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

[Fly91]

I believe this one. The lear has a fast rate of roll. None of the YouTube videos show someone trying a high rate lear roll.

The owner of one company I worked for rolled right after take off at about two hundred and fifty feet. By the time I realized what he was doing we were already upside down.

Another company I worked for used the Lear on a military contract for radar training and some air combat maneuvering. If the tiptanks are empty the airplane can be maneuvered very aggressively in roll without damaging the airframe.

I did two re-certification flights in two different Lears over the years with Lear Test Pilots. One was after a bird strike and the other required some access panels near the leading edges to be removed for wing tank work.

Those guys throw the Lear around like you wouldn't believe. Nothing stupid, they didn't roll it, but 90* of bank was reached several times as well as probably 40-50* of pitch up and down. Not too mention about 20 stalls on each flight for the certification.

You know how in the Lears you're supposed to bank to 90* to let the nose fall through the horizon to recover from a nose high-decreasing airspeed unusal attitude....because they do not like negative G's.....it feels, looks and works exactly like in the sim.

 

[Rick1128]

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 mutiny, what can he do about a captain that wants to roll the plane?

First of all, the 'Captain' was flying an "N" numbered aircraft. To legally operate an "N" number aircraft was a crewmember, your certificate must match the nationality of the Aircraft registration or the nationality of the airspace. Therefore, the 'Captain' needed to have an FAA certificate.

The FAA can file violations all day long. It is up to Legal to decide to go any further. It has been the FAA's practice to file against the First Officer also, especially if the PIC is beyond the FAA's authority, i.e. dead, outside the country, etc.

If he tried to do a snap roll in a Hawker I'm pretty sure that right wing would have been more bent than it was, thats what I'm saying. He did the rolls to the left, that right wing was bent downward, as in NEGATIVE G loading. A Hawker cannot do a true snap roll, but if tried, you might snap that wing off.

Hawker is a pretty tough aircraft. It was originally built to British military standards and was used as a multi engine trainer for the RAF for many years. It is possible that it was snapped. But it is quite likely we will never know completely.

 

[Fly91]

First of all, the 'Captain' was flying an "N" numbered aircraft. To legally operate an "N" number aircraft was a crewmember, your certificate must match the nationality of the Aircraft registration or the nationality of the airspace. Therefore, the 'Captain' needed to have an FAA certificate.

I'm sure he had a sing-off for a temp license like so many of them do.

The FAA can file violations all day long. It is up to Legal to decide to go any further. It has been the FAA's practice to file against the First Officer also, especially if the PIC is beyond the FAA's authority, i.e. dead, outside the country, etc.

A friend of mine messed up pretty bad leaving Munich Germany in a 747, only he got into trouble. They don't always go after the sic. After all, the FAA knows that captains do things that an sic sometimes can do absolutely nothing about. It would be amazingly unfair to violate sic's in alot of cases for a captains actions/decisions.

Hawker is a pretty tough aircraft. It was originally built to British military standards and was used as a multi engine trainer for the RAF for many years. It is possible that it was snapped. But it is quite likely we will never know completely.

We all know now. The co-pilot admitted to every detail of what took place. Why would he say that and possibly get into trouble when he could have just stuck to the hard landing story. Thats why the rumor is he might get a pass. I think the FAA is screwed in going after some guy living in Mexico.

Just like with Personal Jet, the captain admitted the rolls, 3 of them. Its over, they are just waiting to see what the punishment will be.

 

[ackattacker]

Half of you guys don't know the difference between a SNAP-ROLL, Slow Roll, or Barrel Roll.

I doubt the Hawker was "snapped"

"I'm just saying"

I think that, given the damage, the specific type of roll was a "F'd up roll"

I believe that's the correct technical term.

 

[blzr]

If they hadn't done the roll, then the B!TCH wouldn't be broke!

 

[patq1]

Am I missing something? It's been pointed out that the airplane was damaged in a hard landing and IT HAPPENED IN 2008. It didn't happen last week.

 

[siucavflight]

patq, I believe the crew lied and said it was a hard landing, but it fact the damage was caused by a roll.

 

[patq1]

patq, I believe the crew lied and said it was a hard landing, but it fact the damage was caused by a roll.

I understand the story being told but it doesn't agree with the facts from the NTSB report or the icao report. I believe the story is just that: a BS internet story. The NTSB report(from the Mexican DGAC) states that the damage occurred in March, 2008 from a hard landing. I will go out on a limb and guess that the passengers were interviewed and I think some of the passengers might have spoken up about any ridiculous inflight maneuvering.

From http://www.icao.int/icaonet/adrep/indexes/032008.htm#08200294

ICAO File : 08200294
Occurrence Class

Accident

Status

Open

Date

4/03/08

Time

8:50:00 AM

State of occurrence

Mexico

Damage

Substantial

Location

Monterrey


Occurrence categories
ARC: Abnormal runway contact


Narrative
Unofficial: 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. This report is for informational purposes only and contains only information released by, or obtained from the DGAC of the Republic of Mexico. ICAO NOTE (ASCEND): Insurance report says March 4 and includes a damage survey dated March 5. Maybe March 28 was when it was reported to the authorities. Raytheon has apparently said that the extent of the damage to the fuselage makes it unrepairable.


Sequence of events
1 Aircraft operation general - Aircraft handling - Hard landing during Powered aircraft - Landing - Level off-touchdown

Aircraft Information
Registration

N167DD

Operator


Make/Model

BRITISH AEROSPACE - 125 SERIES 800

Operation type

Commercial Air Transport - Non-scheduled revenue ops - Domestic - Passenger

Injuries

Fatal

Serious

Minor

None

Unknown

Crew




2


Pax

 

[siucavflight]

Wow, thanks for the info pat, looks like fly91 made the story up to support his theory of everyone rolls airplanes.

 

[patq1]

Wow, thanks for the info pat, looks like fly91 made the story up to support his theory of everyone rolls airplanes.

Maybe he was just misinformed. In any case the damage happened over a year ago. The accident reports say a hard landing. If anyone still wants to claim it was rolled it happened more than a year ago and the owner certainly wasn't standing there shocked to see the condition of the airplane when it rolled in to FXE a few weeks ago. And the crew knew the condition of the aircraft before it took off from Mexico, most likely with some sort of ferry permit. So much for the story of the scumbag Mexican captain who ran away blah, blah, blah.

 

[SansPlane]

Crew and passengers not injured but lists only two crew? I am sticking with 91 and his photos on this as long as he does not try to sell me any Mona Vie. If that damage was due to landing then that would have been one hell of a landing and I am not so sure they would have been able to keep it on the runway.

 

[patq1]

The point is that this damage did not happen last week; it happened last year. The damage shown in the pictures is described in the accident report from 2008. From the accident report:

"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...ICAO NOTE (ASCEND): Insurance report says March 4 and includes a damage survey dated March 5. Maybe March 28 was when it was reported to the authorities. Raytheon has apparently said that the extent of the damage to the fuselage makes it unrepairable."

Apparently someone has since decided that it is repairable and the airplane has been ferried to FXE. The damage happened LAST YEAR between Toluca and Monterrey, not between Mexico and FXE. So the story about the Mexican Captain and how the owner was so surprised when the plane taxiied in last week at FXE is BS.

 

[SansPlane]

Well aware of when it took place but I don't believe the photos and accounts of what might or might not have happened were out there for us to postulate. You may have noticed from time to time that news stories surface or resurface when “facts” change or new information becomes available. In addition, the point you made questioned that the aircraft actually rolled. Add to that the fact that your original information states the aircraft was deemed irreparable which is in question if the photos 91 provided are current and your recent information is correct. I feel like avbugs son… Not a bad thing I guess…

 

[patq1]

I guess I should have explained myself better. It's just that there are so many inaccuracies in the original story that it is difficult to believe any of it.

The original story was:

"STORY. This is what I was told by the people that were there when the plane rolled in. They are employees of the FBO and know the owner and everyone involved.

It came from Mexico back to FXE, the captain that flew it back was a licensed Mexican pilot, no FAA licenses or ratings. Captain was hired as a contract pilot just for this trip. The co-pilot was from here and he was also just used as a contract pilot to get the plane back here.
When they got back to FXE where the owner was waiting, of course they flipped out as the plane rolled into parking. The captain or the co-pilot had no idea YET of the damage that was caused. When asked, "what the F$CK happened?" He apparently at some point said he made a hard landing. YET, the tires and gear were perfect. The FAA and insurance company had questioned them on what happened and they stuck to that story for 9 days. Finally, the co-pilot talked (good for him BTW). He said the Mexican guy wanted to snap roll it...not aileron roll it....SNAP ROLL it like a Pitts. Fuel wing fuel too, moron. Supposedly it was done 3-4 times. By this time, when the co-pilot talked, the captain had gone back to Mexico. Not sure yet what the FAA is going to do with the co-pilot though. He'll probably get a pass, he was just flying with a scumbag captain. He should have smacked him in the mouth and took the controls. But, thats just me.

Its being fixed I guess and returning to service. I heard it was very low-time and only a few years old. Not sure on that. I certainly wouldn't fly it after seeingwhat I saw, no way.

Maybe someone with more accurate or detailed info can chime in."

First, the damage occurred on a flight between Toluca and Monterrey, not between Mexico and FXE. Second, the damage occurred over a year ago, not within the last couple of weeks. Third, according to the registration records, the airplane changed hands in September of 2008 when World Jet purchased it. I don't believe the owner was standing there furious about the condition of the airplane when it taxiied in at FXE since the damage occurred before he purchased it. Fourth, the story says that the Captain was from Mexico and he had no FAA licenses whatsoever. He would have to have an FAA license to fly an N registered aircraft unless there was some arrangement made between the DGAC and the FAA. Fifth, the story gives the aircraft's age as a few years while it was built in 1987. Sixth, the FAA isn't going to do anything to the Captain or FO unless either they were flying it a year ago when the damage occurred or they flew it from Mexico to FXE in an unairworthy condition.

So I guess my problem is that since almost every other element of the story is either wrong or very doubtful why believe the roll part? The more likely story is that the new owner purchased the airplane and planned to repair it so they had it ferried back to FXE for repairs.

 

[satpak77]

who cares? It got rolled, maybe it did, maybe not. Maybe 10 zillion jets get rolled a day, maybe not

who gives a rats a$$

maybe the story is true, maybe not. Maybe the NTSB investigates only accidents. Maybe the Captain got violated.

maybe bigfoot exists, and aliens are in deep freeze at Area 51. maybe pink monkeys will fly out of my butt

i think we should continue this stupid thread for another 10 pages

 

[bizjet800]

Does anyone have the S/N? I think I used to fly this airplane.

 

[satpak77]

Does anyone have the S/N? I think I used to fly this airplane.

run the tail number