Narrative:

We were cleared to descend to 11000 ft. The captain started down and on the way, he was trying to do something with the FMS and wound up disengaging the autoplt and flight director. When he re-engaged the flight director, he forgot to press 'altitude select' and the aircraft did not level off. He took several moments to realize what was happening and went below the 11000 ft before he caught it. This was not the first time on this trip (lasting a week) that the captain busted altitude, etc, primarily due to a lack of scan techniques and a severe lack of familiarity with the equipment he was flying. The captain was extremely inexperienced and had not flown a DA50 in over 10 yrs -- only the simulator on a recurrent training session. He had not flown a high performance jet in over 10 yrs either. He was totally unfamiliar with the aircraft's avionics and FMS. For the entire flight, I felt that the captain was way behind the airplane and should not have been dispatched as the PIC. He later admitted that he was very uncomfortable with the airplane and also in the low level flight environment. However, he needed the money and he was technically 'current' having just completed a refresher course which he paid for himself. Perhaps some of the part 91 regulations need to be tightened up or individuals need to be aware of what they are hiring in terms of qualifications. This was a new aircraft owner and a very old falcon 50 -- together with a very unseasoned captain, this was a potentially dangerous situation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter advised both she and the captain were literally hired over the phone to act as crew of this vintage FA50. She had initially refused to accept a PIC position because she had not flown the aircraft type in over 8 yrs and had no experience in one equipped as was this particular aircraft. The company later called back advising they had obtained the services of an 'experienced' PIC and asked if she would be willing to fly as sic under his command. The reporter agreed. Reporter advised that she was shocked to later discover the truth regarding the PIC's experience and after several legs refused to fly further with him. Reporter subsequently alleged that the first officer hired to replace herself was so inept that the very pilot with whom she had refused to fly subsequently refused to fly with the replacement pilot. Reporter indicated her intent to contact the FAA hotline regarding the employment practices of this company.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF FA50 MIS-SETS FMS AND OVERSHOOTS CLRED ALT ON DSCNT. PIC COMPETENCY IN QUESTION BY FO.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED TO DSND TO 11000 FT. THE CAPT STARTED DOWN AND ON THE WAY, HE WAS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE FMS AND WOUND UP DISENGAGING THE AUTOPLT AND FLT DIRECTOR. WHEN HE RE-ENGAGED THE FLT DIRECTOR, HE FORGOT TO PRESS 'ALT SELECT' AND THE ACFT DID NOT LEVEL OFF. HE TOOK SEVERAL MOMENTS TO REALIZE WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND WENT BELOW THE 11000 FT BEFORE HE CAUGHT IT. THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME ON THIS TRIP (LASTING A WK) THAT THE CAPT BUSTED ALT, ETC, PRIMARILY DUE TO A LACK OF SCAN TECHNIQUES AND A SEVERE LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE EQUIP HE WAS FLYING. THE CAPT WAS EXTREMELY INEXPERIENCED AND HAD NOT FLOWN A DA50 IN OVER 10 YRS -- ONLY THE SIMULATOR ON A RECURRENT TRAINING SESSION. HE HAD NOT FLOWN A HIGH PERFORMANCE JET IN OVER 10 YRS EITHER. HE WAS TOTALLY UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ACFT'S AVIONICS AND FMS. FOR THE ENTIRE FLT, I FELT THAT THE CAPT WAS WAY BEHIND THE AIRPLANE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISPATCHED AS THE PIC. HE LATER ADMITTED THAT HE WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE AIRPLANE AND ALSO IN THE LOW LEVEL FLT ENVIRONMENT. HOWEVER, HE NEEDED THE MONEY AND HE WAS TECHNICALLY 'CURRENT' HAVING JUST COMPLETED A REFRESHER COURSE WHICH HE PAID FOR HIMSELF. PERHAPS SOME OF THE PART 91 REGS NEED TO BE TIGHTENED UP OR INDIVIDUALS NEED TO BE AWARE OF WHAT THEY ARE HIRING IN TERMS OF QUALIFICATIONS. THIS WAS A NEW ACFT OWNER AND A VERY OLD FALCON 50 -- TOGETHER WITH A VERY UNSEASONED CAPT, THIS WAS A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SIT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR ADVISED BOTH SHE AND THE CAPT WERE LITERALLY HIRED OVER THE PHONE TO ACT AS CREW OF THIS VINTAGE FA50. SHE HAD INITIALLY REFUSED TO ACCEPT A PIC POS BECAUSE SHE HAD NOT FLOWN THE ACFT TYPE IN OVER 8 YRS AND HAD NO EXPERIENCE IN ONE EQUIPPED AS WAS THIS PARTICULAR ACFT. THE COMPANY LATER CALLED BACK ADVISING THEY HAD OBTAINED THE SVCS OF AN 'EXPERIENCED' PIC AND ASKED IF SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO FLY AS SIC UNDER HIS COMMAND. THE RPTR AGREED. RPTR ADVISED THAT SHE WAS SHOCKED TO LATER DISCOVER THE TRUTH REGARDING THE PIC'S EXPERIENCE AND AFTER SEVERAL LEGS REFUSED TO FLY FURTHER WITH HIM. RPTR SUBSEQUENTLY ALLEGED THAT THE FO HIRED TO REPLACE HERSELF WAS SO INEPT THAT THE VERY PLT WITH WHOM SHE HAD REFUSED TO FLY SUBSEQUENTLY REFUSED TO FLY WITH THE REPLACEMENT PLT. RPTR INDICATED HER INTENT TO CONTACT THE FAA HOTLINE REGARDING THE EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF THIS COMPANY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.