The incident Learjet refers to is the CI747SP which rolled after one engine stalled and the pilot disengaged the auto-pilot to restart.
The engine wasn't stalled; the pilot just thought it was. IIRC the auto-pilot was actually disengaged because of a turbulence encounter, which is why the pilot thought the engine was stalled in the first place - in turbulence, the auto-pilot will make abrupt power changes to compensate for variations in speed and the pilot thought one of the engines was not responding properly. (Engines are known to respond slowly at extremely high altitudes, and apparently this pilot wasn't used to flying at the cruising altitude of I believe 41,000 feet that they'd been assigned.)
When he disengaged the auto-pilot, he lost situational awareness and then didn't believe what his instruments were telling him (which was that the airplane was in the process of inverting). It was completely a case of pilot error.
Anyway, the plane landed at SFO
, which was not that far off it's final destination, which again IIRC was LAX
I hope I've got my details right as it's been a while since I've read this accident report, but I've read it several times.
Are flights that fly over the north pole and/or the Behring Sea really considered "trans-Pacific"? Because you don't actually cross the Pacific if you fly from, say, New York to Tokyo. Just curious.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!