Learjet 60 crash in West Palm Beach

MikeD said:
Pilots rush the recovery and accept sloppiness. Asymmetric G loading is bad enough in fighter jets, but worse in fatty jets that aren’t designed for even moderate symmetrical G loading, much less asymmetrical. It’s a good way to unintentionally bend or break things off of your aircraft during a nose low recovery, which will only make your manageable situation worse,


If I were king for a day, I’d have all fixed wing pilots go through a mild centrifuge training profile, probably to about 3.5-4Gs tops, just to experience what that weight loading feels like.
Click to expand...
"I just press the red button and wait for the airplane to stop yellnig at me..." - Random new Vision Jet pilot.
 
jtrain609 said:
I wouldn't hang out in those conditions in any aircraft, but @Kingairer has a point that it could have been ice crystals.
Click to expand...
If I had to hang my hat on a hunch, this + loss of airspeed recovery = Mach tuck on a Mach-critical wing. tail came off while trying to pull out of the tuck event with full power on it. Power stayed on; the plane went fast into the ground. The impact is strikingly similar to other Mach tuck events in the 40/60 series.

But thats a guess... it does stick with the ice crystals... kind of like AF447.
 
Itchy said:
So does the 60 have electric heat on the stab or not? Was it an option? I ask because I have seen some folks say it does, and some say it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
It did not on all 3 Lear 60s I flew. Whether it was an option, I have no clue. It was told, as described above, as not needed due to aerodynamics, according to the schoolhouses I attended.
 
Last edited:
NovemberEcho said:
I wish we didn’t allow streaming live ATC coms like the rest of the world. Although tbf more than once I have gone to live ATC to see if I messed up or the pilot messed up lol
Click to expand...
Accountability and visibility both suck, but, lead to a better product at the end of the day.

The social media armchair QB’ing is what makes it less tolerable.

If only it was like Reddit where some subs require verification before you a spout off Dan Gryder style theories.
 
Stone Cold said:
It duds not on all 3 Lear 60s I flew. Whether it was an option, I have no clue. It was told, as described above, as not needed due to aerodynamics, according to the schoolhouses I attended.
Click to expand...

It seems that via certification testing, we’ve discovered that it’s not really needed on a lot of airplanes I don’t think many of the new ones have it. I don’t think think I’ve flown one with tailplane protection since the Q400 in 2012.

That airplane was a gigantic POS though, and bombardier products seem to have issues with ice- so I’m not surprised.
 
Kingairer said:
As far as coffin corner, they had been flying at 410, so they at least had that spread. Not familiar with the lear, but I would assume 6,000 feet descent would greatly increased your min/max spread.
Click to expand...

True, but that was without any up/downdraft and perhaps a pilot fighting the vertical upset with a control input that increases the load factor. I can't speak for the Lear, but in my airliner plane, we typically cruise within a few knots of the barber pole at higher altitudes. Increase load factor much above 1G and that bottom end will close up pretty quickly. And that doesn't even begin to get into possible airframe icing effects. But your point is certainly valid. Even if it wasn't mach tuck, it would seem that whatever upset they encountered was over controlled to a structural failure. Startle factor, and a lot of airspeed combined in a recovery can yield unintentionally high G pretty fast.
 
Kingairer said:
My GUESS,
No airframe icing. At -47C, I am not convinced of the SLD potential associated with the mega storm, from reports she texted about the ice 8 minutes prior to the final descent.
Stall? She is nearly live streaming from the moment they go into this cloud unless the audios I have seen have been edited or speed up. You dont hear any shaker or any report that they did.
Click to expand...

But... they were reporting moderate icing...
 
How limited would it be by the loading? It doesn't seem like 35 would be very hairy in an airplane certified to 51 even if it was heavy....

as for icing.... "Managing the ice" is an interesting thing to say, to me, In all my time flying jets ice was literally not something I'd even mention unless I was giving a pirep. To even mention it like that kinda makes me think it was a pretty good amount. But I don't know. Hopefully some more data becomes available.
 
USMCmech said:
Good information regarding the weather side of this accident.

Click to expand...

So thing analysis is informative. A couple things i don’t think he took into account. When they make the final turn towards the storm it’s a track change of about 50 degrees. I can’t imagine their radar is sweeping that wide that they could see it anymore that close in anyway. And he’s also not accounting for the fact that a radar doesn’t just sweep at the altitude you’re at. Now depending on where they had the tilt and gain…all unknowns.
 
trafficinsight said:
How limited would it be by the loading? It doesn't seem like 35 would be very hairy in an airplane certified to 51 even if it was heavy....

as for icing.... "Managing the ice" is an interesting thing to say, to me, In all my time flying jets ice was literally not something I'd even mention unless I was giving a pirep. To even mention it like that kinda makes me think it was a pretty good amount. But I don't know. Hopefully some more data becomes available.
Click to expand...
She also said clear ice so who knows how far back it was running on the airfoils.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top