Citation Down Into Percy Priest Lake After Takeoff From Syrna MQY

flyingcheesehead said:
You know how on some airplanes you can hear the strobes through your headset? Igniters can have the same effect. Ours sound like a fast-moving siren, probably sweeping up and down maybe 3-4x/second.

Dunno about the accident aircraft, but we get a CAS message ("IGNITION") when the igniters are switched "ON", which also results in a Master Caution "ding" that you acknowledge, but there is no continuous alarm as it is not an emergency situation, it's perfectly normal to have it on in precip. I don't think anyone is saying it would result in an alarm, just that it creates a sound in the aircraft's electrical systems that can be heard.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I was just wondering about post 7’s reply to post 4 where ‘alarm’ was mentioned. I hadn’t heard of igniters before and was wondering how it all relates.
 
PaulS said:
Seth, flying a helicopter is a completely different skill from flying a jet. So no, he would not have been cleared to fly a jet with his helicopter license, if he had one. Do you know someone who perished on this airplane? If so, sorry for your loss.

Flying this jet required a special rating, which the pilot had. It also requires a medical certificate, which he may or may not have had. That would just make the flight illegal, but may be a clue as to whether the pilot followed rules or took shortcuts.

There will be a lot of speculation on this crash. The rapid descent could have been caused by a number of things, pilot incapacitation, pilot inexperience, mechanical issue or a fatal mistake. Hopefully the ntsb can find a cause, but it will take a few years most likely.

Pilots who fly jets usually are very experienced pilots, we really don't know what level experience this pilot had.

These accidents are very sad and affect the general aviation community greatly, no one wants to see this happen and we want to find out the reason it happened so we can learn from it and hopefully prevent this type of accident in the future.
Click to expand...
Sadly I knew all 7. 2 were my next door neighbors. Thanks everyone for your input and added context. Who knows what truly happened in the end? So saddened.
 
Interesting commentary on another board about the placement of the ignitor switches and the inverter/avionics switches in the 501. It is very possible that the pilot could have inadvertently hit the inverter and avionics switch meaning to turn off the ignitors.

Here is an interesting scenario....pilot takes off, everything is fine. Tower hands him off to Departure. Pilot acknowledges and before contacting Departure he runs his after takeoff checklist.....but instead of turning off the ignitors, pilot hits the inverter/avionics switch and kills his panel (and radios). That would explain not contacting departure.

Pilot realizes what he's done and quickly turns the avionics back on....he gets his radios back, but the other avionics take a minute to come back online. So, he hears and responds to Departure calling him (and he is stressed because he's trying to fly blind), and gets quickly overwhelmed trying to carry out the ATC instruction.

Not saying that I know for certain that's what happened, but it certainly seems plausible.
 
Last edited:
Seth Jackson said:
Sadly I knew all 7. 2 were my next door neighbors. Thanks everyone for your input and added context. Who knows what truly happened in the end? So saddened.
Click to expand...

Damn. Sorry for your loss.

Terrible to lose someone, even harder to lose so many at once.



Wayne
 
What’s the vne on a citation? Adsb track had him going almost 290 knots going from 3000 back to 2100 then back to 3000 before he went down the final time. I’m wondering if this was a breakup of the airframe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Peter Anderson said:
What’s the vne on a citation? Adsb track had him going almost 290 knots going from 3000 back to 2100 then back to 3000 before he went down the final time. I’m wondering if this was a breakup of the airframe.
Click to expand...
Jets don't have Vne. They have Vmo (KIAS) and Mmo (Mach). "mo" is "Max Operating". At low altitude, Vmo would be more limiting. Vmo would be where Vno (yellow arc) is located on a piston airplane.

He may have been over Vmo but airplanes don't break apart a few knots over Vmo/Vne. As you increase speed, you'll reach the maximum design load limit easier from gust loads or control inputs. Nothing magic happens at Vmo/Vne, you've just reached the point where the gust factor to produce the design load limit is that specified in the certification rules.
 
Thanks Larry. As you could prob tell, I know nothing about jets lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Well looks like vmo is 262 below 14k feet. So it was exceeded. Just thinking out loud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
ADS-B data in this case doesn’t show IAS, just ground speed. That’s the case for FlightAware, and I’m thinking adsbexchange too. So you always have to figure in winds aloft and altitude factors. In this case winds aloft were from the W-NW. Regardless, it probably did exceed VMO by some degree. Altitude read outs are in pressure altitude.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Interesting commentary on another board about the placement of the ignitor switches and the inverter/avionics switches in the 501. It is very possible that the pilot could have inadvertently hit the inverter and avionics switch meaning to turn off the ignitors.

Here is an interesting scenario....pilot takes off, everything is fine. Tower hands him off to Departure. Pilot acknowledges and before contacting Departure he runs his after takeoff checklist.....but instead of turning off the ignitors, pilot hits the inverter/avionics switch and kills his panel (and radios). That would explain not contacting departure.

Pilot realizes what he's done and quickly turns the avionics back on....he gets his radios back, but the other avionics take a minute to come back online. So, he hears and responds to Departure calling him (and he is stressed because he's trying to fly blind), and gets quickly overwhelmed trying to carry out the ATC instruction.

Not saying that I know for certain that's what happened, but it certainly seems plausible.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory. Would the transponder be on the same switch as the avionics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
Interesting commentary on another board about the placement of the ignitor switches and the inverter/avionics switches in the 501. It is very possible that the pilot could have inadvertently hit the inverter and avionics switch meaning to turn off the ignitors.
Click to expand...

Is the inverter/avionics switch on the C501 guarded in any way, e.g. flip cover?
 
Peter Anderson said:
Well looks like vmo is 262 below 14k feet. So it was exceeded. Just thinking out loud.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. Ground-speed vs. IAS. I frequently see ground speeds in the high 290s when flying 250 KIAS below 10,000'.

First, you have to convert IAS to TAS. I don't know all the specifics but 262 KIAS at 3,000' would have been a TAS in the 275-280 range.

Next, you account for wind. I don't know what the winds at 2000' to 3000' were but they could have been 15 knots or more.

In any case, if he exceeded Vmo, it wasn't by much. At least not while the airplane was still (somewhat) under control.
 
Piperonca said:
Human factors design flaw right there.
Click to expand...
In fairness to Cessna, in the later 550 and 560 models, the avionics switch was modified with a guard that you have to lift the switch up and out of the guard to turn it off. But apparently they didn't make that a retroactive refit.
 
There's not a situation in which anyone needs to turn off the igniters in a hurry. Like anything else before switching on and off, reach over, verify, then move the switch.
 
RyanB said:
As previously mentioned, his lack of a valid medical only disqualifies him on paper, but physically speaking, he appeared to have the necessary ratings and such to fly the aircraft.

I think it’s a bit misleading to say “there wasn’t a qualified pilot on board.”
Click to expand...
One would think AIN would consider a type rating worth mentioning, but...:oops:
 
To be "qualified" to be PIC of the jet, one must hold at a minimum a Private pilot certificate with a MEL rating, an Instrument rating and a type rating, along with an appropriate medical certificate. This is not in dispute.

Take away one of those and the PIC is no longer qualified.

Now we have to wonder why he didn't bother with a medical certificate. Can't be an oversight "Oh gee, I forgot to get it renewed". Last I checked the insurance companies typically want basic pilot information such as ratings, and date of last medical and for this jet, they would want to know the date of his last 14 CFR Part 61.58 check.

And speaking of the 14 CFR Part 61.58 check, whoever performed that check would have wanted to see a medical certificate as well. So we have to ask "When was his last 61.58?"

Accident investigations are like peeling an onion, one layer leads to the next.
 
Doc Holliday said:
To be "qualified" to be PIC of the jet, one must hold a pilot certificate with a MEL rating, an Instrument rating and a type rating, along with an appropriate medical certificate. This is not in dispute.

Take away one of those and the PIC is no longer qualified.

Now we have to wonder why he didn't bother with a medical certificate. Can't be an oversight "Oh gee, I forgot to get it renewed". Last I checked the insurance companies typically want basic pilot information such as ratings, and date of last medical and for this jet, they would want to know the date of his last 14 CFR Part 61.58 check.

And speaking of the 14 CFR Part 61.58 check, whoever performed that check would have wanted to see a medical certificate as well. So we have to ask "When was his last 61.58?"

Accident investigations are like peeling an onion, one layer leads to the next.
Click to expand...
And I'm not disputing that fact, but I am saying that titling the article in such a way is misleading, because it's not entirely accurate. There may certainly be a rat in the woodpile somewhere down the line as to why his medical was not renewed, but I'm hesitant to say his lack of a valid medical certificate was the smoking gun in this accident. In any such case, it gives the insurance company quite a bit of ammo.
 
It will be interesting to see who was sitting left seat, if possible.
 
Doc Holliday said:
And speaking of the 14 CFR Part 61.58 check, whoever performed that check would have wanted to see a medical certificate as well. So we have to ask "When was his last 61.58?"
Click to expand...
Although if he did the 61.58 in a sim, the medical wouldn’t necessarily be required.
 
Doc Holliday said:
It will be interesting to see who was sitting left seat, if possible.
Click to expand...

The only two pilots onboard were the CE500 rated owner-pilot and his wife’s son in law, a private pilot. With all the others on board to consider, I don’t believe the owner-pilot would be anywhere but the left seat, regardless of any other errors made causing a crash.
 
donjohnston said:
Yep. Took them about 2 years to get my operating limitations correct.
Click to expand...

Except this was a medical. Ever since the FAA went to the online medical application, it updates immediately. I did my medical last summer (in the middle of COVID) and the database reflected the new issuance the next day.
 
TrueCourse said:
The only two pilots onboard were the CE500 rated owner-pilot and his wife’s son in law, a private pilot. With all the others on board to consider, I don’t believe the owner-pilot would be anywhere but the left seat, regardless of any other errors made causing a crash.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t mean anything. We don’t know (and will probably never know) who was actually flying.

And it wouldn’t be the first time a non typed pilot occupied the left seat.

We shall see what they turn up.
 
It does mean something, but I’m giving the owner the benefit of the doubt. If they have enough video cameras at the FBO or hangar, or if there is a lineman-witness, they will know who was in the left seat.
 
TrueCourse said:
It does mean something, but I’m giving the owner the benefit of the doubt. If they have enough video cameras at the FBO or hangar, or if there is a lineman-witness, they will know who was in the left seat.
Click to expand...

Yep, in our video everything world, perhaps there is something.

In accident investigations you don't give the benefit of the doubt. You look at details and trends. If the owner/pilot was willing to fly without his medical, what else was he lacking or disregarding?
 
True, in an accident investigation. In this discussion, glad we can go beyond that. Unless of course, one (not you) goes too far, character assassinates the newly dead, and takes a WAG at something like it’s fact. Not that anyone would do that. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top