Phenom 100 crash in MD

Runincolorado said:
I think it is easy to start down the "people who can afford the airplane." But I would argue that it is more of a "people flying more airplane than they can handle." We see similar issues when people go out and buy super cars and then wrap them around trees. I think just this week/last week, I saw some celebrity bought their 16 year old daughter a brand new Ferrari? I would at least like to believe that there is a group of well healed owners that are very safe, proactively seek the training they need, and serve as roll models to the future generations.

I have always focused on safety and am pretty conservative. At the same point, while earning my MEL, I learned more in the 5 seconds of recovering from nearly an inadvertent VMC roll on short final while practicing single engine approaches. I guess we all have the "current" vs "proficient" battle going on in our heads.
Click to expand...


My observations and experience are this: The rich crash airplanes for two reasons. 1. By and large, the rich are the ones who can afford airplanes. 2. The rich often, but not always, have many of the hazardous attitudes that have been shown to cause people to crash airplanes... especially Macho, Anti-Authority, and Invulnerability. Additionally, if you read the reports, you will often see these strangely mutate into Resignation once things start to go south. Also, most are older and, perhaps, therefore, less capable of learning and changing their attitudes.
I think the reason so many show animosity toward rich people crashing airplanes is because people intuitively recognize these hazardous attitudes in the way many rich people often operate and conduct themselves in non-aviation capacities. To wit: stepping on people and breaking rules to get what they want, and then not caring about the consequences... That and schadenfreude.
Me? I kinda think hazardous attitudes and learning disabilities are distributed across the population. I'm just glad it's mostly only rich people who can afford to demonstrate their incompetence in their own airplanes. Can you imagine the carnage if every Tom, Dick, and Harry could afford an airplane? Think of your last drive on the highway. Now translate that to that to the air and add speed and mass.
I'm not picking on the rich. That said, I've only had three students I ever had to fire. All were rich. All bought airplanes way beyond their capabilities. After I fired them as students, all had accidents or incidents. Thankfully, only one of these was fatal. Two went on to buy another airplane. The other went on to buy a turbine helo. None seemed to demonstrate learning from experience or a diminution of their hazardous attitudes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A couple of days ago, my girlfriend asked to drive my BMW Z3 in the rain. I told her no, she had little experience driving rear-wheel-drive, manual transmission sports cars in the rain. My oversight reduced her chances of an accident.

Rich guys buy their way past most of the oversight that most pilots of high performance aircraft face. I don't think that rich guys are more likely to be risk-takers, I think they meet legal or insurance mins and at that point most oversight ends. It also might mark the point at which the pace of their skills development stalls.
 
There is a reason the PIC of any 135 or 121 airplane gets a checkride very 6 months. Currency, proficiency, and standardization are crucial when flying a fast, complex aircraft. This aircraft should have never been part 23 certified.
 
Inverted said:
There is a reason the PIC of any 135 or 121 airplane gets a checkride very 6 months. Currency, proficiency, and standardization are crucial when flying a fast, complex aircraft. This aircraft should have never been part 23 certified.
Click to expand...
It's funny that professional pilots who likely do multiple approaches and landings daily are the ones who are tested every 6 months. Seems backwards to me.
 
mojo6911 said:
It's funny that professional pilots who likely do multiple approaches and landings daily are the ones who are tested every 6 months. Seems backwards to me.
Click to expand...


Not a "one size fits all" deal when there are two extremes: 121/135 folks who fly 800+ hrs a year and a dozen IAPs a week, and the there are others who fly 120 hrs a year and might go months without flying an approach.
 
Inverted said:
There is a reason the PIC of any 135 or 121 airplane gets a checkride very 6 months. Currency, proficiency, and standardization are crucial when flying a fast, complex aircraft. This aircraft should have never been part 23 certified.
Click to expand...

With AQP, that's changed in 121. But I get your point. We fly hundreds of hours in a year. This guy flew hundreds of hours in years. I'm pretty sure his insurance required yearly recurrent, but with his level of experience, and his recent history, that hardly seems enough.
 
deadstick said:
Not a "one size fits all" deal when there are two extremes: 121/135 folks who fly 800+ hrs a year and a dozen IAPs a week, and the there are others who fly 120 hrs a year and might go months without flying an approach.
Click to expand...
I might be a witch in church on this one, but it sometimes wonder if the 121 guys who brag about flying ~100 hours a year are really proficient when the fit hits the shan.
 
I have a buddy who's been the owner/pilot of increasingly-complex aircraft over the years, and he now owns and flies a Citation. He goes to FlightSafety every year, I've flown safety pilot for him on occasion, and we've taken trips together. But he shouldn't be flying this airplane, and I won't fly with him in it. When I read about accidents like this one in Maryland and the South Bend, Indiana crash in March 2013, I always think of this guy.
 
For those with time in a Phenom how does the "forgiveness" of it compare to those of the straight wing Citations? Could one really get themselves out of slow/stall/spin incipent condition as easily?
 
tomokc said:
I have a buddy who's been the owner/pilot of increasingly-complex aircraft over the years, and he now owns and flies a Citation. He goes to FlightSafety every year, I've flown safety pilot for him on occasion, and we've taken trips together. But he shouldn't be flying this airplane, and I won't fly with him in it. When I read about accidents like this one in Maryland and the South Bend, Indiana crash in March 2013, I always think of this guy.
Click to expand...

Legit question here: how often do you think he should go to recurrent training?

What's most appropriate given his aircraft and how much he flies/trains? How does one make that assessment?

I ask because I really don't understand how those rules are decided.
 
killbilly said:
Legit question here: how often do you think he should go to recurrent training?

What's most appropriate given his aircraft and how much he flies/trains? How does one make that assessment?

I ask because I really don't understand how those rules are decided.
Click to expand...
I'll give you some perspective from a part 91 guy. It should absolutely be every 6 months for PICs of turbine aircraft.
I fly 85 hours a year, maybe. It's a struggle to maintain landing currency let alone instrument.
Unique situation perhaps but as a professional pilot that's still relatively low time (~5000 hours) I wish I got more time in the box.
 
mikecweb said:
I'll give you some perspective from a part 91 guy. It should absolutely be every 6 months for PICs of turbine aircraft.
I fly 85 hours a year, maybe. It's a struggle to maintain landing currency let alone instrument.
Unique situation perhaps but as a professional pilot that's still relatively low time (~5000 hours) I wish I got more time in the box.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that helps me understand. Thanks.
 
I wouldn't want to be the CFI who was asked to sign off on an unqualified jet owner's IPC or BFR. We did it to the owner of a high-performance single, and he made it real ugly. I have lots of admiration for golfer and Citation owner Arnold Palmer who stopped flying on his 80th birthday. He knew the day would come when someone would tell him he couldn't fly - medical, proficiency, competency, whatever - he went out on his own terms. Wish there were more pilots like him.
 
mikecweb said:
I'll give you some perspective from a part 91 guy. It should absolutely be every 6 months for PICs of turbine aircraft.
I fly 85 hours a year, maybe. It's a struggle to maintain landing currency let alone instrument.
Unique situation perhaps but as a professional pilot that's still relatively low time (~5000 hours) I wish I got more time in the box.
Click to expand...
I think for that level of total time a year, every six months would be necessary. We fly right around 300 hours a year and average about 10-12 days a month. We train once a year. In our case I think twelve months is too long but every six is a bit over kill. If I were king we'd go every eight or nine months. For info we're an all part 91 two man operation.
 
Interesting. When I got my MEL, I promised myself, my girlfriend, and loved ones I would have recurrent twin training every 6 months (I am a weekend warrior vs professional pilot). Every 6 months, I have my MEI drill me on twin operations, including single engine operations. Each time, I have learned something new and feel much safer for it. I have seen alot of others not feel the same way. If they are legal, they are competent. I do not agree.
 
Runincolorado said:
Interesting. When I got my MEL, I promised myself, my girlfriend, and loved ones I would have recurrent twin training every 6 months (I am a weekend warrior vs professional pilot). Every 6 months, I have my MEI drill me on twin operations, including single engine operations. Each time, I have learned something new and feel much safer for it. I have seen alot of others not feel the same way. If they are legal, they are competent. I do not agree.
Click to expand...
Mix up your MEIs - you'll learn even more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top