Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-05-2018, 07:22 PM   #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 3,525
Default Falcon 50 Overrun at KGMU

This fatal accident hasn’t made it on the radar, but pretty horrible preliminary report. Crew wasn’t qualified to fly the plane, perhaps anti-skid inoperative.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...08bc11.pdf.pdf
galaxy flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 05:27 AM   #2  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,919
Default

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.
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 07:20 AM   #3  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
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
1wife2airlines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 08:06 AM   #4  
Prime Minister
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 21,068
Default

Attempted GA with spoilers left out?
rickair7777 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 12:29 PM   #5  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1wife2airlines View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1wife2airlines View Post
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.
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 01:51 PM   #6  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 3,525
Default

Sounds like you know some details, John?

GF
galaxy flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 01:53 PM   #7  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,919
Default

Some of this may become public, but I suspect that the law suit to follow will be more enlightening than the mishap investigation.
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 02:26 PM   #8  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post


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?
1wife2airlines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 02:30 PM   #9  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 4
Default

Very in-depth discussion on this accident here: https://forums.propilotworld.com/sho...0-overrun-KGMU
tommy2toes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 02:36 PM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 3,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1wife2airlines View Post
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 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
galaxy flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Planet Nine Falcon 7X Charter out of VNY David Puddy Part 135 2 07-19-2018 09:50 AM
Falcon Air F/O SCAB identified !!! A320Flyer Major 76 01-16-2014 03:40 AM
Falcon Air Express is hiring Lightwinds Hiring News 3 12-02-2012 06:13 PM
Falcon 10 BANYO4 Corporate 8 02-25-2010 06:38 PM
May I Fly Your Falcon 900?!?! (PLEASE!?) CaptainTeezy Corporate 24 12-22-2008 02:20 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:22 AM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1