I will admit that I was curt with a non-pilot earlier in this thread, but it's not that I think this discussion should be limited to experienced pilots. I enjoy answering questions about flying for inexperienced people who are curious about it. I don't mind non-pilots offering opinions when those opinions regard general topics not directly based on the experience one gets only by being a pilot. For example, anyone should be free to speculate on why Roush used the words he did to describe the incident after the fact. But I do get a little testy when a non-pilot expresses a strong but incorrect opinion about how a pilot is supposed to behave in a particular flying situation. ... Analogies are useful tools when a more knowledgable person needs to explain a complex concept to a less knowledgable person. (E.g., flying in the titanium protected cockpit of an A-10 in combat is a little like sitting in a trash can while someone throws rocks at it.) But analogies aren't as useful when less knowledgable people use them to infer that their knowledge of a simple concept makes their opinions on more complex topics valid. (E.g., I have sat in a trash can while someone threw rocks at it, so my opinion about how to fly the A-10 is as valid as anyone else's.)

The Beechcraft Roush was flying is rated for a single pilot. There was a passenger, apparently unhurt, I don't know about her flying skills, if any.

Just got an update from a friend in NASCAR and Jack is back at it with only one working eye!!:eek: He's a tough guy!!:cool:

FROM THE MEDIA:

BROOKLYN, Mich. -- Roush Fenway Racing co-owner Jack Roush returned to the track on Friday for the first time since a July 27 plane crash that robbed him of vision in his left eye.

Roush arrived at Michigan International Speedway around 3:30 p.m. wearing his traditional fedora and dark sunglasses covering his left eye that was stitched closed.

Roush said the eye likely was damaged when his head hit the side of the airplane on impact with the ground. He said it likely would not keep him from flying again, although he will have to re-evaluate certain things such as whether he will carry a co-pilot moving forward.

"I've got to get recovered," Roush said as he stood on pit road with a stopwatch in hand. "I have to go through my recovery. Wiley Post was a one-eyed pilot and there's no restriction. Maybe if you're an airline pilot you can't have one eye, but there's not a reason why I can't fly with one eye."

Otherwise, the man known as "Cat in the Hat" was feeling pretty good for somebody who had survived his second plane crash.

"It is great medicine, for sure," Roush said of rejoining his organization.

Roush received a round of applause from fans as he entered the garage and later as he walked down pit road for qualifying. Being able to make his comeback at what he considers his home track, not far from the home of his automotive business on the outskirts of nearby Detroit, made it especially gratifying.

"I fly over it a couple of times a month just to check and make sure everything is still in place," Roush said of MIS.

Roush's appearance surprised many of his employees who said earlier in the week it was extremely doubtful he'd be at the track this weekend. Several didn't find out until moments before he walked through the door.

"The heat is a little overbearing, but I'm without pain," Roush said.

Roush underwent surgery at the Mayo Clinic to treat facial injuries, most to his left eye and broken left jaw, suffered during the crash at Oshkosh, Wis. He must wear a back brace for three to six months while recovering from a compression fracture. He still has packing in his nose from extensive facial surgery.

"I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that I can't breathe clearly through my nose," Roush said. "Everything will come back and I was blessed to have great vision in two eyes, and now I've got great vision in one."

It was the second close call in an airplane for Roush, who crashed into a lake near Talladega Speedway in Alabama eight years ago and nearly drowned before being rescued by an former Marine who lived nearby.

Roush said he filed his accident report for the latest incident on Friday, saying he was put in conflict with the flight plan of another airplane close to the ground "and I was unable to address the conflict and keep the airplane flying."

"I ground-looped the airplane," Roush said. "It wasn't something silly I was doing erratically or something else that you would say was risky or foolish. It just happened." A few days after the crash Roush Fenway driver Greg Biffle gave the organization its first win of the season. Roush watched most of the race but not all of it from the Mayo Clinic.

"I was still pretty doped up," Roush said.

Roush admitted he is lucky to be alive.

"I feel very lucky," he said. "I've had several bites at the apple here. I'm really proud at the way the organization has rallied. We were gaining in our performance moving from not where I wanted to be in an area of the top-10 into the top-5.

"Roush Fenway Racing will outlive me, and it will out-live anybody else that is with the company today. We've got the plans in place for that. This was a little test case. How can you do without Jack? Well it's bigger than me. It's bigger than anybody."

I wonder how much better of a pilot he will be with only one good eye. Unfortunately, he has the money and arrogance to circumvent most any rulebook, including the FAA's. He won't be happy until he kills himself and someone else.

I will say one thing though. Jack's response/explanation to the media sounded like scripted lawyers words, not Jack's.

Once the NTSB is done with the aircraft, what can be done with it? Scrap for parts or can something else be done with it?

I was reading an article about scraping air planes a couple of months ago. It seems to be a brisk buisness. Some parts sell for surprisingly BIG money, the engines are, of course, quite valuable themselves. But plenty of other useable parts abound on an aircraft (landing gear goes for big bucks). In some cases, like cars, the value of the parts can exceed the value of the complete aircraft.

Once the plane is stripped typically the body is sold for scrap, recycled. That won't be much with Roush's Beechcraft though, I think that body is mostly carbon fiber and such.

Never the less, there are used parts dealers who will step up and make an offer. Parts will be stripped, cataloged, shrink wrapped and put in a wharehouse awaiting a buyer. I'm pretty sure the plane itself is "toast".

I would rather be in the air with Jack than on the road with you!

The remains of the first plane Jack crashed are on display in the "museum" part of his retail store in Livonia, MI. I would expect parts of this one will end up there eventually.

After seeing all of the photos, and reading/listening to sound tapes, Jack may have been trying initially to go around---reasons for me thinking that----

It is what most pilots would do.
However---the photos definately show that he only had partial flaps and the aircraft entered the stall
With a T tail aircraft and rear fuselage mounted engines---the airflow over the wings in a stall situation can block the engine intakes and rear elevators.
Being that he was flying in a vfr approach to close in turn to final he was only using partial flaps for manuevering so the stall came on quickly with the tight turn----and since he had the power back, he probably got compressor stalls in both engines at throttle up

The airlines fly approaches in a high drag confiq so that the engines are maintained at high power levels to eliminate possibility of compressor stalls and slow spool up--

One Jacks plane entered the stall in the turn in it was pretty much over and I think that from what I have read and heard I believe that he did an admirable job of puttin her down as well as he did.

Jerry,

Do you work for the FAA or something to be able to have access to that info?

If not, is there somewhere that the public can access that information or do you just happen to have some access that the public can't get to.

Just wondering,

Terry

I have 5826 hours flying B727s

T tail, rear fuselage engine mounting

Overal I have 18,700 hours in transport jets

Jerry

co-pilot
 

I have to say I'm sorry Jack. I just came from Beechcraft Premier web page. This plane is sold as a single pilot. It's hard to believe but it's true. This plane with 4pass. can do 1,000 nautica miles at 500 mph. Another way to say this is 1,000 miles at Mach 0.80 this is 457 knots true airspeed. That's faster then those Ford. Get well Jack

who you fly for now?

retired from the airlines

Hey Jerry,
I only have 20 hrs in the 27 but it was one of the sweetest flying jets there ever was. I would take it
any day over the fly by wire generation. It's cause I'm old I guess. :D

Hersh:)

Not a pilot, if there had been a certified co-pilot and with Jack at the controls for the landing etc, would it have made any difference ? A co-pilot just doesn't take over the controls if it is deemed the pilot is does not have full control of the aircraft ?

For the Hudson River landing, believe Sully, as the Captain, used the words " my aircraft " as he took control.

You're right in thinking that there is only one pilot-in-command and he decides who is flying the airplane. But a good co-pilot can and should call out problems like low airspeed and insufficient traffic spacing. I'll add that if I were a co-pilot, I would physically intervene if it appeared the PIC's actions were about to kill me. After all, I'd rather be a live co-pilot without a job than a dead man.

What may come as a surprise to many----a zero-zero approach and landing is probably a safer enviroment than the VFR multi a/c, multiple runway, all experience levels that were operating that day.

Speaking of Sully and the river---everything went right that day---ferries just leaving the dock arrived right away---if they had been a few minutes earlier----a/c and ferry pax would died

This is a follow up to my earlier comment.

It can be challenging for a co-pilot to know when to intervene when the PIC is flying. This true story may give some of you a feeling for what can happen.

I was evaluating an instructor pilot in the twin engine T-38 jet trainer. I was the PIC but I was to play the part of his student pilot. He was to decide when to intervene with verbal suggestions, verbal commands or taking control of the airplane. Our very first maneuver after takeoff was to come back around for a simulated single engine heavy weight landing. This type of approach and landing is challenging because there is very little excess power available. Consequently, the keys to a good approach are to never let the airplane get lower or slower than desired. I was flying (as the student) and had it in my mind to do the best landing I could. Abeam the field I advised the instructor that I was reducing power on the left engine to idle to simulate its failure. Everything felt normal as we gradually slowed, descended to our final approach altitude (500’ AGL) and lowered the landing gear and some flaps. As we approached our fully configured final approach speed of about 160 knots, I pushed the power on the “good” engine up to the usual setting of 93%. A few seconds later I noticed our speed had dropped about 5 knots so I pushed the power up to 97%. Odd. Usually 93% works. A few seconds later we were 10 knots slow and had lost about 50’ of altitude. I pushed the power to Military (i.e., 100% RPM but without afterburners). I glanced down again to see we were 15 knots slow and 100’ low. I pushed the throttle on the “good” engine to Max (full afterburner) and started checking the engine gauges. Damn! The nozzle on the “good” engine was not responding. Even though the engine RPM was at 100%, the failed nozzle had reduced our effective power to about 85% and precluded the afterburner from working. We were now 20 knots slow and 150’ low. I grabbed the left throttle and shoved it to Max afterburner. A moment later I felt the reassuring push from the left engine as it kicked in. I pressed the mic button to declare an emergency and announce my intention to make a full stop landing. The rest of the approach and landing were uneventful.

Back on the ground I asked the instructor why he never said a word to the “student” as the airplane got lower and slower. He explained that if he had been with a real student, he would have intervened when the airplane was 5 knots slow. But because he knew I was really an experienced pilot, he assumed I would never fly the airplane into a situation that was genuinely dangerous. He thought I was deliberately flying low and slow, and he trusted me to not let things get out of hand. This tendency to trust the more experienced pilot has gotten more than a few crews into trouble. From that point on I told every pilot who flew with me the same thing: I will not deliberately do anything that will make you feel uncomfortable. If you start to feel uncomfortable, please say something because I’m likely not doing it on purpose.