Travis Barker - 4 killed, 2 hurt as rock star's jet crashes

[AviateYou]

That's an old wives tale/aviation myth. 1000 FPM is reccommened during the last 1000 feet of level off and/or in the vicinity of other aircraft. This is simply to reduce the TA/RA alerts.

It is by no means required under any FAR or guidance that you have seen. IT may or may not be required in your RVMS manual; it is only because whoever wrote the manual put it in there and the FEDs signed off on it. Delete that statement and the manual would still get approved.

Okay, ever notice how a know-it-all usually doesn't? Like they say on the McLaughlin Hour "WRONG" Sorry to rain on your parade, I even supplied you with the link below. It's a recommendation by the FAA. BTW, I wrote several Aircraft RVSM Operation and Maintenance Manuals that were all FAA approved it's changing all the time. I'll tell you what, let's change it to "IT SHOULD BE " did you read the original quote? Now go crack that RVSM manual in your bird and study up. Look it up: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...ice_units/enroute/RVSM/documents/chng7mod.doc

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Woah. Abort for a blown tire. Better to go into the air. Damn.

 

[AirMugsy]

Looks like the tire theory might be correct:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_en_mu/learjet_crash

WEST COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Federal officials say the doomed crew of a Learjet that crashed in South Carolina thought a tire on the plane blew as they started down the runway.

National Transportation Safety Board member Debbie Hersman said Sunday that crew members told air traffic controllers they heard a tire burst and tried to abort the takeoff Friday night.

Former Blink-182 drummer Travis Barker and celebrity disc jockey DJ AM were injured in the crash that killed four other people on board.

Hersman says the conversation between the plane's crew and the air traffic controllers is captured on a cockpit voice recorder that was recovered from the wreckage. She says the cause of the crash is being investigated.

The Learjet crashed through a fence and shot over a highway before stopping on an embankment.

 

[Club ORD FO]

more pictures on tmz.com. looks like the landing gear is nowhere near the main wreckage

 

[SLUF4]

It will be interesting to see what the air return on the 12th was for. From flightaware it looked as if they were heading to TUL and turned back then did 2 maint. test flights before heading to CAE. Of course none of this may be related. I took off over the crash site this morning and it was a little odd feeling.


http://www.thestate.com/local/story/530614.html

this says they radioed that they had a blowout but could not stop.

 

[AviateYou]

http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/the_crash_site

 

[LJ45]

Okay, ever notice how a know-it-all usually doesn't? Like they say on the McLaughlin Hour "WRONG" Sorry to rain on your parade, I even supplied you with the link below. It's a recommendation by the FAA. BTW, I wrote several Aircraft RVSM Operation and Maintenance Manuals that were all FAA approved it's changing all the time. I'll tell you what, let's change it to "IT SHOULD BE " did you read the original quote? Now go crack that RVSM manual in your bird and study up. Look it up: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...ice_units/enroute/RVSM/documents/chng7mod.doc

And the notice you linked to talks about when climbing or decending near another aircraft...not for ALL climbs or decents.

 

[LJ45]

It will be interesting to see what the air return on the 12th was for. From flightaware it looked as if they were heading to TUL and turned back then did 2 maint. test flights before heading to CAE. Of course none of this may be related. I took off over the crash site this morning and it was a little odd feeling.


http://www.thestate.com/local/story/530614.html

this says they radioed that they had a blowout but could not stop.

How close to max landing weight would or could they have been when landing back at TEB? any 60 drivers care to figure out the fuel required for TEB-TUL minus time in air and landing weight back at TEB? Could it have stressed the little tires?

 

[LRvsH25B]

Okay, ever notice how a know-it-all usually doesn't? Like they say on the McLaughlin Hour "WRONG" Sorry to rain on your parade, I even supplied you with the link below. It's a recommendation by the FAA. BTW, I wrote several Aircraft RVSM Operation and Maintenance Manuals that were all FAA approved it's changing all the time. I'll tell you what, let's change it to "IT SHOULD BE " did you read the original quote? Now go crack that RVSM manual in your bird and study up. Look it up: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...ice_units/enroute/RVSM/documents/chng7mod.doc

Now you wait just minute. I was not rude to you, short or curt with you, why have you choosen to respond in such a manner? I'll not have you speaking to me like that.

You clearly stated that 1000 FPM is 'normally recommended and required' and I disagreed and said it was not required anywhere in RVSM airspace, as are the facts,

Let's break this down:

You wrote:

Thousand feet per minute in RVSM airspace is normally recommended and required.

My exact response to you was as follows:

That's an old wives tale/aviation myth. 1000 FPM is reccommened during the last 1000 feet of level off and/or in the vicinity of other aircraft. This is simply to reduce the TA/RA alerts.

It is by no means required under any FAR or guidance that you have seen. IT may or may not be required in your RVMS manual; it is only because whoever wrote the manual put it in there and the FEDs signed off on it. Delete that statement and the manual would still get approved.

The 2nd sentence of my 1st paragraph clearly states IT IS RECOMMENED. The 1st sentence of my 2nd Paragraph goes on to say it is NOT REQUIRED ANYWHERE!

Your link states under RECOMMENDED OPERATING PARCTICES (part b.)

"b. Climb and descent rates in RVSM airspace and Transition areas should be limited to 1,000 fpm when operating within five (5) nm and 2,000 ft of other aircraft to minimize the generation of TAs and RAs." Is that not exactly what I wrote as referenced above? Exactly?

Nobody disagreed with you about it being a recommendation; and that is all it is, a recommendation that nobody is required to follow, not a requirement. Where we differed was you said it was a requirement, and it clearly is not and never has been. NEVER. You still have not shown where it is a requirement, as you say it is. Where is that guidance? Where does it say RVSM airspace requires operators to climb and descend at all times at 1000 FPM? Please point that out so I can apoligize.

I don't care how many manuals you ahve written; if you think a recommendation is the same thing as a requirement, then you have no business in the manual business and there are King Air operators out there with bad manuals. It's just that simple.

Look HS125 F/O, I am not about to get into some arguemnt with you about all of this. Just show what I have asked for, so we can prove me wrong and I can go on about my business.

This is a great example of what happens when children are allowed on sites the professionals use.

 

[AviateYou]

And the notice you linked to talks about when climbing or decending near another aircraft...not for ALL climbs or decents.

If you can keep track of when you are 5nm Horiz and 2000 ft vert of of the other aircraft then you are my hero. Go and write a few operating manuals yourself and don't make it personal. If two pilots have an incident or accident the one who was following the recommended procedure gets the vote. Here it is:

RECOMMENDED OPERATING PRACTICES. The following aircraft operating practices recommended for RVSM operations with Version 6.04 should be continued when operating with Change 7:

a. TCAS should be operated in the TA/RA mode during all operations in RVSM airspace and Transition Areas.

b. Climb and descent rates in RVSM airspace and Transition areas should be limited to 1,000 fpm when operating within five (5) nm and 2,000 ft of other aircraft to minimize the generation of TAs and RAs.