Originally posted by BoeingBobby
View Post
Despite the SIC’s airspeed callouts, the PIC continued the left turn without adding power or lowering the airplane’s nose to reduce AOA.
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.
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: