Todos
← Back to Squawk list
LearJet 35 flight goes down prior to landing at KSEE
I pulled this audio after getting multiple media reports of the event. Nothing apparent in the audio as to cause. Caution: strong language in the audio. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2021-12-27/aircraft-reportedly-crashes-near-el-cajon-east-of-gillespie-field (forums.liveatc.net) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
No reason not to stay with the straight in RW17 in an LJ35. Not sure what the thought was to prefer circling at night in poor weather with high terrain. There is a reason that there are no approaches to RW27. RIP
Runway 17 is too short. 27R was the way to go.
That is a real head scratcher, isn't it?
Went into an unrecoverable stall due to too low airspeed when turning for final approach.
Yes it is. It’s known what happened, but not why. NTSB will investigate and eventually produce a probable-cause report, but, since there likely weren’t any onboard data or voice recorders, and sadly everyone on board died, determining why the pilots made the decisions they did borders on the impossible.
[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]
@ bent - So unfortunate that otherwise credible people have to needlessly insert inane political opinions in their comments and ding their credibility.
Just couldn't resist inserting your political views into something that was as apolitical as a private jet crash, could you?
I've got more than a "couple of hours" in Learjets myself, and have also operated Learjets out of that airport.
I'm agreeing with bbabis. I can't understand why the guy did what he did. PARTICULARLY if he's familiar with the airport and it's surroundings.
Runway 17 would normally be adequate for a 35, but with a wet runway and if he needed the 135 factor it wouldn't have been "legal". The PIC should have known that prior to takeoff from SNA.
Tower was calling the wind 190 at 6 so approach and the tower are going to default to runway 17 as it's not their job to figure out required runway length.
Personally, I'd have asked for the RNAV 9L approach. Unlike 27R it does not have a displaced threshold.
Perhaps the story can be inferred by comparing the RNAV 17 circling minimums to the last ADS-B hits and his request to turn up the airport lights?
For now, we'll just have to wait for the NTSB before we'll know for sure.
I'm agreeing with bbabis. I can't understand why the guy did what he did. PARTICULARLY if he's familiar with the airport and it's surroundings.
Runway 17 would normally be adequate for a 35, but with a wet runway and if he needed the 135 factor it wouldn't have been "legal". The PIC should have known that prior to takeoff from SNA.
Tower was calling the wind 190 at 6 so approach and the tower are going to default to runway 17 as it's not their job to figure out required runway length.
Personally, I'd have asked for the RNAV 9L approach. Unlike 27R it does not have a displaced threshold.
Perhaps the story can be inferred by comparing the RNAV 17 circling minimums to the last ADS-B hits and his request to turn up the airport lights?
For now, we'll just have to wait for the NTSB before we'll know for sure.