Learjet 45 crashes in Telluride

[Tristar]

No, it doesn't have a stock powerplant. It's a 150 hp O-320, if I recall...which is really quite irrelevant. It's still a small single engine Cessna towing another airplane. It requires more than just raw power, but also some element of pilot skill.

No debate there is a degree of skill required operating any aircraft at a high density altitude. However, your statement that the powerplant is "quite irrelevant" displays an appalling ignorance. If you will recall, an aircraft climbs due to excess thrust. In this instance, you have increased the thrust of this aircraft by 50% over the stock engine, hardly insignificant. In fact, the power to weight ratio of this re-engined C-150 exceeds that of a stock C-182 (Stock C-150 15 lb/hp; Stock C-182 13.48 lb/hp; Modified C-150 10 lb/hp), in turn giving this aircraft a marked advantage in climb performance - which is obviously at a premium in said operation.

The point made in showing it flies out of Telluride isn't that it's a 150, it's about the pilot calling for Telluride to be shut down because he thinks it's a dangerous place. It's not. The pilot calling for it to be shutdown has determined that the field is beyond his capabilities, and that's fine...but it's not the field that's at fault, it's the pilot.

I don't disagree with this statement. I've never flown in to Telluride, so I cannot speak from first hand experience. That said, while obviously a challenging field, based on my limited knowledge it certainly doesn't appear to be beyond the abilities of a professional pilot operating an aircraft within the bounds of it's performance capabilities (and within the limits of the proceedures for the field). Additionally (as you correctly pointed out) everyone has there comfort zone with the aircraft they operate. I know when I flew the Sabre, the charts indicated landing performance which was unrealistic given it's primitive anti-skid system on a contaminated runway. In some circumstances it would not be the fault of either the airman or the field to have a landing (or takeoff) be within the "book performance" of the aircraft, but experience (read comfort zone) says it is outside of what is safe and smart.

When a small light single engine airplane can not only operate out of there, but tow other airplanes out of there...the runway isn't too short, nor too steep, as the other pilot asserted.

This is comparing apples to bananas - here is the "quite irrelevant" statement. I agree that based on empirical evidence there are a number of types of aircraft which can and do safely operate out of Telluride on a regular basis. The fact that one type is suitable hardly means all types are. I don't know what type he is flying. If it's a type with a (relatively) high ref speed, ineffective flaps, a lot of residual thrust and poor brakes, I could see why he would not be comfortable operating into said airport. Possibly he is new to the type, and in turn exercising good judgement in recognizing that he might not be able to detect an unsafe situation in a timely fashion. I would agree, though, that saying the airport should be closed is too broad a statement in this case.

I've flown corporate aircraft of varying types in there on numerous occasions, without difficulty, as have thousands upon thousands of others. Seems the problem isn't the field, but the individual calling for it to be closed.

See above.

As for Clay Lacy, I don't know the man, but I've used his FBO on many occasions, and flown his passengers. He has a good facility, good service, and I have no complaints about the man.

That's great. I never claimed he doesn't have a nice FBO, passengers, or employees. Again, I've never been there, and will accept what you say as true. This does not change the fact of what he as a person did.

Assuming you have flown corporate for a number of years as it appears, how would you feel about a junior member of the flight department taking an opportunity to "casually mention" to the CEO that "Boy, old Ed sure drinks a lot. I suprised he was able to fly the other day as bad a shape as he was in the night before!" If you've spent anytime in this industry, you know of (or have encountered) the type of weasel I'm referring to. The one who will take any opportunity to get ahead, even if it means stabbing someone else in the back (note - Example assumes Ed doesn't actually have a drining problem. If he actually did, it would need to be confronted and dealt with, but not in the fasion described). I personally find this type of behavior reprehensible. It's the same type of person whether corporate or airline, just a different mode of operation due to different ground rules.

Now, having said all of that - I seem to have touched a nerve here. I'll repeat my previous question which you failed to address, regarding the issue of character and career advancement:

"I gather you feel otherwise, perhaps you'd care to explain."

Do you believe it is acceptable to stab someone else in the back so the you can advance your career? Why or why not?

You may return to memorization of your scab list, now.

I don't spend my time memorizing the scablist - don't even carry a copy. However, when someone makes a point of promoting himself at every opportunity as Clay has (I haven't read it for several years now, but for years Clay and Murray Smith had a non-stop love-in going. Every issue had an article of Clay largely blowing his own horn).

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, if you're going to cut someone else's throat to get ahead you should spend your days hiding out in the dark ashemed of what you've done. The funny thing about people with this personality flaw - they see nothing wrong with what they've done, which is what really makes them dangerous.

So again, I ask you to address why it is you apparently feel that this sort of behaviour is acceptable.

[Moderators: I apologize for the thread drift here]

All of this aside, I am thankful he LR-45 crew and pax escaped safely. I am very interested to learn exactly what led up to this accident - it should be an interesting read when the final report comes out.

 

[Spoolingbyu]

Hard to argue with that.

 

[avbug]

Assuming you have flown corporate for a number of years as it appears, how would you feel about a junior member of the flight department taking an opportunity to "casually mention" to the CEO that "Boy, old Ed sure drinks a lot. I suprised he was able to fly the other day as bad a shape as he was in the night before!" If you've spent anytime in this industry, you know of (or have encountered) the type of weasel I'm referring to. The one who will take any opportunity to get ahead, even if it means stabbing someone else in the back (note - Example assumes Ed doesn't actually have a drining problem. If he actually did, it would need to be confronted and dealt with, but not in the fasion described). I personally find this type of behavior reprehensible. It's the same type of person whether corporate or airline, just a different mode of operation due to different ground rules.

Clay Lacy, of course, didn't do that...he bought his own business, promoted it, did much of the aerial photography in Hollywood, and has run a very successful FBO and charter operation for many years. One of the largest and most successful on the west coast, in fact.

Now, having said all of that - I seem to have touched a nerve here. I'll repeat my previous question which you failed to address, regarding the issue of character and career advancement:

"I gather you feel otherwise, perhaps you'd care to explain."

I did address your question, though the question is inappropriate, as it makes an incorrect assumption. You assume I "feel otherwise," yet I said no such thing.

I did state that attacking the man's character is inappropriate, and it is. He's a respected member of the community. While you may hold over him your own agenda, I certainly don't, nor do I feel your concern regarding him, or his past. I submit that it's your problem with him, not mine; no explaination required.

However, your statement that the powerplant is "quite irrelevant" displays an appalling ignorance. If you will recall, an aircraft climbs due to excess thrust. In this instance, you have increased the thrust of this aircraft by 50% over the stock engine, hardly insignificant. In fact, the power to weight ratio of this re-engined C-150 exceeds that of a stock C-182 (Stock C-150 15 lb/hp; Stock C-182 13.48 lb/hp; Modified C-150 10 lb/hp), in turn giving this aircraft a marked advantage in climb performance - which is obviously at a premium in said operation.

Hardly. With a fixed pitch propeller, addtional engine displacement doesn't provide the net gain in performance which equates to the same increase in rated horsepower. If one swings a propeller at 2,500 RPM, for example, swinging it with a 100 hp motor vs. a 200 hp motor at the same RPM doesn't change anything. Furthermore, in a normally aspirated engine at high density altitude, the motor is operating at closer to 50% power or less to begin with; the rated HP of the engine isn't a meaningful number. One might say that a 150 hp engine producing an effective 75 hp at the higher density altitudes is producing less than a standard power Cessna 150 at lower altitudes...hardly a stellar performer by any standard.

All the same, no matter what's powering the Cessna 150...it's still a 150 with very, very low performance...and relative to the joker who called for closing Telluride due to it's dangerous layout and condition...is bested in his corporate jet by a little old cessna 150 towing other aircraft...and that was the point.

That it's got a bigger motor than standard...to that the answer is "obviously," and "duh." Let's face it: it's Telluride. When making a comparison to a corporate jet taking off and landing there, the 150 is at a decided disadvantage in terms of climb performance, takeoff performance (particularly when towing), and only offers an advantage with respect to landing performance.

The poster who called for closing down the field mis-stated the runway slope, as well as the hazard. Again, everyone seems to be able to fly there just fine...except him or her.

 

[Tristar]

Quote:
Assuming you have flown corporate for a number of years as it appears, how would you feel about a junior member of the flight department taking an opportunity to "casually mention" to the CEO that "Boy, old Ed sure drinks a lot. I suprised he was able to fly the other day as bad a shape as he was in the night before!" If you've spent anytime in this industry, you know of (or have encountered) the type of weasel I'm referring to. The one who will take any opportunity to get ahead, even if it means stabbing someone else in the back (note - Example assumes Ed doesn't actually have a drining problem. If he actually did, it would need to be confronted and dealt with, but not in the fasion described). I personally find this type of behavior reprehensible. It's the same type of person whether corporate or airline, just a different mode of operation due to different ground rules.

Clay Lacy, of course, didn't do that...he bought his own business, promoted it, did much of the aerial photography in Hollywood, and has run a very successful FBO and charter operation for many years. One of the largest and most successful on the west coast, in fact.

You will go to great lengths to dance around this issue actually in question rather then being intellectually honest and just addressing it. I'm not talking about his FBO or any of his other businesses/activities.

What is being discussed, and what you stubbornly refuse to address is simply this: Do you feel it is appropriate to stab someone else in the back to advance your career? Again, a yes or no answer will suffice. The reason you will not do so is that if you answer it is, you condemn yourself in front of everyone else here. If you say no, then there is a glaring inconsistency with respect to Mr. Lacy. I'm not asking you to burn him at the stake, just acknowledge whether backstabbing is an appropriate career advancement strategy.

You point to his successful businesses, ect; which makes his decision to cross a picket line even less understandable. Why would a guy who already has other successful businesses cross a picket line, betraying all of the pilots on strike? It's apparently not like he needed the money - I honestly am more appalled when I learned the timeline of events after this discussion (I didn't realize he was well established when he crossed).

I did address your question, though the question is inappropriate, as it makes an incorrect assumption. You assume I "feel otherwise," yet I said no such thing.

I re-read your responses - you have not answered a direct question (the one I again asked above). Your unwillingness to do so raises the question of why are you so reluctant. Make a simple, definitive statement of your position on the basic issue.

I did state that attacking the man's character is inappropriate, and it is. He's a respected member of the community. While you may hold over him your own agenda, I certainly don't, nor do I feel your concern regarding him, or his past. I submit that it's your problem with him, not mine; no explaination required.

That's the closest you've come to answering the question. I'm not the one who chose to backstab other pilots - Clay Lacy is. Clay Lacy is the one who is so proud to be a "Retired United B-747 Captain," then let him face the music that he did it by selling out and cutting other's throats. I don't have a professional integrity problem - Clay Lacy does. You don't seem to see that as a problem, which is you're prerogative - I just want make sure I understand your position (as hard as I find it to comprehend).

Re; respected member of the community: Jeffery Dahmner was the "nice young neighbor" until they found dismembered bodies in his apartment. There are those who laud Frank Lorenzo's philanthropic works, never mind that he gleefully destroyed thousands of peoples lives for his own personal gain. Bernie Madoff was well regarded until the walls came crashing down, shall we sing his praises for being "well respected in the community?" There is nothing to be respected in a man who has no integrity, so spare me your platitudes.

[Note - the tone on this may sound like I am riled up. I am not, I'm as calm as can be. That said, I will not mince words to describe the lack of character which this action displays. If that offends your sensibilities, I will not apologize. Someone who undercuts and backstabs someone else for their personal gain is despicable and deserves to be labeled as such. If you endorse that behavior (which you are in fact doing by namby-pamby dancing around the issue), then I will have no sympathy for you when someone backstabs you to get ahead.]

Hardly. With a fixed pitch propeller, addtional engine displacement doesn't provide the net gain in performance which equates to the same increase in rated horsepower. If one swings a propeller at 2,500 RPM, for example, swinging it with a 100 hp motor vs. a 200 hp motor at the same RPM doesn't change anything.

Again, your ignorance is appalling. I'll bet you another dollar that along with the engine change comes a propeller change. Guess what - not all fixed pitch props are the same! Put a different prop with a different effective pitch on and it is quite cabable of effectively transmitting the additional power. That is the entire point of such a conversion.

Furthermore, in a normally aspirated engine at high density altitude, the motor is operating at closer to 50% power or less to begin with; the rated HP of the engine isn't a meaningful number. One might say that a 150 hp engine producing an effective 75 hp at the higher density altitudes is producing less than a standard power Cessna 150 at lower altitudes...hardly a stellar performer by any standard.

Well, I'll give you credit - you've correctly grasped one aspect of the whole issue correctly. I never claimed it would be a stellar performer, simply that it's not as bad as you make it out to be.

That it's got a bigger motor than standard...to that the answer is "obviously," and "duh."

Yes, but you were certainly not forthcoming with that in your initial statement, and in fact constued the opposite with the way it was presented.

Let's face it: it's Telluride. When making a comparison to a corporate jet taking off and landing there, the 150 is at a decided disadvantage in terms of climb performance, takeoff performance (particularly when towing), and only offers an advantage with respect to landing performance.

Landing performance, of course being the portion which is germane to this thread. The performance data I have for a stock C-150 indicates that at PA of 7500' and 32F, takeoff ground roll is 1360 feet, 50' obstacle is 2440 feet, landing over a 50' obstacle is 1255 feet, and the ground roll is 520 feet. The engine is capable of producing about 76% of it's rated power at this altitude, and 71% at 10,000 feet. Obviously Telluride is closer to 10k than 7.5 and there is a much greater than 5% performance hit, but I'm not going to take the time to try and fish up numbers for that. To compare apples to apples: The bottom line is at a 7500' and 32F field, the C-150 can effectively perform an accelerate stop in 1880 feet, and climb to 50' lose an engine and land in 3700'. For grins, let's double those numbers - about 3800' and 7400'. Now look a a Citation V (a pretty good runway performer for a jet with it's straigh wing, and I have numbers for it handy): Balanced field length at 8000'/32F is 4400'. So theoretically the stock C-150 actually has an advantage in takeoff and landing performance (CE-560 landing over 50' being 3640')!

Again, to be clear I'm not saying the C-150 is a spirited performer under the conditions found at Telluride (or anywhere else) - simply that the two aircraft types (single engine trainer vs. corporate jet) are really too disparate to provide any really meaningful comparison. An airport with Telluride's characteristics obviously make it a demanding field requiring good airmanship of anyone who flies there, regardless of aircraft type.

The poster who called for closing down the field mis-stated the runway slope, as well as the hazard. Again, everyone seems to be able to fly there just fine...except him or her.

Again, I don't think Telluride needs to be closed - it seems to be working just fine (recent accident excepted), but as I think we'd agree, it is an airport worthy of a great deal of respect from anyone operating there. I also don't think it's fair to beat up on the poster - as I've pointed out, we don't know what type he's operating and it's characteristics. There are many airports I'd rather operate a B-757 in and out of than a Westwind. Different aircraft, different characteristics, and simply relying on external appearances can often be decieving.

 

[avbug]

Assuming you have flown corporate for a number of years as it appears, how would you feel about a junior member of the flight department taking an opportunity to "casually mention" to the CEO that "Boy, old Ed sure drinks a lot. I suprised he was able to fly the other day as bad a shape as he was in the night before!" If you've spent anytime in this industry, you know of (or have encountered) the type of weasel I'm referring to. The one who will take any opportunity to get ahead, even if it means stabbing someone else in the back (note - Example assumes Ed doesn't actually have a drining problem. If he actually did, it would need to be confronted and dealt with, but not in the fasion described). I personally find this type of behavior reprehensible. It's the same type of person whether corporate or airline, just a different mode of operation due to different ground rules.

Again, Clay Lacy didn't do that. Stick to facts.

As for your assumptions...don't assume.

Better yet, is this your position in a thread regarding telluride, to carry on about scabs and the undermining you believe a charter operator has done to your industry, or the business in general?

You ask the question regarding whether I believe it's proper to cut another's throat to get ahead. You'd have to be specific in context, because while under some circumstances it's very wrong, under others, it's very right. Let's face it, in peace time, it's generally frowned upon, but in times of famine, strife, and war, it's often the best way to win...as there's no such thing as a fair fight.

A union forms on the basis of a group of members who gamble that their numbers hold the clout to stand up to management and to get their way. The rules and policies applicable to the body politic of that union apply to it's membership, not to others who may cross a picket line, not to others who are not part of that bargaining organization.

For those members who elect to cross a picket line, internal policies dictate the means of addressing such violations. For those who are not party to the actions, condemnation of the parties involved is rather meaningless. In context here, you're displeased with Clay Lacy, and I don't care. What part of that do you not understand?

As for your comparison between the Cessna 150 and the 182...a nonsensical comparison, which still doesn't do anything to address operations out of Telluride, or the issue of constant speed propellers...but given the tirade regarding Lacy and scabs and the ridiculous line concerning backstabbing in the corporate world, it's hardly out of time with the direction the thread has taken.

I suspect you'll hear what you want to hear...so have at it.

 

[Tristar]

Regarding the facts - I am sticking with them, simply attempting to provide an example (I thought that was clear) since you can't seem to grasp the issue.

I'm addressing the matter of character, which you won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. I'm done wasting my time with you - your refusal speaks volumes.

As for your comparison between the Cessna 150 and the 182...a nonsensical comparison

My point exactly - a comparison between what a C-150 can do and a corporate jet is indeed nonsensical - I'm glad you've finally recognized and acknowledged your inanity.

Good day.

 

[avbug]

My refusal to be drawn into an unprofessional attack on a fellow pilot speaks volumes, does it?

That you engage in one spells it out all the more clearly. Your unprofessional attitude and view is rather telling.

Insanity, you say. Insanity is being pathetic and unprofessional enough to call for the closure of an airport based on incorrect data and personal inability.

When you learn to recognize the difference between the 150 and the 182, be sure to let us know. Try to work on your professionalism issues first, then get back to us.

 

[Tristar]

The word is inanity, not insanity. Learn to read, then get a dictionary and look it up.

 

[brokeflyer]

calm down avbug......dont get so worked up...it's only FI.com

life sucks get a helmut.

 

[bailey3083]

We tried to get into TEX today, 75 East of PUB we started getting mountain waves of +-3000ft and speed changes of +- 30 kts so Strike 1. The winds at TEX 130 at 18 gusting 30 Strike 2. Coming over ETL we hit a mountain wave the caused me to go to full power on the backside and I still could not maintain airspeed or stop the descent so Strike 3 and we headed to MTJ.
So by some comments I am not a good pilot because I could not fly in and out of TEX today.