Florida Learjet Crash 11/1/26: Possible cause? (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter AerialTorpedoDude69
- Start date
When in MN about '60, I sought out Max Conrad, paying him for a dozen hours of remedial instruction. By that time, I was 17 with well over 1500 hours or more then, from gliders, dusters, seaplanes and heavy twins, flying anything that I could, including nearby Harlingen warbirds. (I lived in San Antonio)
Max Conrad - Wikipedia - only tip of his accomplishments. Even more significant perhaps than his solo distance flight records are the 45,000 hours he had in the air, and the 3000 students he took to license.
Some of best money I'd ever spent, and would do it again, if possible, since having survived 200+ Navy fighter night traps, and upwards of 18,000 hours, including Lears and bizjets.
Max Conrad - Wikipedia - only tip of his accomplishments. Even more significant perhaps than his solo distance flight records are the 45,000 hours he had in the air, and the 3000 students he took to license.
Some of best money I'd ever spent, and would do it again, if possible, since having survived 200+ Navy fighter night traps, and upwards of 18,000 hours, including Lears and bizjets.
MiTasol
Major
As a ICAO qualified fit and proper person for the investigation of aircraft accidents and incidents I can categorically reject that this was a maintenance issue.
For beginners the sort of turbulence that the copilot was reporting would have been close to that aircrafts structural limits. Secondly the radar track shows the aircraft departing an area of severe weather and entering an area of extreme weather
Thirdly icing can stall a wing, especially at high altitudes where the stall speed is approaching the cruise speed. Stall speed is directly related to air density and as air density decreases stall speed increases up to the point that pilots call coffin corner. Add to that the turbulence and they were in a very dicey situation even without icing. Climbing to a higher elevation as they were compounds this.
Thirdly, if a wing stalled, the aircraft would have dropped its nose and rapidly exceeded Vne - the Velocity never exceed - for the type. That can rip the tail off, especially on a T tail aircraft like the Lear 60.
So my recommendation is to wait for the NTSB to complete their investigation instead of launching ill informed idiotic claims on a subject that you are obviously not qualified to discuss.
My expectation is that there will be multiple root causes when the NTSB report comes out and that maintenance will not be one of them. Pilot error from entering the centre of a storm is likely to be one of the findings and the NTSB will do their best to determine why the pilot made any error because why that error was made is the critical issue.
The NTSB exists so that smart pilots, and ground staff, learn from others mistakes.
Last edited:
Hear, hear!!!
We don't need these greedy clickbait counters and perpetual media trotted out "I've been flying my Wombat Super Q out of Miami for 12 years" second guessers to feed us over masticated rumors, and endlessly regurgitated repetitive semi-related ideas. The majority will end up being wrong, at least in part, and usually unrelated.
We've become an impatient, spoiled, instant gratification society, and it demeans us. Let the excellent NTSB do its work.
Admiral Beez
Major
If I'd clicked the Like, Informative or Useful button, would you be asking why? There's something Pavlovian about that Optimistic button.
Given the number of VFR pilots who crash perfectly fine aircraft through I can only assume ignorance or neglect of their aircraft systems, assuming that they know what they're doing is the very exercise of being optimistic, IMO.
Of course if we weren't inherently optimistic as a species, we'd never get out of bed, let alone drive a car or get on a plane.
special ed
1st Lieutenant
- 7,154
- May 13, 2018
As long as we are passing along severe weather stories, I'll mention a friend, now gone, who flew F4Us & F6Fs in world war twice. He was an avid flyer before the war and loved the old planes. About 45 years ago, he found, and was flying back, a 1939 Taylorcraft which had no electrics and had a Flathead flat four engine. He was coming from Louisiana north of the lake towards MSY New Orleans. He had made arrangements to use hand held radio and they knew he had no lights. As he approached the northern lake shore, he saw the thunderstorm, but with no place to land as it began to get dark, he told MSY he would try to cross the lake. He said just over the water, he was tossed upside down in an inverted spin. He said without his navy training, he would have been gone.
As I recall, he said he skirted the storm by following the shore line around to the airport, landing in the dark. Fortunately, all this was planned and executed on a Sunday.
As I recall, he said he skirted the storm by following the shore line around to the airport, landing in the dark. Fortunately, all this was planned and executed on a Sunday.
Would I be asking, no? Why, because they would at least make sense. The rainbow makes none.
But since you refuse to answer the question, we'll chalk it up to you not having one, i.e. you don't know a thing about what it takes to fly one.
Admiral Beez
Major
Such strangeness. I did answer your question. I clicked Optimistic because your post expressed a hopeful or positive attitude or position, that any VFR pilot knows their instrument gauges and systems. The very definition of optimism.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
VFR pilots are just as capable as IFR pilots under conditions that they are trained for.
The majority of accidents that occur for VFR rated pilots, is where they encounter an IMC situation that puts them at a disadvantage.
One of the key factors is loss of spacial orientation as well as loss of horizon. Imagine driving on a highway at night in a heavy snowstorm. Now imagine that you no longer have the road to keep you level to the horizon.
That's a short example of IMC.
No you did not.
I asked you why a VFR pilot would not know what their gauges and instruments mean/do.
You have failed to answer yet. Not surprised either.
