Author Topic: 5 million dollar jet ski (Read 974 times)

KTM520guy · « **on:** September 06, 2006, 09:08:45 PM »

http://youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA

Make sure you watch the whole thing!

moneyguy · « **Reply #1 on:** September 06, 2006, 09:29:12 PM »

Shamus · « **Reply #2 on:** September 07, 2006, 12:12:45 AM »

The owner sent the engines back to Williams International and wanted them fixed, honest to gods truth

shamus

FiLtH · « **Reply #3 on:** September 07, 2006, 01:20:39 AM »

Great video!

Trikky · « **Reply #4 on:** September 07, 2006, 04:32:27 AM »

That was like watching the aeroplane version of Herbie.

Major Biggles · « **Reply #5 on:** September 07, 2006, 07:30:54 AM »

haha, that was classic

what a muppet, what field was that he tried to land on? looked fairly basic and dis-used, impatient maroon

NCLawman · « **Reply #6 on:** September 07, 2006, 07:47:32 AM »

Speaking from a strictly law enforcement perspective, I want to know which two idiots lost their jobs (or at least got days off) for driving their freaking patrol cars right across the last known path of the crashed aircraft. I am no expert in Federal aviation investigations, but I would think that someone (NHTSA and/or FAA) was not happy that two rookie boys drove their patrol cars right across potential evidence. I am not even going to begin to comment on the fact that nobody asked the camera guys to stop trampling and possibly tampering with the evidence.

On an entertainment sense... Great video!!

<>

Mustaine · « **Reply #7 on:** September 07, 2006, 08:50:42 AM »

I may be an impatient bastard or I may be normal I don't know... but I can't stand to sit there and watch a 10+ miinute video on the internet for a possible funny ending. especially when it is loading so slow you can't skip forward.

Major Biggles · « **Reply #8 on:** September 07, 2006, 09:40:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mustaine
I may be an impatient bastard or I may be normal I don't know... but I can't stand to sit there and watch a 10+ miinute video on the internet for a possible funny ending. especially when it is loading so slow you can't skip forward.

just watch the first 2 mins then, it's definitely worth it. then if you feel like you want to see what happens watch the end

on an even funnier note, i found out what field that was, warmed up my citation in FS2004 and tried it lol. even on the approach you can tell that you're never going to make it. i had to jump into the citation X for the reverse thrust buckets, just to keep my speed down to about 40 knts when i went into the drink instead of the 95 that i did several times in the cj1

i can't tell exactly what model that citation is but that pilot is either blind, stupid, or both

he must have been desperately trying to get down, probably very low on fuel lol. poor guy, imagine the insurance premiums from now on

FiLtH · « **Reply #9 on:** September 07, 2006, 09:45:38 AM »

NCLawman thats the beauty of being at the scene of the crime before the cops get there! You get to poke around at all the cool stuff and sell a cool video to a newsnetwork.

Personally I didnt see any problem with what they did. At the time they arrived people were in danger of drowning or worse. I would think that any investigation protocal would come in second to immediate threat to life.

Golfer · « **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2006, 11:43:42 AM »

it's a CJ2, biggles. Trying to land at Bader in Atlantic City. Hypothesis I heard from a guy who flys one is that he didn't shut the engines down properly (no kidding, right?) and just got out of dodge. Leaving the ingitions on and the power levers above cutoff leaves fuel/fire in the engine. As soon as it lights you've got a working engine. The give away I'm told that they are at idle is the black thrust attenuator behind the engine being in the deployed position. If they were in cutoff the TA paddle would be stowed against the fuselage.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05LA085&rpt=fi

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05LA085&rpt=fa

Found these. Says the right engine was bent but still at idle rather than idle cutoff.

Wolfala · « **Reply #11 on:** September 07, 2006, 12:46:29 PM »

oh and the NTSB just makes me laugh.

The pilot performed "a low pass" over the runway, and then touched down approximately 1,000 feet beyond the approach end of the
2,948-foot long runway, with a tailwind of approximately 10 knots. After touchdown, the airplane continued off the end of the runway,
and subsequently impacted water. According to the Cessna 525A Landing Distance Chart, an airplane with a landing weight of 11,400 pounds
required 3,000 feet of landing distance, in a no wind situation. With a 10 knot tailwind, the airplane required 3,570 feet of landing
distance. The published airport diagram for the airport, was observed attached to the pilot's control column after the accident. A
notation, which read, "airport closed to jet aircraft" was observed on the diagram. Additionally, the same notation, "Arpt CLOSED to jet
traffic," was observed in the FAA Airport/Facility Directory. Examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical deficiencies.

NOTAM: AIRPORT CLOSED TO JET AIRCRAFT....

Major Biggles · « **Reply #12 on:** September 07, 2006, 12:48:04 PM »

lol, just read both reports. what a muppet!

was there anything about an investigation into the ATC officer? allowing the guy to land at AIY in a C525

the pilot said he lost brakes but apparently, there wasn't anything wrong with them when the FAA investigators checked. at the end of the day though, i have to give him some credit for almost making what should have been a 3750 ft landing in less than 1750 ft!

Major Biggles · « **Reply #13 on:** September 07, 2006, 12:50:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wolfala
oh and the NTSB just makes me laugh.

The pilot performed "a low pass" over the runway, and then touched down approximately 1,000 feet beyond the approach end of the
2,948-foot long runway, with a tailwind of approximately 10 knots. After touchdown, the airplane continued off the end of the runway,
and subsequently impacted water. According to the Cessna 525A Landing Distance Chart, an airplane with a landing weight of 11,400 pounds
required 3,000 feet of landing distance, in a no wind situation. With a 10 knot tailwind, the airplane required 3,570 feet of landing
distance. The published airport diagram for the airport, was observed attached to the pilot's control column after the accident. A
notation, which read, "airport closed to jet aircraft" was observed on the diagram. Additionally, the same notation, "Arpt CLOSED to jet
traffic," was observed in the FAA Airport/Facility Directory. Examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical deficiencies.

NOTAM: AIRPORT CLOSED TO JET AIRCRAFT....

hehe, i had a good laugh at that too

sorry i haven't sent that BoB footage yet, been so busy, jumping on my gmail now and sending it pronto my friend

Wolfala · « **Reply #14 on:** September 07, 2006, 01:12:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Major Biggles
lol, just read both reports. what a muppet!

was there anything about an investigation into the ATC officer? allowing the guy to land at AIY in a C525

the pilot said he lost brakes but apparently, there wasn't anything wrong with them when the FAA investigators checked. at the end of the day though, i have to give him some credit for almost making what should have been a 3750 ft landing in less than 1750 ft!

Its an uncontrolled field.