM
Would that incorporate a removal of the SIC limitation and the check is in the mail?

Nooo, a line check is not a type ride.

JohnBurke
10-31-2018, 05:49 AM
Some interesting current comments by JD Aero (legal firm) on illegal charters or "134.5" charters.

Gray Charters become a Federal Case | JDA Journal (http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/gray-charters-become-federal-case/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)&mc_cid=dc3e1982af&mc_eid=6824bc4184)

TiredSoul
11-20-2018, 02:02 PM
I heard today that an FAA Inspector gave the guy in the left seat a .299 PIC check 2weeks prior to this flight, even though he only had an SIC type. Apparently the inspector missed it.
What a $hit show.

I know of an inspector who conducted a .299 and missed the fact a .293(a) was not completed.
Memphis (?) FSDO.
He also fell asleep observing a company check airman conducting an oral.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1