Citation CJ2 Crash

[King Nothing]

Thanks feip, you make a very strong argument not to go into that airport with a King Air 200, but you can still do it and pilot's other than you will...I totally respect your personal minimums. As far as reverse thrust, it's not taken into consideration for jet flight planning, so it's an added benefit. I have heard though, that the reverse thrust on the CJ series is pretty dismal.

If fracman is right then the pilot's has to answer for this one. You need to really to think such a landing at a short field in a jet through. Proper airspeed on final and planting it to disipate some of your forward motion is the key. You don't want to fly a final really fast and then land long, then think you can stop or go-around. However, he did what he did and the poor dog paid the price.

KN

 

[Lrjet55]

On a different note

I see both sides of your arguments and I agree with you all. Allow me to take the argument one step further.
Am I the only one who see's a problem with this whole industry trend towards smaller lighter jets that cater towards the owner/operator pilot. It scares the beegeezes out of me. I am a corporate pilot down to my very soul. I love all the good and bad and strive on a daily basis to make this industry more respectable. I honestly feel that the companies that are producing these smaller jets and certifying them single pilot are giving wealthy individuals the ability to go out and kill themselves and the prescious man's best friend. I have no problem with some idiot dying. Its Darwin at work but I do have a problem with these sorts of people flying something way to fast and advanced for them which in turn makes US, as corporate and fractional pilots, look extremely bad in the public eye. With the way the TSA is starting to look at us as security risks the last thing we need is an incompetency issue as well. Just my opinion.

 

[Jetz]

Its the judgement factor

Bad judgement, people, will get you into this kinda trouble every time.

Flight Options at BWI: bad judgement
This: barring some mechanical failure issues...Bad judgement again.

 

[capt_zman]

feip,

I appreciate your personal opinion on the 3000' strip, but I operate a CE500, CE550 and BE200 out of a 3000' strip everyday. Believe me, the landing is much easier on the nerves than the takeoff. It can be done safely without a problem.

Z

 

[gump88]

My formula:

CJ1/2 = Modern day V-Tail Bonanza, Doctor/Lawyer/Millionare pilot killer.

The ego sometimes goes hand-in-hand with the pocket book.

Flame away, but who in their right mind would try to land a jet aircraft on 3000 feet?? Sorry ya'll, my scrotum is not big enough for that action!

gump

 

[Snakum]

I know of a C650 often operated out of 3800' ... even in the summer here in NC, along with a number of C550/560s and a Beechjet with no TR (can't get the BE400 in when runway is cont.). Usually just in and out for positioning though ... so it's probably light (no/few pax). My old CFI is now in the right seat of a couple of those and he said "The King Airs aren't so bad ... but the Citations can get scarey." (or sump'n like that).

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?

Minh
(Who wants a job in that C650 one day ...)

 

[trainerjet]

Yep....as it is now, we're only overrun with pilots.

 

[JetPilot500]

...I have heard though, that the reverse thrust on the CJ series is pretty dismal...

It's dismal alright...in fact there is NO Reverse Thrust on the CJ's. CJ's have something called Thrust Attenuators. Their purpose is block residual thrust created by the engine at idle. It stops the forward thrust vector, but has no slowing capability. It has the same affect as if the engines were shut down.

On another note. Book landing distances are calculated assuming that the pilot crosses the end of the threshold at 50' and touches down 1000' down the runway. In the CE-500 I used to fly, at typical landing weights on dry runways, our book landing distance was 2300'. That means, if we touched down on the threshold, we theoretically only need 1300' of pavement to stop. In this airplane, we had no Thrust Reverse or Anti-skid either. I would have been comfortable landing on a 3000' runway, and in fact had done it a few times. 3000' of runway on takeoff wasn't as fun, but definately do-able within Balanced Field Length limits.

JetPilot500

 

[Diesel]

The pilot was a professional person. 60+ and owned a cheyanne before that. The plane had 50hrs on it. He had been into dexter a ton of times with the cheyanne but this is the first time with the jet. The runway was dry.

 

[vortex]

The pilot was a professional person. 60+ and owned a cheyanne before that. The plane had 50hrs on it. He had been into dexter a ton of times with the cheyanne but this is the first time with the jet. The runway was dry.

Are you sure about that?
I recall a recent Cessna article about an owner/non professional pilot/CEO that was using his CJ1 to operate out of a 3000 ft strip in Maine until he took delivery of his new CJ2. This may have been the first time with the CJ2, but if it is the same fellow he has been in there many times before with the CJ1.

Looking for the article now..............