There was a plane crash at a small downtown airport that killed both pilots. News has come out that neither pilot was certified (rated?) to fly that particular aircraft, a Dassault Falcon 50. My question is, how often do general aviation pilots fly aircraft they aren't certified to fly?

Link to the article.

Pilots Stephen Fox and John Caswell had flown planes for thousands of hours between them at the time of a jet crash that claimed their lives last week in South Carolina.

But federal records show neither man had the certification required to fly the Dassault Falcon 50 jet that slid off the runway of the Greenville Downtown Airport on Thursday, killing both of them and injuring two passengers on board.

Authorities identified Caswell, 49, of Port St. Lucie, as the pilot, but he wasn’t certified to act as the "pilot in command" of a Falcon 50 jet, according to the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airmen Registry. Caswell’s registry entry shows he has a "second-in-command privileges only" for that type of aircraft, meaning he could only fly as a co-pilot with someone who has a pilot-in-command rating.

Fox, a 66-year-old Indian Rocks Beach man who owns two Pinellas County-based flights services companies, was identified as the co-pilot, but no Stephen Fox or Stephen George Fox in the registry has a pilot-in-command or second-in-command rating for the Falcon 50. Fox was certified only for visual flight and didn’t have the rating required to fly an aircraft under instrument flight rules.

"He was not qualified to be on that flight deck, period," said Robert Katz, a Dallas, Texas-based flight instructor and veteran pilot who tracks plane crashes across the nation. "What we’re looking at here is an unqualified crew."

Pilots earn pilot-in-command certification from the FAA after completing hours of training specific to an aircraft. That Fox and Caswell lacked so-called type rating for the Falcon 50 indicates they haven’t had training for that jet, Katz said.

Caswell was certified as an air transport pilot and flight instructor and had type ratings to fly Lear and Gulfstream jets, FAA records show.

"Each aircraft is its own animal," Katz said. "We’re talking apples and oranges and pears."

The National Transportation Safety Board and the FAA are investigating the crash. NTSB spokesman Eric Weiss said Monday the agency is focused on collecting evidence at the scene and did not have information on the pilots’ ratings. FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen also could not confirm the pilots’ ratings but said the Airmen Registry reflects the latest information available.

An NTSB investigator said at a news conference last week that Caswell and Fox had significant experience flying, with Caswell logging 11,600 hours and Fox 5,500 hours. The investigator did not address which aircraft type ratings the pilots held.

Airport officials said the plane appeared to land normally about 1:40 p.m. but then slid off the runway and fell 40 to 50 feet down an embankment at the end of the runway, causing the fuselage split behind the cockpit. Caswell died at the scene. Fox was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Officials said visibility was not a factor in the crash.

Authorities said the two passengers on board were a married couple but have not released their names or where they live. The flight originated in St. Petersburg, according to the NTSB, but the airport has not been identified.

Fox is listed in Florida state records as the registered agent for Air America Flight Services Inc. and Clearwater Aviation. The companies are headquartered at the St. Petersburg-Clearwater Airport and provide executive flight charters, aircraft management, maintenance services and pilot training, according to their websites. Air America also has a location in West Palm Beach.

A friend of Fox’s told the Tampa Bay Times last week that Fox ran the business with his sons. One of the sons, Travis Fox, declined to comment last week and did not immediately return messages this week.

A page on Air America’s site features photos of a Falcon 50, a sleek aircraft with three engines that seats nine in a plush, leather-appointed cabin. The jet has a range of 3,400 miles and top speed of 400 knots, the website says.

FAA records show the Falcon 50 that crashed is owned by Global Aircraft Acquisitions LLC of Delaware. The plane was manufactured in 1982, making it 36 years old.

It was still unclear Monday if the plane had been hired as a charter. If so, the pilots were violating regulations governing charter companies and putting their passengers at risk by flying without the proper qualifications, Katz said. He said such a violation could void any insurance coverage on the aircraft.

Violating charter regulations could also lead to sanctions for a charter company, including revocation of its air carrier certificate, said Jacqueline Rosser, senior advisor at the National Air Transportation Association, a trade group in Washington, D.C.

A preliminary crash report is expected in two to three weeks and a full report will take 12 to 18 months.

Should be zero, but clearly not this case, which cost 2 lives and a $40+M jet.

quote:

Originally posted by cheesegrits:

how often do general aviation pilots fly aircraft they aren't certified to fly?

Probably not that often.

From what I have seen, it is more likely that a General Aviation pilot who is flying illegally is likely to be certified in the aircraft, but have other problems, such as

• Expired medical certificate
  
  
• Lack of recent experience (three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days as sole manipulator of the controls)
  
  
• Night flying without recent experience (similar to the preceding, but at night)
  
  
• Not current with respect to requirements for Flight Review (within the past 24 calendar months)
  
  
• Instrument flight without meeting the requirements for current experience
  
  
• Attempted flight in instrument conditions without an instrument rating

These are the infractions that come to mind without spending a lot of time thinking about it.

The "Captain" WAS rated but only as a second in command. The other guy was not even rated.

For turbine powered aircraft, you need to have a specific license for that particular aircraft (or family...kind of like I am rated for the 757 and 767 since they are the same cockpit and systems with some differences).

I think it is pretty rare to do what you are asking, especially in the pay for hire venue, which this was. Each plane has its own quirks and systems that can have a big effect on what you do. I mean I COULD hop in a plane and do a survivable job of flying it...if I can get it started and find a manual to give me a quick and dirty of some of the systems.

Does it happen? Obviously, and as V-Tail said, there are lots of other dumb ways to get in trouble. However, I don't think it's exactly common.

Expediency.

These guys were pros. They could handle it. Somebody is paying a lot of money and there is no time to dot all those “i’s” and cross all those “t’s” on each and every silly regulation, not to mention insurance requirements.

One wonders in the used jet market how all those folks can be type rated and current in all those makes and models.

You go with what you need to do. It almost always works out until it doesn’t, then you deal with it.

I flew with an instructor pilot briefly who was also a corporate pilot for the Very Big Company with it’s own flight department. He quit rather than continue to take flights violative of regulations. If anything went wrong, he would have been holding the bag, of course.

I think this kid was a little over ambitious in his attempts to fly but his reason was as solid as it comes!

https://www.foxnews.com/travel...-it-to-a-rap-concert

My limited experience is in single engine propeller so I wouldn't know the specifics of this plane.
You never know who is doing this until someone like this crashes and there is an investigation.
The guy in the right seat didn't even have an instrument rating and had no business even in the right seat. The pilot should have known how to fly and land it but didn't have the certification to be in the left seat. That said, he should have been able to fly and land the thing in a clear day on what should have been a simple straight forward flight.
My guess is that they picked a shorter runway than this plane could stop on (maybe didn't know the airport) or simply overshot the touchdown point and should have gone around again.
Either way, the result is the same.

Legally, never ever. Obviously when you disregard the most basics of aviation rules, then anything is possible.

There's no expediency here whatsoever.

Neither pilot was qualified.

The pilot held a "SIC type rating." These are fairly new; about ten or fifteen years ago the concept was invented; until then, second-in commands didn't have a type rating or need one (still don't in the USA). The qualifications for a SIC type rating are minimal, and not remotely close to what the PIC of a turbine airplane needs to get type rated. It's a token gesture that was designed to placate other countries if a US-certificated pilot operated abroad as second in command. It's literally three takeoffs and landings, familiarity with the airplane and systems, and demonstration of shutting down an engine in flight. That's it.

By comparison, my last type rating took two months of full time training. Big difference, and that type rating still didn't make me a captain. That takes years more, in the airplane.

The pilot of this Falcon had bare, minimal qualifications and no business being in the aircraft. The copilot of this Falcon wasn't remotely qualified; he was a part owner of the company that had the Falcon as a charter airplane, Clearwater Aviation.

The airplane was a charter aircraft, operating under a charter certificate (Part 135) of the federal aviation regulations. That sets a host of additional requirements, from mandated pilot training to a type rating, to FAA oversight and flight checking, company training, background and employment history checks, drug checks, etc. This pilot had none of that. The Falcon was flown by two entirely unqualified, illegal pilots, and this is not at all common.

The only place that flight operations routinely happen without certificated pilots are private operations in Alaska, and the FAA has clamped down on that considerably over the past years. Charter operations, which carry the same weight with the FAA as any airline operation, are a very different story; unqualified pilots in charter operations is nearly unheard of, and a very big deal.

This aircraft was based in the hangar next door. You haven't heard anything yet! If only half of what I'm hearing is true,this will be a landmark
incident

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

For turbine powered aircraft, you need to have a specific license for that particular aircraft

I'll be a little nit-picky here. You're talking about Big Stuff, but not all turbine powered airplanes require a type rating.

No type rating required for most (all?) turbo-prop airplanes that do not hit 12,500 pounds gross. Smaller King-Airs, Cessna Conquest, Cessna Caravan, Piper Cheyenne, TBM . . . a whole bunch of turbine-powered airplanes that do not require type ratings.

---

On a different aspect, much was made of the fact that the right-seat guy was not instrument rated. While kind of rare, a type rating can be issued to a non-instrument rated pilot. John Travolta's initial type rating (Lear, if my memory is correct?) specified VFR only. He was not instrument rated at the time. Interesting, because with that restriction, his highest legal altitude would have been 17,500 -- watch those engines suck the kerosene!

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

No type rating required for most (all?) turbo-prop airplanes that do not hit 12,500 pounds gross. Smaller King-Airs, Cessna Conquest, Cessna Caravan, Piper Cheyenne, TBM . . . a whole bunch of turbine-powered airplanes that do not require type ratings.

---

On a different aspect, much was made of the fact that the right-seat guy was not instrument rated. While kind of rare, a type rating can be issued to a non-instrument rated pilot. John Travolta's initial type rating (Lear, if my memory is correct?) specified VFR only. He was not instrument rated at the time. Interesting, because with that restriction, his highest legal altitude would have been 17,500 -- watch those engines suck the kerosene!

The Falcon 50 requires a type rating. It has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 39,700 lbs. The aircraft type certificate provides that the minimum crew is two. The aircraft is operated under IFR. A second in command under IFR, per 14 CFR 61.55, requires an instrument rating. Additionally, a private pilot cannot operate as SIC under Part 135.

There is not a single aspect of this operation that was legal, or safe.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by cheesegrits:

how often do general aviation pilots fly aircraft they aren't certified to fly?

Probably not that often.

From what I have seen, it is more likely that a General Aviation pilot who is flying illegally is likely to be certified in the aircraft, but have other problems, such as

• Expired medical certificate
  
  
• Lack of recent experience (three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days as sole manipulator of the controls)
  
  
• Night flying without recent experience (similar to the preceding, but at night)
  
  
• Not current with respect to requirements for Flight Review (within the past 24 calendar months)
  
  
• Instrument flight without meeting the requirements for current experience
  
  
• Attempted flight in instrument conditions without an instrument rating

These are the infractions that come to mind without spending a lot of time thinking about it.

And the first two are particularly weak offenses, as they only apply to carrying passengers. Ditto for tailwheel currency, another that could be added to your list. All one has to do to be legal with any of those is go by themselves and do the three landings. (I think they have to be full stop landings at night but can’t swear to that. The three landings definitely have to be full stop landings for tailwheel currency.) I’ve done this once of twice before taking off on a trip without the requisite currency. Get there a little early, do the three landings, top off fuel if needed, load pax and bags and go. Always being current is of course better, but if one isn’t, it is silly to not fix it before hauling passengers.

BFRs and Instrument currency require coordinating with some else, but they aren’t that onerous either.

Folks either do things right or they don’t. Fortunately, most folks in aviation choose to do things right. Unfortunately, those that don’t make things harder for all of us.

Regaining insurance in a transport category turbojet airplane is usually a bit more involved than doing three bounces and topping off with fuel, but it also presupposes that the pilot is already qualified.

In this case, neither pilot was qualified, so recency of experience wasn't at all the issue.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Regaining insurance in a transport category turbojet airplane is usually a bit more involved than doing three bounces and topping off with fuel, but it also presupposes that the pilot is already qualified.

In this case, neither pilot was qualified, so recency of experience wasn't at all the issue.

Wow guppy, you seem to have your panties in an argumentative bunch today.

Responding to the OP’s question, “how often do general aviation pilots fly aircraft they aren't certified to fly?” V-Tail said, “Probably not that often.” and detailed more common infractions of the FARs.

You seem to be hung up on the Falcon 50 though and not that interested in addressing the OP.

The original poster linked the Falcon 50 mishap, which is the basis of the thread. In fact, every word of the post, with the exception of a single sentence, which referred to the rest of the post, was about the Falcon 50 mishap, including the link to the article with pictures.

Regarding that single sentence, has the question not been answered, and inaccuracies corrected?

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

No type rating required for most (all?) turbo-prop airplanes that do not hit 12,500 pounds gross. Smaller King-Airs, Cessna Conquest, Cessna Caravan, Piper Cheyenne, TBM . . . a whole bunch of turbine-powered airplanes that do not require type ratings.

---

On a different aspect, much was made of the fact that the right-seat guy was not instrument rated. While kind of rare, a type rating can be issued to a non-instrument rated pilot. John Travolta's initial type rating (Lear, if my memory is correct?) specified VFR only. He was not instrument rated at the time. Interesting, because with that restriction, his highest legal altitude would have been 17,500 -- watch those engines suck the kerosene!

The Falcon 50 requires a type rating. It has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 39,700 lbs. The aircraft type certificate provides that the minimum crew is two. The aircraft is operated under IFR. A second in command under IFR, per 14 CFR 61.55, requires an instrument rating. Additionally, a private pilot cannot operate as SIC under Part 135.

There is not a single aspect of this operation that was legal, or safe.

Uh, Captain, I respectfully suggest that you take time to read and comprehend a post before you get your laundry in a bundle.

My remark about type ratings, which you took out of context, was specifically addressed to Captain Otto's remark about type ratings being required for turbine powered aircraft.

I stated that he is mostly correct, but there are many turboprops, which are turbine powered, that do not require type ratings.

I never said anything about type ratings in connection with the Falcon.

Also, I have to question your assertion that the Falcon "is operated under IFR." That is probably true almost all of the time. However, I am pretty sure that there is no requirement that any aircraft be operated under IFR for every flight. What would preclude a Falcon, or for that matter a 747, from being operated under VFR for a flight that stays at or below 17,500'? Maybe a very short leg on a severe clear day. Maybe repositioning, as in MCO to SFB. Not a likely scenario, but not one that would require an IFR operation.

'Nother question. You assert that "a private pilot cannot operate as SIC under Part 135." I have no argument with that statement, but I do question its relevance to the accident being discussed. I did not see anything that stated that the right-seat pilot held a private certificate. There might be an implication, in that he was not instrument rated and an instrument rating is a prerequisite for a commercial certificate (with some exceptions) under current regulations, but that was not always true. Back in the Dark Ages, 1965, when I got my commercial certificate, the instrument rating was not a prerequisite for commercial. In fact, because of scheduling availability, I got the commercial first, and then a week or two later, I took the instrument checkride. If I had never added the instrument rating, my commercial certificate would be "grandfathered" and would still be valid (for VFR only operations, of course).

quote:

"He was not qualified to be on that flight deck, period," said Robert Katz, a Dallas, Texas-based flight instructor and veteran pilot who tracks plane crashes across the nation. "What we’re looking at here is an unqualified crew."

Egos were writing checks that their bodies couldn't cash in this case.

It would be illuminating to know why 2 people chose the Falcon 50 for what seems like a relatively short hop from St. Pete to Greenville, SC ~500 miles or so.

Maybe they were stopping to pick up others, then fly to Europe or something with a real crew.

Maybe a smaller jet would have been better assuming the ATP had type certificates for any of them.

Straight up cheaping out.

I’ve given checkrides in the Air Force, at American, at FedEx and also for the FAA.

The only reason a company would have people barely qualified was to save money in order to move a jet. Say.
Normally, is what I say.