Excel-Jet sues FAA for Sport-Jet crash

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?

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!

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?

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.

Peter Clark wrote in
:

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


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
y.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

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

"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.

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.