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?

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.

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."

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.

people dont know what sic and sel are or how close marginal was

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.

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.

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

"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 ....



..... "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." .....

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.

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.

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