Flight Options Accident?

RJL

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Posts
68
Total Time
7,400
Good Morning-

Was there a Flight Options Accident Yesterday? I was looking at the FAA web site doing some research for a customer and cam across the following info. Is this Flight Options? If it is, any info. would be appreciated. If it isn't, I appologize for the confusion...

Thanks- RJ


You can see this at: http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/E_0502_N.txt


FAA Preliminary Accident and Incident Data

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: OPT498 Make/Model: BE40 Description: 400 Beechjet (T-1 Jayhawk, T-4
Date: 05/01/2002 Time:

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
City: BALTIMORE State: MD Country: US

DESCRIPTION
ACFT OVERRAN THE RWY AFTER LANDING, STRUCK THE ILS/LOC ANTENNA STRUCTURE,
AND WENT INTO THE GRASS, NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED, BALTIMORE, MD.

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: UNKN

OTHER DATA
Activity: Business Phase: Landing Operation: Air Taxi (On Demand)

Departed: UNKN Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: UNKN Flt Plan: UNK Wx Briefing: U
Last Radio Cont: UNKN
Last Clearance: UNKN

FAA FSDO: BALTIMORE, MD (EA07) Entry date: 05/02/2002
 

RJL

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Posts
68
Total Time
7,400
I was looking for more info. then came across this from the NTSB- about another Flight Options accident. I thought that Flight Options just said in their new materials and web site that they have never had an accident before?

Any information out there?

-RJ

-------------------------------------------------

I fopund this here: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020227X00277&key=1


NTSB Identification: NYC02FA059

Accident occurred Sunday, February 10, 2002 at Cleveland, OH
Aircraft:Mitsubishi MU-300, registration: N541CW
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On February 10, 2002, about 2302 eastern standard time, a Mitsubishi MU-300, N541CW, owned and operated by Flight Options Inc., was substantially damaged during an overrun at the Cuyahoga County Airport (CGF), Cleveland, Ohio. The two certificated airline transport pilots were not injured. Night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the positioning flight that originated from the Palwaukee Municipal Airport (PWK), Chicago, Illinois. The flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

According to the pilot-in-command (PIC), prior to the accident flight, company dispatch personnel instructed the flightcrew to fly six passengers from Marquette, Michigan, to PWK. Upon arrival at PWK, the PIC called dispatch and was instructed to reposition the airplane to CGF. The PIC proceeded to order fuel and check the current weather in the Cleveland area. The PIC also called the CGF air traffic control tower to inquire about the current weather and any braking action reports that may have been available. The tower controller stated to the PIC that a Cessna Citation had just landed and reported the braking action as fair to good.

The flight departed PWK about 2152, and proceeded eastbound, with the SIC at the controls. Upon arrival in the Cleveland area, the approach controller advised the flight crew that the current CGF weather was 300 overcast, visibility 1/2-mile in snow, winds from 320 degrees, variable to 350 degrees at 12-15 knots, gusts to 25 knots. The approach in use was to runway 23, a 5,101-foot long, 100-foot wide, asphalt runway. The PIC also recalled that he heard the controller state that Cleveland Hopkins Airport, located about 20 miles west of CGF, was closed due to snow removal, and should reopen in approximately 30 minutes.

While being vectored for the ILS Runway 23 approach, the controller stated that the airplane was "number two" for the approach following a Hawker jet. While the accident airplane was being vectored, it traveled through the final approach course, and had to be re-vectored. The airplane was then given a heading to intercept the final approach course and cleared for the approach. The PIC decided at this point, if the airplane was not stabilized on the approach by 1,900 feet msl, a missed approach would be executed. The airplane was stabilized at 2,000 feet, with the landing gear extended, full flaps, and a "Vref" speed of 106 knots, plus 5 knots. The PIC contacted the tower; advising them that the airplane was on the approach, inbound. The tower controller advised the flightcrew that the runway had been plowed, the Hawker had just landed, and the braking action was poor. The accident airplane was then cleared to land. The PIC visually identified the runway when the airplane was 300-400 feet above the decision height, and the landing was continued. The speed of the airplane as it passed over the threshold of the runway was about 106 knots and touchdown occurred within the first 500-600 feet of the runway. Upon touchdown the speed brakes were deployed and maximum braking was applied. The PIC recalled that although there was "a firm brake pedal," he could not feel the anti-skid pulsating. Deceleration of the airplane was slow and he soon realized the airplane was not going to stop on the runway. Attempting a go-around was not an option due to the amount of runway remaining. The airplane departed the end of the runway at a speed of 20-30 mph, and proceeded onto a down sloping grass overrun area. During the overrun, the flightcrew elected to shut down the engines. As the airplane was about to come to a stop, the nose gear struck a mound, and the nose landing gear assembly collapsed. The flight crew secured the airplane and exited.

According to the second-in-command (SIC), who was flying the airplane from the left seat, the PIC called the tower while they were on the ground at PWK, and stated that a Cessna Citation pilot reported the braking action at CGF as "good". As the flight arrived in the Cleveland area, the controller vectored the airplane for the approach because airport personnel were plowing the runway, and that they were number two for the approach behind a Hawker. The SIC stated that the vector was poor, and that he flew through the localizer course. The airplane was then re-vectored back and became established on the approach at 2,000 feet msl. The flightcrew was then instructed to contact the tower, where they were cleared to land. To the SIC's best recollection, the flightcrew was never given the braking action by the tower controller. The airplane "broke out" about 200-300 feet above the decision height, with the runway in sight, and straight ahead. As the airplane crossed the "numbers," the speed was at "ref," and touchdown occurred about 500-600 feet down the runway. The SIC applied maximum braking and the airplane began to slide to the right. The SIC straightened out the airplane and both flightcrew members felt that there was no antiskid. At that time the SIC determined that there was insufficient remaining runway to abort the landing, and committed himself in trying to slow the airplane down. The airplane then departed the end of the runway, at 30-40 mph, and proceeded into an overrun grassy area. The SIC did recall that the nose gear collapsed prior to the airplane coming to a complete stop.

An airport employee, who was plowing snow on the airport, stated that he was advised by the control tower that two airplanes were inbound, and he was instructed to remain clear of the runway. The employee positioned the plow truck to taxiway intersection A8 and stopped. After the first airplane landed, which was the Hawker, the pilot reported to the control tower that the braking action as poor. When the second airplane arrived, which was the MU-300, the employee observed the airplane touchdown between A5 and A6 taxiway intersections. The employee then noticed that the airplane was not slowing down, and crossed the A8 taxiway intersection at a high rate of speed. The airplane then departed the end of the runway and came to rest in the grass.

At 2245, CGF personnel conducted a runway condition report, which stated that the runway 5/23 condition was "thin layer of snow." The report also stated that the friction meter measurements for runway 23 were "approach end 50, mid point 45, roll out 45." Braking action on runway 23 was, "good" at the approach end, "fair" at the mid point, and "fair" at the roll out. Comments on the report were that the runway had been plowed.

Review of the CGF airport diagram revealed that A5 taxiway intersection was located about 2,868 feet from the approach end of runway 23. A6 taxiway intersection was located about 3,300 feet from the approach end of runway 23.

The weather recorded at CGF, at 2245 was, winds from 330 degrees at 12 knots, gusts to 22 knots; visibility 3/4 statute mile, light snow; overcast clouds at 300 feet.

On February 25, 2002, Safety Board personnel, which included a senior structural engineer, examined the airplane at the operator's CGF maintenance facility. The examination revealed that the damage exhibited on the aircraft was consistent with a nose landing gear failure during the overrun. Additionally, the nose landing gear contacted and damaged the pressure bulkhead.
 

j41driver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2002
Posts
1,300
Total Time
11000
Technically....

it doesn't say they never had an accident. It says that they have had 450,000 accident free hours. It may just be hour 450,001 that they don't want to talk about.
 

Jetz

God bless America
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Posts
514
Total Time
'Nuf
Ok, lets show a little class and respect

Apparently a Flight Options aircraft was involved in an accident yesterday evening at BWI.

Let us remember that we are all professionals here. Let us not be lead into the tempation to make this an opportunity to bash one company or another based on their safety record.

Spirited dicsussion and debate of all topics related to Fractional Ownership seems to thrive here on this board. Let's not allow the conversation to degrade into something unprofessional and unbecoming of a board with such high standards.

To the crew and passengers of the F.O. Jet... I hope that you are all doing well.
 
Last edited:

EJA_PIC

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Posts
13
Total Time
4700+
FLOPS incident

FLOPS could be spliting hairs in the "Accident" vs "Incident" definitions. What may seem to be an accident to the media and attorneys may technically be a "incident" in the eyes of the FAA (NTSB 830....). Hence "no accidents...." Does it say how many incidents they have?
 

flx757

I gotta have more cowbell
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Posts
1,356
Total Time
15000
The MU-300 accident referenced above was classified as an "accident" by the NTSB. On the NTSB website, incidents are labled "incident", (most incidents aren't even listed on the site, just those with some noteworthy value) and accidents are classified as either "fatal" or "nonfatal".

This particular occurrence involving the MU-300 in Cleveland on Feb 10, 2002 was classified as "nonfatal" -- hence, an accident.

I wonder at the motives of those who seem intent on questioning Flight Options advertising claims at this particular time; and agree with the points made by Jetz.
 

stingray

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Posts
284
Total Time
some
I've been on the road since Sunday and I still am, Iam eating lunch at augusta and had access to a computer at the FBO. I spent the night in dulles last night. Caught the news this morning and saw a FO plane at BWI. The plane appeared completely intact off the side of the runway. it was tough to see where the gear was, the planes fuelsalage and wings where all touching ground.
Have no real info, just what i caught on the news.
 

EAP

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Posts
141
Total Time
7000+
Chill!!!

I can't stand people who jab at companies post accident, incident, whatever - especially if they work for the competition. You are crapping on people who otherwise may have been your best friends if you worked with them.

I've lost several good friends to aircraft accidents, trust me it's not something to gloat over just because they weren't your friends. It may take this happening to you before you're going to know what I'm talking about here - but I'm hopeful it won't.

This is our industry - fractionals, commuters, major airlines and all. Let's not ascend the ladder using daggers and other's people's backs as climbing equipment.
 

FracPilot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2002
Posts
133
Total Time
7500
"Follow this link to the REAL TRUTH about Flight Options safety record.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?...227X00277&key=1

Seems that there have been now TWO accidents within the past 90 days at Flight Floptions.

Sorry, people, but the TRUTH needs to be known."

Turbanhead, take a look at the following.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

That is a specific quote from each and every preliminary report. Any idea what that means? That means that it could be an INCIDENT, and not an ACCIDENT as they initially stated. How do you know that the FAA hasn't changed the classification to an incident?

You seem to enjoy the fact that there was an accident involving a Flight Options aircraft. That's pretty sad. When there is an accident, regardless of who it is, I feel nothing resembling joy as you do. You may quite possibly need professional psychiatric help. You may think I'm kidding, but I'm not.

I hope you enjoy life in your glass house.
 

GooseHZ

getting in the way
Joined
Feb 13, 2002
Posts
270
Total Time
4500
Wondering

:mad:

Turbanhead,

Why are you intent on slamming Options so much? You and a few others seem to be foaming at the mouth to get a hold of ANY bad news about options......WHY? Did we turn you down for a job or what? Whatever the reason get over it......you are making your self look like a fool.


Do you see Options pilots digging around to find EJA,FLEX reports of their bad luck? Get a life....you make me sick.

Fly safe ( we would hate to read a preliminary report about you)
 

CitationCapt

STILL determined
Joined
Dec 3, 2001
Posts
229
Total Time
8000
Accidents

Seems that there have been now TWO accidents within the past 90 days at Flight Floptions.
Sorry, people, but the TRUTH needs to be known.




No one likes accidents less than the crew involved in them. It seems that one poster here may have an axe to personally grind.

Might this person be ex RTA who didn't like the prospects of working at FO LLC, or who was not offered a position at FO LLC given an attitude, work performance, or?

Just wondering.......its a small community you know. What goes around comes around.
 

flydog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
542
Total Time
2500+
Flight Options isnt the only fractional with incidents or accidents. FlexJet, EJA, etc have all had accidents. For some reason it seems like someone has a personall vendetta with Flight Options. Take a look at the following incident report for a similar accident that happened just yesterday

http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/F_0503_N.txt
 

SkywayFO

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Posts
207
Total Time
Enough
anyone hear about EJA having one go off a runway in Texas.
 

Frac Daddy

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Posts
384
Total Time
5000
An EJA Ultra ran off the runway in Leaky, Texas. (Wherever that is.) No one hurt. I think it was Thursday.
 

GVFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
1,461
Total Time
18K+
Falcon Incident @ MDW

Does anyone know anything about a Dassault Falcon 2000 that departed the runway and did an all-terrain cross-country at Chicago Midway last month. I saw it sitting there with it's nosegear crumpled, but I haven't seen anything on it from the NTSB.
 

CL60

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2002
Posts
230
Total Time
1.1yrs
It can happen to any of us, anytime

We must all constantly be aware that our jobs, although fantastic careers that relatively few will ever experience, involve a great deal of responsibility and an equal amount of risk. We place our careers on the line everytime we strap that aircraft onto our backsides. One moment of misjudgment or one freak gust of wind can ruin even the best pilot's day and career.

Best wishes to the above mentioned crews and their families.
 

Lindy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
250
Total Time
5,800
Who is to pay for the antenna?

I'll answer that inquiry....

First and foremost, the antenna will be fixed immediately. Then the insurance carriers will be involved. The insurance carrier for Flight Options will either (1) pay to have the antenna fixed or (2) reimburse BWI's Airport Authority for the cost of actual repairs (subrogation).

Now, if the carriers really want to battle for the costs, then it could proceed to court and one could asses the amount of liability for the destruction of the antenna. (IMHO, only if the attorneys are bored....).
 

CE650SC

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2002
Posts
46
Total Time
8000
WOW! Y'all need to take up a hobby or something. Got a lot of penned up frustration on this board?
 

Driver

Active member
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Posts
26
Total Time
MMCIIV
Falcon Incident @ MDW

Hey.. GV

I was at MDW that day... the weather was the factor.. winds gusting to 60mph.... I can tell you that I was pushed to my limit that day... while on approach.. a 76, two ahead of us went missed due to wind sheer.....

The falcon.... tried to depart in that wind..... could not maintain directional control .. aborted... and wend off the runway... bad deal.... we decided to cancel our departure until the next day... I have never seen wind so stong.. that was not associated with a hurricane.... that was the day that some scaffolding fell off the hancock building and killed some people.... bad day...
 
Top