Excel-Jet sues FAA for Sport-Jet crash

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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!