MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think you might be confusing that with the SOE requirements after a pilot gets a type rating in the sim without meeting certain prerequisites.
Jet Crash at Greenville Downtown Airport
- Thread starter Matthew K
- Start date
ARFlyer
En-Route
My bad! You are correct that is for SOE removal. I did both this week.
The SIC can be given if the person has had a SIC Familiarization Course within the proceeding 12 months as described in 61.55(d).
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
That is interesting. I'm surprised the firefighters didn't just spray foam into the engines to shut 'em down. Pretty sure that none of the engine controls in the detached cockpit were gonna do any good...
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Actually, I found something else interesting:
"The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91."
So a pair of charter pilots on a charter plane carrying passengers who said they chartered the flight is somehow part 91???
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,601
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
But if it was an illegal charter then it couldn’t be considered 135 so it has to be 91.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
It is also possible that the passengers actually dry leased the airplane and it was therefore part 91. Sometimes passengers who aren’t actual pilots use terms like ‘charter’ without actually understanding the difference.
midwestpa24
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,984
- Display Name
Display name:
midwestpa24
Usually doesn't work. Jet engines are designed to ingest large amounts of water when flying through storms. With the cockpit controls disabled due to the fuselage damage, I'm not sure there would have been much they could have done. That sure made for an interesting and dangerous accident scene.
Well there's that, but when did the handles get pulled? I
Prior to breakup, they should have done their job. After breakup means somebody was still alive or it was ARFF/first responders who should have known better.
As the right seater provided both plane and his piloting services, I don't see a way to fashion this as a dry-lease.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Large amounts for a storm, yes - But can they ingest what comes out of a fire hose? And if it's fire-retardant foam, different story, right?
midwestpa24
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,984
- Display Name
Display name:
midwestpa24
Actually as ARFF, we are trained to attempt aircraft shutdown. We use the acronym TBABB
Throttles - Idle
Bottles - Activate the shutdown and fire bottles
APU - Same
Battery - Master Switch off
Battery - Disconnect externally
Foam doesn't change the story, and yes the amount out of a fire hose or even the turret of the truck may not be enough. First you have to realize how much bypasses the actual engine core. Once the water gets dispersed by the fan blade, the compressor blades, and all the stators and other obstructions, very little gets to the burner section. As ARFF, we are trained that we can try it as a last resort, but don't expect it to work.
*Note, I am a 12 year ARFF veteran
Foam works by separating the flammable vapor from from the fuel pool. It doesn't have much of a retardant effect in a running engine.
Last edited:
Which is why I find it odd the pre-lim indicates that procedure may have been followed for two of three engines and yet the motors continued to run for an extended period, whether at idle or full power.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
First off, I never implied that the flight was being operated legally under any part.
But, did Fox actually own the airplane himself? My point about the NTSB prelim saying this was a part 91 flight simply being that the passengers had arranged to lease the airplane vice actually ‘charter’ it.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,601
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Yes and yes. Many 134.5 operations are done as dry leases with the lessor or another company owned by the principals of the lessor providing the pilots. This is typically frowned upon by the FAA as an obvious attempt to circumvent the requirements of 135. But as Fearless stated, the lessee passenger frequently has no idea as to the legality of the operation. They also seldom have any sort of actual operational control. Of course using unqualified pilots takes it to a whole different level.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,222
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Actually as ARFF, we are trained to attempt aircraft shutdown. We use the acronym TBABB
Throttles - Idle
Bottles - Activate the shutdown and fire bottles
APU - Same
Battery - Master Switch off
Battery - Disconnect externally
Foam doesn't change the story, and yes the amount out of a fire hose or even the turret of the truck may not be enough. First you have to realize how much bypasses the actual engine core. Once the water gets dispersed by the fan blade, the compressor blades, and all the stators and other obstructions, very little gets to the burner section. As ARFF, we are trained that we can try it as a last resort, but don't expect it to work.
*Note, I am a 12 year ARFF veteran
Obviously a different scenario but we teach ARFF on our helicopter to hit the intake with foam or water. A lot of turbine helos don’t use a particle separator and large amounts of water will flame out the engine. Could be a better alternative than ducking spinning blades and trying to cut the fuel in the cockpit.
Last edited:
midwestpa24
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,984
- Display Name
Display name:
midwestpa24
The engines continued to run because the fuselage damage probably disconnected the cockpit controls. As for the 2 out of 3, I don't know. Maybe they tried two and realized it was working. Maybe the crew tried before passing. Who knows.
I agree, helicopters are a different beast. Your turbine doesn't have the high bypass fan blocking the intake, so it could be moderately more successful. As a firefighter, I'm not fond of helicopters. Too many moving parts trying to go in opposite directions at a high rate of speed. Safest place to be in a helicopter crash is in the damn thing, at least all the high energy parts have a tendency to go away from you.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Actually as ARFF, we are trained to attempt aircraft shutdown. We use the acronym TBABB
Throttles - Idle
Bottles - Activate the shutdown and fire bottles
APU - Same
Battery - Master Switch off
Battery - Disconnect externally
Foam doesn't change the story, and yes the amount out of a fire hose or even the turret of the truck may not be enough. First you have to realize how much bypasses the actual engine core. Once the water gets dispersed by the fan blade, the compressor blades, and all the stators and other obstructions, very little gets to the burner section. As ARFF, we are trained that we can try it as a last resort, but don't expect it to work.
*Note, I am a 12 year ARFF veteran
Now this is a quality post! Thanks for sharing!
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Reviving an ancient thread in case anyone was wondering what was going on in the cockpit.
CVR is published in the NTSB Docket:
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=98361
CVR is published in the NTSB Docket:
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=98361
scarcherpilot
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2020
- Messages
- 153
- Location
- Atlanta - OTP North
- Display Name
Display name:
scarcherpilot
On mscards second picture, the building behind the fire trucks looks like a place called "The Landing strip" It was a strip club at one time. I got my PPL at KGMU back in 1998 and accidentally went in there a couple dozen times thinking it was a restaurant.
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,897
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
Man, those guys did not have a handle on what should have been an easy arrival. I didn’t read an approach brief being given (although they very well could have done it before the TOD) nor did I see where they ran any checklists at all.
overdrive148
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,903
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
overdrive148
DOODD, where's my Fix?
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
If I’m reading it correctly, they were cleared for an RNAV approach that they didn’t have in the box, but they had course guidance from a VOR and/or ILS approach that they kinda sorta flew.
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,897
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
The ILS was to 1. They had a VOR approach plate who knows what they were doing. Approach told them twice “vectors for the RNAV” and neither of them clued in to ask for the VOR. At one point I think the captain says “we don’t have RNAV” and I don’t know if he meant the plane or the database, but with their inability to find either fix they were given, I don’t think they were RNAV capable at all.
I wonder if the brake issue had to do with hydraulics.
I know nothing about Falcons, but I know some planes have selectable HI/LOW pressure for the hydraulics. Since they didn’t run a checklist who knows what the switches were set to, but the captain says something like “hydraulic pumps high and NAV lights on” and the FO just responds with something like “NAV lights are on.” I wonder if he missed the hydraulic pumps to high and if that was why they had no brakes (if that’s even a thing in a Falcon… I honestly have no idea.)
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
My understanding is that the reason there wasn’t a qualified PIC in the airplane is because the anti skid was inop, and the qualified PIC refused to do the trip.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah, this was a bad one. It was mentioned at least once at NBAA.
My goal in life is to never become an example of what NOT to do that's talked about for years afterward.
My goal in life is to never become an example of what NOT to do that's talked about for years afterward.