Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Teterboro Accident - CL600

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Professional Pilots

Vortilon said:
Jimbo,


And I wouldn't brag about meeting the same FAA requirements....the last I checked they said 70% was good enough.

Hmm 70% won't get you through a corporate flight check.

Isn't it possible that their are prefessionals who are good pilots flying in all segments of this business. And just like there are good, well run airlines and others who have questionalble practices, their are charter and corporate flight departments who also fill both ends of quality. There have been some stupid mistakes made by corporate pilots and by airline pilots. Why would any pilot want to knock any other pilot and his chosen part of this business? What personal need are they filling to talk down another segment of aviation?

By the way I grew up in the air line business. My Dad was the VP of Flight Ops for Delta many years ago. I chose the military and then corporate route as right for me. Those of you who fly airlines, more power to you. Those of you who fly corporate more power to you too. There is room for all kinds is this business, if we can accept each other as professionals and not spend time telling each other why we are better than guys is another part of this business.
 
Ok

G100driver said:
Completely correct. I have seen complete loosers get type ratings after completions of these courses. They may fail once or twice, but they keep on testing until they pass. There is the occational wash out. The only one I ever knew could not fly out of a wet paper bag.

And I know guys who were unable to progress to aircraft commanders as military transport pilots who are now senior capt for major airlines. Your point is???????????????
 
I know I've generalized and painted with a large brush. But I've always been told my brush is large. :)

I am certainly not speaking of Corporate 91 operators, they seem to do it right and those jobs are the coveted ones for good reason.

My opinion is only that, but I hope it bears some credibility because unlike many others I have seen both sides. I just think it stinks that Charter represents itself as something its not and the people that can afford it over airlines aren't paying for anything more than convenience and privacy...not safety.

The latest news from the NTSB says the FDR only had 10 seconds of data on it vs. 25 hours. Nice. Could just be a freak malfunction or the NTSB is not correct, but it certainly fits the my broad brush painting....

The pilots and passengers that fly Charter Business jets deserve better than they get from the operators. Its a shame.

and btw, what's the number for that hot flight attendant in Frankfurt?
 
G100driver said:
Anyone can say, yes. You get paid to say, "no."


I think that is the major difference in 121 and corporate. Too many corporate pilots are pushed by the owners into making stupid judgement errors. During my interview for my current job I made one thing clear to the owner. I will do everything possible to complete the mission, and on the rare occasion that I say it cannot be done, it is 100% because of safety reasons. I he ever tells me that I must do something that I judge as being unsafe, that is the day he is looking for a new pilot.

To answer you million dollar question, I am still employed, so I guess he wants a pilot that calls it as they see it. He takes a keen interest in all corporate accidents and likes for me to forward the NTSB reports to him. Not long after I refused the flight, some operator stuck one in the bushes due to similar disregard for aircraft performace factors........I have never been questioned about an operational decision since then.
 
jimpilot said:
And I know guys who were unable to progress to aircraft commanders as military transport pilots who are now senior capt for major airlines. Your point is???????????????

Sad isn't it ....

I am not knocking corp. I have been doing all my professional career. I just see a lot of goof balls out there. The only difference that I can see, is these goof balls are in charge without SOP's or firm direction of a strong CP.

At least in the airlines you have company SOP's, dispatch and the like. If FSI of SimuFlite is not willing to wash the crappy ones, what protection do owners and charter clients have.

Just a thought.
 
KeroseneSnorter said:
I think that is the major difference in 121 and corporate. Too many corporate pilots are pushed by the owners into making stupid judgement errors. During my interview for my current job I made one thing clear to the owner. I will do everything possible to complete the mission, and on the rare occasion that I say it cannot be done, it is 100% because of safety reasons. I he ever tells me that I must do something that I judge as being unsafe, that is the day he is looking for a new pilot.

To answer you million dollar question, I am still employed, so I guess he wants a pilot that calls it as they see it. He takes a keen interest in all corporate accidents and likes for me to forward the NTSB reports to him. Not long after I refused the flight, some operator stuck one in the bushes due to similar disregard for aircraft performace factors........I have never been questioned about an operational decision since then.

Good point. My boss and I have a similar understanding. It goes something like this:

So long as he realizes that he is the 2nd most important person on the airplane he will get to his meetings on time (almost all the time) and always home to his children safely .
 
seawings said:
RE: LEVEL OF TRAINING FOR CORPORATE PILOTS
This may not be everyone’s experience, however, during my last recurrent at SimuFlite, and on one flight, we had a total hydraulic failure with a circling no flap landing. After my arms and legs quit quivering we departed again. This time, as we rotated, the two DU’s on the pilots side slowly faded to black. I quickly handed the flight over to the right seat, only to have his two DU’s fade slowly to black. We quickly engaged the autopilot, thinking there might be some help there as the small emergency gauges are never fun to fly (and the instructor failed the lights there too). The autopilot worked and the instructor asked what we planned to do and what was remaining. Technology being what it is we were able to determine all speeds, altitudes and set up an RNAV / VNAV approach back to the airport with the FMS’s. We broke out at 800’ with the runway insight. So I do not see corporate training as being a give away.

Oh…and no mug or tee-shirt for our efforts either.

Now that's a great session. From what I've seen, you get out of training what you put into it. I've seen plenty of other pilots who want to get out of the 'box' as soon as possible. I always tell the instructor to 'lay it on'. To all of those who (rightfully) think that anyone can pass a ride, just tell the instructor that he's a whimp and you have more time in right turns than he has total. I'm sure you'll get you money's worth.

Where do you fly, Seawings.

Ace
 
FWIW,

The FA is on the "Today" show right now. That didn't take very long.

XTW
 
Last edited:
Getting back to the accident in question and I will state for the record I am clueless about the cause, but has anyone given thought to the duty time issues that may be involved? It would appear that the crew arrived around 12:30 am at Teterboro from where I don't know. Then they repositioned the airplane to another FBO around 06:30 for the purpose of picking up their passengers. Sounds like they may have had a long night already before they even departed.
 
Just to set the record straight. The accident rates that come out from the goverment, Corporate Jet catergory has the best record of all. It has the lowest accident rate of any catergory including 121 airline flying. They show it in the number of accidents per 100000 hours of flying Aviation Internatioal news just came out with an article showing my point. All of the accidents with copororate jets have been with 135 operators and not 91 jet operators.

ainonline.com/issues/02_05/02_05_businessfatalp1.html


You here all this bashing about these guys over running this runway, but its seems to me there has been alot of airlines doing off road landings and taxiing.

The incident here is 135 not 91 corporate.
 
Last edited:
Spooky 1 said:
Getting back to the accident in question and I will state for the record I am clueless about the cause, but has anyone given thought to the duty time issues that may be involved? It would appear that the crew arrived around 12:30 am at Teterboro from where I don't know. Then they repositioned the airplane to another FBO around 06:30 for the purpose of picking up their passengers. Sounds like they may have had a long night already before they even departed.

They did a crew swap that night so there was a fresh crew.
 
RE: LEVEL OF TRAINING FOR CORPORATE PILOTS
This may not be everyone’s experience, however, during my last recurrent at SimuFlite, and on one flight, we had a total hydraulic failure with a circling no flap landing. After my arms and legs quit quivering we departed again. This time, as we rotated, the two DU’s on the pilots side slowly faded to black. I quickly handed the flight over to the right seat, only to have his two DU’s fade slowly to black. We quickly engaged the autopilot, thinking there might be some help there as the small emergency gauges are never fun to fly (and the instructor failed the lights there too). The autopilot worked and the instructor asked what we planned to do and what was remaining. Technology being what it is we were able to determine all speeds, altitudes and set up an RNAV / VNAV approach back to the airport with the FMS’s. We broke out at 800’ with the runway insight. So I do not see corporate training as being a give away. Oh…and no mug or tee-shirt for our efforts either.

This has to be the dumbest scenario I've ever heard of. Sounds like the instructor is a little too big for his britches, trying to fail the student, or the student is too big for his britches. Why would you ever chose to fly a circling, no hydraulic approach? What were the mins for that approach? Under what conditions could you lose one set of DU's, then the other, but still have FMS? Under these conditions, continuing a circling approach is probably the lease safe option.

Declare an emgency and do what's safe, not what the instructor's trying to force down your throat.
 
Perplexin'

First off, wanna apologize for multiple posting of previous CL600 accident information previous in this thread. Seems the moderators compacted all the posts about this accident and put em in here, and I cannot go back to delete them.

My posts referred to a previous CL 600 aborted takeoff at TEB a couple of years ago. Captain could not rotate for some reason, they suggest cause the CG was too far forward or the ship was over MTOW.

I don't fly the Challenger, so been tryin to find a reason why this happened. Could have been the same problem as those poor fellas had in '03 takin off on rwy 24.

Is there a control lock on the CL600, was there ice, forward cg, incorrect t.o. config, we will find out sooner or later. Makin the suggestion that training is inadequate, that is uncalled for boys. Way I was taught, after V1 you go. Smoke, you still are goin, cause otherwise you are gonna make a sudden stop.

While it isn't good to speculate (while the tv cameras are rollin and someones writin down what your sayin) I think pilots always try to figure this stuff out, its the nature of professional flyboys. But please dont show total ignorance by sayin they werent trained up to standards or stuff like that you have no idea is true.

What did the FA say on tv this mornin?

Tex.
 
Texasskicker said:
What did the FA say on tv this mornin?

Tex.

FA didn't say anything too insightful, although I continued to watch because she's pretty easy on the eyes. She was sitting in the jumpseat in the cockpit (I didn't know that's where the jumpseat was on the CL600), noticed the lack of remaining runway.. she didn't remember too much past that except for the building looming in front of them.

She didn't mention anything about smoke in the cockpit on the takeoff roll... seems like she did pretty well for only being on the job 4 months.
 
New York Times article clear as mud.

There is an article in the New York Times today that is very enlightening. Go to www.nytimes.com to read, its called, "First Findings See No Brakes Used in Most Of Jet's Path." You can find it in the local news section.

The captain told his lawyer that "something broke." No kiddin', huh? 15000 hours and 3000 in type, he knows what broke, for sure.

God bless that crew.

Tex.
 
Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us regarding what broke or is this just a smart remark made at the pilots expense? Please share your information with the rest of us clueless soles.
 
Read the article for yourself

Spooky 1 said:
Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us regarding what broke or is this just a smart remark made at the pilots expense? Please share your information with the rest of us clueless soles.

I dont know, ask the authors of the article. I'd cut and paste, but thats breakin some copyright laws, so just go and read.

They also said the Captain made a valiant attempt to stop the aircraft after a mechanical problem prevented it from taking off.
 
mayday1 said:
FA didn't say anything too insightful, although I continued to watch because she's pretty easy on the eyes.

She is VERY easy on the eyes. She is also a swimsuit model, and I think she was in either FHM or Stuff at some point.
 
New Jer$ey Aviation Attorney/Pilot Comment$ on Teterboro Cra$h, Corporate Jet $afety
Wedne$day February 2, 6:34 pm ET 'Take off$ and landing$ are the mo$t hazardou$ factor$ of corporate jet flight$, and the frequency of cra$he$ during the$e $egment$ of flight de$erve$ clo$e $crutiny,' $ay$ New Jer$ey Attorney/Pilot at Nation'$ Leading Aviation Law Firm

NEW YORK, Feb. 2 /PRNew$wire/ -- "Pilot$ of $mall jet$ need to be e$pecially aware of the inherent ri$k$ of flight$ (life is the number one cause of death) $uch a$ the one that cra$hed in Teterboro today, e$pecially in winter weather, which often pre$ent$ $ome of the mo$t dangerou$ condition$,"(I guess summer weather and thunderstorms are less risky) $ay$ Brian Alexander, a leading aviation lawyer who re$ide$ in New Jer$ey and i$ a pilot who ha$ flown in and out of Teterboro Airport.

Mr. Alexander, a partner at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, the large$t aviation law firm in the United $tate$, ha$ handled $everal corporate jet cra$h ca$e$. He $ay$ that "careful inve$tigation will determine where the fault for thi$ cra$h lie$, but whether thi$ wa$ a mechanical, pilot or other error, thi$ point$ to how e$$ential it i$ for pilot$ to ob$erve all the rule$ nece$$ary to en$ure $afe travel. (Wow. Thanks for the dual received there. My instructor never told me that.) Further, airport condition$, including the length of runway$, are factor$ that mu$t be $tudied." (So I can plan to use every last inch of the runway to get off the ground?)

Legal expert$ at Kreindler, including $ome of whom are al$o $ea$oned pilot$, (The rest flew 1 hour in spring, 1 hour in summer, 1 hour in fall and 1 hour in winter so they're seasoned too) "are available to media a$ re$ource$ on que$tion$ related to thi$ morning'$ lift-off cra$h of a Challenger CL-600 aircraft in Teterboro, NJ, which re$ulted in at lea$t 14 people injured. (Good. As was pointed out now the NTSB can go home too.)

Kreindler & Kreindler currently repre$ent$ numerou$ (yep corporate jets are fallin' out of the sky everyday) pa$$enger$ and familie$ of corporate jet air cra$he$, (don't jets crash on the ground?) including the family of a New York real e$tate mogul killed in a Teterboro Airport cra$h in 2002, which al$o occurred on takeoff. Attorney$ at the firm are available to offer to media commentary (whether its right or not is for you to verify) about: * Ri$k$ inherent with corporate/charter jet flight$ * Hi$torical account$ of $imilar cra$he$ * Victim$' and victim$' family right$ in air cra$he$ * All other legal i$$ue$ and guideline$ related to air cra$he$ (Legally you can only crash a plane on the 6th Tuesday following the 3rd wednesday of any month so as you can see this clearly was an illegal crash) * Airplane technical and operational matter$ (Pull up- houses get smaller. Push forward- houses get bigger. Continue pushing forward- houses get bigger real fast)* Cra$h inve$tigation, accident recon$truction, role of weather in cra$he$ (Taken primarily from the NTSB website) Expert$ at Kreindler available to media include: Brian Alexander: Kreindler law partner, New Jer$ey re$ident and a graduate of the United $tate$ Military Academy who $erved a$ a helicopter and fixed wing pilot from 1985-1990. He wa$ graduated from the Army Aviation Accident Inve$tigation Cour$e, accruing thou$and$ of hour$ in a variety of rotary and fixed wing aircraft, ha$ more than 1,000 hour$ piloting $mall aircraft, and ha$ $ucce$$fully litigated many commuter and corporate cra$h ca$e$. Marc $. Moller: $enior Kreindler law partner who ha$ repre$ented thou$and$ of victim$ of commercial and general aviation di$a$ter$, ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) and litigated accident$ involving $ingle-engine, multi-engine, helicopter, corporate jet and military equipment for more than 25 year$.($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) He i$ pre$ently the Plaintiff$' Liai$on Coun$el for all tort litigation ari$ing from the $eptember 11, 2001, terrori$t attack$, (with the attack$ $till continuing in the court$)and i$ an internationally recognized expert in aircraft litigation. He ha$ handled $everal ca$e$ involving cra$he$ of corporate jet$.

About Kreindler & Kreindler LLP Founded in 1950, Kreindler & Kreindler LLP (
http://www.kreindler.com) i$ nationally recognized a$ the fir$t and mo$t prominent aviation law firm in the nation. The firm ha$ been the leading plaintiff legal coun$el on hundred$ of aviation ca$e$, including major one$ $uch a$ the $eptember 11 terrori$t attack$, Pan Am Lockerbie Flight 103, (terrorists shouldn't be the only one$ to profit from attacks, now should they?) Korean Airline$ Flight 007, and American Airline$ Flight 587, and many ca$e$ of $mall private and commercial cra$he$, including tho$e re$ulting in the death$ of Penn$ylvania $enator John Heinz, Walt Di$ney Company Pre$ident Frank Well$, R&B performing arti$t Aaliyah and ABC New$ executive David Jayne, who peri$hed in a 1979 Learjet cra$h. The leading legal textbook in the aviation field, "Aviation Accident Law," and a $tandard legal treati$e, "New York Law of Tort$," were authored by member$ of the firm.





Shakespear was right......
 
spngbobsqrpilot said:
New Jer$ey Aviation Attorney/Pilot Comment$ on Teterboro Cra$h, Corporate Jet $afety
Wedne$day February 2, 6:34 pm ET 'Take off$ and landing$ are the mo$t hazardou$ factor$ of corporate jet flight$, and the frequency of cra$he$ during the$e $egment$ of flight de$erve$ clo$e $crutiny,' $ay$ New Jer$ey Attorney/Pilot at Nation'$ Leading Aviation Law Firm

NEW YORK, Feb. 2 /PRNew$wire/ -- "Pilot$ of $mall jet$ need to be e$pecially aware of the inherent ri$k$ of flight$ (life is the number one cause of death) $uch a$ the one that cra$hed in Teterboro today, e$pecially in winter weather, which often pre$ent$ $ome of the mo$t dangerou$ condition$,"(I guess summer weather and thunderstorms are less risky) $ay$ Brian Alexander, a leading aviation lawyer who re$ide$ in New Jer$ey and i$ a pilot who ha$ flown in and out of Teterboro Airport.

Mr. Alexander, a partner at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, the large$t aviation law firm in the United $tate$, ha$ handled $everal corporate jet cra$h ca$e$. He $ay$ that "careful inve$tigation will determine where the fault for thi$ cra$h lie$, but whether thi$ wa$ a mechanical, pilot or other error, thi$ point$ to how e$$ential it i$ for pilot$ to ob$erve all the rule$ nece$$ary to en$ure $afe travel. (Wow. Thanks for the dual received there. My instructor never told me that.) Further, airport condition$, including the length of runway$, are factor$ that mu$t be $tudied." (So I can plan to use every last inch of the runway to get off the ground?)

Legal expert$ at Kreindler, including $ome of whom are al$o $ea$oned pilot$, (The rest flew 1 hour in spring, 1 hour in summer, 1 hour in fall and 1 hour in winter so they're seasoned too) "are available to media a$ re$ource$ on que$tion$ related to thi$ morning'$ lift-off cra$h of a Challenger CL-600 aircraft in Teterboro, NJ, which re$ulted in at lea$t 14 people injured. (Good. As was pointed out now the NTSB can go home too.)

Kreindler & Kreindler currently repre$ent$ numerou$ (yep corporate jets are fallin' out of the sky everyday) pa$$enger$ and familie$ of corporate jet air cra$he$, (don't jets crash on the ground?) including the family of a New York real e$tate mogul killed in a Teterboro Airport cra$h in 2002, which al$o occurred on takeoff. Attorney$ at the firm are available to offer to media commentary (whether its right or not is for you to verify) about: * Ri$k$ inherent with corporate/charter jet flight$ * Hi$torical account$ of $imilar cra$he$ * Victim$' and victim$' family right$ in air cra$he$ * All other legal i$$ue$ and guideline$ related to air cra$he$ (Legally you can only crash a plane on the 6th Tuesday following the 3rd wednesday of any month so as you can see this clearly was an illegal crash) * Airplane technical and operational matter$ (Pull up- houses get smaller. Push forward- houses get bigger. Continue pushing forward- houses get bigger real fast)* Cra$h inve$tigation, accident recon$truction, role of weather in cra$he$ (Taken primarily from the NTSB website) Expert$ at Kreindler available to media include: Brian Alexander: Kreindler law partner, New Jer$ey re$ident and a graduate of the United $tate$ Military Academy who $erved a$ a helicopter and fixed wing pilot from 1985-1990. He wa$ graduated from the Army Aviation Accident Inve$tigation Cour$e, accruing thou$and$ of hour$ in a variety of rotary and fixed wing aircraft, ha$ more than 1,000 hour$ piloting $mall aircraft, and ha$ $ucce$$fully litigated many commuter and corporate cra$h ca$e$. Marc $. Moller: $enior Kreindler law partner who ha$ repre$ented thou$and$ of victim$ of commercial and general aviation di$a$ter$, ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) and litigated accident$ involving $ingle-engine, multi-engine, helicopter, corporate jet and military equipment for more than 25 year$.($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) He i$ pre$ently the Plaintiff$' Liai$on Coun$el for all tort litigation ari$ing from the $eptember 11, 2001, terrori$t attack$, (with the attack$ $till continuing in the court$)and i$ an internationally recognized expert in aircraft litigation. He ha$ handled $everal ca$e$ involving cra$he$ of corporate jet$.

About Kreindler & Kreindler LLP Founded in 1950, Kreindler & Kreindler LLP (
http://www.kreindler.com) i$ nationally recognized a$ the fir$t and mo$t prominent aviation law firm in the nation. The firm ha$ been the leading plaintiff legal coun$el on hundred$ of aviation ca$e$, including major one$ $uch a$ the $eptember 11 terrori$t attack$, Pan Am Lockerbie Flight 103, (terrorists shouldn't be the only one$ to profit from attacks, now should they?) Korean Airline$ Flight 007, and American Airline$ Flight 587, and many ca$e$ of $mall private and commercial cra$he$, including tho$e re$ulting in the death$ of Penn$ylvania $enator John Heinz, Walt Di$ney Company Pre$ident Frank Well$, R&B performing arti$t Aaliyah and ABC New$ executive David Jayne, who peri$hed in a 1979 Learjet cra$h. The leading legal textbook in the aviation field, "Aviation Accident Law," and a $tandard legal treati$e, "New York Law of Tort$," were authored by member$ of the firm.





Shakespear was right......

is this a subliminal message telling me there is a lot $$ in professional aviation??

: )
 
Here's the full quote from the article about the 'something broke' comment. Taking it out of context like that is just his attempt to stir up some conflict here. The pilto KNOWS what broke, but doesn't want to mention anything pending the investigation.... Texaskicker, that way you quoted the article makes it sound like the pilot was saying something broke and he had no clue what. Next time you quote something, be specific. And it's NOT a vioaltion of copywright laws. You are clearly, plainly and obviosly giving credit to the original article.

So all the times I quoted studies in all my research papers in college and post, I've violated copyright laws, even though I stated where the quote came from? Gotta love some people here.


"Earlier yesterday, a lawyer for the pilot said that his client had made a valiant effort to stop the plane when he realized that a mechanical problem would prevent it from lifting off.

Michael A. Moulis, a lawyer for Platinum Jet Management, the company that was operating the plane when it rammed into a warehouse on Wednesday morning, said the pilot, John Kimberling, told him that "something broke" as the plane roared toward the end of the runway. As the jet skidded across six lanes of Route 46, a main thoroughfare at the northern end of the airport, Mr. Kimberling and his co-pilot tried to guide it through a break in traffic, Mr. Moulis said the pilot told him.

"He said, 'I think I clipped one,' " meaning a car, Mr. Moulis recounted from Teterboro, where he was meeting with investigators for the safety board. He declined to say what he and Mr. Kimberling thought had malfunctioned, because he said he did not want to interfere with the investigation.

But Mr. Moulis, who said he was representing Mr. Kimberling and Platinum Jet, said he believed that the investigation would rule out pilot error or ice on the wings as a cause of the crash.

Witnesses told investigators that there was no ice on the wings."
 
NEW YORK TIMES



February 4, 2005

First Findings See No Brakes Used in Most Of Jet's Path

[size=-1]By PATRICK McGEEHAN and MICHELLE O'DONNELL [/size]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/t.gifhe National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the crash of a corporate jet at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey on Wednesday, said yesterday that its findings indicated no braking system was in effect until the plane was 5,000 feet along the 6,013-foot runway. Normally, a liftoff takes place around 3,000 feet.

Officials could not say whether the pilots attempted to stop the plane earlier, or whether there had been a mechanical problem.

Earlier yesterday, a lawyer for the pilot said that his client had made a valiant effort to stop the plane when he realized that a mechanical problem would prevent it from lifting off.

Michael A. Moulis, a lawyer for Platinum Jet Management, the company that was operating the plane when it rammed into a warehouse on Wednesday morning, said the pilot, John Kimberling, told him that "something broke" as the plane roared toward the end of the runway. As the jet skidded across six lanes of Route 46, a main thoroughfare at the northern end of the airport, Mr. Kimberling and his co-pilot tried to guide it through a break in traffic, Mr. Moulis said the pilot told him.

"He said, 'I think I clipped one,' " meaning a car, Mr. Moulis recounted from Teterboro, where he was meeting with investigators for the safety board. He declined to say what he and Mr. Kimberling thought had malfunctioned, because he said he did not want to interfere with the investigation.

But Mr. Moulis, who said he was representing Mr. Kimberling and Platinum Jet, said he believed that the investigation would rule out pilot error or ice on the wings as a cause of the crash.

Witnesses told investigators that there was no ice on the wings.

In addition to the findings about the skid marks, Debbie Hersman, a spokeswoman for the safety board, said that a flight data recorder had captured only 10 seconds of the 43 seconds that elapsed between the start of the plane engine's acceleration and the crash. "It's not exactly what we were looking for," Ms. Hersman said. "But we're hopeful that we can get more information from it."

The cockpit voice recorder, which is still being analyzed, indicated that there had been a decision to discontinue the takeoff, the authorities have said. Ms. Hersman said that the jet's reverse thrusters, which are part of the braking system along with conventional brakes, had deployed but that it was unclear whether the brakes had.

Saying a catastrophe had been narrowly avoided, Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey and United States Representative Steven Rothman said they would petition the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt further restrictions on the number and types of flights from Teterboro.

In Wednesday's crash, the plane ripped the roof off one car, a Toyota sedan, seriously wounding its driver and a passenger before smashing through the brick facade of a warehouse across the highway. But none of the eight passengers, a group of financial executives, were seriously hurt, and Mr. Kimberling and the co-pilot, Carlos W. Salaverria, escaped with broken bones in their legs.

Mr. Moulis said that Mr. Kimberling's feet "were injured because he was jamming on the brake so hard."

Both pilots, who had not yet been interviewed by investigators, spent Wednesday night at Hackensack University Medical Center. The third member of their crew, a 22-year-old cabin aide, Angelica Calad, had only scrapes and bruises, said Patrick Rivers, operations manager of the Voodoo Lounge in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where Ms. Calad works part time as a hostess.

After the crash, Mr. Rivers said, Ms. Calad called the club from an undisclosed location where she is being questioned by investigators to tell co-workers of her harrowing experience. She said she was strapped into the jump seat near the cockpit of the small plane when the ride turned "a little bumpy," Mr. Rivers said.

"The next thing she knew she was in a warehouse," he said.

Mr. Moulis told a more heroic tale about Ms. Calad, who, like the two pilots, was working for Platinum Jet, a charter company based in Fort Lauderdale, on a freelance basis. Despite being soaked in jet fuel and fearing that the plane would explode, she instructed the passengers to help her kick open the main cabin door, then helped them jump out of the smoking wreck, he said.

After the passengers - five employees of Kelso & Company, a private investment firm in Manhattan, and three men from other financial firms in New York - escaped, Mr. Kimberling helped Mr. Salaverria off the plane, then touched each seat to make sure it was empty before he jumped out, Mr. Moulis said.

He said Mr. Kimberling was a veteran pilot who had logged more than 15,000 hours of flight time, including more than 3,000 hours flying planes like the one he was piloting on Wednesday. According to aviation administration records, Mr. Kimberling and Mr. Salaverria have clean records, with no history of accidents or other incidents.

"He's been around the block," Mr. Moulis said, referring to Mr. Kimberling.

The crew arrived at a hotel near the Teterboro Airport around midnight on Tuesday, about seven hours before the failed takeoff, after traveling from Fort Lauderdale to New York, Ms. Hersman said.

Manuel Epelbaum, a Miami lawyer representing Mr. Salaverria, arrived in New Jersey yesterday to meet his client. He said he had not been authorized to talk about him.

In Trenton, Mr. Codey and Mr. Rothman said the accident exposed the potential dangers the airport poses, though Mr. Codey said the federal agency was unlikely to accede to the demands of some area residents and shut the airport.

After meeting with representatives of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the state's economic development authority, Mr. Codey and Mr. Rothman called on the federal agency to ban midsize Stage 2 aircraft from the airport. The federal agency classifies planes by the noise their engines produce. The newest and quietest ones are Stage 3. Most private planes have noisier Stage 2 engines.

The ban would not affect the plane that crashed on Wednesday, a Canadair CL-600 Challenger that was built in 1980 and used by the Canadian military before going into the private sector in March 2001, because it is a Stage 3 craft.

But New Jersey officials say the ban would still reduce the likelihood of a serious crash and reduce the number of daily flights to about 475 from 500. "In time, smaller flights would almost certainly take the place of those larger aircraft," Mr. Rothman said. "But they would generate less noise and we would have a safer airport."

In addition to the restriction on the size of planes using the airport, New Jersey officials are asking the federal agency to provide safety barriers at the end of the runway and improved firefighting equipment that would allow them to cut through a burning plane's fuselage and douse flames with fire retardant foam before they could ignite the fuel tanks.



David Kocieniewski and John Holl contributed reporting for this article. COPYRIGHT 2005 The New York Times
 
But I think we all know in our gut there's a good chance the crew will be culpable here.
But Mr. Moulis, who said he was representing Mr. Kimberling and Platinum Jet, said he believed that the investigation would rule out pilot error or ice on the wings as a cause of the crash.

Witnesses told investigators that there was no ice on the wings."


I think we all know in our gut there's a good chance you should wait until AFTER the Superbowl to monday morning quarterback.
 
Mr. Moulis said that Mr. Kimberling's feet "were injured because he was jamming on the brake so hard."

In the summer when I'm in the Dromader, my knees get to hurting when working that rudder in severe turbulence. So much so that sometimes it's a half hour or more before I can bend my leg at the end of the day to climb out of the airplane. And my feet go numb. It can be hard work.

I've never seen, nor heard of anybody injuring their feet, however, from pushing on the brakes so hard. Must have been some mighty pushing going on there. Sounds like the attorney acting as the mouthpiece might have gone overboard just a tad in the glowing praise of his client. I've no idea what happened there and don't choose to speculate...but the butter and sugar in Mr. Moulis's commentary was a little thick and a touch too sweet.

As for mugs and gimme's at Simuflite and flight safety, I've never had a mug, and apparently I've been fortunate in my training...because instructors at either institution have never failed to challenge me or force me to fly right. As for failures...the last time I was at Simuflite, my "sim buddy" failed and was held back for additional training and a checkride. He wasn't cut any slack or given any breaks. I flew home, he stayed behind.

I've flown for a number of operators in many segments of the industry, and I've never, ever, not once, failed to let the employer or company know when I have believed something to be unsafe...nor have I ever hesitated to refuse to do it. If you think that you've been forced to do something unsafe, then you've failed...not the company, not the employer, not the airplane. If you cave in to pressure then look no farther than your own fingertips. A poor carpenter blames his tools. What do you blame?

Do airlines have some sort of safety net that corporate operators or charter operators do not? If so, I'd certainly like to see it.

The import of 14 CFR 91.3 is that as pilot in command, regardless of weather you fly under Part 91, 121, 125, 135, or 137...YOU are responsible for the safe outcome of the flight as pilot in command. Regardless of the regulation under which you operate, you are ALWAYS beholden and obliged to 91.3.

I showed up at simuflite once for training, and at the end, was told all I needed was a line check. A takeoff and landing at a different location. A mixup had occured between what the chief pilot ordered, and what I needed. I insisted on a full checkride, and asked for the instructor to challenge me. I noted that the company spent a lot of money putting me here, and told him I wanted our money's worth. He obliged. I sweated, I learned, and I earned the ride. I could have gotten away with nothing, with an easy session, but I'm not a passenger. I'm a pilot. I take charge, I don't accept mediocracy, and I answer to a higher standard

If you've been getting easy passes at training facilities, getting pushed by employers, accepted less than acceptable maintenance, and flown into unsafe conditions, then who have you to blame but yourself?

Those to whom these comments are addressed know who they are, and need not reply.
 
avbug said:
In the summer when I'm in the Dromader, my knees get to hurting when working that rudder in severe turbulence. So much so that sometimes it's a half hour or more before I can bend my leg at the end of the day to climb out of the airplane. And my feet go numb. It can be hard work.

I've never seen, nor heard of anybody injuring their feet, however, from pushing on the brakes so hard. Must have been some mighty pushing going on there. Sounds like the attorney acting as the mouthpiece might have gone overboard just a tad in the glowing praise of his client. I've no idea what happened there and don't choose to speculate...but the butter and sugar in Mr. Moulis's commentary was a little thick and a touch too sweet.

As for mugs and gimme's at Simuflite and flight safety, I've never had a mug, and apparently I've been fortunate in my training...because instructors at either institution have never failed to challenge me or force me to fly right. As for failures...the last time I was at Simuflite, my "sim buddy" failed and was held back for additional training and a checkride. He wasn't cut any slack or given any breaks. I flew home, he stayed behind.

I've flown for a number of operators in many segments of the industry, and I've never, ever, not once, failed to let the employer or company know when I have believed something to be unsafe...nor have I ever hesitated to refuse to do it. If you think that you've been forced to do something unsafe, then you've failed...not the company, not the employer, not the airplane. If you cave in to pressure then look no farther than your own fingertips. A poor carpenter blames his tools. What do you blame?

Do airlines have some sort of safety net that corporate operators or charter operators do not? If so, I'd certainly like to see it.

The import of 14 CFR 91.3 is that as pilot in command, regardless of weather you fly under Part 91, 121, 125, 135, or 137...YOU are responsible for the safe outcome of the flight as pilot in command. Regardless of the regulation under which you operate, you are ALWAYS beholden and obliged to 91.3.

I showed up at simuflite once for training, and at the end, was told all I needed was a line check. A takeoff and landing at a different location. A mixup had occured between what the chief pilot ordered, and what I needed. I insisted on a full checkride, and asked for the instructor to challenge me. I noted that the company spent a lot of money putting me here, and told him I wanted our money's worth. He obliged. I sweated, I learned, and I earned the ride. I could have gotten away with nothing, with an easy session, but I'm not a passenger. I'm a pilot. I take charge, I don't accept mediocracy, and I answer to a higher standard

If you've been getting easy passes at training facilities, getting pushed by employers, accepted less than acceptable maintenance, and flown into unsafe conditions, then who have you to blame but yourself?

Those to whom these comments are addressed know who they are, and need not reply.

Not sure what would have caused the foot injuries but in the olden days before flight recorders the investigators could sometimes tell who was actually fling the airplane by viewing the pilots hands that were on the throttles. Frequently there were numerous broken bones attributed to hanging on to the throttles while the airplane, engines and props all disintegrated around the poor fellow and the throttles every which way.

The safety net that you have spoken of often was in the form of the ALPA, APA or some other union that would back up the pilot if he refused an assignment or aircraft that was questionable. Not a real fan of the ALPA but I must give credit where credit is do and they deserve a lot in this area.

Don't know what a Dromader is but if you can (and do) fly it around in severe turbulence a lot then it must be one tough airplane. Care to explain?
 
Last edited:
Hey Avbug...have you ever gotten motion sickness? Just curious. :) I don't know if I could handle the kind of flying you do or not.
 
Not sure what would have caused the foot injuries but in the olden days before flight recorders the investigators could sometimes tell who was actually fling the airplane by viewing the pilots hands that were on the throttles. Frequently there were numerous broken bones attributed to hanging on to the throttles while the airplane, engines and props all disintegrated around the poor fellow and the throttles every which way.

Certainly people get banged up in a crash. To that I can only say "duh." Of course people get hurt when hanging onto throttles and control columns, or when their feet get twised up in things under the panel after impact. However, I've certainly never heard of someone who injured themselvs by pressing on the brakes too hard. That statement by the attorney was a little overboard in trying to show clearly how hard the captain had fought to save the day. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't, but that wasn't my point. The statement by the attorney representing the captain, that the captain had hurt his feet by trying to apply the brakes (insinuating that somehow he was exercising a superhuman effort to stop the airplane) is ridiculous and transparent.

A dromader is a relatively ugly eastern block production aircraft built on the Ayers (Rockwell) Thrush. It's about the size of a King Air 200, and carries up to 800 gallons of chemical (depending on the model); mine is used for firefighting exclusively. Dromaders are the most common firefighting airplane internationally; in this country they're operated as SEATs (single engine air tankers). I fly one seasonally on fires in addition to other work with other companies.

Regarding the severity of turbulence, the force that most often drives a fire is wind; fires often start as a result of thunderstorms and are often driven in strong winds, and we generally find them and fight them in very mountainous terrain. The result, much of the time, is severe or stronger turbulence. Add to that the fact that the dromader is not a stable airplane at all, and you find in the cockpit that the controls are constantly in motion. A great deal of rudder work is required; it never sits still, and like most conventional gear aircraft, it's properly flown by pressing on both rudders all the time. The seat isn't adjustable, and the result for me (and most folks I know who fly the same type airplane) is that their knees hurt constantly. On a really rough day, my feet tend to go to sleep, go numb.

I don't recall ever having become motion sick over a fire. There's just too much going on to think about that.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom