Citation 550 down at SVH

skyking3286 said:
Sort of a rabbit hole here about SIC and type. The crash wasn't due the wrong person sitting in the right seat. It was a crippled airplane or pilot, basic aerodynamics and power. At some point, all planes fly the same. Keep the wind over the wings and high enough to glide to the runway. If the plane was unable to do that, having someone sitting next to the PIC doesn't matter one bit.
Click to expand...

The person sitting in the right seat may have made the difference. If it was a crippled or poorly performing PIC, having a competent and proficient SIC monitoring the PIC and helping them avoid putting the airplane into a scenario that it shouldn’t be in can make a difference. Not every SIC can do that. If the airplane was so crippled that it didn’t matter who was flying it, that’s a different story.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The 550 was my first type rating. Been a long time but I still remember some of the sim scenarios where we had to delay final configuration on a SE approach because it was dang near max continuous thrust to maintain level flight and not that much below it to stay on the GS.

It’s an easy airplane to fly and a great transition into jets but it’s not overpowered…
Click to expand...
I flew one for about 16 years. Holding approach flaps until committed to land when on one engine doesn't seem to me to be unusual. If it was "underpowered" you'd hold them all, right? You might be thinking of a TR deployment that couldn't be stowed.
 
I know we all decided we hate Juan brown about 3 pages back, but he posted an update last night about some "b reel" the ntsb released. The right baggage door (discussed on page 1 iirc) was conspicuously missing, and there was a bunch of damage to the right engine. He further postulated that those baggage compartments would've likely been stuffed full considering the number of souls on board and w&b considerations. He also claimed that the baggage is a low pressure area and if it opens in flight, stuff tends to get sucked out.
 
Jim K said:
I know we all decided we hate Juan brown about 3 pages back, but he posted an update last night about some "b reel" the ntsb released. The right baggage door (discussed on page 1 iirc) was conspicuously missing, and there was a bunch of damage to the right engine. He further postulated that those baggage compartments would've likely been stuffed full considering the number of souls on board and w&b considerations. He also claimed that the baggage is a low pressure area and if it opens in flight, stuff tends to get sucked out.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s high on my suspect list also. It’s just odd that they wouldn’t have noticed the annunciator warning of an open compartment door that we get when it’s not closed.
 
Not sure that has a caution light for that… even so, that sort of thing gets missed A LOT.

Plenty of reasons why it could show closed and there still be a problem.

THAT causing the engine problem, and then general aviating causing the rest is entirely plausible.

That failure mode would also make itself fairly obvious to passengers. Loud bang, engine shrieking, bells/whistles/lights in cockpit, immediate turns and even pilot behavior…
 
RyanB said:
Yeah that’s high on my suspect list also. It’s just odd that they wouldn’t have noticed the annunciator warning of an open compartment door that we get when it’s not closed.
Click to expand...

It's been awhile, but IIRC the annunciator is tied to the locking mechanism, but not the latches themselves.
 
kayoh190 said:
It's been awhile, but IIRC the annunciator is tied to the locking mechanism, but not the latches themselves.
Click to expand...
Rushing, or even just distraction on preflight... it's easy to do. I did it myself... thought I had it latched, even locked it, but was talking to someone and didn't notice it wasn't actually closed. Nbd on my little spam can though.
 
Is it legal to operate the 550 single pilot from the right seat,
or is it left seat only?
 
MKERSW said:
Is it legal to operate the 550 single pilot from the right seat,
or is it left seat only?
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter, but it wouldn’t make sense to sit right seat as single pilot. All of the primary system controls are at the left seat position.
 
RyanB said:
Doesn’t matter, but it wouldn’t make sense to sit right seat as single pilot. All of the primary system controls are at the left seat position.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but with two other (not rated) pilots in the aircraft, one of whom was the owner, the PIC might have been inclined to let one sit there and do some ersatz "instruction."
 
I'm concerned with who was sitting where in this particular instance.
 
The NTSB film shows what appears to be first contact was with the approach light(s). Lots of fan blade damage on the right side engine. And possibly some structural damage to the horizontal stab on the right side... tough to tell as the fire damage was so intensive. Juan's theory about baggage getting sucked out may not be too far off.

Sunday nights are when it's more likely to view (God forbid) Dan Gryder's folksy YouTube presentations. In the past he's come up with some findings that the NTSB has either missed, or ignored. Particularly that young female commercial pilot flying a Caravan(?) that killed herself in light snow on a published RNAV approach into a southern Idaho (Burley?) airport. She collided with a factory smokestack that had a wrong obstacle altitude published (or ignored?), and unfortunately it projected into the final approach path.

At some point after the crash (one or two months later), Gryder visited the crash scene and found a damaged red smokestack obstacle light somewhere that was not noticed (or cleaned up) by NTSB investigators. According to Gryder, local politics were involved in the city owned and operated airport. The smokestack was owned by a potato processing plant (the City's largest employer). It definitely projected into the published lateral and vertical glide slope path. Can't remember the exact details, but I believe Gryder was threatened with arrest by the NTSB if he didn't send them the obstacle light following airing his findings on YouTube.
 
Tools said:
THAT causing the engine problem, and then general aviating causing the rest is entirely plausible.
Click to expand...
I'm still a bit at a loss about the 12000fpm climb rate before they even turned back to the airport. They were able to hold speed/altitude during that turn, with altitude decreasing and speed increasing after that 180 was complete.
IF those altitudes are correct, that doesn't look to me as an OEI situation where they're not able to maintain altitude.
 
AV8R_87 said:
I'm still a bit at a loss about the 12000fpm climb rate before they even turned back to the airport. They were able to hold speed/altitude during that turn, with altitude decreasing and speed increasing after that 180 was complete.
IF those altitudes are correct, that doesn't look to me as an OEI situation where they're not able to maintain altitude.
Click to expand...

They may have eventually shut it down before it totally imploded…

And 12k fpm isn’t sustainable with two engines, so either erroneous or some zoom climb in there…

Obviously waaay to early for definitive, just playing the odds from my armchair.
 
Tools said:
They may have eventually shut it down before it totally imploded…

And 12k fpm isn’t sustainable with two engines, so either erroneous or some zoom climb in there…

Obviously waaay to early for definitive, just playing the odds from my armchair.
Click to expand...
Would or could baggage being extracted take out an engine ????
 
RyanB said:
Doesn’t matter, but it wouldn’t make sense to sit right seat as single pilot. All of the primary system controls are at the left seat position.
Click to expand...
I have found some information to the contrary.

From the SPE text:

"This exemption is valid only for aircraft configured for operation by a single pilot seated in the left pilot seat."
 

The plane was on a Part 135 Certificate when it was for sale,​

but I believe it was Part 91 afterwards.
 
Last edited:
MKERSW said:
I have found some information to the contrary.

From the SPE text: "This exemption is valid only for aircraft configured for operation by a single pilot seated in the left pilot seat."
Click to expand...

According to Gryder's "Probable Cause" YouTube presentation last night, single pilot ops are a "waiver" on some Citations, including the accident aircraft. He showed the single pilot notation on his own paperwork. Unless the deceased pilot had recently added the single pilot waiver (not yet in the FAA register), the pilot likely didn't have one.

He also aired an audio recording taken off the unicom speaker inside the FBO of the radio announcements from the Citation. The voice was of the son (confirmed by people who know him) who was in the right seat, with his Father flying. The son announced they were returning to the airport with an engine issue, and warned an Aztec waiting to take off not to do so. Amazingly (and allegedly), the Aztec pilot took off, then landed shortly afterwards, with the Citation burning on the runway.

According to Gryder, he himself is very familiar with various models of Citations, and claims this particular model is under-powered on one engine, and will not hold altitude with gear and flaps deployed while loaded up approaching gross weight.

Said the turn around was crazy, as climbing on runway heading to 3 or 4 thousand feet, engaging the autopilot, declaring an emergency, and landing at Charlotte was in his opinion the only safe solution. Compared the total mileage flown while turning around with the mileage needed to fly to Charlotte, and it was a little longer, but very comparable.
 
Rick A said:
According to Gryder's "Probable Cause" YouTube presentation last night, single pilot ops are a "waiver" on some Citations, including the accident aircraft. He showed the single pilot notation on his own paperwork. Unless the deceased pilot had recently added the single pilot waiver (not yet in the FAA register), the pilot likely didn't have one.
Click to expand...

It’s an “exemption”, and I don’t know that it shows up in the FAA registry, since it doesn’t go on your certificate.
Rick A said:
According to Gryder, he himself is very familiar with various models of Citations, and claims this particular model is under-powered on one engine, and will not hold altitude with gear and flaps deployed while loaded up approaching gross weight.
Click to expand...
Which is why Citation pilots are trained to delay some of the flaps in OEI operations. Do we know where the flaps were?
Rick A said:
Said the turn around was crazy, as climbing on runway heading to 3 or 4 thousand feet, engaging the autopilot, declaring an emergency, and landing at Charlotte was in his opinion the only safe solution. Compared the total mileage flown while turning around with the mileage needed to fly to Charlotte, and it was a little longer, but very comparable.
Click to expand...
Hindsight is a wonderful thing…especially combined with the luxury of time.
 
Rick A said:
According to Gryder . . . .
Click to expand...
According to Gryder, he knows everything about everything. You know what they say about the difference between theory and reality..... Of course Gryder does know a thing or two about crashing single engine planes that can't climb with the flaps down, so there's that. But it sounds like his theory isn't different from what some have postulated in this thread.
 
Rick A said:
Said the turn around was crazy, as climbing on runway heading to 3 or 4 thousand feet, engaging the autopilot, declaring an emergency, and landing at Charlotte was in his opinion the only safe solution. Compared the total mileage flown while turning around with the mileage needed to fly to Charlotte, and it was a little longer, but very comparable.
Click to expand...
KHKY would've been closer with ARFF, if we're using hindsight. It's towered with an ILS and they would've already had 125.15 tuned in for approach there.
 
Lindberg said:
But it sounds like his theory isn't different from what some have postulated in this thread.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Regardless of the messenger, there were some alleged bits of information I don't believe to have yet been postulated. If found true (i.e., the audio recording stating engine trouble and a return to the airport, son in the right seat, single pilot wavier possible on that model, and an Aztec waiting to take off). If found to be untrue, it would be troubling to learn is false, and would clearly justify a a very adverse opinion of Gryder.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Not for Part 91. But in a previous life, I think this was a 135 bird.
Click to expand...
Check out 91.609:
(e) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, after October 11, 1991, no person may operate a U.S. civil registered multiengine, turbine-powered airplane or rotorcraft having a passenger seating configuration of six passengers or more and for which two pilots are required by type certification or operating rule unless it is equipped with an approved cockpit voice recorder that:

(1) Is installed in compliance with § 23.1457(a)(1) and (2), (b), (c), (d)(1)(i), (2) and (3), (e), (f), and (g); § 25.1457(a)(1) and (2), (b), (c), (d)(1)(i), (2) and (3), (e), (f), and (g); § 27.1457(a)(1) and (2), (b), (c), (d)(1)(i), (2) and (3), (e), (f), and (g); or § 29.1457(a)(1) and (2), (b), (c), (d)(1)(i), (2) and (3), (e), (f), and (g) of this chapter, as applicable; and
(2) Is operated continuously from the use of the checklist before the flight to completion of the final checklist at the end of the flight.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Not for Part 91. But in a previous life, I think this was a 135 bird.
Click to expand...

Regardless, the NTSB has stated there was a CVR and they have recovered it. Assuming it was functioning and the recording is able to be recovered, the NTSB should have a pretty good idea of the events that happened prior to this crash. Anything else at this point is just wild speculation.
 
Regarding where the flap were, Gryder said the flaps were in the full-down position, based on the accident photos I believe. He reads from the Citation II Single Engine Approach and Landing checklist line 7 that says Flaps T/O and Approach (partial flaps). He says you can't use Full Flaps when at max gross weight because its a pig at that weight, but doesn't take the time to make any reference to Line 18 which says Flaps to Land when landing assured. He should have aimed his flames at that while he was at it.
 
mark.staggs said:
KHKY would've been closer with ARFF, if we're using hindsight. It's towered with an ILS and they would've already had 125.15 tuned in for approach there.
Click to expand...
Closer to HKY, yes, but there's more terrain to avoid as you go West. KHKY gets into the foothills, so you might have trouble if you can't maintain altitude comfortably.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Regardless, the NTSB has stated there was a CVR and they have recovered it. Assuming it was functioning and the recording is able to be recovered, the NTSB should have a pretty good idea of the events that happened prior to this crash. Anything else at this point is just wild speculation.
Click to expand...
Trouble is, we've seen several cvrs in the past that were not required and therefore not maintained/ functioning. The medevac learjet in Philly coming to mind recently. I also thought part 91 was not required, but agree with @MauleSkinner's analysis above. I'm still not clear however if this plane required two pilots.
 
Jim K said:
Trouble is, we've seen several cvrs in the past that were not required and therefore not maintained/ functioning. The medevac learjet in Philly coming to mind recently. I also thought part 91 was not required, but agree with @MauleSkinner's analysis above. I'm still not clear however if this plane required two pilots.
Click to expand...
Unless the PIC had a single pilot exemption, it required two pilots.

Edit: everything I’ve seen indicates that this was a CE-550, which is a two-pilot airplane, not the single-pilot CE-551. A 550 would require an exemption to be flown single pilot.
 
Last edited:
Rick A said:
Amazingly (and allegedly), the Aztec pilot took off, then landed shortly afterwards, with the Citation burning on the runway.
Click to expand...
I can see the Aztec wanting to get out of the way ASAP as a natural reaction.
 
This happened Thursday, yes? I know this isn’t 100% but no indication of an arrival or departure of an Aztec on Thursday. I know, not 100%.

64f9899af09a0bf03413946b322864b7.jpg

33133acac1a1f21fa1004892e776eb67.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top