How in the heck did the NTSB classify this as a PART 91 flight?

Click here to close

New Message Alert

Author: olderendirt Date: 1/27/2022 8:39:28 AM +0/-1 Show Orig. Msg (this window) Or In New Window

You can fly under Part 91 in 135 operation, as long as your ops specs allows it and provides rules for doing so.

Reply Return-To-Index Display Full Msg Thread Rules of Engagement Terms of Use

This doesn’t look good for this program +3/-2 New York Bell 429 crash update 1/26/2022 12:02:56 PM

This doesn’t look good for this program +3/-1 how this happens 1/26/2022 12:08:05 PM

Clearly this is on that pilot. But there are always contributing factors +11/-2 With their environment 1/26/2022 12:11:26 PM

Clearly this is on that pilot. But there are always contributing factors +0/-2 he didn't 1/26/2022 12:18:19 PM

He or she checked every box of what not to do (NT) +2/-1 Shouldn’t even have a license 1/26/2022 12:25:11 PM

He or she checked every box of what not to do +0/-2 accidents happen 1/26/2022 12:40:20 PM

No, they don’t “just” happen. Especially in this accident. +2/-1 Don’t fool yourself. 1/26/2022 12:43:59 PM

No, they don’t “just” happen. Especially in this accident. +1/-3 oh boy 1/26/2022 12:46:07 PM

No, they don’t “just” happen. Especially in this accident. +0/-2 I didn't read the part 1/26/2022 12:47:24 PM

Apparently flying around with scattered clouds about +0/-0 is IMC to this guy 1/26/2022 12:57:25 PM

Why don’t you check the weather at KGBQ for the time he set up for an +0/-1 IFR “practice” approach. His words 1/26/2022 1:14:59 PM

KGVQ (NT) +0/-0 Correction. Still LIFR at the time 1/26/2022 1:15:48 PM

Why don’t you check the weather at KGBQ for the time he set up for an +2/-0 olderendirt 1/27/2022 8:35:32 AM

Is it really an “accident” if the pilot knowingly +0/-0 tuse 1/27/2022 7:53:12 AM

Clearly this is on that pilot. But there are always contributing factors +0/-0 he didn't decouple 1/26/2022 5:41:47 PM

This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-7 say wut 1/26/2022 12:44:26 PM

This doesn’t look good for this program (NT) +1/-0 Better than the pilot reading the RFM 1/26/2022 12:45:38 PM

This doesn’t look good for this program +5/-1 Dude said 1/26/2022 12:47:50 PM

This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-2 true. crashing is not a good look 1/26/2022 1:24:33 PM

So wrong on your perspective +2/-1 Practice approach in VFR-Good 1/26/2022 1:37:48 PM

So wrong on your perspective +0/-1 nobody said he wasn't at fault 1/26/2022 1:45:52 PM

This doesn’t look good for this program +2/-1 LOL 1/26/2022 1:48:57 PM

I thought they had BK’s and Agustas at this place (NT) +0/-0 Where they get 429s 1/26/2022 1:55:08 PM

This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-1 That’s normal flying 1/26/2022 2:25:49 PM

This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-0 Yea 1/26/2022 8:36:42 PM

This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-1 ... 1/27/2022 1:15:40 AM

This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-1 Dumb 1/27/2022 11:16:32 AM

This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-1 let me help you 1/26/2022 3:58:38 PM

Actually by his statements, the crew statements, and the weather +2/-1 me (with furrowed brow and 1/26/2022 4:40:39 PM

Actually by his statements, the crew statements, and the weather +0/-0 interesting that 1/26/2022 4:49:21 PM

Actually by his statements, the crew statements, and the weather +0/-0 huh 1/26/2022 5:54:57 PM

Pilot states I seen the fog. Pilot continues into it. +4/-0 olderendirt 1/27/2022 8:37:17 AM

30 years of flying and only (NT) +2/-0 3,000+ hours?!?!?!?! 1/27/2022 12:44:11 AM

30 years of flying and only +0/-3 some people quit flying and 1/27/2022 9:37:19 AM

The 'average' annual flight time in HEMS is about 150 hrs annually. +0/-0 olderendirt 1/27/2022 10:11:44 AM

This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-1 Yeah, 1/27/2022 6:38:05 AM

How in the heck did the NTSB classify this as a PART 91 flight? +0/-1 NTSB is useless to get anything right 1/27/2022 8:27:04 AM

better link: +0/-0 Anonymous 1/27/2022 8:28:18 AM

How in the heck did the NTSB classify this as a PART 91 flight? +0/-1 olderendirt 1/27/2022 8:39:28 AM

NOPE, not with medical crewmembers aboard (NT) +0/-1 (or patients). Part 135!! 1/27/2022 9:02:44 AM

NOPE, not with medical crewmembers aboard (NT) +0/-0 here we go 1/27/2022 9:18:38 AM

Are the medical crew "flight crew"? With specific responsibilities in the +0/-0 olderendirt 1/27/2022 10:04:21 AM

No, they are medical crewmembers! Flight crewmembers are (NT) +0/-1 Pilot, Copilot, Engineer, Navigator 1/27/2022 10:16:36 AM

"No, they are medical crewmembers!" Ooops, my bad. You are correct. Medical +0/-0 olderendirt 1/27/2022 11:40:37 AM

"No, they are medical crewmembers!" Ooops, my bad. You are correct. Medical +3/-0 14CFR Part 1 1/27/2022 1:13:38 PM

But the wear jackets embroidered with FlightCrew (NT) +0/-0 and tell everyone they are FlightCrew 1/27/2022 2:41:51 PM

"No, they are medical crewmembers!" Ooops, my bad. You are correct. Medical +3/-0 Haa pilot 1/31/2022 7:22:10 PM

Rnav approach error

+4/-0 anony 1/27/2022 10:25:56 AM

Rnav approach error +1/-0 Biggest 1/27/2022 3:31:59 PM

Rnav approach error +3/-0 Ifrgiy 1/27/2022 7:57:14 PM

This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-0 FLY BOY 1/28/2022 3:32:29 PM

Bob Hoover said: "Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can" (NT) +0/-0 olderendirt 1/28/2022 3:56:11 PM

Bob Hoover said: "Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can" +0/-2 we've all heard that a million times 1/28/2022 5:07:01 PM

Bob Hoover said: "Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can" +1/-0 You didn’t hear it even once. 1/28/2022 5:14:23 PM

Bob Hoover said: "Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can" +0/-1 well biffster 1/28/2022 6:00:59 PM

George Carlin Said: "If black boxes survive air crashes -- why don't they (NT) +3/-0 make the whole plane out of the stuff?" 1/28/2022 5:46:21 PM

This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-0 No 1/31/2022 6:21:03 PM