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

[Fly91]

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"

A said earlier in this thread, the co-pilot said that the captain was snapping it very abruptly and full left or right with the yoke. Not a textbook snap roll as one would do in an aerobatic plane. Bury the yoke in a rear corner with corresponding rudder, the tail may have broken off and possibly the inside wing from the negative G's imposed on it. The right wing on this plane is already bent beyond repair.

 

[Boch]

A said earlier in this thread, the co-pilot said that the captain was snapping it very abruptly and full left or right with the yoke. Not a textbook snap roll as one would do in an aerobatic plane. Bury the yoke in a rear corner with corresponding rudder, the tail may have broken off and possibly the inside wing from the negative G's imposed on it. The right wing on this plane is already bent beyond repair.

No negitive G in a positive snap. you should know that with your aerobatic experiance.

 

[Fly91]

No negitive G in a positive snap. you should know that with your aerobatic experiance.

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.

 

[ableone]

One more thing. An aileron roll in a Lear on the glide slope with no more than a dot of deflection? BS. First of all I don't buy anybody is stupid enough to try to roll an airplane while on an ILS. The one dot deflection is just frosting on a BS story. If you're gonna tell a tall tale you might as well go big and you certainly did that, but you went too far. I'm not buying it for one second unless the guys last name was Hoover.

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.

 

[phr8dawg]

It would be interesting to do in a wind tunnel. Swept wing stalls are reportedly violent because they don't develop in a prdictable fashion like a wing with washout or stall strips. I'd also bet on at least one compressor stall. It might even deep-stall and go downhill tail-first. noooo thanks

 

[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.