LOL - I never noticed each of my three old certs has a different date! Thanks Huggy!

I agree with Lucky that turbine management can often be easier than piston props, and modern glass can be great to use and makes things easy... under normal conditions. Things happen much more rapidly in that jet if disorientation or anomalies happen.

A Citation 525 is a lot of airplane for a weekend warrior, particularly under those conditions, and unfortunately looks like he and his family paid an ultimate price. It was only a 2 hour drive. One of my good friends who is in a similar use pattern has a TBM700 and I worry about him, but he is very fastidious about recurrent training, and got there slowly. From the few times I've been in front it is also a lot of airplane and things can happen fast.

Incidentally I am curious as to why his aircraft was registered to the company through LLC and he was operating it on a private (noncommercial) license, the FAA might be interested in if all flights were "incidental to" etc. In my situation I was legally advised to get the commercial license, so I did -- be very careful with this sort of stuff guys.

What makes you think he's just a weekend warrior?

Please stop. Please. I find it hard to believe that someone can be this unaware of where they stand in a community. It has been said over and over again to you. What you are on this forum is the equivalent of a lawyer who saw a few episodes of ER telling a surgeon the best way to do a procedure.

It appears you come to the forum just so you can tell yourself that you can hold your own in a conversation with a professional pilot. The few times you say something that is right, it is nothing groundbreaking or remarkable. You merely parroting common concepts taught at every FAASteam event. Those concepts might seem novel to you, but to us, they are aviation safety at is most superficial level.

You have a lot of time in "that jet?"

I know a lot of corporate pilots that only get in the air once a month, maybe twice...no more than the "weekend warrior." This isn't an area you've ever worked, or something you've ever done so you wouldn't know, would you? You make some broad brush assumptions, in the absence of fact. You have no idea what the cause was, let alone that it was the pilot, or that he or his family paid a price for him being a "weekend warrior," or for that matter, that it was a "lot of airplane" for him.

You have no idea if he was a "weekend warrior." He held a pilot certificate. His was at the private level. You hold a pilot certificate. Yours is at the commercial level. Nearly every one else here holds a pilot certificate. The overwhelming majority of us are at the ATP level...still just a pilot certificate. Some of us fly a thousand hours a year, some a hundred, some less. Your condescending attitude is sorrowful at best and nonproductive. Know: don't guess. Thus far, your commentary is clearly in ignorance and strictly guesswork. It's not appropriate in aviation.

Why would his aircraft be registered through a limited liability corporation? For liability purposes. Did you not think that through? Also for tax purposes. I suspect you understand how that works.

Pilot engages in noncommercial business flights with his family, and you're trying to backseat lawyer his operation based on your complete lack of knowledge of his arrangement, decision making, or circumstance, and you're doing it in a thread about an aircraft mishap? Focus.

When you're done rolling your eyes, can you explain the difference between a private pilot certificate and a commercial? A couple of maneuvers on a practical test. A few hours difference, meaningless if the private pilot has the necessary experience to apply for a commercial. For all you know, the private pilot in this case may have had the experience necessary to apply for an ATP certificate.

We've established that the most recent certificate issue was 2015; do you know why it was issued in 2015? When he added the type? When he applied for a replacement? When he added his helicopter? His instrument rating? His multi rating? We don't know.

He performed to ATP standards for a type rating, which is required regardless of one's level of certification.

Based on your experience with the "jet," or based on your experience in your Cessna 182?

Single pilot IFR is one of the greatest challenges a pilot can face; it's certainly among the most demanding of any flying, regardless of the aircraft type. It's simplified somewhat with a "jet," largely because more options are available, better equipment is available, and greater performance is available. The Citation is one of the few "jets" that are certificated for single pilot operations and for which pilots may be rated for single pilot operation. This is not by accident, nor a rush designation.

Given the lack of information presently available, it may be premature to begin demonizing the pilot when we have no idea what happened during the flight. We only know that the aircraft disappeared and has incurred a mishap. What took place in the interim is unknown. There may be a reason why there's an investigative process, and why the NTSB doesn't simply call CardioMD to provide the answer based on his internet "research."

Rather than judge what we do not know (his skills except as reported by the press !HAH!), why not take a moment to wish his loved ones well.

THEN, after that, we, as pilots, can discuss what might have happened without assuming he was a dumb guy who bought a turbine doctor killer. Because if that was all it was, there is nothing to learn and nothing to discuss.... unless you are trying to prove your hooha is bigger.


Single pilot, IFR, in ice is dicey. Been there, done that, refused many. Crashes in that environment remind me if faced with it, take a moment, think, and decide ... do I really want to take the risk.

I took many a student to BKL just to show them the reality of the black hole effect. A night-time turn to the north can be frightening to the unfamiliar and local pilot alike under the right conditions. The possibility for SD is real regardless of hours or training. Condolences to the friends and family of those poor folks.

Very well said!!

Have they even found the plane yet? The media has already lost interest.

CLEVELAND - According to Thursday's update from the city of Cleveland, the search continues for the plane missing in Lake Erie last Thursday.

Additional debris has been retrieved along the shoreline east of Burke Lakefront Airport, according to the update. That debris has not yet been confirmed as relevant to this investigation.

Shoreline searches will continue as long as daylight allows.

The Cleveland Division of Police is working with the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board on this active investigation. A vessel was deployed in the Cleveland harbor Wednesday afternoon with a National Transportation Safety Board technician and their equipment, the underwater locator beacon. Due to the weather conditions Wednesday, the equipment did not receive any transmissions from the aircraft

According to the city's update, this underwater locator beacon was deployed to the search grid again today (Thursday) “The NTSB is here to provide whatever assistance we can for search and recovery," said Tim Sorensen, Aviation Accident Investigator from the NTSB. “Our main goal is investigating the circumstances and cause of the accident. The equipment is designed to assist in locating the Cockpit Voice Recorder, which would aid us in this investigation.”

The photo above shows the light green area that was searched on Day 1, Sunday, Jan. 1. The dark green area was searched on the 2nd day, Monday, Jan. 2nd. The blue area was searched on day 3, Tuesday, Jan. 3rd and is also where the vessel headed to today.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) “Muskie” has arrived in Cleveland to assist with search and recovery efforts. Crews from the Cleveland Division of Fire and the NTSB were deployed with USGS crews onboard.

Also, on board the Muskie is a sector drop sonar, a diver and the NTSB equipment.

The underwater locator beacon detector will be deployed in search of a transmission from the Cockpit Voice Recorder.

The United States Coast Guard also has a 25-foot vessel on standby to assist, and the Cleveland Metroparks Zodiac that had been deployed earlier is now out of the water, as of Thursday afternoon.

The Army Corps of Engineers is on standby to deploy a tug if needed.

According to the update, water conditions Thursday are westward winds at 15-25 knots; waves between 4-6 feet, subsiding later to 1-3 feet; with freezing spray and snow showers. The United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 75-foot research vessel, the “Muskie” is on its way from Huron to Cleveland. This vessel is equipped to handle rougher seas and can move at speeds slow enough to use the NTSB’s equipment in today’s water conditions, according to the news release.

City officials said the Muskie will be deployed from the United States Coast Guard station, where it will dock while in Cleveland. It will head to the grid search area with the NTSB technician and equipment, a diver and sonar equipment.

The city also noted that the United States Coast Guard has a 25-foot vessel on standby to assist and the Cleveland Metroparks have deployed the Zodiac to assist with shoreline debris collection. Other partner agencies are on standby to assist as needed and as weather conditions allow.

As they did on Wednesday, foot patrols consisting of Cleveland Divisions of Police and Fire, Cleveland Metroparks Rangers and volunteers from the Red Cross and mounted units from Cleveland Division of Police and the Metroparks’ rangers will search the shoreline east of Burke Lakefront Airport from E. 72nd Street to East 185th Street, according to the update.

They will dispatch units to respond to other areas if debris is reported. As weather conditions permit, the Cleveland Division of Police helicopter will search the shoreline by air.

Wednesday's update: