Falcon 50 Overrun at KGMU
#11
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,021
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...
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 144
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
GF
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.
#13
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,021
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.
#15
In any case, this is getting plenty of visibility outside of internal FAA. Depends on what newsletters and services you subscribe to.
#16
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,021
A bit of both, it seems.
Far better that karma might return to the bearer, rather than dragging passengers into the crash, though.
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.
I don't subscribe to any.
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.
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.
I don't subscribe to any.
#17
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.
Sorry JnB, please don’t mention FAA and the need for evidence in the same sentence.
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Holiday Inn, King Non-Smoking
Posts: 178
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post