Back to Squawk list
  • 4

Multiple Failures Put Learjet 35A into the Atlantic

送信時刻:
 
Poor training, actions, coordination and oversight put Learjet 35 into the Atlantic... (aviationweek.com) さらに...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Highflyer1950
Only failure I see here is an incompetent crew, which is substantiated by the accident.
yr2012
Not the crew - the tower. I dnk how it is in yankee land, but up here in da Great White Nord, when you declare a mayday, it's the towers responsibility to clear the airspace, which in this case they did not do. NTSB just picked on the obvious - Mexican pilots.
TorstenHoff
Clearing the airspace for 100 miles in all directions wouldn't have changed the outcome.
Highflyer1950
Well, I am from the great white north and ATC had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. Poorly trained crew on an aircraft that can outperform most on one engine, you just have to know your a/c. Now think, what if it was a departure from an uncontrolled airport.....who do you blame it on now? I mean come on, msl airport, lightly loaded and straight out over the F,.kg ocean, it don't get much easier than that!
bentwing60
I'd be willin to bet the T/R deploy light was illuminated all the way to the water. Shades of Payne Stewart event, as in, all on the crew and training, or none! The Aeronca TR's were the worst on the 35 series and flew a couple with them pinned.
yr2012
Payne Stewart - the golfer whose plane pancacked into SD? That was cabin pressure not a thrust reverser. All the training in the world would not have saved them. Even the USAF jets that flew alongside noted the windows completed frosted over.
bentwing60
I didn't say the crashes occurred for the same mechanical reason, the implication was all about an inexperienced, improperly trained crew, as in what Highflyer said. When all of their responses were inappropriate, and totally in disagreement with the checklist, it ain't the airplane or the controller.
yr2012
ATC has everything to do with it. It's their obligation to direct them back to the field, instead of making them go up to 4000msl. It wasn't from an uncontrolled field. It was from FLL! And they had just flown three hours from SJO - FLL. You don't hear anything from the left seat only the right.
TorstenHoff
They were given numerous vectors back to the field (which would still have been in visible range) and didn't -- or couldn't -- follow them. I haven't looked for the transcripts, but I assume the climb instructions ended with a "if able" qualifier.
yr2012
Direct quote: "When it reached an altitude of about 2,200 ft. and a groundspeed of 200 kt., the copilot requested radar vectors to return to the runway due to an “engine failure.” The controller directed the flight to maintain 4,000 ft. and turn to a heading of 340 deg. The copilot replied, “Not possible” and requested a 180-deg. turn back to the airport. Two minutes later, the copilot declared a “Mayday!” and again requested vectors back to FLL. During the next 3 min., the copilot requested vectors to the airport multiple times."

Now it doesn't appear that atc was obliging him. Because that reverser was still in play - that's what caused the crash. The NTSB is quick to point out, the Mexican standards for licensing are not up the USofA. So be it, but I wouldn't have maligned the pilots who were desperatly trying to save the aircraft and themselves - by not running a checklist.

And, that's all I have to write for now. Flame away!
30west
30west 1
Matt, at the time the f/o reported an engine failure (erroneously), he did not declare an emergency. Controller's aren't mind readers, he didn't know what the pilot wanted to do. Did the pilot want an immediate return, go dump fuel, etc., what? He set the crew up for actions of their choice, once they determined what they needed to do. Two minutes later the f/o declared an emergency, a life-time in that situation. The crew, both the captain and f/o, were in over their heads and were not qualified or able to handle the inflight t/r deployment. People died unnecessarily that day due to crew's total inability to deal with the mechanical failure that if handled properly would have resulted in a safe landing.

My airline's procedure for an engine failure after T/O is to declare an emergency, request runway heading to 2,000' (terrain/obstacle clearance permitting), complete memory items on checklist, clean up, then complete emergency & abnormal checklists in a controlled, thoughtful manner and advise ATC of intentions.
onceastudentpilot
Question.....Why were both engines at max whenever one had deployed reversers? It's easy to be an arm chair qb but shouldn't they have throttled that engine back?... they couldn't over come the added drag and stalled it for no reason.
TorstenHoff
It comes down to pilot error and insufficient training -- they didn't follow established procedures and checklists. They should have shut down the engine, but they apparently tried to get the maximum thrust from it in an effort to maintain speed and altitude. Instead they increased drag and lost the airplane.
bentwing60
The crew responses point to a total lack of recognition of an inadvertent T/R deploy. The inappropriate response to the degraded AC performance was to "add more power". Seasoned 35A operators with Aeronca T/R's carried a set of mechanical stow pins for the reversers so they could pin them and complete the trip, or fly home or to maintenance. In an old duffers term, "It ain't the clubs".

ログイン

アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!
当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。
閉じる
FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか?
広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.
閉じる