Rugged terrain, but with only sporadic peaks reaching 10,000 ft/3300 m. That seems pretty low for a Lear after 10 minutes of climb, unless there was some other factor that kept them unusually low (pressurization failure, ATC restriction).
But this report does mention they had only "reached 11,000 feet..."
The crash site is near Guadalajara about 30 minutes from Toluca, their destination.
The terrain around Monterrey however can be challenging, I've lived there for a few years - high mountains and snakey valleys. They were, however, not in this area when things went wrong.
Edit: Wonder why they flew towards Guadalajara, however, as this is not on the path from MTY to Toluca either. The investigation will show...
Quote:
The crash site is about 60 miles SSW of MMMY.
Quote:
FAA registry search shows it is owned by a Fractional corporation in Las Vegas probably leased to fly charter flights. Having done much of the same type of Lear Jet flying with departures after their concert in the wee hours I understand if they find out fatigue had something to do with the crash.
An LA Times article (dated tomorrow ) seems to indicate that the wreckage is near the town of Iturbide which is SSE of MTY and the plane is registered to a 'Las Vegas talent management firm' which may indeed be a fractional ownership for FAR purposes:
Quote:
The plane, built in 1969 and registered to a Las Vegas talent management firm, reached 11,000 feet. But 10 minutes and 62 miles into the flight, air traffic controllers lost contact with its pilots, according to Mexican authorities. The jet crashed outside Iturbide, a remote city that straddles one of the few roads bisecting Mexico's Sierra de Arteaga national park.
Wreckage was scattered across several football fields' worth of terrain. An investigation into the cause of the crash was underway, and attempts to identify the remains of the victims had begun.
I'm guessing a likely initial departure route out of MTY VOR would be out UJ81/V19 perhaps transitioning to UQ101 at URSUR/30 DME. The MEA for V19 in that direction is 13000 ft. Apologies in advance for all this pilot talk.
Quote:
but my guess is that the instruments and electrical system may play a role here.
or, if it did get to 20,000 feet, forgeting or having pressurization problems and pilots pass out.
It's been decades for me but it seems like this vintage of Lear did not have ground air sensing for the pressurization and the FO had to turn it on with a toggle switch on the bottom of the front panel. If you forgot, an emergency mode would kick in by maybe 12000 feet with noisy hot air. Or, so they tell me...
The crash that killed Walter Reuther and party was in Pellston Mi., about 100 west of Alpena. It crashed just north of East Robinson Road and East of Ely Bridge Road if I remember correctly. I do remember it was a Saturday evening around 9 pm. It was the first airplane crash site I ever saw. Seeing I was 11 years old they did not let me get too close to the site, but it was close enough to figure out it was not a good ending......But like a lot of these crashes they never really figured out why it really happened.....
As far as the captains age look at the 3 in 1934. Now look at the 8 in his height and weight printed from the same printer. He should have been sound asleep by 11:00 PM, not flying at 3::30 AM. Does anybody know what his FO experience and age were? Hate to prejudge a crash investigation but I couldn't have done that flight safely.
Quote: reached 11,000 feet. But 10 minutes and 62 miles into the flight
I used to fly Lears, 23/24/25 models. Normal flight path would be to be at FL 41.0 20 minutes after take and 100 mile down range.
One possibility already mentioned is a pressurization problem right after takeoff. I flew Lear 35A's and as I said above, if you forgot to turn on the pressurization, a loud hot emergency stream of bleed air would automatically come on at 9500 feet (from what I now see online).
From an old discussion of the 1999 Payne Stewart Lear crash in another forum:
Quote:
The Lear in question was an early series LR35, using the 20 series of alternate pressurization. Both crewmembers were inexperienced in type. Whereas in later airplanes, in fact most LR35's, the emergency pressurization is automatic, in the early LR35's and in 20 series Lears, the emergency pressurization required a manual action through the pilot foot warmers...otherwise any air would be diverted externally through the defroster ducts outside the airplane.
Almost certainly the crew failed to perform this action.
Did the crew level at 11000 feet with a pressurization problem perhaps, get bogged down looking for the checklist and the foot warmer knob and forget about the rising terrain? At 0300 local you wouldn't expect to be held down by ATC (below the MEA) for traffic in that area.
If the names of the pilots are correct in the news article linked to earlier the first data from the FAA airman certificate search is for one of the pilots. The second set of data is the only non student pilot or flight attendant with the name in the article and a record with the FAA. If this is correct I hope someone goes to jail for a very long time for what has happened. The 1st guy, vfr only, not for compensation, must have been PIC.
1st pilot named with no FAA medical
Date of Issue: 10/27/2010 Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT (FOREIGN BASED) Print Ratings: COMMERCIAL PILOT (Foreign Based)
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
Type Ratings: Z/LR-JET Y/HS-125
Limits: ENGLISH PROFICIENT. LR-JET, HS-125 (VFR ONLY). ISSUED ON BASIS OF AND VALID ONLY WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY MEXICO PILOT LICENSE NUMBER(S) 200112880. ALL LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE MEXICO PILOT LICENSE APPLY. NOT VALID FOR THE CARRIAGE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE OR FOR AGRICULTURAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS.
2nd pilot named
Date of Issue: 4/27/2010 Certificate: AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT Print Ratings: AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND COMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE SEA
ROTORCRAFT HELICOPTER AND GYROPLANE
INSTRUMENT HELICOPTER
GLIDER
If they were flying in Mexico with a valid Mexican license, what difference does it make what his USA privileges on a Temporary Airman Certificate are ?
anything that early in the morning...pilot fatigue/error?
anything that old...mx problems?
but my guess is that the instruments and electrical system may play a role here.
or, if it did get to 20,000 feet, forgeting or having pressurization problems and pilots pass out.
and yes, these are all gueses
I hate to sound like mean spirited person, but I have met quite a few experienced *corporate* pilots from Mexico that lacked basic instrument flying skills. Some of my flight school students that got corporate gigs later in Mex told me unbelievable stories of incompetence. That's when I recommended applying for their airlines from then on.
I wonder if this was a 135 charter (or equivalent). Could get interesting in court, now that we know that the carriage of persons was prohibited. Would be interesting to find out why this restriction/limitation was added.
Not saying that the crew was incompetent, but unfortunately there's that uncertainty.
What a waste of life.
PS Looking at the name of the Fed who signed this license I am pretty sure that he got this through the SAT FSDO.
Last edited by Squawk7777; 10th Dec 2012 at 20:28.
Mexico License If they were flying in Mexico with a valid Mexican license, what difference does it make what his USA privileges on a Temporary Airman Certificate are ?
"N" registered airplane operated by a company in Las Vegas owned by a company in Houston.
Could get interesting in court, now that we know that the carriage of persons was prohibited. Would be interesting to find out why this restriction/limitation was added.
The carriage of person for compensation or hire is not allowed.
This is because it is a commercial certificate based on a foreign licence(validation) in this case a Mexican license. It is a standard phraseology on validations
I saw on another forum that someone looked up the faa database and it showed a permanent certificate with no restrictions on the Lear jet rating but I believe the other rating had a VFR only. I would guess this was a FAA 135 flight which would have certain check rides required to operate on the certificate. Im sure it will all come out soon enough.
Report Status : Probable Cause Injury Severity : Non-Fatal Event Date : 07/01/2005 Location : Amarillo, TX Make : Learjet Model : 25 Registration Number : N345MC Accident Number : DFW05CA174
On July 1, 2005, at 1130 central daylight time (CDT), a twin-turbojet Learjet 25 airplane, N345MC, was substantially damaged when it struck a runway distance marker following a loss of directional control while landing at the Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport (AMA), near Amarillo, Texas. The airline transport rated captain, commercial pilot first officer, and 2 passengers were not injured. The airplane was registered to MCOCO Inc., of Houston, Texas, and operated by Air America Jet Charter, of Houston, Texas. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The 466-nautical mile cross country flight originated from the William P. Hobby Airport (HOU) near Houston, Texas, at 1010 CDT.
The 7,300-hour captain reported in the Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident Report (NTSB Form 6120.1/2) that approximately 30 miles from the airport he noticed the left wingtip fuel tank was "heavy." He started to transfer fuel, and then stopped the transfer due to being on approach and preparing to land. After being cleared for a visual approach to Runway 04 (13,502 feet long by 300 feet wide grooved concrete runway), the pilot stated that he was able to trim the airplane for "hands off." During the final approach, the pilot noted that the airplane "would not bank to the right without almost full right aileron." The airplane "started raising right wing as full aileron was applied, even with the first officer assisting." At this point, the pilot added that the right wing stopped coming up, but would not go level.
The captain further reported that he elected to land rather than add full power and go-around, instead of risking a potential roll situation. The captain added that "alignment to runway was off due to right wing." Subsequently, the airplane exited the left side of the runway striking a runway distance marker.
The first officer reported to an Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector that the landing fuel load was as follows:
Left Wingtip Tank: 600 pounds Left Wing Tank: 1,100 - 1,300 pounds Fuselage Tank: 400 - 500 pounds Right Wing Tank: 1,000 - 1,200 pounds Right Wing Tip Tank: 300 - 400 pounds
Maintenance personnel at a repair facility in San Antonio, Texas, where the airplane was ferried for maintenance, stated that they were not able to find any discrepancies in the fuel transfer system.
At 1141, the automated surface observation system at AMA reported wind from 130 degrees at 17 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, few clouds at 7,000 feet, scattered clouds at 12,000 feet, temperature 28 degrees Celsius, dew point 13 degrees Celsius, and an altimeter setting of 30.09 inches of Mercury. The runway was reported as dry during the time of the mishap.
fuel imbalance...good idea...ooops, take off while crossfeeding...both engines from left tank...we all know highest fuel consumption is during takeoff and climb...then the thing feels out of trim (roll) and you don't pay attention and bam
I haven't flown the lear...but one plane I flew didn't have crossfeed, it had crossflow instead...what is the situation on the lear?
) seems to indicate that the wreckage is near the town of Iturbide which is SSE of MTY and the plane is registered to a 'Las Vegas talent management firm' which may indeed be a fractional ownership for FAR purposes:
) for traffic in that area.
