Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#1 Post by Jet Jockey » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:46 pm

Very sad outcome with the two pilots dead and both passengers in critical condition...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... crash.html
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2429
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#2 Post by cdnpilot77 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:34 pm

I think the biggest head scratching part of this, is the credentials of the crew:

SIC is a PPL with Multi Rating no instrument rating, no type rating
PIC reportedly had an SIC rating only on the Da50

It appears as though the flight was a charter part 135 but the SIC is the owner of the airplane so part 91’d it. I think this accident might be a game changer in the exposure of a lack of oversight by the FAA of Part 91 operations and the credentials required to be flying biz jets.

A sad day, but from seeing how some of these 91 operators go, its an inevitability for some.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#3 Post by Jet Jockey » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:07 pm

cdnpilot77 wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:34 pm
I think the biggest head scratching part of this, is the credentials of the crew:

SIC is a PPL with Multi Rating no instrument rating, no type rating
PIC reportedly had an SIC rating only on the Da50

It appears as though the flight was a charter part 135 but the SIC is the owner of the airplane so part 91’d it. I think this accident might be a game changer in the exposure of a lack of oversight by the FAA of Part 91 operations and the credentials required to be flying biz jets.

A sad day, but from seeing how some of these 91 operators go, its an inevitability for some.

Why am I not surprised by this info... Part 91 Ops in the USA can be a total joke. I'm glad the Europeans had the balls a couple of years ago to say they would not tolerate US aircrafts in their airspace if both pilots were not type rated and that goes for the US airlines too.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1786
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#4 Post by Old fella » Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:04 am

cdnpilot77 wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:34 pm
I think the biggest head scratching part of this, is the credentials of the crew:

SIC is a PPL with Multi Rating no instrument rating, no type rating
PIC reportedly had an SIC rating only on the Da50

It appears as though the flight was a charter part 135 but the SIC is the owner of the airplane so part 91’d it. I think this accident might be a game changer in the exposure of a lack of oversight by the FAA of Part 91 operations and the credentials required to be flying biz jets.

A sad day, but from seeing how some of these 91 operators go, its an inevitability for some.
So basically it was a single pilot operation and the pilot who supposedly was qualified on type had second in command authority only on this high performance three engine business jet aircraft. Very hard for me to believe this is permitted.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#5 Post by Jet Jockey » Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:09 am

Old fella wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:04 am

So basically it was a single pilot operation and the pilot who supposedly was qualified on type had second in command authority only on this high performance three engine business jet aircraft. Very hard for me to believe this is permitted.


Not at all hard to believe...

Part 91 operations allow a non typed pilot to fly a two man crew aircraft.

Part 91 operation allows pilots to fly without any crew rest.

From the FAA's files on both pilots...

Image

Image
---------- ADS -----------
  

Liftdump
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#6 Post by Liftdump » Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:15 am

Wow
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3562
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#7 Post by pelmet » Sun Sep 30, 2018 12:39 pm

Illegal charters is a big issue with the FAA and US government. Owner could be in big trouble. Remember the Challenger in Teterboro.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2429
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#8 Post by cdnpilot77 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:24 pm

Owner is deceased in this accident....his estate could be in big trouble.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1786
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#9 Post by Old fella » Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:43 pm

Jet Jockey wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:09 am
Old fella wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:04 am

So basically it was a single pilot operation and the pilot who supposedly was qualified on type had second in command authority only on this high performance three engine business jet aircraft. Very hard for me to believe this is permitted.


Not at all hard to believe...

Part 91 operations allow a non typed pilot to fly a two man crew aircraft.

Part 91 operation allows pilots to fly without any crew rest.

From the FAA's files on both pilots...

Image

Image
I am dumbfounded this is permitted,even with my lack of knowledge on FAA licensing standards as it pertains to high performance business jets by private owner. Your knowledge of this type of operations with this particular aircraft is far superior to mine but I just can’t understand why it would even be considered it is simply unsafe, nonsensical to be even considered. A DA50 is not one of those light utility jets that private pilots blast around in single pilot- which is just as unsafe in my view but that is another debate.
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#10 Post by C.W.E. » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:02 pm

Interesting.

The pilot in command had a ATPL and was rated on the Falcon and the 1159 Gulfstream and the Learjet so he had some experience flying jets.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#11 Post by rookiepilot » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:22 pm

C.W.E. wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:02 pm
Interesting.

The pilot in command had a ATPL and was rated on the Falcon and the 1159 Gulfstream and the Learjet so he had some experience flying jets.
Chuck,

I find it interesting. 2 people die, and it's 100% hysterical on how bad the part 91 world is.

3 people die in the Asiana accident, and its how dangerous every Asian airline is. Ban them all from North American airspace.

-----------------

29 feet and probably a second or 2 from upwards of 1000 people that might have died, and it's "nothing to see here", OR, even better -- "blame the NOTAMs"!

I can't get the logic. Now or ever. Twilight zone.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2429
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#12 Post by cdnpilot77 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:05 pm

Chuck, “some experience” is pretty vague. It’s also entirely possible he has all those type ratings and this was his first time in the actual airplane of any of those types. You can get a pic or an sic type rating for free from the sim centre by acting as a right seater for a certain number of days per week. It’s their pay/incentive to have volunteers. Once you have that Tr you are free to do as you wish with it. Again, all perfectly legal under part 91 rules.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
oldtimer
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2274
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#13 Post by oldtimer » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:18 pm

Who says the flight was legal or allowed. Nothing is illegal until you are caught.
---------- ADS -----------
  
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.

C.W.E.
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#14 Post by C.W.E. » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:43 pm

Chuck, “some experience” is pretty vague. It’s also entirely possible he has all those type ratings and this was his first time in the actual airplane of any of those types. You can get a pic or an sic type rating for free from the sim centre by acting as a right seater for a certain number of days per week. It’s their pay/incentive to have volunteers. Once you have that Tr you are free to do as you wish with it. Again, all perfectly legal under part 91 rules.
Yes I am aware of that, my comment was only to point out he had those endorsements.

I flew US registered airplanes for years under part 91 and am aware of the differences between the FAA and T.C. rules.

There is more to flying an airplane safely than what countries rules you are operating under and it has been my experience that the most important player in the rules is the insurance underwriters for pilots who fly for pay.

Next in my opinion is following the manufacturers POH and following the maintenance procedures and timelines.

But most important of all is having the ability to think well ahead of the airplane you are flying and having a plan to follow if things do not go as planned.

Those things worked for me for over half a century flying for a living and kept me accident free.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#15 Post by Jet Jockey » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:03 am

The Falcon went off the end of the runway at a pretty high rate, actually flew off the end of the runway.

And from another aviation site, someone claims to have "first hand" info on the Falcon typed pilot and I quote... "Might be worth noting (1st hand knowledge), the PIC was fired from a G-1159 job a few years back when CP found out he had lied about his hours and experience..."

https://www.wyff4.com/article/exclusive ... t/23570549
---------- ADS -----------
  

Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#16 Post by Jet Jockey » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:42 pm

So according to the fire/rescue teams on sight, all 3 engines ran at full power for 20 minutes after the aircraft came to a stop. One engine ran for 40 minutes!

Both the #2 and #3 engine's fire handles were pulled, but the report doesn't say when and by who they were pulled. If they were pulled by the pilot at some point, why did the engines continue to run?

Also, the Anti Skid system had been placarded as "INOP" just prior to departure that day.

Maybe it is just me (don't know the landing distance of a Falcon 50), but I don't think flying into an airport with a runway less than 5400 feet in length with an INOP Anti Skid is a very good idea.

FAA preliminary report...

https://www.wyff4.com/article/ntsb-rele ... h/23622677
---------- ADS -----------
  

Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 784
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#17 Post by Diadem » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:58 pm

Jet Jockey wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:42 pm
Both the #2 and #3 engine's fire handles were pulled, but the report doesn't say when and by who they were pulled. If they were pulled by the pilot at some point, why did the engines continue to run?
Considering that the cockpit was detached from the fuselage, it's probable that the handles were no longer connected to the engines.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#18 Post by Jet Jockey » Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:35 pm

Diadem wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:58 pm
Jet Jockey wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:42 pm
Both the #2 and #3 engine's fire handles were pulled, but the report doesn't say when and by who they were pulled. If they were pulled by the pilot at some point, why did the engines continue to run?
Considering that the cockpit was detached from the fuselage, it's probable that the handles were no longer connected to the engines.
True... That's why I'm wondering if they were pulled by ground crews and not the pilots.

I don't think from what we know so far that post impact the pilots were conscious.
---------- ADS -----------
  

valleyboy
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#19 Post by valleyboy » Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:35 am

The rules or lack there off south of 49 are a little hard for us to understand. I have witnessed the process first hand and still scratch my head. I was down doing a course and the ground school had about 8 pilots with 3 canadians and the rest american. Fast forward to sim time and since 1 of us canucks had an american license he got paired with the class big mouth who turns out to be a helicopter pilot obviously with a fixed wing license and an IFR - well bottom line this guy was so bad the training facility had to take him on fully and give him one on one to try and get a pass for this guy. The facility was kissing his bosses ass because they were a good customer and there is no way this guy was competent to be even in the right seat but they pushed him through. This is not unusual and even under part 121 F/O's only started being type rated (trained but not type rated) circa 2012 --
---------- ADS -----------
  

FADEC
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#20 Post by FADEC » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:03 am

I have a DA50 type rating as PIC and a fair amount of experience. The lightest Part 25 airplane I have flown.
It is a straightforward aircraft, but it is a high performance jet.
It only has a reverser on the center engine; If you landed in the right place at the right speed and used the brakes properly, 5400 feet with no anti-skid would be do-able on bare and dry.
Not likely the best idea!
Having trained in the US and seen some of the Part 91 stuff; it is a bit of the Wild West.
Having said that, some Canadian (and presumably European) operators are not lily white either.
Some operate a little loosely to say the least.
Note the American Cessna 335 crash recently; the Pilot/Owner had his licence revoked in 1997.
There are some pilots flying around Canada as well without any qualifications; at least one hears talk.
Some "qualified" pilots are pretty sketchy, especially in GA, but in the 704/705 world the further one gets from places like AC, the wider the spread of skills becomes. Every carrier no matter how respected has minimal examples.
I flew with a couple of poor specimens during a post retirement gig on a 50 seat airplane.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1786
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#21 Post by Old fella » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:48 am

FADEC wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:03 am
I have a DA50 type rating as PIC and a fair amount of experience. The lightest Part 25 airplane I have flown.
It is a straightforward aircraft, but it is a high performance jet.
It only has a reverser on the center engine; If you landed in the right place at the right speed and used the brakes properly, 5400 feet with no anti-skid would be do-able on bare and dry.
Not likely the best idea!
Having trained in the US and seen some of the Part 91 stuff; it is a bit of the Wild West.
Having said that, some Canadian (and presumably European) operators are not lily white either.
Some operate a little loosely to say the least.
Note the American Cessna 335 crash recently; the Pilot/Owner had his licence revoked in 1997.
There are some pilots flying around Canada as well without any qualifications; at least one hears talk.
Some "qualified" pilots are pretty sketchy, especially in GA, but in the 704/705 world the further one gets from places like AC, the wider the spread of skills becomes. Every carrier no matter how respected has minimal examples.
I flew with a couple of poor specimens during a post retirement gig on a 50 seat airplane.
Although I do not have extensive experience as you do, I do possess time in the light turbine/ jet aircraft perhaps enough to give some sort of opinion. In my view the biggest blemish here in Canada is single pilot operations in high performance aircraft , examples are both fatal accidents in that Citation and MU-2 crashes which claimed lives of former well known politicians. Both accidents appear to have loss of control/ situational awareness issues and in my view no doubt could have been avoided with two well trained , experienced , endorsed pilots in each aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
  

tsgas
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 370
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:53 pm

Re: Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

#22 Post by tsgas » Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:14 pm

Old fella wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:48 am
FADEC wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:03 am
I have a DA50 type rating as PIC and a fair amount of experience. The lightest Part 25 airplane I have flown.
It is a straightforward aircraft, but it is a high performance jet.
It only has a reverser on the center engine; If you landed in the right place at the right speed and used the brakes properly, 5400 feet with no anti-skid would be do-able on bare and dry.
Not likely the best idea!
Having trained in the US and seen some of the Part 91 stuff; it is a bit of the Wild West.
Having said that, some Canadian (and presumably European) operators are not lily white either.
Some operate a little loosely to say the least.
Note the American Cessna 335 crash recently; the Pilot/Owner had his licence revoked in 1997.
There are some pilots flying around Canada as well without any qualifications; at least one hears talk.
Some "qualified" pilots are pretty sketchy, especially in GA, but in the 704/705 world the further one gets from places like AC, the wider the spread of skills becomes. Every carrier no matter how respected has minimal examples.
I flew with a couple of poor specimens during a post retirement gig on a 50 seat airplane.
Although I do not have extensive experience as you do, I do possess time in the light turbine/ jet aircraft perhaps enough to give some sort of opinion. In my view the biggest blemish here in Canada is single pilot operations in high performance aircraft , examples are both fatal accidents in that Citation and MU-2 crashes which claimed lives of former well known politicians. Both accidents appear to have loss of control/ situational awareness issues and in my view no doubt could have been avoided with two well trained , experienced , endorsed pilots in each aircraft.
and yet AC always has these perfect pilots that almost crash into other airlines in SFO.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”