B-Jet crash in San Diego

I’m not going to speculate on this one, but in general I think the requirements to operate single pilot jets need to be higher. I think it’s reasonable to require both a simulator 61.58 and several hours of in-airplane SOE. From my time doing SOE with owner-pilots and “professional”
pilots, I have stories…
 
What I hear is insurance company's drive much of corporate pilot requirements and training. I've also heard it's pretty easy to get an SIC type in a small jet without going to a sim but insurance companies don't recognize this. Perhaps insurance costs of single pilot ops will push towards more operations with someone in the right seat. A low time instrument rated pilot in the right seat to work the radios, ect, could be a big help and prevent some of this stuff. You'd have no shortage of guys willing to supplement their CFI pay to help out in the right seat of the light jet. Or maybe even retired airline pilots...
 
Richman said:
+1 on LPV installs on retrofit. Every brand, every install is different.

On my old bird, it was as straightforward as I’ve seen, but you still needed to know the buttonology of the GPS and the AP, and the weird workaround for straight in approaches (there was a VTF mode, but it dumped all the waypoints but the FAF and inside).
Click to expand...

Don’t have much/any experience with an FMS that used similar logic but in terms of Garmins and pretty much every other GA/light jet GPS system I’ve seen, that is standard behavior to expect when activating VTF. I as well don’t really understand why but at the very least that specific quirk is relatively ubiquitous.

In my experience, where things get really hairy is sequencing a second approach after going missed. More of a training scenario than something that comes up often but that’s where I’ve seen all sorts of different behavior in terms of avionics, especially in regards to already being in a hold and not knowing if loading the next approach or even the same one again is going to blow up your hold guidance or not.
 
DE727UPS said:
What I hear is insurance company's drive much of corporate pilot requirements and training. I've also heard it's pretty easy to get an SIC type in a small jet without going to a sim but insurance companies don't recognize this. Perhaps insurance costs of single pilot ops will push towards more operations with someone in the right seat. A low time instrument rated pilot in the right seat to work the radios, ect, could be a big help and prevent some of this stuff. You'd have no shortage of guys willing to supplement their CFI pay to help out in the right seat of the light jet. Or maybe even retired airline pilots...
Click to expand...
If only the type person to buy a nearly run-out Citation would typically carry insurance…
 
Interesting video that shows the FAA radar with datablocks. Not sure how this guy got access to FAA radar data but it looks legit to me. Altitude data shows he was almost 200 feet low at a stepdown and way below LNAV or LOC MDA inside the stepdown fix. From the datablock data is looks like a dive and drive LOC rather than an ILS (which would have been illegal). The LPV would have been legal if he could keep his approach speed under 120 knots (I'm pretty sure you could in a lightweight Citation) but the datablocks make it look like a dive and drive. Anyone have an idea why the LPV doesn't have the same restriction the ILS does with respect an inoperative ALS? Lastly, the approach charts show an obstacle at 554 right on the centerline. I think that drove the need for a stepdown at PALOS. The lowest altitude readout in the video is 500. He's down in the weeds.
 
DE727UPS said:
Interesting video that shows the FAA radar with datablocks. Not sure how this guy got access to FAA radar data but it looks legit to me. Altitude data shows he was almost 200 feet low at a stepdown and way below LNAV or LOC MDA inside the stepdown fix. From the datablock data is looks like a dive and drive LOC rather than an ILS (which would have been illegal). The LPV would have been legal if he could keep his approach speed under 120 knots (I'm pretty sure you could in a lightweight Citation) but the datablocks make it look like a dive and drive. Anyone have an idea why the LPV doesn't have the same restriction the ILS does with respect an inoperative ALS? Lastly, the approach charts show an obstacle at 554 right on the centerline. I think that drove the need for a stepdown at PALOS. The lowest altitude readout in the video is 500. He's down in the weeds.
Click to expand...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D2Ud048w_Y
 
DE727UPS said:
Interesting video that shows the FAA radar with datablocks. Not sure how this guy got access to FAA radar data but it looks legit to me. Altitude data shows he was almost 200 feet low at a stepdown and way below LNAV or LOC MDA inside the stepdown fix. From the datablock data is looks like a dive and drive LOC rather than an ILS (which would have been illegal). The LPV would have been legal if he could keep his approach speed under 120 knots (I'm pretty sure you could in a lightweight Citation) but the datablocks make it look like a dive and drive. Anyone have an idea why the LPV doesn't have the same restriction the ILS does with respect an inoperative ALS? Lastly, the approach charts show an obstacle at 554 right on the centerline. I think that drove the need for a stepdown at PALOS. The lowest altitude readout in the video is 500. He's down in the weeds.
Click to expand...
These kind of details like, Cat B or C, or if they even had the visibility required by the approach are things where I think a second, qualified, pilot could really be of assistance. I think it is harder to break the rules or "fudge a little" when someone else is sitting right beside you. Especially when you're fatigued!
 
DE727UPS said:
What I hear is insurance company's drive much of corporate pilot requirements and training. I've also heard it's pretty easy to get an SIC type in a small jet without going to a sim but insurance companies don't recognize this. Perhaps insurance costs of single pilot ops will push towards more operations with someone in the right seat. A low time instrument rated pilot in the right seat to work the radios, ect, could be a big help and prevent some of this stuff. You'd have no shortage of guys willing to supplement their CFI pay to help out in the right seat of the light jet. Or maybe even retired airline pilots...
Click to expand...
My impression of Textron FSI training is that it was largely performative in nature.
 
Kingairer said:
These kind of details like, Cat B or C, or if they even had the visibility required by the approach are things where I think a second, qualified, pilot could really be of assistance. I think it is harder to break the rules or "fudge a little" when someone else is sitting right beside you. Especially when you're fatigued!
Click to expand...

Second pilot is a nice to have, though not necessarily a need to have. For these Citations, one has to be signed off for single pilot ops and presumably has to demonstrate ability to perform as such. Now, as a customer, how hard core that performance eval is made, who knows. If someone doesn’t fly a lot of this and have some good currency, second pilot becomes even more helpful

Single pilot IFR was not exceptionally difficult, but it did require one to be on their toes in the alert, oriented, ahead of things, and have high SA departments. Whether it was some hard IFE in night cargo or single pilot tactical jets, for my experiences. Sometimes I think the higher workload of it was what kept me alert.

Could be that there was some fudging, could be there was fatigue, could be just behind the aircraft in general, or any combo of the above or even potentially something else also.
 
pwttogfk said:
I’m not going to speculate on this one, but in general I think the requirements to operate single pilot jets need to be higher. I think it’s reasonable to require both a simulator 61.58 and several hours of in-airplane SOE. From my time doing SOE with owner-pilots and “professional”
pilots, I have stories…
Click to expand...

That'll never happen. Might as well ask for even higher Medical standards for PIC turbine.

Although I agree that a SP Jet needs to have higher skills, SA, and discipline, a higher SP standard is usually cooked in with the TCE or DE writing the ticket.

This is about fatigue. Which boils down to judgement.

We can post all day about avionics, design philosophies, and approaches but everyone eventually gets tired.

The FAA has no desire to mandate new standards.

The insurance companies however....
 
Kingairer said:
These kind of details like, Cat B or C, or if they even had the visibility required by the approach are things where I think a second, qualified, pilot could really be of assistance. I think it is harder to break the rules or "fudge a little" when someone else is sitting right beside you. Especially when you're fatigued!
Click to expand...

There's no visibility requirements to begin an approach Part 91, and the temptation to take a little peek is strong, especially when you're tired and just want to get home.

I posted that little story up there because this accident is the closest I've seen to a "that coulda been me".l, and we were two trained, checked, experienced and competent pilots who very nearly got ourselves into the same situation because we just wanted to get home.

Your point is well taken that if either of us had been flying alone we might not have had that "what the hell are we doing?!" moment.

Fix
 
Last edited:
I certainly don’t mind this allowance for 91, as Wx could be legitimately variable enough, depending on what kind it is down at DA/MDA, that by pure timing, you could break out and legitimately land. Nice to have that ability. It also, at least for me, has kept me more easily expectant of executing the missed, because that’s what I’m expecting to have to do. If I happen to break out and can land, that’s just a plus.
 
Fixtur said:
There's no visibility requirements to begin an approach Part 91, and the temptation to take a little peek is strong, especially when you're tired and just want to get home.

I posted that little story up there because this accident is the closest I've seen to a "that coulda been me".l, and we were two trained, checked, experienced and competent pilots who very nearly got ourselves into the same situation because we just wanted to get home.

Your point is well taken that if either of us had been flying alone we might not have had that "what the hell are we doing?!" moment.

Fix
Click to expand...
There exists out there a picture my FO took during a long night in the Lear that is the pictorial definition of “don’t let me wake up and catch you sleeping!”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top