Excel-Jet sues FAA for Sport-Jet crash

[[email protected]]

I didn't find this anywhere in the past in this group though
admittedly I didn't look too hard, so forgive me if it's already been
hashed-out here.

I was just reading the latest General Aviation News and ran across an
article on the Sport-Jet crash on June 22, 2006.

The jet was cleared for takeoff behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of
mandatory seperation requirements." When the small jet encountered
wake turbulence upon rotation & liftoff, it rolled and crashed,
causing minor injuries.

Apparently the ATC manual says there must be a 3 minute seperation and
the NTSB "snapshot" put the Sport-Jet in the same area of the Dash-8 2
min & 11 sec. later. Arguments counter that there is no way that the
vorticies would be around after 2 minutes.

Anyway, at first my thought was; It's the pilot's responsibility to
decide whether or not his takeoff is too soon after a large plane's
departure. Personally, I have at least once requested a longer
"position & hold" time from ATC after a Southwest 737 took off in
front of me at Love Field (much to their frustration).
But I'm not so sure anymore. Truly, how many of us give consideration
about wake vorticies departing (or landing) behind larger aircraft?

Who do you think is at fault here?

Excel-Jet is surely going after a large settlement from the FAA in the
loss of their $1 million plus prototype and the injuries and, the
article says, loss of business and profits. They claim there is NO
FAULT with the pilots or the Sport-Jet.

What do you think?

Ricky

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> But I'm not so sure anymore. Truly, how many of us give consideration
> about wake vorticies departing (or landing) behind larger aircraft?

Me. I often fly a piston single near lots of larger aircraft.

Remember, waiting isn't the only answer. You can lift off well before
the larger craft and turn into the wind ASAP. This can be a good reason
not to use an intersection departure. The big guy's wake will drop and
drift with the wind. Stiffer breezes clear WT faster, higher crosswind
angles help even more.

Same for landing... Stay above his (or her <G>) approach, land well
beyond the larger craft's touchdown point.

I don't guess at fault based on news reports.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> I didn't find this anywhere in the past in this group though
> admittedly I didn't look too hard, so forgive me if it's already been
> hashed-out here.
>
> I was just reading the latest General Aviation News and ran across an
> article on the Sport-Jet crash on June 22, 2006.
>
> The jet was cleared for takeoff behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of
> mandatory seperation requirements." When the small jet encountered
> wake turbulence upon rotation & liftoff, it rolled and crashed,
> causing minor injuries.
>
> Apparently the ATC manual says there must be a 3 minute seperation and
> the NTSB "snapshot" put the Sport-Jet in the same area of the Dash-8 2
> min & 11 sec. later. Arguments counter that there is no way that the
> vorticies would be around after 2 minutes.
>
> Anyway, at first my thought was; It's the pilot's responsibility to
> decide whether or not his takeoff is too soon after a large plane's
> departure. Personally, I have at least once requested a longer
> "position & hold" time from ATC after a Southwest 737 took off in
> front of me at Love Field (much to their frustration).
> But I'm not so sure anymore. Truly, how many of us give consideration
> about wake vorticies departing (or landing) behind larger aircraft?
>
> Who do you think is at fault here?

The PIC who wasn't fulfilling his IC responsibility at the time.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
> The dash 8-200 isn't that large an airplane. If the sport jet can't
> handle it's wake 2 minutes after takeoff, how is it going to share
> airspace with a 777 five minutes ahead?
>

FAAO 7110.65 defines large aircraft as those of more than 41,000 pounds
maximum certificated takeoff weight up to 255,000 pounds. Appendix A of
that order puts the DHC-8/200 in the large weight class. The type
certificate data sheet for the DHC-8 series issued by the UK CAA gives the
maximum take-off weight of the DHC-8 -200 series as 36,300 pounds.


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1419/srg_acp_fa36-06.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/at_orders/media/ATC.pdf

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The dash 8-200 isn't that large an airplane. If the sport jet can't
>> handle it's wake 2 minutes after takeoff, how is it going to share
>> airspace with a 777 five minutes ahead?
>>
>
> FAAO 7110.65 defines large aircraft as those of more than 41,000
> pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight up to 255,000 pounds.
> Appendix A of that order puts the DHC-8/200 in the large weight
> class. The type certificate data sheet for the DHC-8 series issued
> by the UK CAA gives the maximum take-off weight of the DHC-8 -200
> series as 36,300 pounds.
>
Interesting. MTO weight < 41,000 pounds, yet classed as "L"... any notions
as to why there would be a discrepancy of this kind?

Neil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in news:zeT3j.21659$4V6.6610
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

> wrote:
>>
>> But I'm not so sure anymore. Truly, how many of us give consideration
>> about wake vorticies departing (or landing) behind larger aircraft?
>
> Me. I often fly a piston single near lots of larger aircraft.
>
> Remember, waiting isn't the only answer. You can lift off well before
> the larger craft and turn into the wind ASAP.

Not an option, paritcuarly in a multi engine aircraft. You lose one on
takeoff, you're straight through the preceding aircraft's wake in a most
vulnerable situation...


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:6e1c7468-af6b-4744-b9ea-
:

>
> I didn't find this anywhere in the past in this group though
> admittedly I didn't look too hard, so forgive me if it's already been
> hashed-out here.
>
> I was just reading the latest General Aviation News and ran across an
> article on the Sport-Jet crash on June 22, 2006.
>
> The jet was cleared for takeoff behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of
> mandatory seperation requirements." When the small jet encountered
> wake turbulence upon rotation & liftoff, it rolled and crashed,
> causing minor injuries.

Pilot's fault, period.


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Interesting. MTO weight < 41,000 pounds, yet classed as "L"... any notions
> as to why there would be a discrepancy of this kind?
>

No idea.

[Jim Stewart]

wrote:


> Anyway, at first my thought was; It's the pilot's responsibility to
> decide whether or not his takeoff is too soon after a large plane's
> departure. Personally, I have at least once requested a longer
> "position & hold" time from ATC after a Southwest 737 took off in
> front of me at Love Field (much to their frustration).
> But I'm not so sure anymore. Truly, how many of us give consideration
> about wake vorticies departing (or landing) behind larger aircraft?

Me. I soloed at MCC (untowered) and several
times I found myself sharing the pattern
with a C-130 with the both of us doing touch-
and-go's.

[Newps]

wrote:

>
> Apparently the ATC manual says there must be a 3 minute seperation



There's no such requirement unless the smaller aircraft used an
intersection in front of where the Dash 8 departed.

[Bob Gardner]

Takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory.

Bob Gardner

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:41:51 -0800 (PST),
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I didn't find this anywhere in the past in this group though
>>admittedly I didn't look too hard, so forgive me if it's already been
>>hashed-out here.
>>
>>I was just reading the latest General Aviation News and ran across an
>>article on the Sport-Jet crash on June 22, 2006.
>>
>>The jet was cleared for takeoff behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of
>>mandatory seperation requirements." When the small jet encountered
>>wake turbulence upon rotation & liftoff, it rolled and crashed,
>>causing minor injuries.
>>
>>Apparently the ATC manual says there must be a 3 minute seperation and
>>the NTSB "snapshot" put the Sport-Jet in the same area of the Dash-8 2
>>min & 11 sec. later. Arguments counter that there is no way that the
>>vorticies would be around after 2 minutes.
>
> The dash 8-200 isn't that large an airplane. If the sport jet can't
> handle it's wake 2 minutes after takeoff, how is it going to share
> airspace with a 777 five minutes ahead?

[Hamish Reid]

In article
>,
wrote:

[...]

> But I'm not so sure anymore. Truly, how many of us give consideration
> about wake vorticies departing (or landing) behind larger aircraft?

[...]

Well, I certainly do -- being based at Oakland (KOAK) it's a constant
consideration....

Hamish

[Robert M. Gary]

On Nov 29, 11:41 pm, wrote:
> I didn't find this anywhere in the past in this group though
> admittedly I didn't look too hard, so forgive me if it's already been
> hashed-out here.


It will be interesting to see if the fed's grant their request to sue
the FAA.

-Robert

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:45:12 -0800 (PST), Robert M. Gary wrote:

> On Nov 29, 11:41 pm, wrote:
>> I didn't find this anywhere in the past in this group though
>> admittedly I didn't look too hard, so forgive me if it's already been
>> hashed-out here.
>
> It will be interesting to see if the fed's grant their request to sue
> the FAA.
>
> -Robert

How so? By Fed do you mean Federal Court? Would not the FAA be liable to
the charge that it is not doing everything possible to prevent such an
accident by usurping an air directive? The jet was cleared for takeoff
behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of mandatory separation requirements."

The FAA may be without fault but it would seem on discovery by deposition
would begin to prove that one way or the other.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:28:31 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. net...
>>
>> Interesting. MTO weight < 41,000 pounds, yet classed as "L"... any notions
>> as to why there would be a discrepancy of this kind?
>>
>
>No idea.

Could it be like the 757 where it's something to do with the vortices
even though it's not a heavy?

[Newps]

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

>
> How so? By Fed do you mean Federal Court? Would not the FAA be liable to
> the charge that it is not doing everything possible to prevent such an
> accident by usurping an air directive? The jet was cleared for takeoff
> behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of mandatory separation requirements."

We don't even know if that's the case. If the jet took off from the
same place as the Dash 8 then no wake turbulence delay was necessary.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:28:31 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. net...
>>>
>>> Interesting. MTO weight < 41,000 pounds, yet classed as "L"... any
>>> notions as to why there would be a discrepancy of this kind?
>>>
>>
>>No idea.
>
> Could it be like the 757 where it's something to do with the vortices
> even though it's not a heavy?

The 757 was classified as a heavy for a while for wake seperation, but that
was rescinded a few years back. Still a good idea not to nuzzle up behind
one. It's wing is kind of unique in that the center section has a critical
foil and this causes a particularly strong spanwise flow.
The latest 737s have the same wing, BTW.


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Nov 30, 3:14 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> How so? By Fed do you mean Federal Court? Would not the FAA be liable to
> the charge that it is not doing everything possible to prevent such an
> accident by usurping an air directive? The jet was cleared for takeoff
> behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of mandatory separation requirements."

United States Government has sovereign immunity, and you have to seek
permission to take a legal action against an agency

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> Could it be like the 757 where it's something to do with the vortices
> even though it's not a heavy?
>

No. The B757 is the only aircraft specified by type in wake turbulence
procedures.

[[email protected]]

I had ONE experience with wake turbulence and I am determined not to
have another.

It the case that the PIC can decline ATC clearance to take off (or
land) if the PIC believes wake turbulence will be a problem.

If ATC cleared me to take off (or land), and I felt wake turbulence
might be an issue, I'd ask for an amended clearance. It's the smart
thing to do. You don't want that big invisible fist hitting your plane
on short final or rotation. No way. I'll take the abuse from ATC if I
have to.

Wake turbulence is the devil.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:45:46 -0700, Newps wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
>>
>> How so? By Fed do you mean Federal Court? Would not the FAA be liable to
>> the charge that it is not doing everything possible to prevent such an
>> accident by usurping an air directive? The jet was cleared for takeoff
>> behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of mandatory separation requirements."
>
> We don't even know if that's the case. If the jet took off from the
> same place as the Dash 8 then no wake turbulence delay was necessary.

That's the point. There is no true case until there is legal deposition.
Which is why I was asking Robert why he said:

"It will be interesting to see if the fed's grant their request to sue
the FAA."

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:06:43 -0800 (PST), Robert M. Gary wrote:

> On Nov 30, 3:14 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>> How so? By Fed do you mean Federal Court? Would not the FAA be liable to
>> the charge that it is not doing everything possible to prevent such an
>> accident by usurping an air directive? The jet was cleared for takeoff
>> behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of mandatory separation requirements."
>
> United States Government has sovereign immunity, and you have to seek
> permission to take a legal action against an agency
>
> -Robert

True but the precedent for monetary damages being pursued against the FAA
exists. Which gets back to your question, "It will be interesting to see if
the fed's grant their request to sue the FAA."

Is this a DOJ determination?


--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!