Citation CJ2 Crash

[Diesel]

Vortex- I saw that same ariticle and thats who I thought it was but a friend said he owned a cheyanne before that.

We used to take a king air B200 into a small strip called isleboro maine about once a week.

We have also landed it on 2000 strips in some back woods of maine. The plane performed beutifully. I used to be able to stop it in no time. We had a full raiseback kit on it.

But then again we practiced and practiced for short field ops. Our field at home was only 2700. We operated like that way for years, no problem. Not even close.

 

[English]

I just returned from Flight Safety and the word there was this was an owner operator. I would tend to believe this as the instructors knew the gentleman and mentioned him by name...

 

[cvsfly]

I imagine it's not uncommon to operate small jets on Part 91 (or Part 91 legs of 135 flights) in and out of fields meeting the bare mins. Aren't the calculations changing though, with the new Part 91 K?

Balanced field length is balanced field length. The regulatory numbers may change for the alternate requirement - I believe I have heard you must be able to land in 85% of runway length vs the current 70%. I don't think your destination requirement (60%) is going to change. And this is for 135.385, ..387, .393, .395, . 395 - small and large transport and non-transport category planes. So I think the CJ2 would fall under 135.399 anyway. What we are talking about here is not numbers, but prudent planning. Keep in mind your worst case scenario and work from there. And how safe is an uneventful landing at an airport you can get into (go-around? Mmmm?) and not get out of?

 

[English]

cvsfly,

Just trying to understand your comments...exactly why would a part 91 flight need to comply with part 135 regs? Not sure if I misunderstood, maybe you could clarify your statement?

 

[cvsfly]

English - Snakum mentioned the new Part 91 K, in which I think he was insinuating the corresponding changes to Part 135. These changes may include some regulations on performance requirements for larger jets on destination and alternate airports. No, it wont affect any Part 91 operators. But I guess the point I was making was that the "calculation" /performance numbers are not not going to change due to this. Then again if you think everything in Part 91 or any other regulation will keep you safe, you have another thing coming. Use regulations as a guideline, but develop your own standards (higher) of safety.

 

[flydog]

I routinely fly a King Air 200 into Palo Alto and San Carlos both of which are right around 2500'. I rarely use more than half the runway distance using only full reverse and very little brakes. Takeoff and landing at gross weight satisfies Part 135. We have even used runways down to 2000'. In an emergency Im confident I could get that bird stopped in 1000'

I also see CJ1 and CJ2s using San Carlos SQL all the time.

Most jets are limited at takeoff by balanced field length. I could easily stop the Westwind in 3000' at max landing weight but to turn around for takeoff would require over 4500'. The old Hawker I flew could stop in less than 2000' without reversers but needed a space shuttle landing strip to take off again.

Regardless a CJ2 running off the end of a 3000' runway is not due to an aircraft performance issue but malfunction or pilot error.

 

[cvsfly]

I routinely fly a King Air 200 into Palo Alto and San Carlos both of which are right around 2500'. I rarely use more than half the runway distance using only full reverse and very little brakes. Takeoff and landing at gross weight satisfies Part 135. We have even used runways down to 2000'. In an emergency Im confident I could get that bird stopped in 1000'

I also see CJ1 and CJ2s using San Carlos SQL all the time.

Most jets are limited at takeoff by balanced field length. I could easily stop the Westwind in 3000' at max landing weight but to turn around for takeoff would require over 4500'. The old Hawker I flew could stop in less than 2000' without reversers but needed a space shuttle landing strip to take off again.

Regardless a CJ2 running off the end of a 3000' runway is not due to an aircraft performance issue but malfunction or pilot error.

Re: BE-200
Obviously you are are only considering T/O and Land data with everything working. Our Part 135 check airman was of the opinion that all data must be used for T/O planning. I had originally thought Accel/stop and Accel/go were kind of optional for our category of aircraft. Having said that even before our last checkride, I always considered it and had a plan for my T/O in the event of a worst case scenario. Bare minimum I always planned on having Accel/stop distance. Your 2500' strip will not meet Accel/stop or go. Using 1993 B200 data: sea level, std., at 12,500 lbs: T/O with flaps app = 1850, Accel/stop= 3400', Accel/go = 4850' and an initial climb gradient of 3.4%. Land at 12,500', flaps full down with rev= 1100', w/o rev = 1750'. These are all precisly flown with maximum effort determined by company test pilots. Also hate to see the maintenance bills on your props and brakes. You can play the numbers game all day long. Your paying passengers deserve a little more if you are not flying in the bush. It may be inconvienant to go to a longer airstrip 20 miles away, but so is making an insurance claim. I admire your pilot abilities to get the most performance out of the plane you fly. But if my family was onboard, I would hope you would give more thought to your planning vs your ego.

 

[501261]

Someone said it already but Owner-Operators scare the stuff out of me! I was flying in behind a C550 the other day when this clown got lost going into JAC. As much as I'd like to think Darwinism would do some good here, it doesn't because an airplane crash is bad for everybody.

In this case the only affect was I had to do two turns on hold while this idiot "found" the airport (wx= day, 5000' OC, 10sm vis). I asked the FBO if they knew this guy after I landed, "yes, he owns a house up here; comes up a few times a year; last time he came in he landed with out a landing clearance."

So my point is, if you see someone flying there own turbine airplane, tell them they're idiots! Really, if you can afford the $1M airplane hire a fricking pilot! And no throwing a CFI in the right seat doesn't count! Hire a professional pilot!

 

[Lrjet55]

Amen, amen, amen!!! by the way, did I say AMEN!!!!!!!!

 

[RJones]

Would you folks feel the same way if I were to win the Lottery and then buy say a Lear 35? Would I fit into that category of being an owner operator as you describe?

RJ

 

[Timebuilder]

I'd say "no".

The profile of the owner-operator, as I see it, is a guy whose primary business isn't aviation, and never has been aviation. He has the money to own and fly the jet, but lacks the experience of the professional pilot. We will see many more of him in the years to come.

Spleen venting: the "United" turboprop crew, who after being asked to expedite their turnoff from 19R at IAD last night, dawdled along and forced our 55 to go around after a long day, with two more legs to go. Thanks again.

I feel better now.

 

[501261]

Would you folks feel the same way if I were to win the Lottery and then buy say a Lear 35? Would I fit into that category of being an owner operator as you describe?

RJ

Yes, I would! You're obviously a professional and very well qualified to fly a Lear 35, but if you win the lottery hire a pilot!

If I won the lottery I'm hiring a couple of "good" pilots and paying them accordingly, I'm going to sit in the back and live the good life! If I wanted to "fly" I'd buy a Waco or a glider or something fun to "fly", but going from point A to B is just work and I'd just assume let the professional handle that, while my "stewardess" serves me up an iced cold beverage (I'd also hire a flight "hostess" for my Lear)!

A good pilot is more than going to pay for himself anyway and it's such a small cost of the total operation. Take the LR35 example; flying it 400 hours a year is going to cost you $600,000. If an extra $120,000 is going to break you than you shouldn't own a Lear! Now a good pilot-manager is going to negotiate good fuel rates, insurance, hangar space, etc. That will more than save you the $120,000 anyway! Same with a mechanic, they easily pay for themselves too!

 

[100-1/2]

Not meaning to continue an already lengthy thread by introducing a new consideration, however:

On the topic of "suicidal owner/operators", there is no Insurance underwriter (of the limited few remaining)that will write a policy on an individual such as this (low time in type, much less a jet) and allow them to own/operate single pilot without substantial (supplemental) experience in the cockpit (3k-5k w/500 in type). I will bet the Underwriter baulks on the claim and leaves the poor sap hanging for the incurred loss(es). This structure is supposed to be a deterrant to the "Millionaire massacre methodology". With a professional in the front office, experience would have recognized the ensuing events and arrested the deteriorating progression saving a four legged friend, a couple million bucks and probably a certificate action.

I would avoid my mailbox like the plague, if I was this guy.

 

[English]

100 1/2


Not true. I know several owner/operators in the 1500 TT range with less than 100 in type who are insured single pilot.

 

[cvsfly]

Bet they pay a fortune. And we are talking turbine equipment worth over $1 mil? Or are these ragged out C-90s with the minimum liability on them?

 

[English]

No, I know two owner/operators of CJs in that time range. Yes, they are insured. In addition, when I was hired on at my company, all I had to do was fly 25 hours supervised as PIC in the CJ to get insured. I'm pretty low total time, and I had no problems getting insured single pilot.

 

[100-1/2]

Is that what THEY said or have you actually seen the policy? Even Owner/operators are typically required to gain [siginificant] experience in a turbo-jet supplemented by more experienced flight crew (dictated by Uw)until such a time as the Owner meets the limits contained in the contract to act as PIC in Single-pilot Turbojet operations of any kind(exception: experimental aircraft where pax are prohibited). Passengers are liabilities either in themselves or their family that deeply misses them, hoping to feel better with significant financial compensation for their loss. Minimizing exposure to potential claims and lowering the risk of lawsuit, Underwriters require time and experience or second pilots in aircraft not requiring them.

Always has been this way and always will be this way as long as Tort is around.

 

[English]

100 1/2,

All that is required at my company to be covered flying the CJ single pilot is to be approved by our Director of Operations. I was signed off to fly the CJ single pilot after having flown a few trips with the Chief Pilot and Director of Operations.

You seem surprised by this, but the CJ is an amazing simple aircraft to fly. That's why it is certified single-pilot. Plus, it's a jet. Doesn't get any easier than that.

I flew a C172 today for the first time in about a year. Now THAT'S scary!

 

[501261]

English is right; insurance is not that big of an issue.

I know a 900tt hour Citation owner. He was/is able to fly the Citation Single Pilot. His insurance is more expensive, he pays $50,000 annually (average is $20,000 for a $1M hull and $10M liability).

Personally, he scares the hell out of me! Sure some people say, let him go out there and kill himself. My problem with him is he creates a mid-air hazard by not having a clue on how to operate in the IFR Jet environment! ATC="Citation NxyzTT, you where cleared to MZB VOR, where are you going??...... Make an immediate 40 degree left turn you have traffic 12 o'clock 5 miles!"

 

[swberry]

Low time pilots in command of high performance aircraft have certain "restrictions" placed on the insurance policy. This is especially true for owner/operators. Some insurance providers may include a "runway length exclusion."