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.