It finally happened.

NovemberEcho said:
So not only did Houston ATC notice the Hawker rolling even before ASDE-X alerted them to, they told the Hawker to abort twice. The Hawker not only rolled without a clearance, not respond to the takeoff abort commands, they were trying to troubleshoot a rudder bias and pitch trim issue while on the takeoff roll.

Click to expand...


Corpies gonna corp.


This one has vibes of the Katz G4 accident.
 
Wardogg said:
Or Delta 1141 vibes.

Or Comair 5191 vibes.

Just stop.
Click to expand...

Those aren’t the same category. Comair was 2 guys who made a mistake of confusing the T/O runway. Delta missed flaps. And difference is, since then, the 121 industry learned and tried to stop further ones. Industry wide, we have procedures to verify departure runway once we get to the end of the runway at 121. And several challenge responses for flaps.


After Katz G4, I’m shocked any Corpie would be rolling down the runway with any rudder or pitch trim lights on. And to ignore ATC, takeoff without clearance, AND then give ATC an attitude after T/O about almost hitting someone?

That’s beyond messed up. It is sheer luck they’re alive. 12-24 more inches, and they would have been dead.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Those aren’t the same category. Comair was 2 guys who made a mistake of confusing the T/O runway. Delta missed flaps. And difference is, since then, the 121 industry learned and tried to stop further ones. Industry wide, we have procedures to verify departure runway once we get to the end of the runway at 121. And several challenge responses for flaps.


After Katz G4, I’m shocked any Corpie would be rolling down the runway with any rudder or pitch trim lights on. And to ignore ATC, takeoff without clearance, AND then give ATC an attitude after T/O about almost hitting someone?

That’s beyond messed up. It is sheer luck they’re alive. 12-24 more inches, and they would have been dead.
Click to expand...
“Just 410 it.” Idiots fly for every type of operation. Even if there is a larger percentage in 91/135, through sheer numbers I’d argue there are more idiots flying 121.
 
Wardogg said:
Or Delta 1141 vibes.

Or Comair 5191 vibes.

Just stop.
Click to expand...

Wardogg said:
They just hide it better.

When I was at a certain regionsl I heard stories of a 145 that took off single engine.
Click to expand...

I really dislike how all corprate aviation gets lumped into one barrel when there are some rock solid operators that are much safer than any 121 operators and then there are some fly-by-night operators that have zero oversight or protections put in place. They are just out here "sending it"...and we are all lumped into the same barrel.
 
KLB said:
I really dislike how all corprate aviation gets lumped into one barrel when there are some rock solid operators that are much safer than any 121 operators and then there are some fly-by-night operators that have zero oversight or protections put in place. They are just out here "sending it"...and we are all lumped into the same barrel.
Click to expand...
Well said. Thank you.
 
KLB said:
I really dislike how all corprate aviation gets lumped into one barrel when there are some rock solid operators that are much safer than any 121 operators and then there are some fly-by-night operators that have zero oversight or protections put in place. They are just out here "sending it"...and we are all lumped into the same barrel.
Click to expand...

How do you quantify that statement?
 
GypsyPilot said:
How do you quantify that statement?
Click to expand...

Well the challenge of quantifying it isy whole argument. There are operators who's SMS program and risk assessment is more stringent than the most strictest 121 carrier. Restricted to the point that they have extremely high ceilings requirements for takeoff and landings, min runway lengths for landing that far far less restructive than any GOM or Op Spec would require. They have far more training requirements than just the min given to the facility. They have SOP and checklist that are followed to the "T" All these things lead to a safer operator. Operators like this don't get any recognition. The only operators that get recognition are the unsafe ones.
 
KLB said:
Well the challenge of quantifying it isy whole argument. There are operators who's SMS program and risk assessment is more stringent than the most strictest 121 carrier. Restricted to the point that they have extremely high ceilings requirements for takeoff and landings, min runway lengths for landing that far far less restructive than any GOM or Op Spec would require. They have far more training requirements than just the min given to the facility. They have SOP and checklist that are followed to the "T" All these things lead to a safer operator. Operators like this don't get any recognition. The only operators that get recognition are the unsafe ones.
Click to expand...

That sounds good in theory, but there are also several potential holes in this logic.

For example, when I used to fly ASE for SkyWest I’m sure we were a considerably riskier operation on your SMS program.

However, because of in house expertise, training, and consistent operations it was a low risk operation compared to the 91 operators that flew in there (on an approach with MUCH higher minimums as well). Just having “higher minimums” in no way equals a higher margin of safety.

Is your SMS program and/or SOPs backed up with an anonymous FOQA program? Do you have a dedicated team monitoring a rich stream of FOQA data that can integrate the results into a CQ program?

Can you put the brakes on your operation if you’re tired/fatigued knowing there will be ZERO consequences to your actions since there is another pilot widget that can be pulled in to do your flight?

You might be the unicorn part 91 department that somehow exceeds all of the above, but that would certainly be a rare occurrence.
 
pwttogfk said:
To quote a Textron MSU guy who’d just gotten trained on the Hawkers, “every f’n box is under the copilot seat.”
Click to expand...
That's not true, what is true is all of the TKS is under the pilots seat.
Why not heated wings?
"We want to make it more complicated."
But we can use bleed air, as long as the engines are running why not use that?
"Drilling millions of holes in leading edges is British and that's what we'll do."
Have you seen a Learjet?
"Yes, we were almost out of work as engineers and decided that was way too efficient, it needs to be more complicated if it's a Hawker!".
And here we are in 2023. I respect them but I refuse to work on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top