Falcon 50 Overrun at KGMU

Subscribe
1  2  3 
Page 1 of 3
Go to
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
Reply
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.
Reply
Quote: 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
Reply
Attempted GA with spoilers left out?
Reply
Quote: 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: 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.
Reply
Sounds like you know some details, John?

GF
Reply
Some of this may become public, but I suspect that the law suit to follow will be more enlightening than the mishap investigation.
Reply
Quote:

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?
Reply
Very in-depth discussion on this accident here: https://forums.*************.com/sho...0-overrun-KGMU
Reply
Quote: 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
Reply
1  2  3 
Page 1 of 3
Go to