2
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Plane crash in Palm Beach County today
Posted on 11/3/26 at 9:49 am to Stevo
Posted on 11/3/26 at 9:49 am to Stevo
It is already linked earlier in this thread.
The turbulence analysis is simple. On the radio, the co pilot told the Tower that the jet was experiencing "moderate turbulence" of plus-minus 700 to 800 feet.
We know from air safety info that 700 to 800 is Severe Turbulence and not "moderate" turbulence. The opinion of the commentator is that this Severe Turbulence put the pilot into a situation in which he could not recover control of the jet.
My understanding is that if you are piloting a Lear 60 and turbulence is causing your jet to be buffeted up or down within an envelope of 700 to 800 feet, then that means that your jet is out of control within that envelope, but that you are able to recover control once the jet descends or ascends a bit from the turbulence. My understanding from the commentator is that the turbulence and recovery sequence ended when the pilot was not able to recover and the jet quickly went into an overspeed condition. He was not able to recover from the overspeed condition, so the dive continued and quickly evolved into Mach Tuck condition.
It is very difficult to recover from an overspeed condition in the circumstances experienced by the jet pilot in this case, and it is quite easy for severe turbulence to put this kind of jet quickly into an overspeed condition.
The tail section may have broken off, but, this was not the main cause of the crash. It probably broke off after the jet was already in the end state non recoverable flight condition of Mach Tuck.
That's my summary of the commentator's explanation.
Pilot Steve's commentary was different - it focused on Ice buildup and was a bit more simplified.
The turbulence analysis is simple. On the radio, the co pilot told the Tower that the jet was experiencing "moderate turbulence" of plus-minus 700 to 800 feet.
We know from air safety info that 700 to 800 is Severe Turbulence and not "moderate" turbulence. The opinion of the commentator is that this Severe Turbulence put the pilot into a situation in which he could not recover control of the jet.
My understanding is that if you are piloting a Lear 60 and turbulence is causing your jet to be buffeted up or down within an envelope of 700 to 800 feet, then that means that your jet is out of control within that envelope, but that you are able to recover control once the jet descends or ascends a bit from the turbulence. My understanding from the commentator is that the turbulence and recovery sequence ended when the pilot was not able to recover and the jet quickly went into an overspeed condition. He was not able to recover from the overspeed condition, so the dive continued and quickly evolved into Mach Tuck condition.
It is very difficult to recover from an overspeed condition in the circumstances experienced by the jet pilot in this case, and it is quite easy for severe turbulence to put this kind of jet quickly into an overspeed condition.
The tail section may have broken off, but, this was not the main cause of the crash. It probably broke off after the jet was already in the end state non recoverable flight condition of Mach Tuck.
That's my summary of the commentator's explanation.
Pilot Steve's commentary was different - it focused on Ice buildup and was a bit more simplified.
This post was edited on 11/3/26 at 10:09 am
Posted on 11/3/26 at 9:49 am to redstick13
This is the most td thread ever
Posted on 11/3/26 at 10:01 am to Champagne
much appreciated.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 10:07 am to Stevo
quote:
Planes can handle a lot of turbulence, but the frame stress resulting from a stall and related overspeed seems more likely.
That’s my guess too.
Icing would significantly increase weight which would increase airframe stress. That would reduce the maneuvering speed (VA) considerably.
And it may be that they stalled in ice and tried to recover in turbulence, which would be a double whammy on the airframe.
I ain’t no engineer, but it seems like a sudden pull back on the yoke, lifting the elevator, would stress the empannage more than the wings. So that fits together with pieces on the ground three miles away.
Also, the elevator is in two parts, so one side would fail first, explaining the sharp bank.
This is all just wild arse speculation.
The right side of brain keeps going to this line from a James Taylor song:
Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground
This was truly Fire and Rain.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 10:16 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
Also, the elevator is in two parts, so one side would fail first, explaining the sharp bank.
For someone reason I thought the bank was controlled in an attempt to gain something back but in retrospect obviously not.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 10:18 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
Icing would significantly increase weight which would increase airframe stress. That would reduce the maneuvering speed (VA) considerably.
I think this is the likely outcome. I haven't seen the blancolirio post yet but I think someone on here said that he didn't believe it to be ice. If that storm developed right under/on them then that is just a terrible thing.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 10:23 am to dupergreenie
blancoirio's educated guess is that icing happened, but wasn't the root cause. His opinion is that the convective activity caused them to enter an over speed situation that they didn't or couldn't, maneuver out of, before it was too late. He is also of the opinion that the horizontal stabilizers likely broke off after the crash was immenent and unrecoverable.
This post was edited on 11/3/26 at 10:35 am
Posted on 11/3/26 at 10:31 am to KosmoCramer
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 10:58 am to KosmoCramer
Sorry for the long post...a longtime Learjet pilot and instructor's take on what happened
quote:
I have a close friend who flies private jets. He flew Lear 60 for over 15 years and now flies a Gulfstream. This is a copy and paste of his response to me asking him if I thought ice was the issue.
“We always fly in ridiculous cold temperatures.”
“Usually you get the bad ice when the temperatures are like 0 to negative 20. Believe it or not, there's a point where it gets too cold for ice. At negative 40, you pretty much can't get ice. Besides that, the airplane is equipped with hot wings and hot tail.”
“I flew the Lear 60 for like 15 years. It's a no joke airplane and probably the most dangerous airplane I've ever flown. It has a super critical wing. The airflow has to be perfect. When it gets into rough air and turbulence, it will easily stall. It has stalled on me at 41,000 feet just because we got into some turbulence. (On the way to Palm Beach as a matter of fact.) we recovered and got her flying again around 30,000 ft. Scary but here's the problem. This airplane has a terrible coffin corner. (At high altitudes) what that means is, you fly in a really narrow window where if you lose 20 knots, it stalls. And if you gain 20 knots, it goes into overspeed. The air goes supersonic over the wing and it goes into a high speed stall, or worse, a Mach tuck. So if you stall, the normal recovery is to push the yoke forward to lower the nose and gain air speed again. At low altitude, you can push really hard and recover quickly. But in the 60... if you push hard, it will gain air speed and go into a high speed stall, it doesn't take much. It's very sensitive. The 60 has super short wings that don't make much lift. So then you high speed stall, and the computer is yelling at you... OVERSPEED! So then you pull back and enter a low speed stall. And you go back and forth trying to keep it in the air speed window. This whole thing is pretty scary. And you should recover basically by using your finger tips using super small corrections. You can't over do it. If you try to muscle the recovery, she gets mad and will become unrecoverable. If she enters a mach tuck. You're done.”
“I taught the Lear 60 to other pilots and mentored them. I told them... this airplane has a soul and it's trying to kill you. Do not ever try to top the weather. Don't go over a thunderstorm. Go around it. If it means a half hour longer, then do it. Going over the thunderstorm will go into turbulence that you might not recover from.
These pilots went right over a thunderstorm. I think it stalled which caused them to drop down into the thunderstorm and ended up in mach tuck. They picked up so much speed that it ripped off the horizontal stabilizer. At that point...Chuck Yeager can't fix it. These same pilots did something similar a couple months ago. ATC got mad at them. They poked the bear one too many times. This is not a beginner airplane. The Gulfstream would never do this. It has HUGE margins of error and won't stall like that. But then again... it's got HUGE wings. It's a pussy cat. The Gulfstream is like driving a 4 wheeler. The Lear 60 is like riding a uni cycle.”
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 11/3/26 at 11:00 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
blancoirio's educated guess is that icing happened, but wasn't the root cause.
Blancoirio and Capt. Steve both pointed out how rare and dangerous precip is at 34K feet. As you posted earlier, a key focus is what lead them to fly right through such a dangerous storm when both Blancoirio and Steve stated that they're supposed to divert by at least 20nm. I bet most seasoned pilots have been in situations where the intentionally tried to avoid thunderstorms, but ended up in one anyway. I just don't see how both pilots won't ultimately be assigned blame for not navigating around the storm.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 11:07 am to The Pirate King
That's the second time I've seen someone make mention of a similar previous incident with this crew.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 11:24 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
That's the second time I've seen someone make mention of a similar previous incident with this crew.
Yup I listened to the audio from the first incident. They got chastised by ATC for incorrectly identifying turbulence and/or changing altitude without permission. Or something to that effect.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 11:29 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
Also, the elevator is in two parts, so one side would fail first, explaining the sharp bank.
best guess is the tail ripped off in the dive and attempted recovery through severe turbulence.
the bank is likely due to one wing stalling before the other due to the attempted climb plus being covered in ice, reducing the wing's stall margins significantly.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 11:30 am to jlovel7
does anyone follow or listen to Pilot Debrief on YT? former Strike Eagle guy who does pretty good analysis on mishaps and crashes. i like his videos bc he's pretty stoic and straightforward.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 11:32 am to Sam Quint
Did he discuss this one yet? If so, would appreciate a link.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 11:32 am to Stevo
quote:
Blancoirio and Capt. Steve both
the "flying for money" channel is far better than these two. can't stand steeeve
Posted on 11/3/26 at 11:35 am to Stevo
this is a day old so it wont have the very latest info
Posted on 11/3/26 at 11:36 am to jlovel7
quote:
Yup I listened to the audio from the first incident. They got chastised by ATC for incorrectly identifying turbulence and/or changing altitude without permission. Or something to that effect.
That audio almost sounded fake with how ridiculous it was. The cavalier and flippant attitude about changing altitudes with no warning to ATC and not knowing (or not caring) the severe turbulence threshold was pretty shocking.
If that was the same crew as this flight, seems like a fatal intersection of complacency, overconfidence, a finicky jet, and historically bad weather.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 11:36 am to jlovel7
quote:
Yup I listened to the audio from the first incident. They got chastised by ATC for incorrectly identifying turbulence and/or changing altitude without permission. Or something to that effect.
Based on the article I read, it was a very similar situation to this case it seems. Trying to fly over a cell, in turbulence they classified as moderate, but weren't able to hold altitude.
The article said it's not clear if this was the same crew, but it was the same airplane.
Posted on 11/3/26 at 11:44 am to KosmoCramer
I've seen some people asking why they didn't go south and avoid the storm, here are a few possible reasons why
quote:
Read about this from a Lear pilot. His assessment was a non stop flight with perfect conditions and the required reserves at or near Max capacity is pushing it. He also assessed that they almost certainly did not leave with Max fuel due to the number of passengers / baggage. So it could come down to a conversation about not having the fuel to go down and around the keys to avoid the weather which would have been The prudent choice. This flight probably would have benefited from a fuel stop as a part of the pre-flight planning or at a minimum the decision to do so if weather deteriorated beyond what was expected during PreFlight planning. Get-there-itis, the pressure to not disappoint the customer, or cause additional costs to the operator are very real pressures that professional pilots have to deal with on the daily.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Page 56 of 62
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News