Dassault Falcon 50 crash in Greenville SC

Messages
362
Location
Greenville SC
Thread starter
Is anyone following this? 27-September 2 pilots dead, 2 passengers seriously injured. Local television said tonight that: Pilot's certification only as SIC; earlier reports were that he had over 10,000 hours Right seat "person" only had a private SEL license, not even IFR. Said to have over 5,000 hours. Those hours without IFR rating is puzzling. Runway was marginal length (5393 ft per AirNav) for the aircraft. I wonder how much faith to put in the media?
 

Astro14

Staff member
Messages
11,326
Location
Virginia Beach
You can expect the first report in the media to have about 50% accuracy. Reporters have told us that the "Flux Capacitor" failed, or that the pilot's names were "Sum Ting Wong,' 'Wi Tu Lo,' 'Ho Lee Fuk,' and 'Bang Ding Ow". Having met a reporter recently, she was aghast at the idea that she KNOW anything about the news...it's just her job to "report" it...meaning read the copy placed in front of her.
 
Messages
28,129
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
I'd agree with Astro. You get it anything even slightly technical, particularly from a mechanical, technological, scientific/mathematical, or legal perspective, and the journalists are hopelessly lost. You read them off one of Mr. Scott's Star Trek technobabble speeches about why the Enterprise can't move, they'll reprint it verbatim as fact.
 
Messages
6,000
Location
KY
Originally Posted by Garak
I'd agree with Astro. You get it anything even slightly technical, particularly from a mechanical, technological, scientific/mathematical, or legal perspective, and the journalists are hopelessly lost. You read them off one of Mr. Scott's Star Trek technobabble speeches about why the Enterprise can't move, they'll reprint it verbatim as fact.
I can personally confirm the average reporter's lack of legal knowledge- and their overriding mantra is: " Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
 
Messages
28,129
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Some of the things I see printed on local news just makes me shake my head. OT, but there was a time when a crime reporter had to attend court every day and pay attention to the docket and sit in docket court here.
 
Messages
3,463
Location
Coastal South Carolina
Originally Posted by George Bynum
Is anyone following this? 27-September 2 pilots dead, 2 passengers seriously injured. Local television said tonight that: Pilot's certification only as SIC; earlier reports were that he had over 10,000 hours Right seat "person" only had a private SEL license, not even IFR. Said to have over 5,000 hours. Those hours without IFR rating is puzzling. Runway was marginal length (5393 ft per AirNav) for the aircraft. I wonder how much faith to put in the media?
people dont know what sic and sel are or how close marginal was
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,796
Location
Jupiter, Florida
For those who don't know, the Falcon 50 is a very nice airplane to fly. It has effective leading edge devices, and a single (center engine only) "thrust reverser" . It also has a variable flight control "feel" system known as "Arthur Q" This leads to an airplane that is pleasingly responsive at both high and low speeds, so it's both fun and easy to maneuver. It's approach speeds are reasonable (low) due to the effective leading edge devices and good flaps. I'm not here to claim the Falcon 50 is easy to operate, as it's a complex jet. But it is easier to manage on takeoff and landing, due to very reasonable and comfortable speeds and handling, than nearly all of it's competition due to the above mentioned systems. There have been center engine TR failures, where the TR "buckets" failed to deploy and the engine spools up, leading to the center engine pushing the plane off the end of the runway. I don't have any idea if that happened here. Despite the center engine only TR, the Falcon 50 can get into and out of short runways that other jets can't.
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,302
Location
OH
So, neither of these guys were legally or practically qualified to operate the aircraft, much less type-rated in it? This begs the question of how this duo got their hands on this aircraft to begin with. This wasn't exactly grandma's Apache after all. Would love to hear the laughter when the owners try to submit the insurance claim.
 
Messages
2,130
Location
CA
Not trying to derail this thread, but it's unusual for two planes to crash, from the same airport (Brackett Field), about 100 yards from each other, in two days. https://abc7.com/plane-crashes-near-brackett-field-airport-in-la-verne;-1-killed/4384834/ https://www.sgvtribune.com/2018/10/...ne-crash-second-fatal-crash-in-two-days/ Sunday before 6p: Cessna 177RG, practicing approaches, engine problem Monday 11:50a: Bonanza V35, during approach, possibly clipped a tree
 

Win

Messages
4,701
Location
Arkansas
Quote
..... This begs the question of how this duo got their hands on this aircraft to begin with. This wasn't exactly grandma's Apache after all. .......
"FAA records show that the plane is owned by Global Aircraft Acquisitions LLC of Delaware." Wild guess is they were leasing it and running a charter company with it. There may ( or may not ) be multiple layers of insurance with different conditions of coverage. If a lease or mortgage, it's hard to believe a lease company or note holder would accept hull insurance that had any coverage restrictions that might prevent payout on a hull loss. Insurance covering the pilots, passengers, airport damage, etc., might be a problem. Some people are scrupulous about things. Some people aren't. I've known quite a few people over the years that I suspect would not consider certs to be a deal breaker to fly something if they felt otherwise competent to fly it. That's why I suspect basic hull coverage would not be highly conditioned. But that's just a guess, no experience in this industry ....
Quote
....There have been center engine TR failures, where the TR "buckets" failed to deploy and the engine spools up, leading to the center engine pushing the plane off the end of the runway. I don't have any idea if that happened here.
..... "Frasher said one of the pilots was unconscious, lying on the throttle after the jet crashed. He said a window had to be broken to throttle back the jet." .....
 
Messages
9,796
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted by Win
[quote] I've known quite a few people over the years that I suspect would not consider certs to be a deal breaker to fly something if they felt otherwise competent to fly it.
I've seen that too. Interestingly, that's exactly when problems occur. I avoid such people. Not because I'm "anti freedom" or some such nonsense, but because there is a direct relationship between those types of risk takers and trouble.[/quote]
 
Messages
17,302
Location
OH
I dunno. I kind of doubt that there'd be any hull loss coverage in the event of the aircraft being leased to some guys who claimed they could fly it even though they didn't posses the required certs. Aircraft do overrun runways from time to time, even airliners operated by fully qualified crews working for well known first world airlines. Still, leasing an aircraft to be operated by a crew not legally qualified to operate it and then expecting hull loss compensation is going to be a hard sell. I really doubt that any layer of whatever coverage the leasing company may have has anything in their contract of coverage saying "Sure, just flip the keys to anyone who claims to be a jet jock and we're okay with it. You're covered." You can't even rent a few hours in a C172 that's had the wings flown off of it as a trainer for the past decade or two without showing your license, ratings and log book and may even be required to take some dual with an instructor as a check ride. No FBO wants to see any pilot wreck their airplane and kill themselves in the process. I'd expect that the requirements to lease a high zoot bizjet would be a little more stringent, with maybe some sim time required for the prospective pilots and this process will be at least partly ruled by the insurers.
 
Messages
2,028
Location
Sequim, WA
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Cujet
Good god, there is a video of it at the overrun. It was really moving (before the very sudden stop) and it sure looked like the gear was up. https://www.greenvilleonline.com/vi...-greenville-downtown-airport/1502776002/
That's a frightening video...it's got to be doing 80 knots as it leaves the runway. As if the spoilers and reversers weren't used on landing...
There's a flash at the rear of the plane about a quarter to a third of the way in. Just the sun flashing off the horizontal stabilizer or maybe and engine problem? Ed
 
Messages
2,296
Location
Ontario Canada
The flash looks like the port wing scraping the runway. It's hard to tell if the gear is down or not. I would expect more sparks if it weren't though. Thanks for the link Cu.
 

Astro14

Staff member
Messages
11,326
Location
Virginia Beach
When airliners (or any other high performance jet) run off the end of the runway, it's generally one of two things: landing long or spoilers didn't deploy. Hydroplaning or icy runway can be a cause of runway excursions, but far less than folks think and anyway, clearly not the case here. Greenville is 7,000' long. If you're used to flying a GA airplane (and it sounds like the pilots of this Falcon were primarily GA experienced) then that's several times the landing distance of a GA airplane. Super long runway. Or so you get used to thinking. But for an airplane like this one, it's quite short. You have to get the airplane down, on the runway, weight on wheels/strut switch activated, so that the spoilers deploy and take the airplane's weight off the wings, only then do the brakes become effective. Reversers are an aid, but it's the brakes that stop the airplane. And they have to be in firm contact with the pavement. You learn to fly on little airplanes, and then look at this "long" runway and think you've got room - but you don't. Very easy to make a critical mistake - float the landing (so the struts don't compress), land long, carry too much speed, or bounce the landing, and you're in deep trouble because effective braking doesn't begin until the landing gear are compressed and spoilers deploy. I should add that a stabilized approach (on glideslope, on centerline, proper airspeed, proper sinkrate, proper configuration) helps with a good, on target, landing. It's a focus area for my industry, my company, and the FAA. Unstabilized approaches have been a factor in the preponderance of runway excursions - too fast, too high, etc. on approach, and you touchdown too long, especially if you're trying to "grease" it on... From the speed with which the airplane left the runway - it either touched down way past the "touchdown zone*" or the spoilers weren't armed/deployed. It had far too much speed at the end. The gear were down, the optical illusion of the camera angle makes it look like the airplane is too close to the ground, but that's because the camera is looking up at a hilltop. I used to land the 757 and the A-320 in Orange County/John Wayne all the time. 5,700' You HAD to be on the ground in the first thousand feet or you were at risk of not stopping. We did it all the time, but we knew exactly what we were up against. I used to fly out of LGA nearly every flight, in the 757 and A-320, only 7,000 with highways at one end and water at the other. Same deal: on the ground in the first 1,500' or we go around. Period. We had a rigorous touchdown zone defined and we put the airplane in that zone. Never a problem stopping in either place, including when it was wet and/or snowy in LGA, because the airplane was landed properly, in the proper place on the runway. That made stopping uneventful. I am always happy when things are uneventful in my line of work. * which we define as the first 1/3 of the runway or first 3,000 feet, whichever is shorter. But none of us would use 1,900 feet (the first 1/3) in SNA...that's too far down...
 

Astro14

Staff member
Messages
11,326
Location
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
The latest reports say that it ran off the side of the runway before overshooting it. Not simply a matter of distance, but also one of direction as well.
Hm... Any mention of the winds at the time?
 
Top