Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Light plane crashes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    3000 hours in 25's and 35's and I'm still walking around.
    Regretfully, I have zero hours piloting light jets so, by your reasoning, I don't know a Hawker from a handsaw. But even I know that the Lear 25's and 35's do not crash by design, but require the help of some distracted or reckless or overconfident pilot, often with many hours of taking off, landing and walking around up til that point. From the Tereboro final report:

    Despite the SIC’s airspeed callouts, the PIC continued the left turn without adding power or lowering the airplane’s nose to reduce AOA.
    53 years old, ATPL, 6890 flight hours.

    What leads me to speculate a similarity to Teterboro? We have a Learjet making a circle-to-land runway change in gusting conditions. And while I don't no nothin bout no airplanes, I do know this:

    According to manufacturer-provided data, the stall speed for the [Learjet 35] in a 35 level turn was 102 kts. Although this stall speed is 9 kts lower than the slowest airspeed derived from radar for the accident flight, the manufacturer’s data does not account for wind gusts (about 1 minute before the accident, the tower controller told the pilots that the wind was from 360 at 16 kts gusting to 32 kts) or flight control inputs that could have eliminated the 9-kt margin. For example, the left-wing-down aileron input required to make the turn to final and counter the strong (possibly gusting) left crosswind would have increased the right wing’s AOA and potentially led the wing to stall first, inducing the airplane’s roll to the right (shown on radar data) just before impact.
    Per SOPs, the target airspeed was 139 kts (VREF of 119 plus 20 kts); the PIC had previously indicated that the approach speed was 126 kts.
    Again, the Teterboro Lear was flying just above stall speed in the turn but without taking into consideration any wind additive.

    Flying at the edge of the envelope in a Lear 35 is not the way to keep walking around. Or so I'm told. What do I know...

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    A Lear can be a handful if you let it get slow. However, flown in a conservative manner, that I have always done except in aerobatic aircraft, she's a great bird. Lear 35 is still one of the most efficient aircraft ever built.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Wondering how much Lear time the bunch of you have? Monday morning quarterbacks the lot of you.
    As Gabe says, zero time.

    I prefer “arm-chair” quarterback, but whichever and hell yes, guilty.

    A poor dude crashed and took three folks a car and an airplane with him. Luckily, he didn’t take anyone on the ground. I’m sad and curious as to why the plane crashed. Gross airmanship or an insidious slip of attention…or both?

    While we’ve never flown a Lear, people tell us it can act nasty in some cases. In my case it’s “just reading about it” in an obscure magazine. In its early years, a few Lears went out of control and crashed during seemingly mundane landings. The acronym PIO was kicked around.

    I assume it’s a good idea to maintain proper attitudes and airspeed and situational awareness when flying a business jet (tell me I’m wrong…I dare you).

    Given your Learjet hours, what can you add here? I’d be curious to hear it. Thanks (not_in advance, actually)

    Leave a comment:


  • TeeVee
    replied
    now now boys, it's the holidays. let's play nice.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post


    In the meantime remind me please how may hours van Zanten had?

    No idea who you are talking about.

    Or the Colgan captain?

    Not the best training record for the Captain. F/O, had no business in the seat that day, she was sick and as such had the obligation to remove herself from the flight.

    Or the Air France guys?

    Damn Airbus! Old man was in the back if I remember.

    Or the AA that CFITed at Cali?

    I was called as an expert witness on this accident and I am not allowed to discuss it.

    Or the other AA guy that tore the tail off the A300 taking off from JFK?

    Guess it shouldn't have gotten so close to a whale!

    Or the Atlas / Amazon 767 crew at Houston?

    Can't talk about this one either. But I wish I could!

    As if TT or time-on-type was the only indicator both of skills and of entitlement to opine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    Your signature is boring at this point! 3000 hours in 25's and 35's and I'm still walking around.
    I don't know if you noticed that this is a discussion forum on aviation safety, open to the general public, within an airplane photos internet site.
    If you want to hear from the pros, you are not in the right place.

    In the meantime remind me please how may hours van Zanten had? Or the Colgan captain? Or the Air France guys? Or the AA that CFITed at Cali? Or the other AA guy that tore the tail off the A300 taking off from JFK? Or the Atlas / Amazon 767 crew at Houston?

    As if TT or time-on-type was the only indicator both of skills and of entitlement to opine.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    All of us have exactly zero Lear experience. But you already knew that. So what? What I have to say is on that is in my signature in every post.
    Monday morning quarterbacks? Did you want us to comment on this accident before it happened?
    Your signature is boring at this point! 3000 hours in 25's and 35's and I'm still walking around.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Wondering how much Lear time the bunch of you have? Monday morning quarterbacks the lot of you.
    All of us have exactly zero Lear experience. But you already knew that. So what? What I have to say is on that is in my signature in every post.
    Monday morning quarterbacks? Did you want us to comment on this accident before it happened?

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Wondering how much Lear time the bunch of you have? Monday morning quarterbacks the lot of you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Question: is there a link to what IS known about this?
    VAS aviation:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjMCPKULMM

    Maximus (Note, this one includes the harrowing screams which you may find emotionally disturbing, as I did. Some may not want to listen to this version. Listen at your own risk).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpsvGPPQxyo

    Kathryn's report (a collection of facts and sources, not a video)
    http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/12/l ... ident.html

    Blancolirio:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lalLdpFAryI

    Dan Gryder. In general don't like Dan at all but in this case he has good factual data, and in this instance I also generally agree with his analysis and opinion.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pS17RPgqfI&lc
    EDIT: Dan's video was taken down, or rather made private which has the same effect of not being accessible. No idea why. It is a pity, it had good ASD-B data graphed in 3D over 3D google maps with terrain.
    This is the new video (1/7/2022) that replaces the one he took down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX8V0WCWllM

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    http://www.internet.com

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post

    Do we “know”, Mr. Black and White.
    You know what's black and white? Carbon copies. I never suggested that this was a carbon copy of the Teterboro accident, but there you go, black and whiting me as you normally do.

    Question: is there a link to what IS known about this?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I haven't seen any data on this… but I assume you have the data to know that this wasn't the case.
    Data:

    -Day vs Night
    -VMC vs. Reduced visibility and ceiling
    -ATC advising Teterboro of deviations, hints that minimal advice was needed
    -Instrument approach seemingly performed well with good understanding of legalities vs. Approach performed crappy.

    Do we “know”, Mr. Black and White, or are you defaulting to Cowboy Monkey Improvisational Idiocy as you normally do?

    No, we don’t know, but we know there are many differences due to data.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    Teterboro was, since the beginning, a cricle to land approach to a runway after following the ILS to a different runway. It is still an instrument approach (even the circle to land part) and it involved more or less side-stepping to a runway that had a heading that was not too different from the heading of the ILS. They didn't do the maneuver at the prescribed point and instead of going around they attempted some aerobatics to try to fix it when they were already way too close.

    In this case they were flying an ILS approach to RWY 17, and were cleared to land and they acknowledged the landing clearance for RWY 17. When they became in visual contact with the field they cancelled VFR and requested a left pattern for RWH 27, which was granted. The turns were wide, no aerobatics involved, they had ample room and time.

    Yes, both were Learjets and both lost control while on approach, but that's about where the similitudes seem to end. It is too early, but there is no evidence (yet) that the pilots of this latest accident were having the reckless attitude of the Teterboro captain, not to mention that he forced the copilot, who was not allowed to fly the plane, to fly the plane against his will and despite his objections to do it.
    I haven't seen any data on this. The two coincidental elements, the runway change and the Learjet made me go there. I have read other accounts about the notorious stall characteristics of certain Learjets when performing low speed 'aerobatics'. Having the time and space to do this safely doesn't always prevent one from getting too slow and banking too steeply, but I assume you have the data to know that this wasn't the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Teterboro was a late transition from the ILS approach to the circle-to-land maneuver caused by being way behind to begin with and leading to steeper maneuvers at low speed and altitude rather than a proper go-around. It fits into the sudden transition from normal CVR to panic CVR scenario, which is all I’m saying. That and the Lear factor.
    Teterboro was, since the beginning, a cricle to land approach to a runway after following the ILS to a different runway. It is still an instrument approach (even the circle to land part) and it involved more or less side-stepping to a runway that had a heading that was not too different from the heading of the ILS. They didn't do the maneuver at the prescribed point and instead of going around they attempted some aerobatics to try to fix it when they were already way too close.

    In this case they were flying an ILS approach to RWY 17, and were cleared to land and they acknowledged the landing clearance for RWY 17. When they became in visual contact with the field they cancelled VFR and requested a left pattern for RWH 27, which was granted. The turns were wide, no aerobatics involved, they had ample room and time.

    Yes, both were Learjets and both lost control while on approach, but that's about where the similitudes seem to end. It is too early, but there is no evidence (yet) that the pilots of this latest accident were having the reckless attitude of the Teterboro captain, not to mention that he forced the copilot, who was not allowed to fly the plane, to fly the plane against his will and despite his objections to do it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X