Hawker 800XP....snap rolled 3-4 times

[Fly91]

Based on the second part of the story - that sounds like stress from stopping and reversing the aileron roll abruptly and torquing the fuselage. That makes sense!

I would highly doubt the tail would stay attached had they actually done a snap roll (nearly full back stick and full rudder),

I think the co-pilot meant he was really pinning the yoke to one side, abruptly. I don't think he was doing a snap-roll as in proper technique that you would do in an aerobatic plane.

He was clear that he didn't do a nice smooth, slightly pitched up attitude entry to a mellow aileron roll, like Bob Hoover does in non-aerobatic rated passenger planes. He said he was very aggressive and just whipped it around hard.

But yes, the two times he whipped it back the other way is what twisted everything.

 

[Correcting]

***I in no way support people who roll corporate jets, but lets be honest, it happens to 100's of planes, every day of the year, all around the world and we don't ever see this type of damage. I've never once seen a complete airframe destroyed. If any of you think for a second that you're flying coporate jets that have not been rolled, unless you know its brand new and only you have flown it since new.......you're fooling yourselves....

Say what? How do you figure? Maybe I'm naive, but I'm pretty confident that none of the planes at NJA have been rolled. I'd bet the same goes for our competitors as well.

 

[G21Agoose]

That pertains to an actual aircraft accident (ie: running off the end of a runway, collision, controlled or uncontrolled flight into terrain etc.)

The NTSB doesn't investigate neglect to an aircraft. They investigate accidents in an attempt to never see that same accident repeated. The only thing thay could do here is tell the pilot not to do it again.
At least I've never heard of the NTSB investigating something like this. Plus, the NTSB doesn't investigate a Part 91 trip on a corporate jet where no passengers were involved, IIRC.

I am sorry but that's rubbish- the Mexican equivalent is the investigating authority but the NTSB would have investigated had it been under their authority.

DFW08WA091
On March 28, 2008, at 0808 central standard time N167DD, a British Aerospace BAE 125 model 800A was substantially damaged while landing on runway 02 at Aeropuerta de Norte, near Monterrey, Mexico. After landing the crew taxied the airplane to the hanger and did not report the occurrence. Maintenance personnel noticed substantial damage to the fuselage and wings while performing routine maintenance.

The passenger airplane, serial number 258068, is owned by Aircraft Guaranty Holdings and Trust LLC Trustee in Houston, Texas. The flight initiated in Toluca, Mexico with Monterrey, Mexico as the intended destination. None of crew and passengers were injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight.

The investigation is under the jurisdiction and control of the Government of the Republic of Mexico. Any further information may be obtained from:

Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Trasportes
Direccion General de Aeronautica Civil (DGAC)
Providencia 807, Cuarto Piso
Colonia del Valle, Codigo Postal 03100
Mexico, D.F.

 

[Rick1128]

This is neither an accident or an incident. NTSB only investigates accidents and they have no authority to discipline a pilot.

The FAA was called and it was reported. The American, FAA licensed co-pilot, is being investigated. He'll probably get a pass because he finally gave up the captain and told the truth. But really, what grounds would they have for violating the co-pilot, he was just sitting there, the captain made the choice to roll it. Not alot of co-pilots have the balls to tell captains that they ARE NOT going to do something. They don't realize that they are, in a way, the final authority on alot of flight and non-flight operations. If they say they don't like something or aren't comfortable with something, no matter what the captain says, its not going to happen. But this co-pilot obviously is one of the co-pilots who just does whatever a captain says, kind of stupid if you ask me. The leading cause of death of co-pilots...is captains. lol

From what I have seen they will violate both of them. It is a crew aircraft. The Captain needed an FAA certificate to fly the aircraft in US airspace so they can get him through that. If he didn't have an FAA certificate, they could start action against the C/P and the owner for that also.

 

[Hung Start]

I am absolutely amazed the insurance company has not written this off, fast!
That is one liability trail that is never going away. That airframe is going to have problems forever, and God forbid it has a catastrophic failure in the coming years. For any reason.
Not to mention the resale value has dropped to nothing. No intelligent buyer would ever consider it.

Good luck, someone is going to need it.

Hung

 

[aubrey770]

I am disappointed...I read both pages of this thread before I opened the picture. I was hoping that it was the XP that I captained out of Toluca in 2001. I couldn't have happened to nicer owners.

 

[Fly91]

I am sorry but that's rubbish- the Mexican equivalent is the investigating authority but the NTSB would have investigated had it been under their authority.

DFW08WA091
On March 28, 2008, at 0808 central standard time N167DD, a British Aerospace BAE 125 model 800A was substantially damaged while landing on runway 02 at Aeropuerta de Norte, near Monterrey, Mexico. After landing the crew taxied the airplane to the hanger and did not report the occurrence. Maintenance personnel noticed substantial damage to the fuselage and wings while performing routine maintenance.

The passenger airplane, serial number 258068, is owned by Aircraft Guaranty Holdings and Trust LLC Trustee in Houston, Texas. The flight initiated in Toluca, Mexico with Monterrey, Mexico as the intended destination. None of crew and passengers were injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight.

The investigation is under the jurisdiction and control of the Government of the Republic of Mexico. Any further information may be obtained from:

Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Trasportes
Direccion General de Aeronautica Civil (DGAC)
Providencia 807, Cuarto Piso
Colonia del Valle, Codigo Postal 03100
Mexico, D.F.

Thats an unintentional aircraft accident. It wasn't purposely done and there were passengers aboard. It should be reported. This moron captain rolled it 4 times, and finally the truth was told. So there is nothing to investigate.

Not trying to argue, but the FAA has already said that the Mexican captain is long gone and they have no authority over him.

Thats obviously the case here because the NTSB was never even notified. The Mexican guy is long gone and from what everyone has heard, as well as hearing from the FAA, he's on his own. The only people that have ever been seen at the FBO invesitgating this situation was the FAA and the insurance company. Thats it.

Rick1128:From what I have seen they will violate both of them. It is a crew aircraft. The Captain needed an FAA certificate to fly the aircraft in US airspace so they can get him through that. If he didn't have an FAA certificate, they could start action against the C/P and the owner for that also.

Again, the only people involved in this are the FAA and the insurance company, the NTSB has no interest whatsoever. And you do not need an FAA certificate to fly into the USA. You trying to say every British Airways, Cathay Pacific and any other countries airlines, their pilots all have FAA certificate? They don't.

And don't be so sure about the co-pilot getting violated, he has a very good chance of nothing happening to him. Its not his fault. He did what the azzhole captain said to do. Short of a mutany, what can he do about a captain that wants to roll the plane?

 

[Fly91]

I am absolutely amazed the insurance company has not written this off, fast!
That is one liability trail that is never going away. That airframe is going to have problems forever, and God forbid it has a catastrophic failure in the coming years. For any reason.
Not to mention the resale value has dropped to nothing. No intelligent buyer would ever consider it.

Good luck, someone is going to need it.

Hung

Thats what I'm thinking.

Think about the unaware pilots in the future that will be flying this thing.

But as I said earlier, they are still tearing into it and it hasen't yet gotten the 100% return to service go-ahead. They keep finding more things. So they may find that NEXT thing that grounds it forever.

 

[aubrey770]

Again, the only people involved in this are the FAA and the insurance company, the NTSB has no interest whatsoever. And you do not need an FAA certificate to fly into the USA. You trying to say every British Airways, Cathay Pacific and any other countries airlines, their pilots all have FAA certificate? They don't.

I think that foreign pilots are required to have proper FAA certificates to fly a US registered airplane. The only exception is for US registered airplanes that are leased to foreign operators.

 

[Rokit88]

I am absolutely amazed the insurance company has not written this off, fast!
That is one liability trail that is never going away. That airframe is going to have problems forever, and God forbid it has a catastrophic failure in the coming years. For any reason.
Not to mention the resale value has dropped to nothing. No intelligent buyer would ever consider it.

Good luck, someone is going to need it.

The only thing that airframe is good for now is as an airplane on a stick!

 

[Sandhawk]

'Cause wet-backs ain't that smart!

:bomb:

 

[Hamburger]

I think it's the funniest thing I've heard all day. The owner got exactly what he paid for. :laugh:

 

[Boch]

As I was saying in an other post... everyone can talk about the "1G roll" all you want, but I dont buy it. rolling a biz jet is not something you can practice. Even in a aerobatic mount the perfect 1G roll needs to be done a few times to get perfect. Thats something you cant do with your Hawker. Im sure the Mexican pilot was not out to total the plane that day.

 

[corp_da20_guy]

Isn't that the same aircraft that had been sitting in LIT?

 

[Say Again Over]

Interesting thread, seems like the Feds could nail them on the old catch all; FAR 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.