Favorite words of a new Lear 24 F/O

[captainv]

>Top gun Mav, that's a dumb-#ss question.

well now, there's a shocker.

any 20-series Lear has plenty of available power when single-engine. it's losing half that power suddenly that presents a problem. V1 cuts are a handful. I've always been surprised when I hear about Lear operators "interviewing" prospective pilots by pulling an engine on them at V1 in the airplane on a 6000-ft strip. i'd prefer to practice them in the sim only...

anyone who's seen Bobby Younkin's act in the Lear 23 knows it's capable of doing all kinds of aerobatics. many a Learjet has been rolled. What's appalling here is the pilot's complete lack of judgement: extremely low altitude, broad daylight, at a towered airport. as for pax on board, don't jump to conclusions. passengers are often the ones egging the pilots on. in my experience, our mechanics and the boss's kids were the most insistent. a low pass usually satisfied everyone. 180-200 knots at or above 200', with a nice pitch up and a steep turn. all perfectly legal, plenty of fun without approaching aerobatic limits. and everybody enjoys it, especially the tower guys and the line guys - something to break the monotony.

legaleagle,

for me, it's your attitude that irks me more than anything. why not call the chief pilot and keep it in-house before going to the feds? it's perfectly valid to call the FAA, but your "look what I did!" approach in explaining it to us bothers me. personally, i'd rather see you using your talents in aviation law to defend pilots rather than punish them. the FAA does plently of that already, and the tower guys should be the ones to call this in. or better yet, stop the flood of frivilous lawsuits againts gen-av every time there's a crash. the Carnahan crash, for example...

 

[Jmmccutc]

Me crazy? Noooooooo...350 when are we taking the F/A's to Vegas?

 

[bart]

If the guys in the Lear in fact did aerobatics in plain view of an operating control tower, they deserve to have their tickets revoked.

Plain and simple poor judgement. It demonstrates a willingness to disregard regulations and safety at the convenience of the pilot.

I am not saying I have not peformed similar maneuvers, just not in plain view of the ground, or particularly an FAA tower.

What an idiot.

I guess he will get to learn a valuable lesson, as will his copilot.

 

[legaleagle]

Captain,

As I said before I agree with you, I want to defend gen av accidents and defend pilots. To be honest, I didn't even think about the "contacting the company" option. But, I know this is gonna get flamed, when I was doing enforcement actions to get experience with what I was going to be defending against, the companies will not do a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** thing, in fear that they are going to get violated or fined too. They are very secretive about incidents unless there is a lot of hoopla, like a major crash. Anyway, I agree with you on the look what I did issue. I wasn't going for that. I should have just posted the incident on here as a bystander rather than commenting that I reported it.

thanks

 

[legaleagle]

Diesel,

You said this was the FAA mission,

"actually the FAA's charter is to promote air commerce."

This was the mission of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) before the airline rate deregulation in 1978. This was their final job before they were dissolved in favor of the new FAA.


This is the current FAA mission,


"FAA provides a safe, secure, and efficient global aerospace system that contributes to national security and promotion of U. S. aerospace."

The safety issue will become much more important now that Blakely, the former NTSB head is now in place.

 

[7B2]

Legaleagle,

Thank you for doing the right thing.

There is sometimes a fine line between fun and legal; we all know that and most of us have "stepped" over that, BUT they (assuming it was "planned" for by both pilots) made that fine line into a big fat red line against a white background!!!

They deserve to face the FAA.

It's pilots like them that make all of us look like a$$holes to the unknowing general public.

 

[fr0g]

Clarification:
legaleagle posted about the FAA:
"due process, and facing your accuser. This includes FAA"

I have no bones to pick with the FAA, always been treated fairly. However, I don't really see a lot of "due process" in most of the enforcement actions.
Anyone? Anyone?

 

[JohnDoe]

CDVdriver:

The "story" in your post:
"Once upon a time not too long ago I saw a pilot preflighting his Citation. Well, he kicked the tires and opened the door.
He was clearly the owner/pilot.
Loaded up grandma and grandpa and 5 or more kids<14 . ( so about 3 pax more then seats) His pregnant wife took the right seat holding a small baby and not able to use the shoulderbelt." "But I would have reported him."

.....is a perfect example of what some people are trying to say.

Who died and made you the "citation preflight authority"?????? Do you know the proper citation preflight procedure? Have you ever flown a citation? How do you know he didn't come out earlier in the day and do a more detailed preflight, and was just doing a quick walkaround to be sure a tug didn't hit the airplane?

By my counts, you listed 10 total people going into the citation (and one didnt even need it's own seat). I have seen, and flown, citations that have 9 seats in back PLUS the potty seat. Add the two pilot seats and that is 12 people. Did you actually look into the aircraft yourself to see how many seats there were??

The mother sitting in the right-front seat holding a baby? So what!! If he is single-pilot, she can be there. You are allowed to carry a child less than 2 years in your lap (91.107). Not wearing the shoulder harness?? How do you know that she didn't put it on prior to takeoff?? YOU DON"T. I have not flown a citation yet where you could not wear a shoulder harness while holding a baby. They just don't get in the way that much. How can you make the assumption that she was unable to do so??

You were going to try and get this guy violated for some very chicken sh!t reasons. Reasons that were based SOLEY on your "assumptions" of what YOU think was going on.

 

[Rick1128]

I have discussed this with several very high time Lear pilots (I'm the low time Lear pilot in this group with only 6500 PIC in Lears), including some Lear test pilots. They all agree with me that these pilots' judgement is lower than poor and that we as professional pilots do not need them in our industry. Yes, we all realize that the Lear, especially the 20's will do aerobatics. But improperly executed aerobatics put stresses on the aircraft that may have unforseen results.

Unfortunately, going to the Chief Pilot is not always the answer. The aircraft may be leased to an operator who is bootstraping off another certificate. So who do you go to? And the Chief Pilot may or may not do anything about it. Plus the pilot, when called on the carpet may either lie about it or blow off the Chief Pilot.

The rules and regs on aerobatics were not written by lawyers. They were written by experience. And they have been in place longer than the FAA. There is a reason for them.

Personally, I really didn't like his tone on his original message. But I can not fault what he did. On the other hand, if he was calling because someone was taxiing too fast or something else that is more of a technique thing, rather than a judgement item, I would join in on jumping on his butt.

 

[JohnDoe]

"Personally, I really didn't like his tone on his original message. But I can not fault what he did."

Rick1128 has hit it on the head.

I don't think anybody here is defending these pilots if they indeed did what you say they did. Its the "holier than thou" attitude you displayed when discussing how you were turning pilots in and helping the FAA in the enforecement that got you the flames. Especially when people see that you have a whopping 300 hours of flight time. All you needed to say was watch out, don't do this, when citing your example. Why even get into the fact that you turned them in? What was the goal of that? Kudos??

 

[501261]

Legaleagle,

I certainly have no sympathy for those Lear pilots, but you came across as a sanctimonious S0B, it sounded like you were bragging about getting these guys violated.

Should they be violated, you bet. Sure the Lear has a great roll rate (or so I’m told) and with the momentum he was carrying when he pulled up there was no immediate danger of hitting anything. The main issue here is his judgment, and rolling a Lear (especially in front of witnesses) is plain a$$ stupid.

Yes, you did the right thing by calling the FSDO, but that’s nothing to be proud of!

 

[legaleagle]

Alright, for the last time...

Ok, so I am going to say this for the third and last time. I believe this is the third post that I am discussing my intent. My intent was not to brag, nor was it to sound holier than thou. I was merely trying to tell a story to those that like to hear stupid stories on this forum. Additionally, I hoped that the story might act as a deterrent for the small handful of people that might be tempted to try a similar stunt. Might save them a violation, might save a life, might save some company some money. I want the same scrutiny applied to me! It does not take a certain amount of experience, or type in a certain plane, to know the operational Part 91 regs. These are common operational rules.

Perhaps my tone came across as too lecturing. I apologize for the third and last time. That does not change the fact that I reported it, and I would report it again. Forget my employment status, forget my screenname, forget my experience level, forget my love for flying, forget my respect for pilots and the profession, and forget my legal and operational experience, however small or extensive that it is.

 

[huncowboy]

it would be pretty cool to continue with some more of the original impressions of new lear pilots... I kind 'a enjoyed reading it until WW3 started.

 

[English]

Welcome to flightinfo.com...

 

[JB74]

Seriously, if anyone has any piston to jet transition stories, we would love to hear them.