LearJet35 Crash KFLL

[CrossFlowOpen]

Looks like a Mexican LJ35 Medevac reposition flight. Reg XAUSD, was lost tonight, shortly after takeoff at FLL. Looks like they departed to the east over the Atlantic, turned left over the water, and continued left in a fairly tight turn, and crashed into the dark offshore waters, maybe a mile or less from the beach, likely near Ft. Lauderdale by the Sea. 2 bodies recovered so far. No sign of the pilots. Probably still strapped to their seats in the cockpit at the bottom of the ocean. LJ serial #255.

[flarepilot]

crossflow (metroliner?)


awhile ago a lear went down in mexico with some semi famous singer on board...sort of a pilot error issue.

night takeoff over water...better get on instruments right away regardless of wx.

[nitpicker330]

Any IFR pilot that isn't on instruments after liftoff is .......asking for trouble especially on a dark night.....

I can't see over the nose of my A330 with 15 nose up anyway.....day or night!!
Let alone a Lear with probably 20+ deg nose up.....

ADI failure and both Pilots missed it? Fatigue perhaps? It's happened many times before...

[CrossFlowOpen]

CrossFlow....LJ-35.
Back to the FLL crash, according to news reports, the crew declared Mayday and asked for an immediate return to departure airport due to.......engine failure. Want to bet, it was the left one?

[flarepilot]

yes, the left one.

if you have time to radio, you have time to FLY BEFORE you use the radio.

and if you have to turn or change altitude you could do that before you ASK FOR IT as atc will see you on radar...they may even call you .

trim up, level or climbing for hands off and then worry about the radio...even with a two pilot plane

[surplus1]

If there was an engine failure prior to the accident, why do you assume it was the "left one"?

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Looks like they departed to the east over the Atlantic, turned left over the water, and continued left in a fairly tight turn

Never turn into the dead (left) engine

[flarepilot]

surplus

if you have a two engine plane (not centerline thrust) and one engine quits, the plane will turn towards the dead engine if you do nothing else.

the good engine will push you towards the bad engine if that makes sense.

and if you allow airspeed to decay (reduce) the turn towards the dead engine can become uncontrollable.

so, if the left (port) engine quit, the plane would turn left unless the pilot was on top of things and pressed the "right/starboard" rudder pedal.

[surplus1]

Never turn into the dead (left) engine

That sir is absolute mythology!

[surplus1]

so, if the left (port) engine quit, the plane would turn left unless the pilot was on top of things and pressed the "right/starboard" rudder pedal.

Pardon me if I'm a bit naive but this wasn't a Seminole and its pilot was not a student; it was a Lear35. Therefore, I assume that its PIC is a professional pilot and qualified to command a very high performance aircraft.

If that was in fact the case, when an engine quits, whether its the left or the right, the pilot WILL be "on top of things" and the plane wont turn more than a few degrees if at all .... unless the pilot intentionally wants it to turn and makes it do so.

The fact that this airplane turned left (if it did) has nothing at all to do with which of its engines may have failed. If it turned left it did so because its pilot wanted to turn in that direction, for whatever reason.

[pigboat]

Does the Lear 35 have rudder bias?

[marck_c]

If they had an engine failure at a high power (fuel flow) setting and delayed opening the fuel cross feed, there could have been a rapid fuel imbalance. This is particularly lethal on the Lear 35 with the tip mounted tanks. As the aircraft was enroute to Costa Rica, they were likely full. Excessive fuel imbalance (I believe on the L35 the takeoff tolerance is 200lbs) and relatively low airspeed (Flightaware has them as low as 149kts) could lead to a loss of aileron and rudder effectiveness, and therefore loss of control. Turning left back to the airport certainly didn't help.

All conjecture of course.

[flarepilot]

dear surplus

there have been and will continue to be plenty of pilots who are not on top of things.

and they fly all sorts of planes


I think you are naive to think that being PIC of a lear jet makes you superman.

It might be interesting to compare this with the crash that killed the singer ( can't think of her name) in mexico awhile back...they were claiming to be demonstrating the plane instead of what we might call an illegal charter.

Lear Jets have been crashing for years with professional pilots at the controls...and I am not just singling out lear jets.


in fact, if it were not so tragic, your views would be laughable.


many things can make a professional pilot screw up, including:

not being proficient at a certain maneuver

allowing the OTHER pilot (sic) to take a leg and have him screw up.

being tired.

having an underlying medical problem

or dozens of other things.


Oh, and by the way, a student in a seminole who has been practicing for weeks on just such a situation might be more proficient than someone who has not seen a simulator for a year or so and hasn't practiced an engine out, at night, over the ocean.

[Mach Tuck]

Surplus, it's not the failure that's the problem, it's what you do with the aircraft afterwards. A turn towards the dead engine with the simultaneous application of power can make life very interesting as was quite inadvertently demonstrated to me many years ago in a 35 by a highly qualified and able test pilot. It was very nearly catastrophic...

MT

[con-pilot]

Never turn into the dead (left) engine

Never seen Bob Hoover fly the Strike Commander then have you.

You certianly can turn into the dead engine. I've done it thousands of times in simulators and few time in real life.

Once in Twin Comache just after lift off from the runway, course I was killed instantly, even before the aircraft hit the ground.

But I got better.

[M-ONGO]

allowing the OTHER pilot (sic) to take a leg and have him screw up.

You sound like a gear up, flaps up and shut up type. A CRM nightmare. Allowing him/her to take a leg? How will they learn just by monitoring sky gods like you?

Of course, it could have been pilot incapacitation (PIC) and the F/O didn't have the recent skills to handle it due to not being allowed a sector because the sky god preferred to fly them all.

Maybe it was a superhero PIC (perhaps like you) who was handling pilot and the F/O didn't have the balls to stand up or announce the errors of the LHS, after all, he/she probably knew they were only there to do the radios...

In as far as never turn in to the dead engine (jet A/C) well, maybe we shouldn't bother with emergency turns/escape manoeuvres at certain airports then. We'll just accept the cumulo-granite.

[flarepilot]

mongo

maybe you should eat some beans


how wrong can you be? I've taught CRM.

allowing someone to take a leg (every other leg is standard at my airline) is fine. But allowing someone to screw up in an emergency and not step in WHEN NEEDED can lead to a crash.

IF one can hear someone yelling ''turn turn turn'' and the turn is becoming an out of control situation, someone better regain control.

I'm sorry you think I am a CRM nightmare. Perhaps the onus is on you to actually have a conversation.


In any situation, whether it is formal flying lessons or trading legs , crm is fine...but if control is being lost by one pilot, the other has to step in .


I remember briefing an approach to a new copilot on a 737. Wx was great and I encouraged him to handfly and be stable on the approach. He assured me he had previous jet time in a DC8.

He bounced the landing and FROZE , so there we were back up to 30 ' running out of airspeed and ideas.

I suppose I could have just sat there chanting: CRM CRM CRM.

I said: DO SOMETHING, add power.

he did nothing

I took the plane and landed it.

There is a difference between CRM and allowing a plane to crash.


You are quite wrong...if you admit it, it might show YOU have good CRM skills.

[surplus1]

Flarepilot; Mach Tuck ..........

I don't enjoy getting into arguments or p*ssing contests, especially over accidents that we really know nothing or very little about. However, your basic premise that an aircraft, after an engine failure, should only be turned towards the operating engine remains aerodynamic nonsense and is misleading at best.

I've never flown any model of the Learjet but that doesn't change the laws of physics/aerodynamics. Additionally, I have never been a "super pilot" nor will I ever be. I've retired so, there is no more opportunity to improve my techniques.

The Lear35 is a transport category aircraft certified under FAR Part 25 and therefore its controllability with one engine inoperative must meet the requirements of that regulation. If it cannot do so, it will not be certified at all.

There is no superman requirement, astronaut capability, or super level of pilot skill required to operate this aircraft, (or any other) with or without an engine failure occuring after V1. In the certification requirements, there is no limitation on the direction of turns that can or may be made following an engine failure. Whether you know this or not is irrelevant; it is nevertheless a fact, in all FAR 25 certified twin-engine aircraft.

So long as Vmca for the particular aircraft type is not violated, the aircraft is and must be controllable (without any exceptional skill level on the part of its pilot) with one of its engines inoperative and, provided the proper airspeed is maintained, the aircraft may be safely turned in either direction.

I do not even know if the accident aircraft actually experienced an engine failure and neither do you. At this point that is hearsay. If it did experience an engine failure, we do not know when it occured or which engine it was. That is also hearsay at this point.

I'll go one step further: IF there was an engine failure and it was the left engine, the fact that the aircraft turned left (if it did), as opposed to turning right, in an effort to return to the airport would not, in and of itself, become the probable cause of this accident. It would not even be a contributing factor.

I quite agree that there are any number of factors that could have caused or contributed to the cause of this accident. At this point none of us know what they might be and we may never know. What we can know, with only a modicum of knowledge, is that turning in the direction of an inoperative engine , in a transport category aircraft, does not, in and of itself, cause any loss of control or present any especially difficult scenario (so long as the proper airspeed is maintained - regardless of which way you turn). If that were the case the aircraft would be useless and, more importantly, it would never be certified in the first instance.

If you don't believe the physics or the aerodynamics, then apply some common sense. Here's a hypothetical example:

You are departing from a runway located in a valley in mountainous terrain. Shortly after takeoff there is an obstruction - to your right - which you must turn left significantly in order to avoid CFIT. You lose the left engine, but because of your theory that you should not turn in the direction of the dead engine, you don't and therefore you fly directly into the obstruction, or you turn right and hit the hill. Does that make any sense to you?

Did you know which engine was going to fail before the takeoff? Should you never go to that airport because the left engine might fail and that means you can't turn into it (left) and you have to crash or hit the hill?

If you lose the left engine you can only make right turns? If you lose the right engine you can only make left turns? I say again, that is utter nonsense and you should not be peddleing that kind of misinformation. We have plenty legitimate things to be concerned about without the addition of fictional theories.

It is indeed possible to lose control for any number of reasons but, assuming you can fly at all, turning in the direction of an inoperative engine in a transport category aircraft should never be one of them and isn't. That's elementary, Watson.

Your provided guiance is bogus, sirs.

[flarepilot]

SURPLUS

I've looked back and can't see anywhere I indicated turning into a dead engine was impossible.

AS a multi engine instructor I've taught turns in both directions and demonstrated them in both directions.


What I said was that a pilot who was not on top of things might make things worse.

And, as far as knowing an engine quit, published reports have indicated that a radio "MAYDAY" to the control tower indicated an engine failure.

It is possible someone made an engine failure worse by not responding correctly.

[M-ONGO]

how wrong can you be? I've taught CRM.

allowing someone to take a leg (every other leg is standard at my airline) is fine. But allowing someone to screw up in an emergency and not step in WHEN NEEDED can lead to a crash.

IF one can hear someone yelling ''turn turn turn'' and the turn is becoming an out of control situation, someone better regain control.

I'm sorry you think I am a CRM nightmare. Perhaps the onus is on you to actually have a conversation.

If someone needs to yell turn turn turn, maybe your crew selection is wrong?

I'm all ears!