Falcon 50 crash in Greenville South Carolina...

[Old fella]

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.

[tsgas]

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.

[boeingboy]

Wow.....just Wow!
I don't understand how this stuff happens. Not only were the crew not qualified - but the maintenance was non-existent.

According to the operator's director of maintenance, the airplane had been kept in storage in a hangar for about 4 years. In June 2018, a work order was generated to return the airplane to a serviceable status. The work order included a 12-month inspection, a 12-month or 500-hour inspection, a 24-month inspection, and a 36-month inspection. The work order also indicated that 1C, 3C, and 5C checks were to be completed and that a total of 103 discrepancies found during the ongoing inspections needed to be addressed. The work order was about 60% complete at the time of the accident, and there were no maintenance log entries made indicating that the airplane was airworthy and returned to service.

Highlights….
1) Crew not qualified
2) aircraft was stored for 4 years and the required inspections were not completed
3) No maintenance activity logged
4) previous flight with issues not dealt with
5) and the maintenance that was done was very sloppy - monkeys would have done a better job!

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020_06_10_archive.html

[DH82EH]

Yeah, but look at how much money they saved by not doing all that pesky maintenance!
Maintenance is expensive.

[co-joe]

WOW

[rxl]

Unqualified pilots in an unserviceable aircraft.
What could go wrong?

[Capt. Underpants]

https://youtu.be/P3TLyRQwOx8