Florida Learjet Crash 11/1/26: Possible cause? (6 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.
- Thread starter
- #72
AerialTorpedoDude69
Airman 1st Class
- 298
- Mar 1, 2022
I intended to message you about this but forgot to @ you. There were more than one pilot in this thread who flew the Learjet 60 and mentioned exactly what you just did.
I'm regretful for assuming it was mechanical failure now and it's clear that a combination of pilot error, icing, and the Learjet 60's flight characteristics are most of the cause. Thank you for answering my question.
The only thing that confuses me (even after looking up the answer) is why altitude causes overspeed-related structural damage.
I understand why it causes overspeed on the props or a jet turbine but as air density decreases at altitude, the forces on the aircraft should decrease not increase. Lift should decrease, which is why stall speed increases, right? Then aircraft have to fly faster to maintain lift.
But the forces that would tear off an elevator should decrease at higher altitudes, according to my horribly incorrect understanding of the physics. I tried to get an AI to answer this question but it kept running in circles and wasn't able to answer.
Take some time to study the different governing speeds of high performance aircraft.I intended to message you about this but forgot to @ you. There were more than one pilot in this thread who flew the Learjet 60 and mentioned exactly what you just did.
I'm regretful for assuming it was mechanical failure now and it's clear that a combination of pilot error, icing, and the Learjet 60's flight characteristics are most of the cause. Thank you for answering my question.
The only thing that confuses me (even after looking up the answer) is why altitude causes overspeed-related structural damage.
I understand why it causes overspeed on the props or a jet turbine but as air density decreases at altitude, the forces on the aircraft should decrease not increase. Lift should decrease, which is why stall speed increases, right? Then aircraft have to fly faster to maintain lift.
But the forces that would tear off an elevator should decrease at higher altitudes, according to my horribly incorrect understanding of the physics. I tried to get an AI to answer this question but it kept running in circles and wasn't able to answer.
What will help you is a complete understanding of VMO and MMO, and the crossover altitude where MMO becomes the governing speed. I'll let you do your own homework there.
All the answers are there. It is one thing to refer to the "coffin corner" and another to understand it.
Admiral Beez
Major
Sigh, brother. I answered your first question below. I didn't realized I was obliged to answer all three.
So, let's carry on with the rest. No I do not know, beyond what I read/view online. As for the third question; the same reason any equipment operator does not know what their switchgear and instruments do; shoddy or lack of training, experience and interest, for starters.Why the optimisticA Admiral Beez ?
Do you know what instruments are required for VFR and which are required for IFR?
And again, why would a VFR pilot not know what his/her instrument gauges do?
Last edited:
This personal exchange is getting wearisome and of little value to members ... you senior guys should know better and use DMs ... Please!
MiTasol
Major
I have kept my discussions greatly over simplified so that those with no aviation knowledge can hopefully understand the factors involved and for those who are aviators I strongly recommend the study that
skyking1 suggests, even if you only ever fly fun aircraft. The knowledge may never be needed but it will help you understand the challenges that professional pilots unconsciencely consider "daily" and allow you to enjoy your flying knowing that these are factors you can ignore.Yes the aerodynamic forces are far lower at high altitude so you are not mistaken in your understanding of physics but the first issue is that after a stall the aircraft must gain lift again in both wings to remain airborne. If one wing is still stalled because of ice that is going to be difficult to say the least. If one wing is producing lift and the other not then even with full aileron the aircraft almost certainly is going to roll. Getting to straight and level from there before entering low altitudes where the structural and aerodynamic loads become excessive is a big ask. If the roll rate is higher than the aircraft was designed for the result will be some form of structural failure. Lears have a reputation for shedding the tailplane so that is the most likely form of failure. That is not a design fault. It is simply a case of operating the aircraft outside its design envelope. The same is likely to be the result on any T tail given the significant mass on a long moment arm which will probably create far greater forces than the aircraft was designed to handle.
The second thing is that the aircraft is going to accelerate very rapidly and the elevator and tailplane trim inputs must be kept low to allow the aircraft to return to straight and level without over stressing the tail or wings as it enters higher density air. This is a double problem. Normally regaining straight and level depends on lift from the wings effectively raising the nose and downward pressure from the tail further raising of the nose. If the wing is stalled through ice accretion the only forces lifting the nose are those provided by the tail. Most pilots are going to instinctively increase the elevator input in an effort to raise the nose and that is going to add stress loads in excess of what the structure was designed for. Add that to over speeding the aircraft and structural failure is inevitable.
The third possibility is that the extreme weather the aircraft entered is solely responsible for the structural failure.
A less likely possibility is the aircraft entered a deep stall and the tail dropped instead of the nose. This has happened in a number of accidents on T tail aircraft. In those cases the tailplane is subjected to loads in directions and magnitudes that it was never designed to handle and separates from the aircraft.
The NTSB may well find that a mix of any or all of the above is the most likely Probably cause. Given the levels of expertise in the NTSB and their unparalleled access to everything from the weather to the aerodynamics to the structural limits I will wait for their report.
