Challenger 300 Turbulence Death - Prelim Released

[Inverted]

Yes. But only corporate pilots seem to screw the pooch in Cherokee_Cruiser's in the eyes in front of his narrowed mind.

I not even defending the actions of these guys. I have 1,000's of hours in the plane and have gotten training at just about every training facility on the western hemisphere. The training for the Challenger is very good everywhere. The Challenger is also a very simple and forgiving airplane. You just have to listen to what it's telling you.

There are simple mistakes, then there is a comedy of errors...

Take the BED Gulfstream accident for example. There are several like that where you can look at multiple errors that end up being fatal eventually. Does it happen in 121? Yep it does. Is it significantly more rare when you compare incidents and accidents per flight hour? YOU BET.

How many private jet accidents have killed people this year alone? How many part 121 fatal accidents have we had this year? We know the answer...

 

[CFI A&P]

It’s not “so dangerous.” It’s still a hell of a lot safer than driving (which is incredibly dangerous). But most of all, it’s about convenience and efficiency. Warren Buffett can’t spend hours hanging around airports for security, delayed flights, connections, etc. His time is literally worth hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.

Because in absolute terms the risk is still fairly low, and they don’t care about it. For them the convenience of no TSA, no other pax, schedule on their terms, and the ability to flex their wealth for other rich douchebags offsets it.

I'm all for avoiding people, so I can't fault them for that. Warren's Airline has a high safety record because of standardization - something that many 91 operations lack entirely and too many 135 operators are loose with. CC says he'll never fly on 91/135 because it is too dangerous - but yet somehow Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Musk, and other do it without hesitation. Of course the risk is at an acceptable low, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Running through a field of rattlesnakes in Texas in an unacceptable risk - so I won't do it.

Yup.

Last year at my virtual airline (not real), I flew my first celebrity in years. A Kardashian, her kids, nanny, and the spouse Travis Barker. Why? Kardashians always fly private jets. ALWAYS.

But Barker flew a Corpie in 2008 that went off the runway at CAE. Both pilots died, bodyguard died, 2 survived and one of them was Barker. (The other survivor commit suicide about a year later). Travis basically stopped flying, period. Now with the Kardashians he started to fly again - but he stuck to 121 airlines.

There's a reason Travis Barker flew on a 121 major airline instead of a Corpie. And I can't say I blame him.

The Lear in Columbia, SC was RTO past V1 and that isn't exclusive to 135 operations. US Air 1702 was the same problem, well more aggravated since it was rejected past rotation.

 

[ArcherII]

And, it's also the kinds of operations you can do. Circle to land non-VMC conditions? No thanks. While the final reports aren't out, this approach with an ensuing stall/spin was likely the cause for the crashes at Gillespie Field and at the one Reno airport (Gulfstream I think).

You mean the Challenger circle to land at Truckee a few months ago?

 

[Avalon781ML]

I do it on purpose

Your beard grows a quarter inch every time you foul up a pilots perfect level off…

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

You mean the Challenger circle to land at Truckee a few months ago?

Sorry, yes, that one. The one that nearly hit a school bus.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

There's no way your duty day was 24 hrs, so if you were awake for 24 hrs at that point, you probably had a commute or some other external factor that forced you to be up long before your check in time. But good on you for calling out, I wouldn't want a tired/checked out FO on a challenging approach somewhere.



Are conditions inside/outside of CSFF? You have tools to make decisions, not just require an ice check each and every single time. There's a reason we have criteria for greater than 4 deg outside, fuel temp greater than 16 deg, no vis moisture. As long as we meet our criteria, I'm okay with departing using this standard and the visual vantage point check. You can call for an ice check, and I personally would not stop you. But I can see some CAs just going by that criteria and saying nah, we good. I have myself done the Secondary Ice Inspection procedure with no falling precip by checking both wings from the appropriate vantage point (like the book says). My question is, since you can do that too, and you see no contamination on the wing, then what's wrong?



If it's that bad, stick to your guns - politely. And follow up with Pro Stans (although don't expect much).

Good luck, I'm surprised you're going in now. They must be catching up with the backlog. Have a good attitude, DON'T argue and you'll nail it.

I followed up with pro stans and saying I was not impressed with them is an absolute understatement. Even though the first conversation went something like this: "Oh yeah we know about him. We get a lot of calls about that guy." It's amazing how even premium trips on the freighter with that captain sit in open time for weeks.

At least in that case I had gotten up on a ladder to check and I am assuming so did a mechanic at ANC we independently told the captain and he basically had a temper tantrum saying that the aircraft was "clean and dry." So I don't really understand your question. I looked up and saw a problem. So did a mechanic who I did not speak with before he independently told the captain and I there was a problem.

I'm not making this stuff up. I really wish I was.

 

[pwttogfk]

I started to type a really well thought out and reasoned response here and then remembered who’s taking about “Corpies.” So I’ll just ask what regulations Atlas and Colgan operated under instead. Time for another beer…

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I started to type a really well thought out and reasoned response here and then remembered who’s taking about “Corpies.” So I’ll just ask what regulations Atlas and Colgan operated under instead. Time for another beer…

2009 and 2019.

Good find.


Let’s try Corpies since 2009, would you like to start and where do you even begin?

Several circle to land stall/spin fatals. Gillespie, Truckee, Akron, and Teterboro (wow was that a disaster!). G4 at BED. It’s bedtime and that’s just off the top of my head. There’s more, would you like to name some?

 

[CFI A&P]

Several circle to land stall/spin fatals. Gillespie, Truckee, Akron, and Teterboro (wow was that a disaster!). G4 at BED. It’s bedtime and that’s just off the top of my head. There’s more, would you like to name some?

The ultimate root cause for each of those accidents is human factors - failure to follow established SOPs, or regulatory violations (Truckee: circle in a Cat D aircraft when that approach prohibited it). Any industry will have a higher accident rate if SOPs are ignored, it doesn't matter if it is aviation or driving school buses.

Try analyzing the operators with SOPs, safety programs, IS-BAO compliance.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

You’re making his point for him.

 

[CFI A&P]

You’re making his point for him.

His point is that 121 is safer because all airlines have SOPs, I’m pointing out that he’s using bad data - operators that don’t utilize the same standards. Of course the comparison is flawed.

I’m not looking to get into a debate with him, because he’s notoriously a troll, but just pointing out that this is an apples and oranges comparison when picking and choosing the accidents to use for analysis.

By the way, don’t you, or did you recently own a Cessna 421? What makes that a safe mode of transportation?

 

[KLB]

The ultimate root cause for each of those accidents is human factors - failure to follow established SOPs, or regulatory violations (Truckee: circle in a Cat D aircraft when that approach prohibited it). Any industry will have a higher accident rate if SOPs are ignored, it doesn't matter if it is aviation or driving school buses.

Try analyzing the operators with SOPs, safety programs, IS-BAO compliance.

The funny thing is that 121 carriers don't even circle anymore....or fly in and out of Truckee. Heck, in his haste to bash corporate pilots, he said Reno instead of Truckee. Reno is a piece of cake compared to Truckee. The airlines don't even have service into Truckee. 91 and 135 flying is much more difficult because of how diverse the flying is... I'd like to see 121 guys do the TEB4 departure or the that departure out of Wheeling. They'd foul it up just like some 91/135 folks have.

 

[CFI A&P]

The funny thing is that 121 carriers don't even circle anymore....or fly in and out of Truckee. Heck, in his haste to bash corporate pilots, he said Reno instead of Truckee. Reno is a piece of cake compared to Truckee. The airlines don't even have service into Truckee. 91 and 135 flying is much more difficult because of how diverse the flying is... I'd like to see 121 guys do the TEB4 departure or the that departure out of Wheeling. They'd foul it up just like some 91/135 folks have.

Exactly and I've done all of those, with RNO as the alternate if it wasn't going to work out. It is apples and oranges, even though both involve combustion, thrust, and moving mammals. 91/135 presents challenges that only exist in 91/135. There's been plenty of 121 accidents & incidents but they're being overlooked to shore up his position.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

His point is that 121 is safer because all airlines have SOPs, I’m pointing out that he’s using bad data - operators that don’t utilize the same standards. Of course the comparison is flawed.

No, you’re misrepresenting his point. His point isn’t that there is something inherently more dangerous about a corporate aircraft. His point is that it is significantly more dangerous in the aggregate to travel on corporate than it is on the airlines. Will there be some examples of corporate flight departments that are just as safe as 121? Of course! Every statistic has outliers. But on the whole, corporate aviation is less standardized, less regulated, has less experienced pilots, etc.

By the way, don’t you, or did you recently own a Cessna 421? What makes that a safe mode of transportation?

It’s not. It’s roughly as safe as riding a motorcycle, which is a pretty dangerous activity.

 

[CFI A&P]

It’s not. It’s roughly as safe as riding a motorcycle, which is a pretty dangerous activity.

Did you fly that airplane like Jerry Wagner or did you fly it to some form of industry accepted standards?

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

The ultimate root cause for each of those accidents is human factors - failure to follow established SOPs, or regulatory violations (Truckee: circle in a Cat D aircraft when that approach prohibited it). Any industry will have a higher accident rate if SOPs are ignored, it doesn't matter if it is aviation or driving school buses.

Try analyzing the operators with SOPs, safety programs, IS-BAO compliance.

That’s the point. There are very few operators out there, especially 91, who use and follow SOPs to the level 121 operators do. You can start with initial training. Everything is farmed out to 142 schools like FSI and CAE. 91 operators at those schools can’t even use company SOPs and checklists, because they have to follow the cookie cutter 142 syllabus.

The 135 operators at those places do have their own SOPs and training course, but the people teaching them generally have multiple 135s they teach, so they do a poor job of enforcing and training to company standards.

I have flown for multiple 91 and 135 operators, and multiple 121 operators, and I have worked at both FSI and CAE. I’ve seen it all, and 121 is definitely safer when it comes to SOP and checklist compliance.

You’ll have bad applies slip through both, but the standardization in 121 has a much higher safety floor. I won’t even get into the pressures associated with 91/135 flying compared to 121.

 

[CFI A&P]

That’s the point. There are very few operators out there, especially 91, who use and follow SOPs to the level 121 operators do. You can start with initial training. Everything is farmed out to 142 schools like FSI and CAE. 91 operators at those schools can’t even use company SOPs and checklists, because they have to follow the cookie cutter 142 syllabus.

The 135 operators at those places do have their own SOPs and training course, but the people teaching them generally have multiple 135s they teach, so they do a poor job of enforcing and training to company standards.

I have flown for multiple 91 and 135 operators, and multiple 121 operators, and I have worked at both FSI and CAE. I’ve seen it all, and 121 is definitely safer when it comes to SOP and checklist compliance.

You’ll have bad applies slip through both, but the standardization in 121 has a much higher safety floor. I won’t even get into the pressures associated with 91/135 flying compared to 121.

We’re on the same page here. Painting all 91/135 with a broad brush isn’t accurate as some have better SOPs and safety practices than others, but the nature of the beast prevents uniform application across the industry.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Did you fly that airplane like Jerry Wagner or did you fly it to some form of industry accepted standards?

I flew it like an airliner, and that likely made me far safer than GA averages. But it would be delusional to think that it’s as safe as 121. One pilot instead of two, less automation, lower level autopilot, less frequent maintenance, piston instead of turbine, more time spent in the weather, worse ice protection, the list goes on and on.

 

[CFI A&P]

I flew it like an airliner, and that likely made me far safer than GA averages. But it would be delusional to think that it’s as safe as 121.

Exactly. If you didn’t apply SOPs, you’d be Jerry Wagner. The rest is all personal preference from your love of autonomous machinery. You won’t get CAT III approaches in a C421, but can get redundant autopilots with VNAV, a second pilot, regular simulator training, etc… Even maintenance at the same intervals. Often that is cost prohibitive which is why it isn’t done.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Exactly. If you didn’t apply SOPs, you’d be Jerry Wagner. The rest is all personal preference from your love of autonomous machinery. You won’t get CAT III approaches in a C421, but can get redundant autopilots with VNAV, a second pilot, regular simulator training, etc… Even maintenance at the same intervals. Often that is cost prohibitive which is why it isn’t done.

You’re leaving out a lot of stuff that I mentioned, plus a lot more. Simply put, it is straight up impossible to operate a piston twin to the same degree of safety as a 121 airliner of any manufacture, no matter how hard you try. A corporate jet can be different, but most often is not.