Just in on the good ol' Tabloid TV

[Propnose]

Did you just hear that jack a$$ CNN interviewed? He was describing the fire after the crash, and said with a smirk "it was a good one - not for someone, but..."

RIP - thoughts go out to the families and friends of those on board

 

[RedBehren]

MAKEMODELYEAR MFG
YEAR DLVSERIAL
NUMBERREG
NUMBERCOMPANYLAST CHANGED AFTTENGINE TTSMOHCITATIONULTRA1994
1994560-0265N86CE
Owner - Goship Air, LLC
Ketchum, ID 83340 United States
Aircraft Management Company - Jaxair, LLC
Hailey, ID 83333 United States
Additional Location/Contact - Goship Air, LLC
Ketchum, ID 83340 United States 7/13/2005 [4543] [4430] [4435] [987] [992]

 

[HawkerF/O]

I stand corrected. Those guys are bolder than I am. I wouldn't do it and try going any distance of signifigance. When I was flying Hawkers, I used 5000 feet as a min runway lenght to operate on a regular basis and all the pilots I flew with used the same 5000 feet as a minimun. Landing is not the problem, it's getting out of there that would concern me, but apparently not many others share my concern I guess. I'll be honest, we don't see a lot of that here in the Midwest and I guess I have been fortunate that the people I have flown for and fly for currently understand that they don't need to be anywhere bad enough if 4600feet is the only option. Blow a tire or have to abort for any reason 5 knots below V1 and you've really got a decision to make. I've never been fortunate enough to fly an airplane that outperforms the book. I can see falcons doing that, as anything over 3000 feet is fair games for a 3 hole falcon, and it'll do it all day long. But something without slats, like a Lear, Beechjet, GIII, Challenger 600/601, Hawker, etc, I just can't see it. Once again, my concern would be departing, not landing.

 

[501261]

I stand corrected. Those guys are bolder than I am. I wouldn't do it and try going any distance of signifigance. When I was flying Hawkers, I used 5000 feet as a min runway lenght to operate on a regular basis and all the pilots I flew with used the same 5000 feet as a minimun.

Netjets and FlightOptions run Hawkers out of CRQ all day long.

 

[HawkerF/O]

Netjets and FlightOptions run Hawkers out of CRQ all day long.

I can guarentee you this; the 1st time Netjets or Flops have some incident/accident because of a 4600 foot runway somewhere, tthat practice will come to a screeching halt. That's always how it work, people wil do things they maybe should or should not be doing and until something happens, nobody seems to have a problem with it. Don't misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying those guys are wrong and I am right; it's simply a difference of operational standards/provedures between operators.

 

[smfav8r]

If you think taking a light jet in and out of less then 5000 ft is bold, you haven't been doing this for too long.....727's in and out of less than 5000ft all day long is not uncommon.

 

[h25b]

Pretty tough to just set some arbitrary runway minimum like 5000' ... I'd buy required balanced field length plus some percentage. Everyone has their own comfort zone and every aircraft is different.

 

[Dep676]

I know that Options has certain criteria for the Hawkers to go in there.

 

[HawkerF/O]

If you think taking a light jet in and out of less then 5000 ft is bold, you haven't been doing this for too long.....727's in and out of less than 5000ft all day long is not uncommon.

A Hawker is not a light jet, nor is a Challenger, GIII, etc and those are just a few of the examples I gave. Also, I said it is something I would not do as a common practice. I would appreciate if you actually read what I wrote before you commented on it.

 

[HMR]

Those guys are bolder than I am. I wouldn't do it and try going any distance of signifigance. When I was flying Hawkers, I used 5000 feet as a min runway lenght to operate on a regular basis and all the pilots I flew with used the same 5000 feet as a minimun. Landing is not the problem, it's getting out of there that would concern me, but apparently not many others share my concern I guess.

Using today's conditions @ CRQ we'd be able to take 6 pax with luggage, fly for 3hrs and land with 1hr (2000lbs) of fuel. That's in an Astra.

 

[HawkerF/O]

I know that Options has certain criteria for the Hawkers to go in there.

Exactly my point. It's doable, and I would do it ,but there MUST be certain contingencies in place in order to do it. A extended crew brief and deciding specifically what to abort for are just 2 that come to mind right away. Would I fly a Hawker that was based there? No.

 

[taloft]

The picture on CNN was sad. Just a long black streak. Only the tail survived.

 

[smfav8r]

A Hawker is not a light jet, nor is a Challenger, GIII, etc and those are just a few of the examples I gave. Also, I said it is something I would not do as a common practice. I would appreciate if you actually read what I wrote before you commented on it.

I did read your entire post and it's all perspective, I consider all those jets you named light jets.

Don't know what your experience is outside the Midwest but, there are many places in the world that don't have nice long runways and flat terrain.

Airlines operate CRJ's out of key west all day long, no leading edge devices, less then 5000ft and bigger then the jets you mentioned.

Look up Quito some-time....imagine flying a DC8 in and out of there....almost 10,000ft above sea level with 18000ft peaks all around....and not lots of runway. They have slots, but they don't do a whole lot and you generally weigh in the 250,000lbs range...

It's all perspective...you say tamato, I say tomoto!

 

[2000flyer]

CRQ runway 24 slopes up from 326ft to 330ft. Runway 6 has a down slope. Looks like he attempted to land around sunup. Might he have tried a landing on runway 6 into the sun and on a downslope? I can see where he could have gotten into a lot of trouble there.

Thats a gradient of only 0.008%. In other words, non-existant. I'd be more concerned if it was approaching 2% which is a limitation on many aircraft.

 

[HMR]

Exactly my point. It's doable, and I would do it ,but there MUST be certain contingencies in place in order to do it. A extended crew brief and deciding specifically what to abort for are just 2 that come to mind right away.

How is that any different than KASE, KEGE, KTEX, KSUN, KTRK, KTVL, KJAC, KTEB, etc.....?

 

[HawkerF/O]

How is that any different than KASE, KEGE, KTEX, KSUN, KTRK, KTVL, KJAC, KTEB, etc.....?

It's really not, but the 1 thing that sets those apart from this airport is my original arguement; they all have 5000 feet or greater runways. That extra 400 feet makes a big difference when you have 4600 feet behind you. Once again, I have not critizised anybody or said they were wrong, it's just not something I would do as an SOP.

Take the Hawker for example. It's a popular MID-SIZE jet. It will fly out of this airport under today's conditions with no problem and fly for a couple of hours with 4 people on board (rough math in my head). But if an engine rolls back an V1, you've got quite a ride in front of you. For you HS125 guys, you can't make this take-off at flaps 0, so you have to go at 15. IF you have had any sime training, you know what a dog that airplane is until you get those flaps up on 1 engine. In a 700a (dont have the 800 book here at home with me), using runway 6, which the winds favor today, you'd ahve to make 564 feet/min (Standard Viz) to 2100 MSL on 1 engine IFR. We all know that Hawker is lucky to meet that with those barn doors out at 15. Put your compass on W, head out over the water so you don't hit anything and hope it climbs.

 

[HawkerF/O]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20060124-0847-bn24plane3.html

 

[smfav8r]

Take the Hawker for example. It's a popular MID-SIZE jet. [/quote]

Someone's got an issue with SIZE

 

[WMUSIGPI]

I did my initial Citation type there. I'm certainly no superstar either. Always had plenty of runway (and no TR's on the plane) Granted we did try to go to Brown airport for the pattern work as much for the congestion as the longer runway. CRQ was very busy, reminded me of PTK without the parallel runway for the pattern work. Departing west out to sea was no issue. Departing to the east toward the mountains took a bit of what if thinking.

 

[sydeseet]

Ah, one of those pilots.

I'd imagine flying a DC-8 but they are long before my time. How much fun can they be really?

The industry doesn't describe a Hawker as a light jet but if it makes you feel better go ahead and call it that. BTW - who is the person with the "size" issue here? Ever seen a short white guy driving a Lincoln Navigator or full size Mercedes. Picture the castle in "Shrek" Ring a bell?

As a former 727 driver, yes 5000' all day is doable but not exactly something to make a career out of. You and I both know that we'd prefer something upwards of 7000' to avoid having to do a flaps 25 takeoff and eat the second segment climb if anything rolls back, which happens much more often on the JT-8D then it ever will on a TFE-731 (Hawker Engine, to name a few).

Airlines operate CRJ's out of Key West, much as Pan AM used to do in 727's, but everytime I've been there in a light jet they are always weight limited due to the high temperature and are looking for volunteers to take the next flight. It's not like they're flying to Seattle either.

No, I've never flown to Quito, which sounds Russian, but I've been to Sun Valley, Jackon WY, and Aspen - you say tomoto I say tomato.

If you click the back arrow a few times you'll find a "Majors" section where there is a private club of Elite Big Iron drivers who look down on cute little corporate jets as hobby flying. Opinions are like, well you know. I'll put my pension, benefits, QOL, and overall career decision against theirs anyday, your's to boot.

Let's call the whole thing off.