Phenom 100 crash in MD

killbilly said:
Christ, that must have been scary.

I didn't say the prior crash was his fault - the NTSB and the FAA said it was his fault. I also think I was crystal clear about the rationale - when it's the pilot's fault, what's the process?

Your situation, however scary and admirably handled, is not applicable, given that you were not at fault.

EDIT - I'm wondering if you only read the last line of my post. Pay special attention to the second line. I wasn't calling you (or anyone who totaled a plane) out. I'm asking what the FAA/NTSB does when a pilot is at fault. "Totaled" is contextual, only.
Click to expand...

A 709 ride.
 
tlewis95 said:
How about reduce the AoA? Engines don't make aircraft fly, wings do.
Click to expand...

I think you'd need to see what happened to understand my comment. There was a crew who stalled high in the flight levels who only marginally increased power, and pulled right back into the shaker multiple times. This was before the FAA advocated also reducing the AOA. What bothers me most about this incident was neither pilot EVER went full power.
 
Let's see, guy who previously had a loss of control accident on landing goes on to ball up another airplane and kill 6(?) people including 3 who weren't even fooled into getting into an airplane with him. Some people just don't belong behind a yoke and it's sad when our system fails at identifying them.
 
Roger Roger said:
You, sir, have a most unjust safety culture! Good day!
Click to expand...
900 hours in a P100. Stall system is finicky at best. I don't think it had anything to do with this crash but that's just my opinion. I've gotten loaded up with ice on that plane and it got me home. Had all the anti and de-ice on but if you fly the speeds that the book says there shouldn't be a problem.
 
ChasenSFO said:
I've never flown a jet, nose down get air over the wings so you can climb out of it?
Click to expand...

No.

The Rule Of The Land™ for years and years was, in a jet, all you needed to do was add power and you could recover from a stall. Altitude loss was not acceptable. Then, after a whole lot of people died, the rule was changed to, altitude loss isn't great, but it's more important to break the stall, which often times requires lower the nose in as well as adding power, as the additional thrust may not be sufficient to recover from the stall on its own, which of course is something every light piston single pilot knew already.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Oh, ok. Well, I would postulate that stalling the airplane contributed greatly to the accident. And i would suggest that we could be better pilots by not stalling the airplane.
Click to expand...
I stalled the 1900 in flight 4 times.

But that was a MX flight resetting the stall computer.
 
Let's not bad mouth the pilot just yet (if ever), the final report isn't in. As far as a bird strike that has not been ruled out. From what I read was there was no evidence on a bird strike in the engines. That leaves a lot of other places for a bird strike.

Even if this accident is the result of multiple pilot errors I don't understand the desire to eat our own.
 
fholbert said:
Let's not bad mouth the pilot just yet (if ever), the final report isn't in. As far as a bird strike that has not been ruled out. From what I read was there was no evidence on a bird strike in the engines. That leaves a lot of other places for a bird strike.

Even if this accident is the result of multiple pilot errors I don't understand the desire to eat our own.
Click to expand...

You may not think it, but I agree with you. I suspect it sounds otherwise because of my earlier questions about at-fault enforcement actions.

From what I've read thus far, the PIC had well over 4K TT - that's a lot. Dunno how much time he had in type.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top