Hawker Down near AKR

Derg said:
I'm not really following the debate that closely, but as one who has been to the "Big Brown Desk" at HQ where the FAA, the chief pilot, and your two ALPA reps are all quietly gathered around and you and your crew are sitting there with the "deer in the headlights group" and you're Googling "TruckMasters" on your iPhone, the FAA would pretty much tack-on "careless and reckless" onto eating a banana on the drive to the airport.

And it often sticks.

Sad but true.

(Yes, the crew survived the hearing. Quite well actually)
Click to expand...
Here I was under the illusion that you were a mensch. Only now do I hear about these foolish activities in which you have engaged. Oy! ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Inverted said:
While I do think there is some of that, I to keep the bigger issue is the company cooking books to make things look pretty. No company is telling their POI that they are illegally holding their crews on call 24/7.
Click to expand...
Just look at a lot of the 135 rest threads on here. "Our POI said we could is a pretty common theme."
 
Crop Duster said:
Here I was under the illusion that you were a mensch. Only now do I hear about these foolish activities in which you have engaged. Oy!
Click to expand...

Actually, they wanted the captain BAD, but by nature of the way crewed airplanes work, it would have taken me and the other FO down.

@rausda27 had written a letter back in the early 2000's giving me kudos about how I've helped him during his career which turned up a decade later, got handed around the desk and they said, "We know you want the captain, but we're going to punish good guys like this. What are our options".

He most likely saved me from some unpaid time off and probably the captain from receiving a pretty severe violation.
 
z987k said:
Just look at a lot of the 135 rest threads on here. "Our POI said we could is a pretty common theme."
Click to expand...

I'm also skeptical on that too. I think management tells their pilots that. Im probably wrong, but either way I really hope that if there is any good that can come from this tragedy, it's that these companies AND their respective POIs are held accountable.
 
As much as I'd love to talk about 135 rest rules, unless there's info on it that relates to this accident it doesn't belong here. There's a couple threads on it all by itself. We can add it to this conversation if it comes out in the investigation. Until then, it really is a gee that sucks and RIP thread.
 
averettpilot said:
As much as I'd love to talk about 135 rest rules, unless there's info on it that relates to this accident it doesn't belong here. There's a couple threads on it all by itself. We can add it to this conversation if it comes out in the investigation. Until then, it really is a gee that sucks and RIP thread.
Click to expand...

If the only comment we could make on any public forum was a singular response, there would be no point for forums. I certainly don't want to disrespect the deceased in any way. But it takes crashes like this to get people talking, to get issues noticed, and to see regulatory change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Inverted said:
But it takes crashes like this to get people talking, to get issues noticed, and to see regulatory change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We might as well be talking about what the government should do to lessen the danger of being struck by meteorites, for all of the connection anyone has shown between this accident and 135 duty and rest time enforcement. Which is not to say that this is not a subject worthy of discussion. Maybe even in this thread...at some point in the fairly distant future.
 
Inverted said:
If the only comment we could make on any public forum was a singular response, there would be no point for forums. I certainly don't want to disrespect the deceased in any way. But it takes crashes like this to get people talking, to get issues noticed, and to see regulatory change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'm confused though. What issue do we have to talk about? There is literally nothing other than a plane crashed, the weather was at or close to mins, and 9 people died. I understand we want to bring light and substantive change to 24/7 on call, but we don't have that here. If you want to talk about that as it relates to this accident you have to do so admitting that you're speculating. Respectfully, I think that's wrong at this time.
 
I specifically said before that I was making comments directed to the "left turn" discussion in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Inverted said:
If the only comment we could make on any public forum was a singular response, there would be no point for forums. I certainly don't want to disrespect the deceased in any way. But it takes crashes like this to get people talking, to get issues noticed, and to see regulatory change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I mean, if were going to speculate, the most likely thing is probably mode confusion or simply being unaware of which mode was in use. If the A/P didn't capture MDA for whatever reason (someone with experience in this airplane can comment, but perhaps alt-capture or whatever it is called in this particular avionics package wasn't armed or available) and the airplane was tracking the localizer and simply descended right into the ground.

Or maybe it did capture, but they didn't push the power up at MDA and they stalled it. Or maybe, they were getting ice and didn't use enough power, or maybe they lost control during the transition to visual, the list goes on and on - we don't know yet. My money is on the autopilot not capturing the altitude, or it being set up wrong.

Frankly, I'm fine with speculation - if I auger in, speculate about everything, if it gets you thinking about safety and possible failure modes, then maybe I didn't make a crater in vain. Still, if you're going to speculate, at least speculate on what is likely. I mean, while it's likely that Execuflight is the typical FL charter company, it's silly to say that the reason they crashed is simply because "sketchy company." If anything, that's intellectually dishonest about what causes accidents. Sketchy company is just one layer of "swiss-cheese" or just one "link in the chain" on the way to the scene of the accident. Just my $1.05
 
Runincolorado said:
Really sad to see. There have been way too many of these accidents lately. Flashback to the Phenom at my home airport that shorted the runway.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous the FAA has signed off on single pilot jet type ratings for multi-engine jets like Cessna Mustangs and Embraer Phenoms. Unreal. And no prior jet experience requirement. Just get a type rating and go fly a jet single pilot. Sorry, but dealing with an engine failure, flying the airplane, running checklists, talking to ATC, in a jet aircraft moving at jet speeds is not something that can be effectively (and even safely) managed by a single person. That is too much going on in a small span of time.

Not saying what happened was an engine failure, but that Maryland crash looks to be speed dropping off followed by stall in a turn to final according to some avionics recorder on the plane that was recovered. I can imagine the scenario, the pilot looking out the window trying to find the runway, no eyes on the airspeed. A second set of eyes can catch something like this in time to correct it.

There's a reason airlines have two pilots in jet aircraft.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Ridiculous the FAA has signed off on single pilot jet type ratings for multi-engine jets like Cessna Mustangs and Embraer Phenoms. Unreal. And no prior jet experience requirement. Just get a type rating and go fly a jet single pilot. Sorry, but dealing with an engine failure, flying the airplane, running checklists, talking to ATC, in a jet aircraft moving at jet speeds is not something that can be effectively (and even safely) managed by a single person. That is too much going on in a small span of time.

Not saying what happened was an engine failure, but that Maryland crash looks to be speed dropping off followed by stall in a turn to final according to some avionics recorder on the plane that was recovered. I can imagine the scenario, the pilot looking out the window trying to find the runway, no eyes on the airspeed. A second set of eyes can catch something like this in time to correct it.

There's a reason airlines have two pilots in jet aircraft.
Click to expand...

I hope i'm missing the sarcasm tag.
 
MikeD said:
Yup.

Right now, a Hawker plane hit a neighborhood, on an approach in WX, with fatalities. That's about all the specific detail that we know here. Watching with interest as the gathered evidence is analyzed.
Click to expand...


We saw Travis barker's jet went off the runway at CAE when it should have taken off, the experienced FO yelling "go, go, go" and the relatively inexperienced Captain being indecisive in the moment. Upon further digging, had failed multiple checkrides, and when interviewing the CP of that place, it turned out he never did a sim check on her interview because she came "highly recommended" even though the sim check was part of the normal interview process. Now granted, she couldn't have known the squat switch was affected and the TRs actually made their situation worse, but aborting over V1 wasn't smart in that particular case. The FO felt that plane would fly and recommended doing so.

When some here suggested an operator error with a gust lock engaged in a Gulfstream jet at BED, quite a few went the other way with it-could-have-been-anything. Once the theory gained traction, the evidence painted a clear picture.

The Embraer Phenom in Maryland is still under investigation, but IIRC the NTSB made some comments on a recovered recording device that showed the airspeed as dangerously low followed by a stall onset that was not recovered.

UPS in BHM. Fatigue cited as a huge issue.

Now in this AKR case, I understand we're open to anything that could have happened. Sure, a wing could have fallen off. Or a tail. I too would like to give the benefit of the doubt, but historically speaking a crash in this phase is almost invariably boil down to operator error, with a possible fatigue contributing factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top