Citation CJ2 Crash

[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..............

 

[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