NASCAR driver and family in plane crash

milleR said:
The single pilot exemption is a logbook endorsement
Click to expand...

I think I’ve seen the “requires SIC” on a cert. if you have the exemption in your logbook are you compelled to update your cert?

They were also flying to Bahamas which I think would have required a typed SIC. Of course, the Caribbean isn’t known for compliance.
 
SIC required is imposed when you get your type as a crew, on a single-pilot airplane. My Phenom 300 type has the same limitation, as it was done at NetJets, where everyone trains as a crew. If you get a single pilot type, there is no limitation. That being said, a 61.55 is just a logbook entry. Anyone can literally get one, and that is for an aircraft that requires one. I believe any rated pilot can sit in the right seat of a Citation without that endorsement if the aircraft is certificated for single pilot. The SIC required is a pilot certification requirement, not an aircraft certification requirement.
 
Inverted said:
SIC required is imposed when you get your type as a crew, on a single-pilot airplane. My Phenom 300 type has the same limitation, as it was done at NetJets, where everyone trains as a crew. If you get a single pilot type, there is no limitation. That being said, a 61.55 is just a logbook entry. Anyone can literally get one, and that is for an aircraft that requires one. Any rated pilot can sit in the right seat of a Citation without that endorsement if the aircraft is certificated for single pilot. The SIC required is a pilot certification requirement, not an aircraft certification requirement.
Click to expand...

I was aware that SIC didn’t need to be typed, thought it might add something to the conversation. I can imagine the task saturation trying to get back to airport in the soup.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I think I’ve seen the “requires SIC” on a cert. if you have the exemption in your logbook are you compelled to update your cert?

They were also flying to Bahamas which I think would have required a typed SIC. Of course, the Caribbean isn’t known for compliance.
Click to expand...
If you did your initial type rating in any 500 series other than a I/SP or II/SP you would have the SIC Required on your cert because those are the only two that are FAA certified for single pilot ops. Even without that limitation, you would need a SIC to operate any other 500 series as PIC because the rest were certified for two crew.

Unless you get the Single Pilot Exemption endorsement which is specific to each airframe, it doesn't blanket the entire series. You need an individual endorsement for each model and it's only good for 12 months, though SPE recurrent satisfies the requirements of 61.58

I think
 
Wardogg said:
Only thing that makes sense. Why dive under the clouds and scud run trying to get back to the field? They were in a hurry. Big time.
Click to expand...
Not as experienced as the rest here but I can't think of anything else that would make me behave/react like that.
 
milleR said:
If you did your initial type rating in any 500 series other than a I/SP or II/SP you would have the SIC Required on your cert because those are the only two that are FAA certified for single pilot ops. Even without that limitation, you would need a SIC to operate any other 500 series as PIC because the rest were certified for two crew.

Unless you get the Single Pilot Exemption endorsement which is specific to each airframe, it doesn't blanket the entire series. You need an individual endorsement for each model and it's only good for 12 months, though SPE recurrent satisfies the requirements of 61.58

I think
Click to expand...

That’s what I was saying above in my post. This jet was a II, not a II/SP, assuming not having any Exemption endorsement. My CE-500 was done in a II/SP, and shows as just that: CE-500. No “SIC required”, as the check was done as a single pilot.
 
MikeD said:
That’s what I was saying above in my post. This jet was a II, not a II/SP, assuming not having any Exemption endorsement. My CE-500 was done in a II/SP, and shows as just that: CE-500. No “SIC required”, as the check was done as a single pilot.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I guess we were talking past each other. You are correct, the II is not certified for single pilot ops, however it may be operated single pilot if the PIC has the SPE endorsement and is current in the airframe regardless of a "SIC Required" limitation on their type rating.
 
milleR said:
Fair enough, I guess we were talking past each other. You are correct, the II is not certified for single pilot ops, however it may be operated single pilot if the PIC has the SPE endorsement and is current in the airframe regardless of a "SIC Required" limitation on their type rating.
Click to expand...

Your explanation and clarification was much better detailed than mine was. I shouldve said “that’s what I was trying to say above”.
 
The NTSB said the airplane had a CVR and it's being sent to Washington for analysis, hopefully it was working. It did not have a FDR, but neither would've been required for the flight regardless.
 
Wardogg said:
Not only that but he was lined up with the runway and hit the fence coming into the field.
Click to expand...

Possible he was trying to get quickly down into VMC underneath that 400 ft overcast, find the airport in the 2.5 mile viz and maneuver for a final to a quick landing. Not sure if both engines were running or not, or why the descent into the perimeter fence was either from an early initiated descent, or a descent that that wasn’t planned or able to be controlled.
 
MikeD said:
Possible he was trying to get quickly down into VMC underneath that 400 ft overcast, find the airport in the 2.5 mile viz and maneuver for a final to a quick landing. Not sure if both engines were running or not, or why the descent into the perimeter fence was either from an early initiated descent, or a descent that that wasn’t planned or able to be controlled.
Click to expand...
I’m hearing conflicting things, like much higher ceilings even technically VFR
 
Kingairer said:
I’m hearing conflicting things, like much higher ceilings even technically VFR
Click to expand...

I was just going by that posted hourly, as well as the ground fog that can be seen in the background of photos. But who knows how far that extended horizontally or vertically, and how far out from the field?
 
Airborne for 10 min…text recvd from passenger “emergency landing”. Still don’t know who was in left seat. Gear down. Came in low. Recovered some avionics. 30 days til prelim. Runway sits up on a hill and aircraft was significantly lower. 1200 BK, 5mi Vis.

Summary of NTSB statement.
 
Kingairer said:
Airborne for 10 min…text recvd from passenger “emergency landing”. Still don’t know who was in left seat. Gear down. Came in low. Recovered some avionics. 30 days til prelim. Runway sits up on a hill and aircraft was significantly lower. 1200 BK, 5mi Vis.

Summary of NTSB statement.
Click to expand...

Haven’t been real impressed with the NTSB as of late. Greg’s wife sent a text to her mom saying “we’re in trouble” but they are saying “emergency landing” kinda reminds me how they said the UPS flight was 600 feet in the air without explaining that was MSL when it clearly wasn’t that high.
 
T/O w/FSII said:
Haven’t been real impressed with the NTSB as of late. Greg’s wife sent a text to her mom saying “we’re in trouble” but they are saying “emergency landing” kinda reminds me how they said the UPS flight was 600 feet in the air without explaining that was MSL when it clearly wasn’t that high.
Click to expand...
Maybe there was more than one text sent, the NTSB didn't identify either the sender or recipient of the text, they said they'd verified that text was sent. Their job is not to validate the media, their job is to look at the evidence, follow any leads and they're not going to discuss anything that they don't have evidence to back up. As far as the UPS thing I think that folks (apparently including you) assume ADSB data is concrete evidence calibrated in AGL and if it bleeds it leads so that's what gets reported by the media and you think that's what the NTSB said. Not giving you homework but I'd like to see anything from the NTSB that stated the UPS flight reached 600' AGL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top