Citation 560 Overrun at KPSO, 12/27/24

A

AquaLand

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 19, 2024
Messages
269
Display Name
Ed
NTSB Final Report for N753MB

During the takeoff roll, the airplane accelerated through the decision speed (V1) of 96 kts and rotation speed (Vr) of 103 kts but did not rotate, although the pilot applied full aft deflection of the control yoke. At an airspeed of 120 kts, the pilot performed a rejected takeoff with maximum braking and full reverse thrust. The airplane departed the end of the runway and continued into the grass beyond the runway, pivoting to the left before coming to a stop. The crew and passengers exited the airplane and were met by airport personnel [airframe was written off].

Weather around the time of the accident included light snow. The pilot stated that she performed a standard preflight inspection of the airplane and noted only liquid on the wings. However, airport surveillance video showed accumulated snow on the wings as the pilot and copilot walked to the airplane, and snow was falling while the passengers loaded the airplane. Airport personnel brushed snow from the wings three times over a span of about 11 minutes, but contamination was still visible on the wings when the airplane began taxiing, and the ramp pavement was wet. After the airplane taxied from the ramp, the snowfall rate appeared to increase, and about 20 minutes passed from the last time snow was brushed from the wings to when the airplane started its takeoff roll.

The pilot reported the airplane’s takeoff weight was about 15,700 lbs, which was also the maximum takeoff weight for the airplane. Using weights and seating positions provided by a passenger, the airplane’s takeoff weight was about 16,502 lbs, and the center of gravity was near the forward limit. Thus, the airplane’s takeoff weight was likely outside of the operating envelope.

The airplane required two flight crewmembers and was not certified for single-pilot operations. The pilot, who was acting as pilot-in-command (PIC), required a second-in-command (SIC) to exercise the privileges of her certificate and was not qualified to act as a single-pilot PIC in the airplane. Additionally, the copilot did not meet the requirements to act as SIC or PIC. Thus, neither pilot possessed the proper pilot ratings and qualifications for the flight.

NTSB probable cause: The pilot’s inadequate preflight planning and poor preflight inspection and decision-making, which led to a takeoff attempt above the airplane’s certified maximum takeoff weight with snow-contaminated wings, resulting in a rejected takeoff at an airspeed above the takeoff decision speed and a subsequent runway excursion.
Click to expand...
 
Also be interesting to see if the airplane could legally takeoff at the 15,700 that she was claiming.

Edit: looks like the 560 is a performer…I didn’t look for wet/contaminated runway data or obstacles, but it looks like they would have had plenty of runway and climb capability at that weight.
 
Last edited:
Sooo ... the PIC couldn't legally fly it single pilot, and the SIC wasn't qualified, which make the PIC not qualified ... with eight passengers and three dogs behind them.
Airplane written off (and another assigned the same tail number.)
AquaLand said:
The PIC is not listed in the FAA Airmen Registry. In contrast, the SIC is listed as holding an ATP and ERJ type ratings.
Click to expand...
She got married. Not gonna dox her, but she's been an ATP for nearly a month.
1790346198687.png
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Sooo ... the PIC couldn't legally fly it single pilot, and the SIC wasn't qualified, which make the PIC not qualified ... with eight passengers and three dogs behind them.
Airplane written off (and another assigned the same tail number.)

She got married. Not gonna dox her, but she's been an ATP for nearly a month.
View attachment 155286
Click to expand...
"Date of issue" is the last time the certificate was issued for any reason, not necessarily when her ATP was received. Could be when an type rating was added, or an administrative detail. It tells nothing about how long someone has had their certificate. In her case, it's probably when her name was changed post-marriage.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Be interesting to see where this pilot is in 15 years.
Click to expand...
Be interesting to see where she is right now! Based on the info below, sounds like she's still flying, in spite of 2024 not being a great time to be looking for a new job in the industry.

MauleSkinner said:
Also be interesting to see if the airplane could legally takeoff at the 15,700 that she was claiming.
Click to expand...
It sounds like it was likely 800 over MGTOW and that she claimed what she claimed because it was the max legal.

MauleSkinner said:
Edit: looks like the 560 is a performer…I didn’t look for wet/contaminated runway data or obstacles, but it looks like they would have had plenty of runway and climb capability at that weight.
Click to expand...
800 over with accumulated snow on all surfaces? There's no book for that.

AquaLand said:
The PIC is not listed in the FAA Airmen Registry. In contrast, the SIC is listed as holding an ATP and ERJ type ratings.
Click to expand...
Meaningless. You can opt out of having your info in the public registry.

Kenny Phillips said:
Sooo ... the PIC couldn't legally fly it single pilot, and the SIC wasn't qualified, which make the PIC not qualified ... with eight passengers and three dogs behind them.
Airplane written off (and another assigned the same tail number.)
Click to expand...
And this is maybe the craziest part of the report, to me:

"The copilot held no type ratings. The copilot stated that he did not meet the requirements to act as SIC under 14 CFR Part 61.55(b) during the accident flight. Additionally, the copilot stated that the airplane management company did not verify that he was qualified to act as SIC in the airplane, and the pilot was aware that the copilot had no flight experience in the airplane type."​

So. You knew you weren't qualified, the company knew you weren't qualified, the PIC knew you weren't qualified, and you flew the flight anyway? Both of their heads should roll, and probably some management folks too. In fact, it very much sounds like the "management company" is running a very sketchy Part 134.5 operation. Not only did they not check the pilots' credentials, it sounds like they provided the pilots in spite of the lease agreement saying otherwise (which it must to prove that it isn't 135).

Kenny Phillips said:
She got married. Not gonna dox her, but she's been an ATP for nearly a month.
Click to expand...
As @RussR stated, anything that gets you a new card resets the issuance date. I got a new card sent to me about a year ago because my latest rating was old enough to vote and most of the text had disappeared from it. Even just getting a new copy of the exact same certificate reset my issue date.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
It sounds like it was likely 800 over MGTOW and that she claimed what she claimed because it was the max legal.
Click to expand...

flyingcheesehead said:
800 over with accumulated snow on all surfaces? There's no book for that.
Click to expand...
I was looking at it from the perspective of whether or not she could have taken off legally if she had chosen to do so. It appears likely that she could have.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Meaningless. You can opt out of having your info in the public registry.
Click to expand...
According to the FAA:

Airmen may request to withhold address information from release; certificate information cannot be withheld from the public.
Click to expand...

Thus, the FAA Airmen Registry is a meaningful tool to verify if a person is certificated by the FAA. But you have to have the correct name, which I did not.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I was looking at it from the perspective of whether or not she could have taken off legally if she had chosen to do so. It appears likely that she could have.
Click to expand...
How so? Throw a couple of pax off and find a qualified SIC and a de-ice truck?

AquaLand said:
According to the FAA:

Thus, the FAA Airmen Registry is a meaningful tool to verify if a person is certificated by the FAA. But you have to have the correct name, which I did not.
Click to expand...
I think they normally pull the entire record from web searches when people ask to withhold their address. I know plenty of pilots who you can search that won't show up at all. If you search via PRD or other more official/trackable means, then they show up.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think they normally pull the entire record from web searches when people ask to withhold their address. I know plenty of pilots who you can search that won't show up at all.
Click to expand...
Not in my experience. "Airman opted-out of releasing address" shows below the name of those who have opted out. If you put a state or other redacted info into the search criteria for someone who has opted out it will not return the name, you have to leave all address info empty.

Nauga,
redacted
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
That's not at all what I said. Maybe if you think she could have taken off legally, you could share how? I'm not seeing it. :dunno:
Click to expand...
Maybe by putting 4000 pounds of fuel in the airplane instead of 5000 and waiting until the wings wouldn’t be contaminated.

Yeah, the SIC couldn’t be fixed, but that’s not on her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top