FAA: Pilots Weren't Certified to Fly Corporate Jet That Ran Off Runway in Kearny Mesa Last Year

FPK1

FPK1

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Apr 21, 2021
Messages
660
Location
Orange County, CA
Display Name
Display name:
FPK1
"The FAA report states Scott Kitchens was the pilot-in-command but indicates that he didn't hold a valid pilot certificate, which had been revoked two years prior to the crash. The other pilot, Nathan Russell's credentials prohibited him from piloting an aircraft without a properly licensed pilot in command. But neither of the men were certified to fly that particular type of aircraft."

Insurance company now suing the corporate jet owner...

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/lo...-off-runway-in-kearny-mesa-last-year/2938883/
 
To add insult to injury ...

"the plane wasn't going fast enough, and was 3,000 pounds over-weight based on the length of the runway."

If you're gonna do it wrong ... do it right! ;)
 
Well, it looks like USAIG screwed the pooch on this one. (Can hardly feel sorry for them given their reprehensible policies in general). Based on the filing, requiring specific pilots or even ones typed in the aircraft or certificated was only "implicit" in the policy. The explicit text says that the pilots would be ones "approved by the operator." Their suit is based on alleged fraud that the operator never intended to use the services of the pilots that were put on the application, though they did twice, and that the policy didn't limit them to those pilots.

Gee, my former USAIG "All Clear" policy (before they summarily canceled all Navion coverage) certainly was better written. I remember that my open pilot clause required a private certificate and 25 hours of retract time. I asked the guy who was flying mine, a former U-2 pilot, if the fact the wheels fell off his plane counted as retract time.
 
Not even sure what to say. At a loss for words.
 
If there was any doubt an aircraft LLC formed as a defense against liability is worthless, this action bursts that little bubble. From the pleading:

2. Defendant Aerospike Iron, LLC (“Aerospike”) is a California single member limited liability company. The single member of Aerospike is Charles
Brandes, an individual who is a California citizen domiciled in California.
3. Defendant Charles Brandes (“Brandes”) is an individual who is a California
citizen domiciled in California.
 
Still not sure what to say.
Exactly what happened, due to crew, or other??

Regardless, a properly trained crew may have had a better outcome.
 
Kritchlow said:
Still not sure what to say.
Exactly what happened, due to crew, or other??

Regardless, a properly trained crew may have had a better outcome.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking it takes more than the ability to start the engines to fly a 900 EX.
 
Actually, “Under the express terms of the Policy, a threshold to coverage for any occurrence is that the Aircraft was operated by a licensed and qualified pilot at the time of the occurrence.” That means you need a Falcon 50/900 type rating to fly it PIC. So, there is other wording in the policy other than the implicit language noted, which they typically use to reference “who else?”.

And the “more than $75,000” worth of damage is quite the understatement. If it isn’t a total loss, repairing the airplane would most likely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not over a million.
 
flyingron said:
Well, it looks like USAIG screwed the pooch on this one. (Can hardly feel sorry for them given their reprehensible policies in general). Based on the filing, requiring specific pilots or even ones typed in the aircraft or certificated was only "implicit" in the policy. The explicit text says that the pilots would be ones "approved by the operator." Their suit is based on alleged fraud that the operator never intended to use the services of the pilots that were put on the application, though they did twice, and that the policy didn't limit them to those pilots.

Gee, my former USAIG "All Clear" policy (before they summarily canceled all Navion coverage) certainly was better written. I remember that my open pilot clause required a private certificate and 25 hours of retract time. I asked the guy who was flying mine, a former U-2 pilot, if the fact the wheels fell off his plane counted as retract time.
Click to expand...
We cannot see the policy proper, but if it doesn't include language to the effect that all regulations and requirements must be met, then it's different from mine.
 
This thread got me thinking back to the “I cheated on the private written” thread. All of these pilots in these accidents started with something seemingly innocent, then it snowballed from there. It eventually catches up to you. It may take a while, but eventually it does. Glad it’s a small number of pilots, though they attract a lot of attention.
 
Points to the hiring problem and the need to get butts in seats. Bad decisions don't typically come to light until it's too late.
 
TrueCourse said:
And the “more than $75,000” worth of damage is quite the understatement. If it isn’t a total loss, repairing the airplane would most likely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not over a million.
Click to expand...
$75,000 is the threshold for a federal court to exercise its diversity jurisdiction and decide cases between citizens of different states that don’t involve questions of federal law. The pleading standards in various states often lead to similar absurdities, and I have seen insurance lawyers ask judges to punish lawyers who put “damages of $1 million” when the pleading standard was to write “damages in excess of $50,000.” So it’s usually easier to just put down the jurisdictional amount and then prove the real number at trial.
 
I’m lost here. Is there actually some legal thing that says it’s ok for the airplane owner to knowingly put unqualified pilots in the plane and the insurance company has to pay them for the damage? Laymen’s terms please.
 
luvflyin said:
I’m lost here. Is there actually some legal thing that says it’s ok for the airplane owner to knowingly put unqualified pilots in the plane and the insurance company has to pay them for the damage? Laymen’s terms please.
Click to expand...
Insurance policies define when they will pay. Federal aviation regulations don’t control that, unless the insurance policy says so. Some policies say they will pay even if you broke the regulations. But I think that all policies say they are void if you got the policy by filling the application out with nothing but lies.
 
iamtheari said:
$75,000 is the threshold for a federal court to exercise its diversity jurisdiction and decide cases between citizens of different states that don’t involve questions of federal law. The pleading standards in various states often lead to similar absurdities, and I have seen insurance lawyers ask judges to punish lawyers who put “damages of $1 million” when the pleading standard was to write “damages in excess of $50,000.” So it’s usually easier to just put down the jurisdictional amount and then prove the real number at trial.
Click to expand...

I figured it was something related to this, but when I kept seeing it, I thought it looked odd, hence the comment. Thanks for the clarification. Dassault wouldn’t put an estimate on it if they were asked. Sure, its possible (though not probable) to extract costs of parts, but the amount of engineering involvement and labor simply fits into “the skies the limit” category.
 
When the video first came it seemed like the aircraft wasn't trimmed for TO. Looked lime a lot of nose down trim. Maybe they didn't even know where to look to see the trims on the EASy avionics.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
We cannot see the policy proper, but if it doesn't include language to the effect that all regulations and requirements must be met, then it's different from mine.
Click to expand...
If you have a policy that says all regulations must be met, you need a different insurer. One bogus part or an improper log entry leaves you without insurance.
 
TrueCourse said:
And the “more than $75,000” worth of damage is quite the understatement. If it isn’t a total loss, repairing the airplane would most likely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not over a million.
Click to expand...

The $75,000 figure is necessary to establish the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to entertain the suit. Without it, the Court cannot preside over the case.
 
NJP_MAN said:
When the video first came it seemed like the aircraft wasn't trimmed for TO. Looked lime a lot of nose down trim. Maybe they didn't even know where to look to see the trims on the EASy avionics.
Click to expand...
Most of the Falcon guys I’ve heard from said it wasn’t trimmed anywhere near what the CG would call for, although the AFM doesn’t proscribe a trim setting for a given CG.
 
PPC1052 said:
The $75,000 figure is necessary to establish the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to entertain the suit. Without it, the Court cannot preside over the case.
Click to expand...

Someone mentioned that earlier today, upthread. Thanks.
 
So what, if anything does an LLC protect you from concerning aircraft?
 
An LLC may protect you against things other people have done. It's hard to create a legal entity that protects you from the consequences of your own misconduct.
 
Okay, okay… insurance, LLC liability… all nice. BUT…

The shocking part is neither pilot was remotely qualified. I’ve been flying professionally for all of my adult life, and have worked for numerous outfits along the way.
NOT ONCE did the employer neglect to do some sort of verification / background check. I cannot fathom a company hiring two pilots, then putting them on a jet that they were completely unqualified to fly. EVERY outfit I’ve flown for has not only done background checks, but also put me through their specific training program (usually Flight Safety when I was in the corporate world).

Just how can this fall through the cracks??? It’s not like one of the pilots fell through, but BOTH did. That’s turning a blind eye on the company’s part.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
We cannot see the policy proper, but if it doesn't include language to the effect that all regulations and requirements must be met, then it's different from mine.
Click to expand...

Might have one of their policies in the files, but they dumped Navions a long time ago. But if there was such a basis to deny a claim, it would seem to me they would have made that statement in their civil filing. They did not.
 
Kritchlow said:
Okay, okay… insurance, LLC liability… all nice. BUT…

The shocking part is neither pilot was remotely qualified. I’ve been flying professionally for all of my adult life, and have worked for numerous outfits along the way.
NOT ONCE did the employer neglect to do some sort of verification / background check. I cannot fathom a company hiring two pilots, then putting them on a jet that they were completely unqualified to fly. EVERY outfit I’ve flown for has not only done background checks, but also put me through their specific training program (usually Flight Safety when I was in the corporate world).

Just how can this fall through the cracks??? It’s not like one of the pilots fell through, but BOTH did. That’s turning a blind eye on the company’s part.
Click to expand...

I’m guessing that this is a situation where there was direct contact between the principal or his admins and the so called new crew. Maybe limited HR or front office oversight or knowledge on the issues that can arise. Guy with undetected shady past comes in and starts the fraud ball rolling. Now, if there was a management company involved it would be total negligence on their part as the supposed experts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top