Citation 550 down at SVH

Rick A said:
Also, HKY has Class A Fire & Rescue capabilities, which I believe are only available when a commercial scheduled airliner is landing or taking off. Choosing CLT as the go to airport would likely have Fire and Rescue availability 24/7/360.
Click to expand...
There are no scheduled service into HKY and hasn't been for decades. They do get an Airbus in from time to time on a charter basis.
 
If the Feds determine there was willful non-compliance due to certificate infraction, will the PIC’s estate be in jeopardy?
 
Jdm said:
If the Feds determine there was willful non-compliance due to certificate infraction, will the PIC’s estate be in jeopardy?
Click to expand...
I’d say that would be determined by the families of dead passengers and their attorneys. It also depends if the PIC owned enough to be worth it.

Unless there was some kind of gross negligence, not something that should be pursued, IMO…. And maybe not even then.
 
dans2992 said:
I’d say that would be determined by the families of dead passengers and their attorneys. It also depends if the PIC owned enough to be worth it.

Unless there was some kind of gross negligence, not something that should be pursued, IMO…. And maybe not even then.
Click to expand...
He was at least a double dip retirement. I’m thinking he was doing alright.
 
Jdm said:
If the Feds determine there was willful non-compliance due to certificate infraction, will the PIC’s estate be in jeopardy?
Click to expand...
Regulatory vs tort issues are separate and not really interconnected. Have seen people in full compliance with the regulations end up losing and people out of regulatory compliance walk away winners. All depends how good the plaintiff's attorney is.
 
Bell206 said:
Regulatory vs tort issues are separate and not really interconnected. Have seen people in full compliance with the regulations end up losing and people out of regulatory compliance walk away winners. All depends how good the plaintiff's attorney is.
Click to expand...
Interesting, didn’t think about that. Thank you!
 
Aviation and golf share a lot of things.

Personal integrity is high on the list.

Improve the lie of your ball?
Who's gonna know?
You will.

Fly your plane out of annual,
and/or expired medical without incident?
Who's gonna know?
You will.

These guys are a black eye on aviation.
They knew that they were illegal.

And for Greg to put his wife and children in this situation,
Shame on him.
 
MKERSW said:
Aviation and golf share a lot of things.

Personal integrity is high on the list.

Improve the lie of your ball?
Who's gonna know?
You will.

Fly your plane out of annual,
and/or expired medical without incident?
Who's gonna know?
You will.

These guys are a black eye on aviation.
They knew that they were illegal.

And for Greg to put his wife and children in this situation,
Shame on him.
Click to expand...
Not a single thing that you’re spouting has been confirmed. Let’s cool your jets.
 
MKERSW said:
Aviation and golf share a lot of things.

Personal integrity is high on the list.

Improve the lie of your ball?
Who's gonna know?
You will.

Fly your plane out of annual,
and/or expired medical without incident?
Who's gonna know?
You will.

These guys are a black eye on aviation.
They knew that they were illegal.

And for Greg to put his wife and children in this situation,
Shame on him.
Click to expand...
<plonk>
 
MKERSW said:
Aviation and golf share a lot of things.

Personal integrity is high on the list.

Improve the lie of your ball?
Who's gonna know?
You will.

Fly your plane out of annual,
and/or expired medical without incident?
Who's gonna know?
You will.

These guys are a black eye on aviation.
They knew that they were illegal.

And for Greg to put his wife and children in this situation,
Shame on him.
Click to expand...
If it ends up being proven that you are full of it, I hope you will post a reply admitting what an Alpha Hotel you were being with the same willingness as your current posts.
 
MKERSW said:
No legal SIC onboard.

You think they didn't know?

Stop it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t, I don’t know FARs that don’t apply to me. I don’t know which planes are SP legal and which aren’t. It’s the PICs responsibility, not the passengers responsibility to make sure everything is legal.
Biffles estate is probably worth a lot of money, so I understand why you would try to blame him.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you know for a fact that the PIC didn’t have an exemption?
Click to expand...
Would you happen to know if, when a pilot passes a type rating while holding a second-class medical with a requirement to be accompanied by an SIC as a limitation, the examiner adds that requirement to the pilot certificate and it then appears that way in the airman's database?
 
dtuuri said:
Would you happen to know if, when a pilot passes a type rating while holding a second-class medical with a requirement to be accompanied by an SIC as a limitation, the examiner adds that requirement to the pilot certificate and it then appears that way in the airman's database?
Click to expand...
I would happen to know that. But I’d also happen to know that the exemption doesn’t show up on or change the certificate.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I would happen to know that. But I’d also happen to know that the exemption doesn’t show up on or change the certificate.
Click to expand...
What I was wondering is if the airline pilot, retired, had a 2nd class medical that had that SIC limitation but that allows him to be PIC and get paid yet he could have a minimum qualified SIC (3 take-offs & landings w/one single engine approach) who worked for free. No SP in play.
 
dtuuri said:
What I was wondering is if the airline pilot, retired, had a 2nd class medical that had that SIC limitation but that allows him to be PIC and get paid yet he could have a minimum qualified SIC (3 take-offs & landings w/one single engine approach) who worked for free. No SP in play.
Click to expand...
nothing I’m aware of says a qualified SIC needs to get paid.

But you might brush up on 61.55 to find out what hoops a “minimum qualified SIC” actually has to jump through.
 
MKERSW said:
No legal SIC is acknowledged by everyone.
Look at the FAA Airmen Registry.
It's right there.
Click to expand...
You don't know that, and neither does anyone else.

Biffle could easily have been a legal SIC under VFR. Since they were squawking 1200 and had neither requested nor received an IFR clearance, it is a legitimate, legal possibility.

Let NTSB do their job.
 
They may have been legal crew wise. They may not. I can tell you that in the entirety of this mishap that tidbit by itself is the least important.

Getting hung up on it about guarantees very limited learning…. and is a classic example of how bias will prevent getting to the root cause.
 
I was on an accident board once where it was determined a caution light connected to a particular sensor was good, but that the sensor itself was inop. So all the caution lights would self test perfectly, but the pilot didn't realize that the sensor (baggage door unlocked in this case) would have flagged a fatal condition had it been operational.
 
Last edited:
MKERSW said:
The two pilots and the student all knew that they were crossing the line.

This was an illegal flight.
Click to expand...

If you're in fact correct... I don't know enough about the situation or the appropriate FAR's involved know the answer. But, if this turns out to be an illegal flight, it certainly could have influenced the PIC's decision to return to the departure airport, rather than climb and declare.
 
If that is indeed true, we can stop looking. ADM that simply poor is gonna catch up to ya at some point… seems unlikely.

More apropos, irrelevant. If fate prevented a successful return, doesn’t matter who was flying or their skill, wasn’t in the cards (think recent UPS). Otherwise, irrelevant, one guy can do it, that’s not in question.
 
MauleSkinner said:
nothing I’m aware of says a qualified SIC needs to get paid.

But you might brush up on 61.55 to find out what hoops a “minimum qualified SIC” actually has to jump through.
Click to expand...
Good catch. Less hoops than I recalled. The single engine approach requirement went by the wayside, making it look more like a "participation trophy".
 
dtuuri said:
Good catch. Less hoops than I recalled. The single engine approach requirement went by the wayside, making it look more like a "participation trophy".
Click to expand...

I always find it amusing when someone tells me "Yea, I'm typed on a XXXXX", then I ask " Where did you go to school on that?", then I get some mumbling about "Well, it's a SIC type". 3 bounces and a couple of hours going over the AFM........ :rolleyes:
 
Doc Holliday said:
I always find it amusing when someone tells me "Yea, I'm typed on a XXXXX", then I ask " Where did you go to school on that?", then I get some mumbling about "Well, it's a SIC type". 3 bounces and a couple of hours going over the AFM........ :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hell where I cut my 135 teeth (Socal), all you needed was to be beer buddies with the right guy and make a trip to the FSDO. A number of pilots had several SIC types without ever setting foot in the airplane, let alone actually learning something about it. ;)
 
Well, all sort of legitimate full type programs get you there, walk around and everything qualified, without ever setting eyes on the jet… much less flying it or really seeing anything on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top