N999LJ Learjet 60 crashes on take-off SC. [Archive]

Madam Captain

21st September 2008, 01:40

The airplane was 60-314 and would be about 2 years old based on delivery schedules from 2007.

The last report that I got from an NBAA email indicates that the airplane did go airborne briefly, so flap and trim settings of the crashed aircraft may not be of any value for the Take-off configuration determination.

I personally prefer to use Flaps 8 when I have the runway for it. 20 will get you off the ground faster, but degrades 2nd segment climb. Flaps 20 was "mandated" by the Director of Learjet Flight Ops (and adopted by Flexjet on his sayso) in order to save wheels and brakes from a financial standpoint. There are multiple reasons for this, but the bottom line is that there is no "standard" setting. Either flap setting is acceptable according to design specifications as long as performance conditions in the AFM are met. I know this as fact because I was there at Learjet as a demo pilot when the airplane was certified.

There are very few composites on the LR60. Learjet found they did not save in weight, so they went back to metal. The gear doors were made of Kevlar at one time, but I do not think this is so now.

The Learjet 60 wing is the same wing as the Learjet 20/30/55 series with a 6 foot extension and a winglet added. No slats, no devices other than the stall kit devices/fences that help keep the airflow effective over the ailerons. The wing is critical. Polish the triangles (BLCD's) on the leading edge and you just changed the stall characteristics--requiring a factory test flight by a test pilot to re-certify. I've seen one late model airplane where the wing will stall and roll off PRIOR to any stall warning system indications because someone polished the BLCD's. It's that critical.

There are a number of things that I find odd about this accident. One is how the top of the airplane is gone, and the two survivors were apparently "thrown out".

For those of you wondering about a LR60's range and how they could plan KCAE-KVNY.... My personal record is 6 hrs and 21 min. coast to coast in the early LR60's which are much lighter than current production. (You won't get that range with 4 pax in a late model SN. If my customer was adamant about going non-stop, I would fuel to the max weight for the runway, file to VNY and try long range cruise. I would warn the pax that we will stop if it doesn't look good and the weather is not cooperating. This airplane has made fuel stops in GCK and SLN over the last couple of months according to FlightAware, so it doesn't look like the operator really did the non-stop coast to coast routinely.

I personally know the pilot, Sarah, and I am proud to say I tried to mentor her. VERY SHARP lady. Stanford graduate, fluent Spanish. She temporarily gave up her budding multi-engine pilot (& aerobatics instructor) career to follow her now ex-husband to a TSA job in the Northeast. With an FAA dispatcher's license in her pocket, she took a job with Bombardier Canadair/Learjet Flight Operations Dispatch in BDL. That's where I met her and she was GOOD at the job. However, her heart was in the cockpit, and watching pilots come and go daily made the longing to get back to her own pilot career even stronger. Bombardier's politics and changes forced her to make a choice and she took the chance we all take as pilots. She was called for an interpreter job for a Citation operator to go to South America. It was her big break and her first job in a jet. She took out a loan and paid for the Citation type rating when she got back. I know she spent at least 2 years flying Citations, and was offered a chief pilot position, but turned it down. About the same time one of my customers offered her a LR60 type rating to take a contract in Moscow on a 30 day rotation. She accepted it, and went to LR60 initial. The rotation job fizzled before she got to Moscow--due to internal problems within the management company and the Russian company. She then picked up a Citation VII type with Global Executive, and I believe she was flying SIC on a GIV in addtion to her type ratings. I last spoke to her in the May 2008 time frame. She was excited, things were going well, and the world was hers for the taking. She clearly no longer needed mentoring. HOW FAST THINGS CAN CHANGE.

Of course I want to know what happened and WHY as much as anyone. Sparks on take off. Probable maintenance issues just before the last flight.

All of you arm-chair quarterbacks/accident investigators, know this. The Achilles heel of the Learjet 60 would have to be it's wheels and brakes. This airplane was entitled to the triple brakes, but that does not reduce balanced field lengths if it did have them. IF you blow a tire at high speeds (V1 or close to it) you can take out the squat switch along with the tires.
No rubber left=brakes on asphalt=sparks.
No squat switch in ground mode on one side=no ground mode on airplane computers.
No ground mode=air mode.
Air mode=no brakes, no anti-skid, no spoilers, no thrust reversers. So, loose the squat switch from blown tire=emergency braking system is all you have left. Triple the stopping distance or more and that's after the shock of realizing you only have emergency braking.
8600 ft. rwy. where were they when it happened?

Looks to me like they were on or close to center line when they came to rest. Center line meant runway lights and antennas that opened up fuel tanks. Sparks + open fuel tanks....... BAD NEWS

I will miss the bright spot in my life that was Sarah. She may have been "low time" by some standards but the time she had was very very good. I will be VERY surprised if the final NTSB report says she screwed it up, but then let he who is the perfect pilot without errors, cast the first stone. Right or wrong, she paid the ultimate price. The fact that she broadcast "we're going off the end" to the tower tells me she had good situational awareness and was trying to alert the tower.

I don't know the other pilot or anything about him. I don't know who was PIC for the trip. Does it matter now?

BTW, of my 5 type ratings, the Learjet 60 is still my favorite airplane--even with its flaws. All airplanes have flaws. It's how we handle them and are aware of them that counts.

robbreid

21st September 2008, 01:57

Still waiting final report from Lear 60 N9CU in August 2007.

NYC07LA202 (http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20070904X01308&key=1)

Although this one remains as a memorable accident, a Lear 55 operated by Lear Jet Corp. while in South Africa, attempted unsuccessfully, a barrel roll at 155 knots and at a height of 690 feet. I believe the term is 'Watch This'!!!

ASN Aircraft accident Learjet 55 N57TA Waterkloof (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19811113-0)

Check 6

21st September 2008, 02:54

How about you arm chair speculators and amateur accident investigators wait for the professionals to provide informed information and quit trying to impress everyone with your "expertise?" If people could determine the probable cause of an aircraft accident from photographs on the internet the NTSB investigators would never have to leave their offices!

Jim Bland was a friend of mine for 20+ years and he had over 30 years as a professional pilot.

Jim left behind a 16 year old daughter Erin and wife Anne. Jim was typed in the Lear 60 and Cessna Citation and dual rated in helicopters and fixed wing. He recently retired after a long career as a pilot with the US Customs Service. Jim flew Citations, Cheyennes, Hueys, Blackhawks, and other aircraft for Customs.

Sarah was typed in the Citation Excel and Lear 60.

The airplane had approximately 150 hours total time on the engines and airframe.

The above are facts.

RIP Jim and Sarah et al

900-7X

21st September 2008, 03:16

If people could determine the probable cause of an aircraft accident from photographs on the internet the NTSB investigators would never have to leave their offices!I'm a new guy here and it's good to see a voice of reason.

falconflier

21st September 2008, 06:10

AirplanesSuck

21st September 2008, 06:50

I'm very sorry for the loss of your friend. Some of us, however, are more than curious about the cause of this accident because we have to go work in this airplane tomorrow or the next day.

This is a discussion board, and I believe people are only discussing possible causes and educating each other about the particular airframe. No one is claiming to know what happened.

Furthermore, no one has blamed the pilots, and my current post might be the closest thing to "disrespectful" in the whole thread.

RIP to all four killed, condolences to friends and family. Hopefully the experts will come up with some answers for those of us who still fly this thing so it doesn't happen again.

future.boeing.cpt

21st September 2008, 08:48

"The plane was operated by Global Exec Aviation of Long Beach and was certified to operate last year, an NTSB official said.

A 10-member NTSB team walked the crash site and retrieved the cockpit voice recorder, which was rushed to a lab in Washington, D.C. Because of the ferocity of the fire, investigators were unsure of the viability of the recording."

Former Blink-182 drummer, popular DJ survive plane crash that killed 4 - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-me-learcrash21-2008sep21,0,6334171.story?page=1)

Stan Switek

21st September 2008, 08:52

Jim Bland has been a personal friend of mine for 28 years. I have flown with him a number of times. Jim is a total aviation professional. I want to know as much as the next person why this happened. I will leave that to the professionals. This has been a very difficult day for those of us who knew Jim & Sarah.

High Gravity Day

21st September 2008, 12:33

Asking fellow pilots, many of whom fly or have flown the 60, not to discuss the accident or speculate as to its cause is ridiculous. We know you're mourning your friends and we're sorry, but this is a "discussion board" after all.
I didn't know Jim, but I met Sarah on several occasions.
I used to work with insurance companies, the FAA and NTSB on site during accident investigations and I can tell you that usually what you see is what you get. By that I mean the NTSB will take 2 years and spend thousands of hours before releasing a report determining that a VFR pilot entered IMC and hit a mountain, which was obvious within 90 seconds of arriving on scene. I'm sure all the most likely causes will be looked at very closely (rejected takeoff for whatever reason factoring the known inadequate brakes and gear on the 60, uncommanded engine rollback, improper takeoff configuration etc.) and it will likely turn out to be one of them. Sometimes it gets more complicated, but usually not. Hopefully the CVR data will be viable.
Regadless, it's a tragedy for the friends and families who have lost loved ones and I feel for the folks here who were friends with the pilots or passengers.

Airbubba

21st September 2008, 17:28

All of you arm-chair quarterbacks/accident investigators, know this. The Achilles heel of the Learjet 60 would have to be it's wheels and brakes. This airplane was entitled to the triple brakes, but that does not reduce balanced field lengths if it did have them.

Do some Lear 60's have the third rotor on the brakes and others do not? I flew classic Lears a long time ago and for the smaller plane, the brakes were pretty good I thought, kinda like on the 727. I realize that the 60 is a lot larger and has many 'grandfathered' systems that probably would not meet certification requirements of a new design.

Air mode=no brakes, no anti-skid, no spoilers, no thrust reversers. So, loose the squat switch from blown tire=emergency braking system is all you have left.

Is emergency braking through the pedals on the LR-60? Or do you have to pull a handle?

Escaped At Last

21st September 2008, 17:57

I'm new here, but I have an insight on this accident that may be helpful to others, so I decided to respond to this discussion. My connection to this accident is two fold: I lost a dear friend and former co-worker in this accident and--like others may have--I discovered this thread while searching for answers.

The '60 Jim and I crewed together out of SNA was sold this past June, and like other pilots these days, we found ourselves back in the job market. I spoke with him only last week, when he told me of a flight he was making in another plane (60-314, the subject aircraft of this article). He knew that I had taken delivery of this aircraft from the factory in Wichita for another owner in January of 2007, and we had been discussing what a beautiful aircraft it was. Much has been said of Jim Bland in this post, and I can only say that I second all of it. Jim was a fine pilot in every way. He was a meticulous, experienced, professional who was a joy to fly with and a pleasure to 'hang with' on a trip. I would have put my family in any plane that Jim commanded. Jim's listing as co-pilot had nothing to do with his level of experience. I didn't know Sarah, but Jim spoke highly of her. Sarah's longevity with Global Exec. put her in the left seat. Jim could have easily have been there, as he was on many of our flights. We operated as Co-Captains on our prior job and, like all of us who do this job, we experienced our share of 'issues' in flight: urgencies that required good CRM, problem solving and sound decision making. If I could pick a team mate to have when something went wrong, Jim would be my pick. He was a level headed Pro.

The aircraft had indeed been in for maintenance prior to this flight, but it was in for bleed air issues that they were having at altitude. I'll leave the door open, but I can't see how the problem that they were having could have led to this accident and I am inclined to say that it was incidental to what happened in Columbia.

I have quite a few hours in 60-314, and I know of no issues that could have lead to this accident. To my knowledge, it was a well maintained, low time aircraft. A bit heavy perhaps because it was very well equipped, but it was perfectly capable of making Columbia to VNY non-stop, winds permitting. As for the take off flap setting: As it was pointed out earlier, there is nothing at all wrong with taking off with either 8 or 20 degrees selected. It is entirely pilot choice based on the circumstances. Second segment climb is a bit better with flaps 8 and also rotation is a bit smoother, in my opinion. I ran the numbers based on what I know, and UltraNav shows a takeoff field length of around 5,400 feet with flaps 20, and 5836 feet with flaps 8. Either would have been fine here. And there is no way this plane took off improperly configured. The T/O warning horn would have been prohibitively annoying, and in any case, Jim was a nut about flap settings: we checked and briefed the settings three times prior to every take off. This plane was configured properly, I can assure anyone.

Thanks for having me here in this discussion. I appriciate the insight from other professionals, and I hope some of you find this information helpful as we all look for answers to this terrible crash.

Jim and Sarah, rest in peace. My thoughts go out to all of those who's lives have been tragically impacted here. And God bless you Ann, my heart grieves with you.

FIRESYSOK

21st September 2008, 22:41

Well, just heard they aborted for a burst tyre. That's risky on any airplane. Wonder why the reversers don't appear out...:confused:

900-7X

21st September 2008, 23:40

Well, just heard they aborted for a burst tyre. That's risky on any airplane. Wonder why the reversers don't appear out...http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

Interesting information. Where did that come from? Per a previous post, if a squat/prox switch was damaged, they might not deploy.

sevenstrokeroll

21st September 2008, 23:55

Tire Burst...if true, I wonder if there was FOD or debris on the runway prior to takeoff causing the tire to burst (concorde?)

In this age, it seems a shame that there couldn't be a 'ground mode over-ride' switch on the throttles or something like that. I've flown planes that have over ride switches to make sure the pilot can always tell the plane if it is on the ground or not.

The concept of tire burst is an important one...especially on tail mounted engine planes in which the tire could end up in the engine.

The selection of flaps can be a difficult one. We had guys who always used max flaps for takeoff to reduce tire problems. We had others who always used min takeoff flaps to have a better second segment climb.

I do hope that the NTSB will seek the history of the tires and brakes too.

Of course it would be virtually impossible to see some FOD or debris on the runway at night.

This accident should remind us all that the crushable concrete overruns should be standard at all airports. 1000' of this EMAS might have saved things.

To those who have lost friends, I am sorry. If by talking about this tragedy someone takes an extra moment to check tires or runways or the like, or someone requires a design change, then it is worthwhile.

Within months of the FAA test of EMAS in the early 1990's, I had made an appointment to talk to my congressman and US senator about installing EMAS at all airports. I hope that all of you will get involved in this effort. Voices of safety are often not heard well by government.

Airbubba

21st September 2008, 23:56

Interesting information. Where did that come from?

Another NTSB press briefing in CAE this afternoon, here are excerpts from an AP article:

Feds: Doomed crew in SC crash thought tire blew

By MEG KINNARD – 1 hour ago

WEST COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The doomed crew piloting a Learjet that crashed on takeoff, killing four people and injuring two popular musicians, thought a tire blew as they hurtled down the runway, a federal safety official said Sunday.

National Transportation Safety Board member Debbie Hersman said a cockpit voice recording of the Friday night crash indicates the crew tried to abort the takeoff, but then signaled the efforts were failing.

"The crew reacted to a sound that was consistent with a tire blowout," Hersman said.

Former Blink-182 drummer Travis Barker and celebrity disc jockey DJ AM were critically injured in the crash, but one of their doctors said Sunday he expected them to fully recover.

Two of the musicians' close friends and two crew members were killed when the plane shot off the end of the runway, ripped through a fence and crossed a highway. It came to rest on an embankment a quarter-mile from the end of the runway, engulfed in flames.

Hersman said no cause of the crash has been determined and the investigation is ongoing. She did say that pieces of tire were recovered about 2,800 feet from where the plane started its takeoff. The runway is 8,600 feet long.

The plane was traveling at least 92 mph, its minimum takeoff speed, when the crew thought the tire burst, Hersman said...

sevenstrokeroll

22nd September 2008, 00:10

After reading the above article, the question comes to mind about training and procedures for this plane.

In airline ops, a tire blown at 80 knots or more (92mph or so) is usally a go. Below 80knots is a reject.

The decision to go or reject is one of the hardest ones a pilot will make. For many years in airline ops we have been taught to "GO" if there is any question.

None of us will know what we would have done, presented with a problem. This post is not meant to point fingers.

Many of us have been watching CNN and the like when they cover a landing gear problem. I can recall many in which the plane blows a tire on takeoff and circles for hours to burn off (not dump) fuel.

Wannabe Flyer Girl

22nd September 2008, 00:41

Hi everyone. This is my first post here and I would like to send my condolences to the colleagues of the flight crew that were lost due to this accident. I know it must be very difficult for all of you.

I have been lurking around here for a while. I was raised around aviation. My father was in the 82nd Airborne, my first step-father and current step-father are both A&P mechanics. I always wanted to be a pilot but was crushed when an Air Force recruiter told me I was too short to fly (when I was 15, admittedly I haven't gotten any taller than 5'3 since then) and then I had a bad experience on a commerical flight and developed a fear of flying. Since I have been too afraid to fly, for years I have immersed myself in learning about how aircraft operate, especially since I have had the benefit of relatives who help keep the birds in the air. I feel that the best way to face a fear is to educate yourself about what it is that you are afraid of. Even at my advanced age (31) I have still considered going to A&P school because despite the fact that I am a female, I am good at fixing things. I am not as educated as all of you, so please forgive me if I don't sound very knowledgeable.

Sorry for the long introduction, I will get to the point and the reason I came to this thread. It is my understanding that after a certain point the takeoff cannot be aborted. If the tire did blow, and the crew didn't realize it until the last minute, it seems that they would have gone ahead with the takeoff. I thought that the comment about the debris getting into the engine was a good thought to consider. These pilots by all accounts were very experienced, and according to what I have read, by what can be seen in the pictures, the reversers were not deployed. So then, it can be assumed that the engines failed upon ingesting the tire and/or runway debris? That seems reasonable to me.

I respect all of you for the work that you do, and again, I would like to offer my heartfelt condolences to anyone that has suffered the loss of friends or loved ones.

BelArgUSA

22nd September 2008, 01:25

Airbubba

22nd September 2008, 01:32

It is my understanding that after a certain point the takeoff cannot be aborted. If the tire did blow, and the crew didn't realize it until the last minute, it seems that they would have gone ahead with the takeoff.

It's a complex decision that almost has to be prepackaged, i.e. you have to train for likely events and make the right call, there isn't time for much analysis while the runway is disappearing behind you. A rejected takeoff above 80 knots in an airliner is normally only done in the case of engine fire, engine failure, loss of directional control or if the aircraft is unable to fly. In some airlines, either pilot can call for a rejected takeoff, for most airlines it is the captain's call in my experience. Of course, this mishap was a bizjet, not an airliner and as mentioned in an earlier post, some outfits have 'co-captains' where everybody has four stripes (been there, done that myself, didn't really like it).

A good article on this subject with recent (a decade ago) regulatory thinking, some statistics, and accident data starts on page 3 here:

http://www.flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_oct98.pdf

______________________________

We used to arm reversers on takeoff until reaching V1 speed.

I sure don't remember that one, I used to fly Lears with Dee Howard, Aeronca, and no T/R's. Was it a toggle switch or something? It's been a long time. --> Just reread your post and answered my own question...

sevenstrokeroll

22nd September 2008, 01:56

wannabee fly girl

I didn't mean to suggest that debris went into the engine, only that it might be possible and that tail mounted engines were more likely to ingest tires than wing mounted engines.

It is too soon to know really what happened in the cockpit...as far as decision making.

good luck with your aviation dreams, remember that safety is the ultimate responsibility and most important part of any aviation job.

AirplanesSuck

22nd September 2008, 02:25

Escaped at Last... my deepest condolences for the loss of your friend. It's always a shame to lose anyone in this business, but especially people like Mr. Bland as you've described him. Blue skies and tailwinds, brother.

AirplanesSuck

22nd September 2008, 02:56

Sad accident -
xxx
I have flown Lears long time ago, not much recently, last time nearly 5 years ago in a 31A. Have about 2,500 hrs on them, 20/30 and 55 types. I was a Lear type rating CFI in my days as F/O-F/E with the airlines, this to make extra money.
xxx
Of course I loved the Lears, especially the 24B and its near 7,000 FPM initial climb rate, which reduced to (only) 2,500 FPM when simulating ONE ENGINE operations. But there were a few things I did not like as much.
xxx
I did not like the "spoiler" switch (with a guard) on the throttle quadrant.
Would have preferred to have, say, a little "handle" rather than a tiny switch.
Easier to grab to perform a rejected takeoff.
xxx
The other thing I did not like were the reversers.
Well, I liked the reversers (especially hydraulic reversers fast to deploy).
But hated the "reversers switching panel" with small tweezer-size switches to "ARM" reversers.
We used to arm reversers on takeoff until reaching V1 speed.
Was not easy gestures to "deploy spoilers" and "arm reversers" at touch down.
I have never flown 60 series - I suppose it is close to compare to 55s...

They "fixed" a lot of things about the lear with the 60 (except the wheels/brakes, IMO). The only thing we arm on takeoff is the APR (Automatic Performance Reserve). The T/Rs, autospoilers, etc. are all automatically armed.

As for debris... it's highly unlikely that debris from tires would go in the engines (like Concord) because the engine inlets are over the flaps. Debris would have to fly all the way forward and then up over the wings to get to the engines. Flap damage is possible from a blown tire, though. Also, the squat switch and wiring for the wheel speed generators (for anti-skid) are quite exposed to damage should there be a blowout. I just spoke with an engineer from Bombardier last week who lamented the vulnerability of the wiring to the wheel-speed generators. Historically, it's a tricky anti-skid system. Reference NTSB ID NYC07LA202... another anti-skid issue that has yet to be resolved with the 60.

As far as the plane going into "air-mode"... this is controlled by a squat-switch relay box. However, each individual squat switch is responsible for certain things independent of the relay box. For example, for antiskid the left switch controls outboard wheel brakes and the right switch controls the inboard brakes. Autospoilers won't deploy with only one squat switch in "ground mode," however, if the handle is manually pulled they will extend in that scenario. As far as I understand from my experience and the books I have, the T/R's will not deploy with just one switch in "air mode.''

To Airbubba:

There is an STC available for the 60 that installs a third disc on each side... supposedly it doesn't do much for braking, but it does extend the life of the brakes and the duration for the AD (requiring an A+P to inspect the brakes at certain intervals. The certification on the the 60 quickly required that the wheels/brakes from the older, smaller lears that made it onto the 60 be inspected pretty often. I still hate flying it with the T/R's MEL'd and strapped.

And the emerg. brake is still a red handle under the thrust levers that you slowly, carefully push down.

Again, I have very little idea what happened. I'm not speculating... just offering some information about the 60 to folks who don't know the plane.

Be safe out there all...

And YES TO EMAS! They should be everywhere on runways under 10,000'.

Airbubba

22nd September 2008, 04:03

And the emerg. brake is still a red handle under the thrust levers that you slowly, carefully push down.

Thanks for the insight to the 60, that red handle would be hard to find on a real world (as opposed to rating ride) reject I would think.

sevenstrokeroll

22nd September 2008, 04:17

to clarify

I didn't mean debris went into the engine, I suggested that debris on the runway PRIOR to the Learjet departure MAY have caused a tire burst...similiar to what happened to Concorde. concorde evidently rolled over a piece of metal from a preceeding flight, causing a tire burst which compromised the fuel tanks.

Moderator, I think you should return this line/thread to the original part of the forum.

AirplanesSuck

22nd September 2008, 05:18

Ahh, I got ya.

Wannabe Flyer Girl

22nd September 2008, 05:19

You will have to forgive me because I may have misunderstood. I guess we really won't know until the NTSB can give more specifics. I guess there are so many "what-if" scenarios. I appreciate all of the insight here. Please let me know if I am being a nuisance. I don't mean to be.

Much of my (very) limited knowledge surrounds the big commercial planes. I used to sit out at DFW at least twice a week getting quizzed on the type of plane that was departing before me. I started doing that when I was seven years old. While most of the girls in class were drawing flowers and dresses, I was drawing DC-10s. :ok:

I actually saw the wreckage of the L-1011 at DFW in 86, I guess it was? It was a weird deal because my mom and dad were on 114 and saw the a/c come in. They saw the entire thing happen. My mom was a nurse and a first responder. They took me out to see it the next day. I was taught very early. Actually, my parents were on their way to see me in the hospital. I was in Children's Med Cntr in Dallas, and at that time Parkland was connected to it. The floor I was on faced the helipad. So, a whole group of sick children sat there, noses glued to the window, watching the burn victims come in. It is still hard to describe the patients I saw that day. I felt fortunate being taken to the crash site to see that they brought people out of there alive. It was really surreal, and I will always remember it.

At any rate, I am a total noob at this. I don't want to offend or annoy anyone. I am just trying to learn.

AirplanesSuck

22nd September 2008, 06:21

Madam Captain,

Somehow I missed the most important part of your post... the paragraph about Sarah. Thank you for letting us all get to know her a little. I'm very sorry for your loss.

Condolences...

johngtatp

22nd September 2008, 15:46

I have tried to find data on stopping distances with a tire blown. Aside from the squat switch/No reverse issue, I wonder how much a tire or the whole truck would have on stopping distances.

Stan Switek

23rd September 2008, 04:11

Memorial Service for Jim Bland

Saturday September 27, 2008 - 2 PM
Palomar Airport
Magellan Aviation
Hangar H-9
2006 Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad, Ca.

As a US Customs Special Agent/Pilot, Jim flew missions in defense of the United States of America for 20 years. He was an outstanding person in every aspect of his life. He was an absolute professional as a pilot. He was the best friend one could ever hope to have.

robbreid

23rd September 2008, 06:05

Click Here (http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9043949&nav=menu36_2) local news coverage, video of runway and all related NTSB press releases.

Wannabe Flyer Girl

23rd September 2008, 07:52

I watched a couple of the news reports on that website. I guess they had a helicopter or small plane fly the length of the runway and take the same path that the accident plane would have, and they filmed paint markings on the runway that the NTSB used to desginate parts of the aircraft. They stated that the plane travelled one mile after the CVR recorded the tire blowout. I thought that was terribly misleading to the general public. It seemed to imply that the pilot had all of this room to work with, but nobody was talking about how fast a mile goes by when you are moving at 100mph. I would like to commend that news station though for interviewing a 50 year+ captain who stated that the crew made the best decision they could, and going that fast the choice was made to try to slow it down and keep it on the runway. If you watch that footage of the runway, you can see the path the plane made, and it was right on the center and stayed that way until, God Bless them, they just ran out of space.

I did not know Sarah or Jim, but I would have been proud to. It is obvious that they were proficient and professional. It seems to me that they did everything they could to keep that aircraft going straight and slowing down. They told ATC they were going off runway, and they still maintained control of that plane at least in some way because it never diverted off of the centerline path. Forgive me if I am incorrect, but it seems like if this aircraft was not being controlled that it would have rolled, or diverted one way or another to the left or right.

I know that an accident is not something that any pilot wants to experience. I also know that if there is an accident, the pilot's goal would be to save as many souls as possible, and he or she would put every bit of experience and training into action to get the best possible outcome.

I am not really good with things like this, but the point I am trying to get across is that Jim and Sarah's knowledge, training, and experience saved the lives of two people. The optimal result would have been for all souls to come off the plane. Unfortunately, that didn't happen in this case, but I think it is important to focus on and remember Sarah and Jim in this respect. Sarah and Jim were great pilots and did everything they could for their passengers that night. God Bless them for helping to save the lives that they did. It makes me sad that we lost them also, but pilots like Sarah and Jim should always be looked up to and remembered. They simply sound like they were the best of the best.

Again, my condolences to the friends and family of the deceased. I just don't like to see the media try to take away anything from these wonderful pilots.

I hope my post made some sense.

FIRESYSOK

23rd September 2008, 15:47

Nice thoughts, although life is rarely so idyllic. It is possible they made the wrong decision to abandon a takeoff with one bad tyre which is a rather non-event. It is also quite possible they did the best they could with a more complex situation. Let's wait for the investigative outcome to start pouring out praise.

This is a relatively good article:

The State | 09/23/2008 | FAA: If jet’s tire fails, take off (http://www.thestate.com/local/story/533110.html)

Madam Captain

23rd September 2008, 16:30

If anyone has contact information or services information for Sarah please PM or email me off the forum. Global Executive is not giving the information out and all I have is Sarah's personal phone # & email. There are a number of people who would like to express their sympathy to her family, and/or attend services.

PCM-MU2

23rd September 2008, 23:47

I live here in Columbia and fly out of CAE often.

Reports today state that first pieces of rubber were discovered at the 2,800' mark on the 8,602' runway.

HarryMann

24th September 2008, 01:07

This is a relatively good article:

The State | 09/23/2008 | FAA: If jet’s tire fails, take off (http://www.thestate.com/local/story/533110.html)

Yeh, followed by some pretty asinine comments... :(

robbreid

24th September 2008, 04:03

Though Sarah no longer walks with us . . . she will forever soar in our hearts . . .

Please make memorials in honor of Sarah Hagar Lemmon to Seattle Children's Hospital - Ann Carlson Guild Endowment, Children's Hospital Foundation/ GA Mail stop S-200, P.O. Box 50020, Seattle, WA 98145.

Memorial services will be held Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 1 PM at the Corporate Air center located at the Skagit Regional Airport, 15452 Airport Drive, Burlington, Washington.

Arrangements are under the care of Hawthorne Funeral Home, 1825 E. College Way, Mount Vernon.

Click Here for complete Obituary and Guest Book
(http://www.legacy.com/skagitvalleyherald/Obituaries.asp?Page=Notice&PersonID=117843601)

Madam Captain

24th September 2008, 04:50

Perfect! I'll forward this to all the people who want to know how to contact. We can sign the guest book without intruding on Sarah's family, now know when services are.

Thanks!!

Brian Abraham

24th September 2008, 06:00

From Aviation International News today
Blown Tire Eyed in Learjet 60 Crash
NTSB investigators are still on scene at the Columbia (S.C.) Metropolitan Airport, sorting through the wreckage of a chartered Learjet 60SE (N999LJ) that crashed just before midnight Friday after the twinjet overran Runway 11 while on takeoff for a flight to Van Nuys (Calif.) Airport. The Learjet–owned by Inter Travel and Services and operated by Global Exec Aviation of Long Beach, Calif.–came to rest on an upslope about 1,200 feet from the end of the runway after using up the 1,000-foot safety overrun and going through a perimeter fence, down a hill and across a road. Two crewmembers and two passengers were killed in the accident. Two remaining passengers survived but suffered severe burns in the post-crash fire; both are expected to make a “full recovery.” An NTSB spokesman told AIN that “evidence points to a tire blowout” at around the time the Learjet copilot made a callout at 80 knots, according to data from the recovered cockpit voice recorder. A tire debris trail was also found at approximately 2,800 feet down the 8,602-foot runway. However, the NTSB is still unsure which tire or tires possibly blew out, as all of the jet’s tires were found deflated at the crash scene. Investigators haven’t yet said if they found any skid marks or scrapes on the runway from the Learjet, but they did indicate that its thrust reversers were found in the stowed position at the crash site.

Lookforshooter

24th September 2008, 08:08

Some thoughts: - Read that tire blowouts were becoming more common due to crew just not checking tire pressures. In a charter/fractional environment, I know the pilots don't carry tire guages as a rule...in corporate I do, and checked everyday...needless to say the FAA finding was that low tire pressures were usualy as fault of most of these blow outs. Check your pressures guys.... Now honestly, when was the last time you guys got under a jet and checked the pressures? - Tire blow outs- Seems to be the bane of those that like to burn up runways, either overgross, Flex, or just not use all available flaps to get off quick. Needless to say, tire blowouts change the whole V1 scanario, in that an undetected blowout, a big leak ect, creates drags, extends the take off roll with many pilots just waiting and waiting for V1... Heartstrings being pulled, violins playing, ect ect, I have lost friends too, and they screwed up as well...let's not forget the passengers..... 8600 ft of runway, rubber left at 2600 ft....6000 ft to stop the aircraft..or go.. I hope when I lose a tire, I have almost 9000 ft of runway as well...

His dudeness

24th September 2008, 10:28

Check tire pressure on a less than 1 hr turnaround? Bad Idea on my aeroplane - heat build up - dunno about the Lear.

Cessna has come up with a good new system, 'smart stem', little valves with pressure sensors in it, and little handheld where you can read the pressure from.
Apparently factory installed on the B777.
Downside is the pricing...something like 10k USD I read.
So we still use regular gauges.

transilvana

24th September 2008, 14:27

I fly the 60, to some posts read here I have an answer.

.-Normal take off flap setting is 8º, not 20º, as instructed by FSI and CAE.
.-Brakes are not so good on the 60, but if you have the new ones with 3 discs they will stop you quite good, I´ve flown both types and the 3 discs brakes are incredible, Bombardier issued an STC to change to the old ones due to some fisure problems on the gear actuators.
.-If trye blown before 80 knots then you stay on the ground, but you don´t know if something else is broken... Anything before 80 knots you stay. Is up to you to stay or go in this case.
.-Sqt swicthes are a pain on the 60, the brake quite often, they are in the middle of both tyres and sure you will get wires broken if you have a tyre blown up.
.-Lear 60 is an aircraft designed to be flown by a pilot, not by computers, two rockets on the back, fly-by-steel wire controls and plenty of climb rate. Take off, burn all the fuel and do a wheel up landing cause probably the nose wheel steering is also f..k up!!!

Hope to know soon the problem that cause the accident, we are there everyday flying it.

My sincere condolences to Sarah´s and Jim´s family, .

jungle drums

24th September 2008, 15:50

Some LR 60 Questions?

It seems to me that there is something else going on if the runway numbers previously described are correct - the length remaining should have been enough!

1. If you blow a tyre and it wrecks your squat switch on that side does that put you in the AIR MODE? Or is there a WHEEL SPEED input on any of the remaining tyres that says GROUND MODE?

2. If you then have decided to abort, and subsequently try to use T/Rs and Auto Spoilers (if it has them), will they be available? Or are they forced to STOW because of a single damaged squat switch?

3. If this is the case is the T/R Lever still selectable? Is thrust that is expected to be used in stopping actually doing the opposite?

If this is the case, then, from the pictures, just a small bit of extra assistance in stopping may have left them short of the aweful overrun area and alive.

Tragic, as ever.

AirplanesSuck

24th September 2008, 17:56

The manufacturer's training (Bombardier) says that 8 or 20 is a "normal" flap setting. Use either one... check your numbers.

And the AFM says quite clearly on page 2-20 that they can be selected 20 or 8.

I don't know why CAE and FSI told you "8 is normal."

transilvana

26th September 2008, 12:36

If both Sqk switches are not on the ground then aircraft is on AIR mode, so no TR, no Autospoiler deploy and no Antiskid. The 60 only get info from there, no wheels spinning sensor. Now, 1 mile is a lot, but with no brakes is not that much.

About normal take off flap is 8°, 20° is used only on short fields, you can get 400-500 feet less of take off roll with flap 20, I only used once 20° on my trainning at FSI.

spoilerons

27th September 2008, 02:07

Not quite accurate...

Learjet Service Bulletin SB 60-78-7 modifies the aircraft to allow the T/Rs to receive an input from the wheel speed detect box (used for autospoilers). This would prevent an inadvertant stowing should the squat switch be damaged during landing/aborts.

The danger of an uncommanded stow following a squat switch failure is that the FADEC will initially command the engine to idle, then to whatever power setting is requested at the thrust levers after the T/Rs stow. The "piggy-back" levers, if still pulled aft, would be commanding a high power setting of the FADEC (which believes the aircraft is airborne and just stowed a T/R). I believe that the piggy-backs move the same linkage as the thrust levers do to a rotary switch that is interpreted as a thrust lever angle by the FADEC, thus giving up to nearly takeoff power while you tried to stop. This scenario would be good if you really had a T/R deploy while airborne, but can be horrible if it happened on the ground.

The AFM has a Emergency Procedure (as a Memory Item) that instructs you to close the piggy backs should a T/R stow by itself to prevent this situation

Also, the above SB did not apply to N999LJ based on serial number, so I assume it had it installed.

spoilerons

27th September 2008, 04:13

From my memory...

1. Yes and No. Damage to the squat switches (which are located on the top of the main gear scissors facing forward) should provide an airborne signal and will render ANTISKID inoperate. I am not positive about the Lear-60, but on older Lears with the same system, the left Squat Switch controls the outboard brakes, the right controls the inboard. Turning the Anitskid OFF should restore brakes, though without the antiskid protection.

2. No. The T/Rs need (among other things) a GROUND signal from both of the squat switches to ARM (happens automatically upon touchdown) unless the aircraft has the above mentioned Service Bulletin which would use wheel spin-up instead. Should they not ARM, nothing would happen if the crew tried to pull back on the Piggy back levers as a balk would prevent their movement beyond the Idle position. They would physically move far enough to try to deploy, but not far enough to increase thrust, if that makes sense.

3. Yes, they are hydraulically boosted. The two lines (inboard and outboard brakes) run down the front of the oleo strut, then snake around one side (outboard, I believe...and above the outboard tire) to the aft portion of the strut, then arc aft between the tires entering the calipers from the rear. The antiskid wiring is also routed the same way. I feel that it is very likely that tire debris could damage the lines, especially if it was the outboard tire that failed.

See http://www.airliners.net/photo/Arkasair/Learjet-60/1397847/L/
The squat switch is the circular object just below the landing light.

AirplanesSuck

27th September 2008, 18:10

The 60 allows the inboard or outboard anti-skid to continue working with just one operative squat switch in "ground" mode. You're right about turning the anti-skid "off" though. That gives you braking regardless of squat switch signals. So does emergency braking.

But of course, you might blow tires without anti-skid on a heavy plane with such little wheels and brakes.

SNS3Guppy

27th September 2008, 20:23

Read that tire blowouts were becoming more common due to crew just not checking tire pressures. In a charter/fractional environment, I know the pilots don't carry tire guages as a rule...

You don't either..because you're not a pilot...and have admitted as much under your previously banned screen names such as ssg. You're a troll...characterized by nearly every post referring to V1 issues...about which you know nothing.

Tire blow outs- Seems to be the bane of those that like to burn up runways, either overgross, Flex, or just not use all available flaps to get off quick.

Are you familiar with the concept of a fuse plug? No?

You're still beating this reduced thrust drum, still don't get the concept...even after it's been explained to you time and time again. You're trying so hard not to get banned this time, but you really can't help yourself...you're stuck on this topic and it's just killing you, isn't it?

Check 6

27th September 2008, 20:34

Tire pressure checks on a Lear are a maintenance task, not a pilot task.

Lookforshooter

27th September 2008, 21:26

Ahhh Guppy....your such an tool....Still living in a world where tires don't blow out and V1 guarantees all planes fly??...Go run to the moderator Guppy...ban everyone that disagrees with you...You know Guppy...tires still come apart with fuse plugs(surprise, surprise)...they call them blow outs...ever heard of those?..or does your world only consider the fuse plug slowly and safely deflate the tires, how nice........tell that to the Concord folks....Check 6...welcome to Guppy world, you will get along just great here...I guess in your world, only the A/Ps have tire guages...unbelievable...!@<hidden>#@<hidden>$@<hidden>

Duck Rogers

28th September 2008, 00:17

Banter is one thing, abusive language just lowers the tone of the place.

Cooling off period in force.

Duck

galaxy flyer

28th September 2008, 03:57

Ah, SSG V1.10

Tire checks are for mechs unless away from base with no maintenance available and trained. My plane, mains at 185 -0, +5; if I check the tires and the pressure is at 185, what is it when I remove the gage and a little nitro escapes?? Less than 185, correct? If I check them daily, in a few checks, it will be low. Check the tires where MX is available, every time. I had one blow at about 90 knots, airborne, checked the gear, returned. Best solution, esp when there are 27 more!!

GF

Stan Switek

28th September 2008, 04:02

I just returned from the beautiful memorial service at Palomar Airport for Jim. Sarah's service was held also today in Washington. Jim was held in high regard by all those who knew him. I am all for dignified professional discussion however, I personally am not going to guess on the cause of this unfortunate event. I will wait for NTSB's report.

Several times while on US Customs missions late at night, Jim flew over my house well after airport curfew chasing a suspected smuggler into LGB. My house is about 10 miles out from runway 30 at LGB on the extended centerline. I'd call him the next day & ask, "Was that you in the Citation at about 0100?" Jim would always give me the hot scoop. During his time at US Customs, Jim was involved in almost every major smuggling case involving the San Diego office. From time to time I would wake up very late at night and hear a jet passing very high in the distance. I'd often wonder if it was Jim.

I'd ask everyone that if you wake up late at night & hear a distant jet, please think of Jim as he now patrols the skies for eternity.

skiingman

28th September 2008, 06:04

If I check them daily, in a few checks, it will be low.

Are you trained to check pressures but not to add nitrogen?

All light vehicles in the US are now manufactured with TPMS onboard. Some aircraft are still being manufactured without such a system. Such systems are much better than relying on humans for such a task which tends to be unimportant and boring most of the time except for when it makes all the difference in the world.

galaxy flyer

28th September 2008, 19:12

SkiMan

Cite an FAR 25 plane with TPMS? No business jet has it, maybe should, but doesn't

Yes, we can check the pressures, but it there is no nitro cart, how am I going to service them. But, in any case, we only identify the problem, tech does the servicing. BTW, these are airplanes, not my car, not trained, not doing it.

GF

skiingman

29th September 2008, 07:59

gf: A380. On the bizjet side, the Falcon 7X. Both from Messier-Bugatti. Seems like a good idea, no?

900-7X

29th September 2008, 17:01

gf: A380. On the bizjet side, the Falcon 7X. Both from Messier-Bugatti. Seems like a good idea, no?Yep. Just heading for 7X school. Many of the systems are vastly improved over the 900 and that's one of 'em.
On the blown tire front, we also fly Sabreliner 65s, which have single main wheels :eek:.
Theit AFM procedure is always to take the airplane flying with a blown tire above 100knots. Nuts to that!! It's 80 knots for us unless we're at KIAD or someplace like that where runway is virtually a non-factor .
One thing for us all to consider is: Was the crew trained for blown tires at various takeoff speeds? What do their company ops specs say? I taught the Falcon 2000 and 900EX Easy for 4 years and it was amazing the responses I saw in the sim, and how many high time crews had never been trained with it. A blown tire could cause so much vibration that a crew might mistake it for an airframe problem and not want to go flying under any circumstances. It's been implied that this crew thought that they has a blown tire, but we don't have any time line yet as to when brakes were applied etc. The NTSB will sort that out.
At any rate it's tragic when a good crew does everything that they can under any circumstance and it's not enough.

sevenstrokeroll

29th September 2008, 21:32

It is with proper respect and sympathy I ask the following questions...I'm sure it will be awhile before we really know what happened.

1. Was there any discussion in the cockpit about course of action? If so, who said what?

2. What is the Flight Safety, or other group where these pilots trained, sylabus item and actual training for tires blown on takeoff? ARE THEY TRAINED TO GO AT 80Knots?

Another poster indicates that they knew the captain and was part of training at Flight Safety. I hope that person can answer number 2 above.

900-7X

29th September 2008, 22:46

2. What is the Flight Safety, or other group where these pilots trained, syllabus item and actual training for tires blown on takeoff? ARE THEY TRAINED TO GO AT 80Knots?I taught at Flight Safety for 4 years, have been a client since 1985, and have significant experience in Lears and Falcons. I point this out only as a basis for my thoughts below.

The answer to your question is a qualified "yes".

The "standard" FSI briefing is to "Abort for any malfunction up to 80knot, after 80 knots only abort for engine fire, engine failure, thrust reverser deploy or loss of directional control".

Now does a blown tire have with it the consequence of "loss of directional control"? If so, the crew would have been taught to abort beyond 80 knots, depending upon what their SOP says. If companies, especially those operating under FAR 135, have their own SOPs, FSI instructors are expected to become familiar with, and use those criteria in training and checking.

I will ALWAYS disagree with the concept of making that 80 knots "dividing line" boilerplate, since there are so many other factors in takeoffs, including excess runway length that have to be considered. In the Falcon 900 we would rarely think of taking ANY problem airborne prior to V1, simply because the V1 speeds are very low (less than 110kts at normal operating weights) and the brakes, emergency braking system and tires are so overbuilt. Runways over are usually not an issue since at gross weight ISA and SL the runway requirement for the 900 is only 5,390 feet. This is pretty insignificant, especially compared to the Lears.

sevenstrokeroll

30th September 2008, 00:43

what would the minimum unstick speed be for the lear 60 as loaded?

I think we should be looking at how we can learn from this crash.

900-7X

1st October 2008, 05:43

Good question. I couldn't tell you what Vmu is for any Lear. I don't believe I've ever seen it published since it's a certification number rather than an operational one.

Other than per FAR 25, it has to be equal to or greater than Vs, I can't offer much.

I do think that the problem still lies with the way that we train in bizjets. Because the FAA's infinite wisdom dictates that examiners and instructors concentrate on "filling the squares" of the Practical Test Standard, training in maneuvers like tire failure is generally not a priority. The fact is, that there is already so much to cover(much of it BS) that many instructors are always trying to put 20 gallons into a 5 gallon bucket. It was one of my soapboxes when I worked at FSI and it continues to be one for me as I continue as one of their clients. Having been both an FAA and JAA examiner, I can say that the JAA exams are much more sane in terms of content. Their insanity falls into play when they require that the entire check be laid out for the applicant prior to the test. You can check chimpanzees that way. It's much more important to see how a crew responds to the unexpected rather than watch them recite a check ride script by rote.
But maybe that's just the curmudgeon in me.

sevenstrokeroll

1st October 2008, 16:07

dear 900 7X

your post echoes my own views on evaluating flight crews.

my question about min unstick speed would be the practical choice for a disabled plane to "jump" into the air and deal with problems in the sky instead of on the ground.

we all know, or SHOULD KNOW, that airplanes are at home in the air and only have the bare minimum of equipment for living on the ground.

this was best put to me many years ago by a wise writer who said/wrote:

airplane brakes are mickey mouse gadgets.

While there is no one answer , generally taking off is a better choice than stopping.

Of course one can look at the air france concorde and reject the above advice quite rightly.

what would Vs be...can you haul back and get into the air at 100 knots?

robbreid

2nd October 2008, 14:10

Sept. 30/ Lear 55 N824MG flew KMVY to KOMA, sometime after arriving, the aircraft while parked, caught fire for unknown reasons and burned.

It is listed as substantially damaged in FAA Preliminary Report.

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 824MG Make/Model: LJ55 Description:
Date: 09/30/2008 Time: 1757

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: OMAHA State: NE Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT CAUGHT FIRE UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES WHILE ON THE GROUND,
OMAHA, NE

900-7X

2nd October 2008, 14:19

what would Vs be...can you haul back and get into the air at 100 knots?

Not sure about the but in the 55 at the weight it would need to be for that departure, it's unlikely, since V1 would be in the neighborhood of 130 knots. In one engine operations Vr can't be less than 105% Vmu, so all of the tolerances are already pretty close.

Not sure what the previous post has to do with any of this. Different circumstances sitting on the ramp and different airplane.

sevenstrokeroll

3rd October 2008, 21:27

I meant can you takeoff below V1...sacrificing the safety of one engine op to get off the ground and then deal with the blown tire.

oh, its not that important I guess, but you probably get the idea

900-7X

3rd October 2008, 23:31

I meant can you takeoff below V1...sacrificing the safety of one engine op to get off the ground and then deal with the blown tire.

It's always a possibility. One of the issues that would pass through my mind is "We have a problem that's probably a blown tire....if it has caused any as yet undetermined engine or control surface damage...I don't want to be airborne at a very low speed that might be at or deteriorate to a speed close to Vmc and have a worse problem. Of course you really have to react and don't have that much thinking time. Then another issue isn't yet talked about is crew fatigue. This fight was leaving just before midnight local. What "body time" was the crew operating on? How much real rest had they had? There are rest time regulations but they're absurd and among other things don't take circadian rhythm into consideration.

Time will sort it out.

Lookforshooter

5th October 2008, 20:13

It's all moot...with 8700 ft of runway...V1 comes pretty early on the runway, and they had plenty of time to stop if there was a pre V1 vibration from a blown tire. Any number of things can happen, and might have. First of all it was around midnight, dark and the crew was probably tired...they had a 5 hour trip ahead of them...second they were at max gross, topped off, and might have been slightly overgross. They might have sucked a bird, not produced enough power, accelerated slow, and simply got to the end of the runway, not getting to V1 and tried to stop the plane. It doesn't take 8700 ft of runway to get a Lear off the ground, so they must have tried to stop, and just did it late or just not well enough.

900-7X

6th October 2008, 17:07

V1 comes pretty early on the runway, Explain "pretty early" And you KNOW what V1 was on this night and exactly how much runway was required for this particular takeoff?
and they had plenty of time to stop if there was a pre V1 vibration from a blown tire. This assumes that they KNEW it was a blown tire and didn't suspect perhaps an airframe issue
it was around midnight, dark and the crew was probably tired you obviously have access to their duty time records..and yep that "dark" thing has a lot to do with stopping an airplane. might have been slightly overgross. Nice of you to assume that they were operating illegally...perhaps this is your personal SOP?? They might have sucked a bird, none noted by inspectors not getting to V1 nobody has said what speed they achieved tried to stop, and just did it late or just not well enough. Ahah! The dreaded "pilot error" It's this kind of presumptive claptrap that one would expect from the general news media. It's full of assumptions and unfounded judgments.
I joined this discussion board thinking that maybe there would be some more intelligent ideas brought forth here. I can see that it isn't the case in this instance.

Flintstone

6th October 2008, 20:29

In the words of one of my old examiners "Son. The most dangerous thing in aviation in an untested assumption".

Time for the popcorn smiley http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a191/NightHawkZone/Emoticons/popcorn.gif

Lookforshooter

6th October 2008, 22:20

Gentlemen: Rather the join in the 'Gee we really don't know' conversation...I decided to look up the numbers, do a weight and balance. About 2700 ft to get to V1...that leaves 6000 ft left over...max gross weight to go non stop to VNY, at FL400, landing very light on fuel. Go run the numbers then come back with something worthy to add. Oh, and just one more reminder, while your sitting there trying to protect the pilots...let's try to remember the passengers...

SNS3Guppy

7th October 2008, 09:41

About 2700 ft to get to V1...that leaves 6000 ft left over...

Your mantra ever since you played as ssg...what did you come up with for an accelerate-stop distance...and based on what data? You claim to be a single engine "jet pilot" of late...whereas you don't fly the LR60 or other two-pilot aircraft, what data did you use? The distance to V1 isn't particularly meaningful. The distance to get there and stop, or to go...is.

Then again, your experience is on the microsoft flight simulator, and mishaps are relatively painless there.

Lookforshooter

8th October 2008, 09:34

Oh Guppy, ...you're asking me the relevance of V1 with regard to a plane that overan an 8700 ft runway on take off? You asking the acelerate stop distance? What?...you think it's longer then 8700 feet, at midnight? Sorry Guppy, they weren't using Flex, they weren't running 25000 hour trend monitored engines, they didn't have a 200 hr FO in the right seat...but you know what? Who knows they might have tried to keep going for V1, and just ran out of runway...because, like you seem to believe...some pilot's feel that when they get to that magical number (V1)...the plane always flies....

SNS3Guppy

8th October 2008, 10:11

Apparently you can't answer the question, then...or back up your data with a real source. That's all we needed to know.

Did you just use "flex" when talking about a Learjet? Please, say something else stupid; you're on a roll.

Lookforshooter

8th October 2008, 18:44

Guppy as usual, your bringing down the thread. I ran the numbers based on a flight planning program I have, based on some research to get the actual peformance numbers ect. While V1/Accelerate stop were roughly 2700 and 5700 respectively.., given the numbers I had...the weight and balance was interesting in that a non stop trip to Vny probably put them slightly over gross based on passengers and typical bags that they had. That's based on max altitude that this airplane can fly at, against the winds going West..even if they had took it up stairs, without a step climp, as high as they could have, they would have landed somewhere with 1200 lbs...and my winds were lighter in the morning...not heavier at night. Go figure. Now go do your homeowork Guppy and stop being so antagonistic.

con-pilot

9th October 2008, 00:34

Now go do your homeowork Guppy and stop being so antagonistic.

Getting some popcorn, this is going to be good.

(My money is on Guppy. :ok:)

SNS3Guppy

9th October 2008, 04:53

I am rated in the Lear.

Whereas your claim to be a "single pilot jet pilot" in various posts tends to exclude you from a crew cockpit and therefore the Lear, and whereas your numbers are haphazardly thrown together with complete ignorance with respect to the loading of the airplane and it's capabilities...what you present is guesswork and of no credible value.

Your highly unprofessional and ignorant guesswork, as well as insinuation of over-gross operation is nothing more than speculation. This alone removes any semblence of credibility you might hope to have had in the matter.

This "flex" of which you speak is a term you know nothing about; in fact, it's a term you picked up and still misunderstand, from your rallying in the tech form as the banned poster ssg...when you rally against reduced thrust takeoffs. Did you do your calculations based on assumed temperature, based on real conditions prevailing at the time of the mishap? No. Nor did you use Learjet or Bombardier data. Did you try to come up with something based on "flightplan.com," or some other internet source, then?

The fact is that this mishap is being investigated by highly competent authorities who are expert in their field, and who will present the public with the facts at the appropriate time, when the investigation is complete. Not until.

You'd do best to stick to the facts you know...which for you means remaining completely silent.

Lookforshooter

9th October 2008, 08:51

As usual Guppy, you wrote a whole lot of nothing.....

pilotbear

12th October 2008, 13:53

I agree...why is there always some as****e who has to insult people for doing what this site is all about; Speculation, gossip and rumour. If you don't like other peoples postings and questions then switch your f*****g computer off and go and read your bible. :D
So, another plane crashed and some more people died, shame but it will happen tomorrow and the next day and the next. Open debate is healthy and speculation however wild may raise questions relating to this or another incident one day that may save a life.

Brian Abraham

12th October 2008, 16:33

Mods, is Lookforshooter and pilotbear one in the same. Sounds like it.

900-7X

12th October 2008, 16:53

Speculation without firm facts is meaningless. Insinuation that we're thinking of the pilots without regard to the passengers is just plain stupid. Assumption that the crew was operating illegally is unfair. I have to side with Guppy on this one. Reading the ideas here and adding my experience to the equation, Guppy is saying quite a bit, others are making emotionally based assumptions. Once again I can get useless information from Katie Couric and her cronies and expect more here.

Lookforshooter

12th October 2008, 20:49

900 - I actualy agree with you..it's just that when a plane crashes at the end of a 8700 ft runway, underpower..it's hard to give the pilots a pass.

G-SPOTs Lost

12th October 2008, 22:08

lookforshooter (or whatever you're called) and Guppy please can you give up the pissing contest and go get a room. This thread is in just as much danger of a) getting closed off like the last one where you locked horns or b) terminal thread drift....

please just stick each other on your ignore list - dead easy

jungle drums

12th October 2008, 22:41

My guess from the pictures and survivors reported light injuries is that - that airframe was not any where near a flying speed at impact.

I know nothing about the L60, but do know that if there is a 'gotcha' on any aircraft one of us, unfortunately, eventually finds it. How is this as a possibility -

Accelaration - burst tyre - damage to squat switches - aircraft goes to air mode - abort procedure applied - although crew believes reverses are working, they are actually stowed and the thrust applied by the crew (thought to be in reverse) continues to impede braking.

Please tell me no.

Is there a throttle - bucket interlock that will prevent this? Can it fail?

900-7X

12th October 2008, 22:48

900 - I actualy agree with you..it's just that when a plane crashes at the end of a 8700 ft runway, underpower..it's hard to give the pilots a pass.

Yeah I know and I'm not giving them a pass, I'm just not for prejudging without facts.

Accelaration - burst tyre - damage to squat switches - aircraft goes to air mode - abort procedure applied - although crew believes reverses are working, they are actually stowed and the thrust applied by the crew (thought to be in reverse) continues to impede braking.
Please tell me no.
Is there a throttle - bucket interlock that will prevent this? Can it fail?

This is a strong possibility.
No there's no throttle interlock.

transilvana

13th October 2008, 00:47

Throttle on idle in order to deploy Reverse, if on air mode no unlock and no deployment. We LJ60 guys know how is our aircraft and the problems with the braking, in any case it was just bad luck, something did not work to stop it, let´s wait for the investigation and learn about it.

900-7X

13th October 2008, 01:08

Throttle on idle in order to deploy Reverse, if on air mode no unlock and no deployment.

I had forgotten this one. You're right I stand corrected.

atprn

13th October 2008, 16:41

We only use 20 degrees for wet contaminated and 8 degrees for all other TO's.

Takeoff warning system activates:
• Right thrust lever is above 82% TLA (Thrust Lever Angle)
• Flaps not set for takeoff
• Spoilers not retracted
• Pitch trim not in a safe condition for takeoff
• One or both thrust reversers unlocked or deployed
• Park brake not released
• Parking Brake Light Out

Squat switches provide ground or air signals to the following:
• FADEC
• Stall warning systems (disable the stall warning test feature in the air)
• Thrust reversers (Both squat switches must be in the ground mode for thrust reversers to deploy)
• Antiskid system (The switches disable the wheel brakes in the air with the antiskid system on. The
wheel brakes remain inoperative until the wheels’ spinup requirements have been met on landing)
• Gear control valve (The switches disable the gear-up solenoid on the ground to prevent inadvertent
landing gear retraction. Either squat switch in ground mode will disable the gear-up solenoid. Both
squat switches must be in the air mode to allow landing gear retraction)
• Autospoilers (Both squat switches must be in ground mode for autospoilers to extend)
• Stabilizer heat (Disables stabilizer heat in the ground mode)
• APU
• Takeoff warning system
• Squat switch relay box (Either squat switch in the ground mode puts the relay box in ground mode. Both squat swtches must go to air mode to put the relay box in air mode)

Squat Switch Relay Box:
• Nosewheel steering (ground operation),
• Cabin pressurization (airborne operation),
•Low-limit function of windshield heat and timer (ground operation),
• Mach trim test (ground operation),
• T.O. TRIM light for out-of-takeoff range (ground operation),
•SPOILER MON circuit cutout (ground operation),
• Generator current limiting (ground operation),
• Airstart relay (airborne operation),
• Cross Start relay (ground operation),
• Stall warning lights and shakers (airborne operation),
• Fuel FILL-ON switch. Magnetic latch for the ON position of FILL-ON switch is released when the
relay box goes to the air mode,
• Hourmeter (airborne operation), if installed,
• Davtron Clocks,
•TAT probe heating—Heating provided when in air mode

fly928

20th October 2008, 16:44

900-7x, please continue with your thoughts.

What if the failed switch would let the aircraft think it is in airborne mode, so the thrust reversers remain in the stowed position. If now pulling on the piggy back levers for the reverser, the reversers will not open. OK so far.

But will the engines remain on idle or will the engines spool up due to the movement of the reverser piggy back levers?

If the engines would spool up (because there is no interlock as stated above), you would actually accelerate the aircraft as the reversers are not deployed. If you at the same time apply max braking you may wear out or overheat the brakes in a few seconds before you recognize the situation.

Getting the reverser piggy backs back to the stowed position would reduce engine power back to idle, but now you would have overheated (=no) brakes, no emergency brakes, no spoilers, no reversers.

Here is another accident with the damaged switch and reversers, how was it possible to create skid marks of 2500 ft when the aircraft should have stopped in 850 ft? Adding of forward thrust during braking could be an option...

(... means some lines deleted to shorten the text)

HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On January 14, 2001, at 1345 central standard time, a Learjet LJ-60, N1DC, collided with two deer during landing and ran off the end of runway 7 at the Troy Municipal Airport, Troy, Alabama. The airplane was registered to and operated by Ark-Air Flight Inc. The business flight was operated under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 91 and visual flight rules. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an IFR flight plan was filed. The Airline Transport pilot (ATP) and ATP rated first officer received serious injuries, and the airplane was destroyedand there was a post-impact fire. The flight originated from Love Field in Dallas, Texas, at 1030 on January 14, 2001.

According to witnesses, the airplane collided with the deer shortly after touchdown and continued down the runway with the tires smoking, and veered off the right side of the runway near the end, crossed a taxiway, and impacted into a ditch and burst into flames. Local rescuers were able to extricate the crew before the fire engulfed the cockpit. According to the pilots, the thrust reversers failed to operate when engaged.
.....
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
The Learjet LJ-60, S/N 60-035, N1DC, was manufactured in 1994. FAA records show the airplane was registered to Ark-Air Inc., on June 12, 1997. The maintenance records revealed the airplane was on a manufacturer's inspection program and was last inspected on August 8, 2000. The airplane had accumulated a total time of 2,088 hours at the time of the accident, including 241 hours since its last inspection.
...
WRECKAGE EXAMINATION
Heavy black skid marks were noted beginning at the first taxiway turnoff about 1500 feet down the 5,010 foot runway. Two fragmented deer carcasses were found several hundred feet after impact. The skid marks continued for about 2,500 feet and departed the right side of the runway near the Instrument Landing System shack at the end of the runway and proceeded an additional 500 feet over grass and dirt. The airplane was found resting on its left side down an embankment. The cockpit section of the fuselage was crushed upward into the crew seats. The fuselage aft of the cockpit was consumed by the post crash-fire. Examination of the landing gear found all three gear collapsed and deer fur was found lodged in the squat switch on the left main landing gear. The right and left main tires had areas of rubber that were worn completely through. The flaps were found extended, and both thrust reverser’s were found in the stowed position. Examination of the cockpit found the throttles in idle, and the thrust reverser levers in the stowed position.
...
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
With an estimated empty weight of 15,800 pounds and estimated fuel of 1,100 pounds, it was calculated that the airplane traveled 1500 feet down the runway after touchdown in 4.2 seconds before striking the deer, the performance group at Learjet using the weather reported at Troy, Alabama (variable winds and temperature at 14 degrees Celsius) the airplane landed with a ground speed of 124 knots. At 124 knots and maximum braking applied, the airplane should have come to a complete stop in about 850 feet.

A sound spectrum study was conducted using the Cockpit Voice Recorder as the source of the sound. The study was conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board's Vehicle Recorders Division. The study revealed that the engines fan speed increased from 8727.5 (82.3 percent) rpm to 9590 (90.4 percent) rpm between 11 seconds after touchdown and 18.2 seconds after touchdown. This increase in fan speed does not achieve the calculated takeoff N1, however, this engine speed is higher than achievable on a reverse thrust schedule. According to Pratt and Whitney of Canada, N1 is governed during reverse operations. The governing limit varies, and is based on ambient conditions and the airspeed. At 100 knots or greater, the maximum governing limit for N1 should be about 85.2 percent (according to Bombardier Aerospace) instead of the 90 percent found on the engines 20.4 seconds after landing.

Normal operating procedures include deploying the thrust reversers within 4 to 6 seconds after landing. Pilots deploy thrust reversers (T/R) by raising piggyback levers located in the cockpit with the throttles. With the loss of the squat switch on the left main landing gear, the T/R relay box deenergized the deploy solenoid and the T/R's go to the stow position. The electronic engine control (EEC) commands the engine speed to go to idle. As the T/R's complete the stow cycle, the unlock switches open, signaling the T/R relay box to remove the discrete signals. The EEC's switch to the forward thrust schedule and within 2.6 seconds estimated, and if the piggybacks remain at the max reverse position the engines rpm begins to increase to near takeoff power.

The airplane was released to the owners representative USAIG 2635 Century Parkway Suite 120, Atlanta, Ga. 30345.