FlyingElvii wrote:

Happened about 715 PST, 1015EST...
N880Z, owned by MedJet, LLC. Appears to be a subscription-based air Medical Transport company.

This one is a tough one to hear, so advanced warning is given.

Appears to be classic base-to-final turn stall and roll, the Lear is sleek, very fast, but unforgiving if you get too slow, while pulling the elevator into a tight turn. Same thing happened at Teterboro a few years ago, while circling to land. Pilot requested more lights, but was informed that they were already at max intensity.

Weather was 3,500 overcast, 2500 broken with rain at the time of the incident.

Audio:
Warning, this one could shake you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=LL9nO035iRk

Video of the crash:
https://rumble.com/vrikzb-plane-crashes ... diego.html

Aftermath:
https://twitter.com/Kaala_Nag/status/14 ... 6991578118
https://www.kusi.com/plane-plunges-into ... ing-storm/

I think they hit something, possibly the 1273 FT Tower on the ridge as they were circling to RWY 27R.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The 17 runway is too short for a Lear 35 to land when wet, that’s the reason for the visual pattern to the landing runway.

If I am right in thinking, he was on IFR until he was around a kilometer and a half (completely unsure on exactly when he switched, though the accident was around a kilometer) from the runway, where he switched to VFR quite late (he was already at a unusually low height by this point).

Reading some comments, there are mountains around the airport which means circles have to be tight. The learjet has a 20 degrees of bank limitation when landing meaning that the maneuverer can easily go over. Though on top of all of this, this was the aircraft's home airport and they should have done this before.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The 17 runway is too short for a Lear 35 to land when wet, that’s the reason for the visual pattern to the landing runway.

If you look back at the previous flights of this aircraft, that's the runway they typically used, as well. When I have time, I will have a look and see whether this switching-to-VFR-but-not-climbing-to-pattern-altitude when flying around VFR to land on the other runway was their usual MO.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

...KSEE where the more logical approach (LOC-D) is perfectly aligned with the longest runway but Cat A&B only due to terrain and rarely used due to conflicting with MCAS Miramar.

First, thanks for the very-smart and thoughtful post.

Second, am I correct that the Lear 35A is a Cat B aircraft? I know that in some circumstances the Vref may be high enough to require Cat C minima, but lightly-loaded on a 20-minute flight home from SNA in crappy weather, the LOC-D approach it could be used, no? Or was that simply never an option? It looks like fun ride given the 6.8-degree glide slope. In looking at their flight profile, they climbed quickly to 10,000 feet, so not a big deal, I now realize, for them to stay at the higher altitude and choose to be vectored around to the LOC-D if it was available.

Pkoschy wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Happened about 715 PST, 1015EST...
N880Z, owned by MedJet, LLC. Appears to be a subscription-based air Medical Transport company.

This one is a tough one to hear, so advanced warning is given.

Appears to be classic base-to-final turn stall and roll, the Lear is sleek, very fast, but unforgiving if you get too slow, while pulling the elevator into a tight turn. Same thing happened at Teterboro a few years ago, while circling to land. Pilot requested more lights, but was informed that they were already at max intensity.

Weather was 3,500 overcast, 2500 broken with rain at the time of the incident.

Audio:
Warning, this one could shake you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=LL9nO035iRk

Video of the crash:
https://rumble.com/vrikzb-plane-crashes ... diego.html

Aftermath:
https://twitter.com/Kaala_Nag/status/14 ... 6991578118
https://www.kusi.com/plane-plunges-into ... ing-storm/

I think they hit something, possibly the 1273 FT Tower on the ridge as they were circling to RWY 27R.

They never made it to the ridge…
The ADSB track pretty clearly shows the track tightening, the increased bank angle probably put them into an accelerated stall.

Blancolirio has weighed in with his initial thoughts, and he seems to be going down the same path that I am.
https://youtu.be/lalLdpFAryI

wjcandee wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The 17 runway is too short for a Lear 35 to land when wet, that’s the reason for the visual pattern to the landing runway.

If you look back at the previous flights of this aircraft, that's the runway they typically used, as well. When I have time, I will have a look and see whether this switching-to-VFR-but-not-climbing-to-pattern-altitude when flying around VFR to land on the other runway was their usual MO.

Seems to be kind of a “standard” approach for some pilots in high performance aircraft, Lancairs, Swearingens, and even Lear’s. Come in lower and use that to bleed off the speed before touching down. Not really “kosher”, but that doesn’t stop them.

Quite a few high performance accidents over the years that all fit the same profile. Might work well when trying to slow down a high-speed approach in good weather, but in bad weather, that seems like it is just begging for trouble.

This event seems like he was trying to stay out of the cloud, but it caused him to lose situational awareness. If Bitching Betty was hollering about the oncoming granite hillside, it just adds one more distraction to the accident chain.

wjcandee wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

...KSEE where the more logical approach (LOC-D) is perfectly aligned with the longest runway but Cat A&B only due to terrain and rarely used due to conflicting with MCAS Miramar.

First, thanks for the very-smart and thoughtful post.

Second, am I correct that the Lear 35A is a Cat B aircraft? I know that in some circumstances the Vref may be high enough to require Cat C minima, but lightly-loaded on a 20-minute flight home from SNA in crappy weather, the LOC-D approach it could be used, no? Or was that simply never an option? It looks like fun ride given the 6.8-degree glide slope. But I understand that it would be kind of a PITA to climb as high as they would have had to in order to be vectored onto that approach.

The AFM and FAA answer, I believe is Cat C, but various wing mods over the years may have changed that. The link shows C. I didn’t see it in the TCDS or the OSB report. Elsewhere, I’m reading the operator is a retired CO/UA pilot who started the business. It’s unfortunate, but I’ve heard many airline and former airline/military pilots think because it’s 91, anything goes. My answer has always been, you have to provide the discipline and standards that are imposed by OpsSpecs, etc.

https://skybrary.aero/aircraft/lj35

Pkoschy wrote:

pugman211 wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

Very sad. Sounds like a young-ish guy, too.

Also, I don't know what that metallic noise is in the background while the pilot is crying out. There may be more involved (as there often is) than what it appears at first blush. I also don't have a clear first impression from the Nest camera that documents the crash. Just horrible all around.

Is that metallic noise possibly a vibration? Like stall buffet (if that's the correct terminology)

I think that sound is that the Learjet hit something and cart wheeled to the ground.

Probably power lines?

FlyingElvii wrote:

Pkoschy wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Happened about 715 PST, 1015EST...
N880Z, owned by MedJet, LLC. Appears to be a subscription-based air Medical Transport company.

This one is a tough one to hear, so advanced warning is given.

Appears to be classic base-to-final turn stall and roll, the Lear is sleek, very fast, but unforgiving if you get too slow, while pulling the elevator into a tight turn. Same thing happened at Teterboro a few years ago, while circling to land. Pilot requested more lights, but was informed that they were already at max intensity.

Weather was 3,500 overcast, 2500 broken with rain at the time of the incident.

Audio:
Warning, this one could shake you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=LL9nO035iRk

Video of the crash:
https://rumble.com/vrikzb-plane-crashes ... diego.html

Aftermath:
https://twitter.com/Kaala_Nag/status/14 ... 6991578118
https://www.kusi.com/plane-plunges-into ... ing-storm/

I think they hit something, possibly the 1273 FT Tower on the ridge as they were circling to RWY 27R.

They never made it to the ridge…
The ADSB track pretty clearly shows the track tightening, the increased bank angle probably put them into an accelerated stall.

Blancolirio has weighed in with his initial thoughts, and he seems to be going down the same path that I am.
https://youtu.be/lalLdpFAryI

Mostly because Learjets have a long history of coming to bad ends this way, as have some Cirrus pilots.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Pkoschy wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Happened about 715 PST, 1015EST...
N880Z, owned by MedJet, LLC. Appears to be a subscription-based air Medical Transport company.

This one is a tough one to hear, so advanced warning is given.

Appears to be classic base-to-final turn stall and roll, the Lear is sleek, very fast, but unforgiving if you get too slow, while pulling the elevator into a tight turn. Same thing happened at Teterboro a few years ago, while circling to land. Pilot requested more lights, but was informed that they were already at max intensity.

Weather was 3,500 overcast, 2500 broken with rain at the time of the incident.

Audio:
Warning, this one could shake you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=LL9nO035iRk

Video of the crash:
https://rumble.com/vrikzb-plane-crashes ... diego.html

Aftermath:
https://twitter.com/Kaala_Nag/status/14 ... 6991578118
https://www.kusi.com/plane-plunges-into ... ing-storm/

I think they hit something, possibly the 1273 FT Tower on the ridge as they were circling to RWY 27R.

They never made it to the ridge…
The ADSB track pretty clearly shows the track tightening, the increased bank angle probably put them into an accelerated stall.

Blancolirio has weighed in with his initial thoughts, and he seems to be going down the same path that I am.
https://youtu.be/lalLdpFAryI

That cleared up some of the stuff about when he chose VFR. I had presumed that they went IFR until he decided he was too low and switched to VFR.

Some Learjet generally are not able to take such tight turns and I do think that the pilot stalled the plane as well considering he started climbing just before the crash. He was going so low that several comments online from residents state that they were "shocked" by the low passing plane to the point they got out of their houses, so why was the plane so low? He asked the airport tower to make the runway lights brighter - does that mean that he did not have the runway in sight and hence he was lower than he thought he was?

wjcandee wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

...KSEE where the more logical approach (LOC-D) is perfectly aligned with the longest runway but Cat A&B only due to terrain and rarely used due to conflicting with MCAS Miramar.

First, thanks for the very-smart and thoughtful post.

Second, am I correct that the Lear 35A is a Cat B aircraft? I know that in some circumstances the Vref may be high enough to require Cat C minima, but lightly-loaded on a 20-minute flight home from SNA in crappy weather, the LOC-D approach it could be used, no? Or was that simply never an option? It looks like fun ride given the 6.8-degree glide slope. In looking at their flight profile, they climbed quickly to 10,000 feet, so not a big deal, I now realize, for them to stay at the higher altitude and choose to be vectored around to the LOC-D if it was available.

IIRC, the Localizer approach is not available at night, since it isn’t a straight in?

FlyingElvii wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

...KSEE where the more logical approach (LOC-D) is perfectly aligned with the longest runway but Cat A&B only due to terrain and rarely used due to conflicting with MCAS Miramar.

First, thanks for the very-smart and thoughtful post.

Second, am I correct that the Lear 35A is a Cat B aircraft? I know that in some circumstances the Vref may be high enough to require Cat C minima, but lightly-loaded on a 20-minute flight home from SNA in crappy weather, the LOC-D approach it could be used, no? Or was that simply never an option? It looks like fun ride given the 6.8-degree glide slope. In looking at their flight profile, they climbed quickly to 10,000 feet, so not a big deal, I now realize, for them to stay at the higher altitude and choose to be vectored around to the LOC-D if it was available.

IIRC, the Localizer approach is not available at night, since it isn’t a straight in?

The LOC-D approach is authorized at night, just circling to 27R and 35 is not authorized. That’s from Jepp 21-1 dated 14 Jun 2019. This crew wasn’t circling, they had cancelled IFR, were off the Part 97 approach and flying a night visual pattern in barely legal VFR weather with terrain. Lots of risks there.

NIKV69 wrote:

Pkoschy wrote:

pugman211 wrote:

Is that metallic noise possibly a vibration? Like stall buffet (if that's the correct terminology)

I think that sound is that the Learjet hit something and cart wheeled to the ground.

Probably power lines?

Wouldn't that be further to the end of the tape?

On the video, the time between the plane starting to free-fall and getting to power line height, is markedly longer than the time between him starting to shout expletives and screaming till the tape finishes. If it was the power lines on the tape, then he must have only been aware that he was in a dive well after any stall and deep in free-fall.

The LR 35 is a truly unforgiving aircraft - especially with the already-known factors at play. Of the many considerations that likely played a contributory role in this tragic accident, all would have happened in a profoundly accelerated fashion given the flight characteristics of this specific aircraft. Heartfelt condolences to Mr. Carlson's family. https://www.linkedin.com/in/garrett-carlson-82ab2b168

TokyoImperialPa wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Pkoschy wrote:

I think that sound is that the Learjet hit something and cart wheeled to the ground.

Probably power lines?

Wouldn't that be further to the end of the tape?

On the video, the time between the plane starting to free-fall and getting to power line height, is markedly longer than the time between him starting to shout expletives and screaming till the tape finishes. If it was the power lines on the tape, then he must have only been aware that he was in a dive well after any stall and deep in free-fall.

The FSX video is *not* an accurate depiction of the event! It is a video quickly thrown together by some guy and is a rough approximation of what may have happened last night.

I was referring to the videos from doorbells. The time between the pilot asking for the runway lights and the start of expletives until the end of the screaming, does not match the time from when the plane enters the video (already well into a dive) and crashes; the latter is a bit longer.

TokyoImperialPa wrote:

I was referring to the videos from doorbells. The time between the pilot asking for the runway lights and the start of expletives until the end of the screaming, does not match the time from when the plane enters the video (already well into a dive) and crashes; the latter is a bit longer.

Yes, I think it is difficult to correlate the audio to the various surveillance videos. I think we will have to wait for the NTSB to do their investigation before we know what happened.

TokyoImperialPa wrote:

I was referring to the videos from doorbells. The time between the pilot asking for the runway lights and the start of expletives until the end of the screaming, does not match the time from when the plane enters the video (already well into a dive) and crashes; the latter is a bit longer.

I think the aircraft enters the video in controlled flight at the about 450-feet AGL that they were circling at, and loses control as it tightens the turn just after it passes behind where the view is partially-blocked by the tree line.

Also, it's pretty clear that that ATC tape is compressed; i.e. the gaps between transmissions are, I believe, removed.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

...KSEE where the more logical approach (LOC-D) is perfectly aligned with the longest runway but Cat A&B only due to terrain and rarely used due to conflicting with MCAS Miramar.

Second, am I correct that the Lear 35A is a Cat B aircraft? I know that in some circumstances the Vref may be high enough to require Cat C minima, but lightly-loaded on a 20-minute flight home from SNA in crappy weather, the LOC-D approach it could be used, no?

The AFM and FAA answer, I believe is Cat C, but various wing mods over the years may have changed that. The link shows C.

Thanks. Flightaware seems to have the current KSEE approach plates. That's where I first found it last night, so what was I was looking at: https://flightaware.com/resources/airpo ... AP/all/pdf It seems to show that the LOC-D approach is available these days to Category C and D aircraft. Maybe there should be some thought given in the Medevac community to committing to a higher-degree-of-safety when the mission (here, flying home) isn't urgent.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

IIRC, the Localizer approach is not available at night, since it isn’t a straight in?

The LOC-D approach is authorized at night, just circling to 27R and 35 is not authorized. That’s from Jepp 21-1 dated 14 Jun 2019. This crew wasn’t circling, they had cancelled IFR, were off the Part 97 approach and flying a night visual pattern in barely legal VFR weather with terrain. Lots of risks there.

I don't know. I would tend to agree with FlyingElvii on this one.

The LOC-D is a circling procedure. How can you be authorized to fly it at night when it clearly says you are not allowed to for runway 27R.

A straight in landing on 27R via the LOC-D (by no means a sure bet, especially with the weather minimums at the time of the crash) would be a risky maneuver as well, considering you would have to nose dive inside 3 nm final for the runway, at night, with high terrain just below you.

I think this guy knew that the only way to get in on 27R at night was to cancel IFR over the field and request a VFR circuit for that runway.

The strategy was sound. The execution, well.....

FlyingElvii wrote:

Blancolirio has weighed in with his initial thoughts, and he seems to be going down the same path that I am.
https://youtu.be/lalLdpFAryI

Again, he's suggesting a LOC-D approach would have been better, and yet, it's not available at night for 27R.

The straight in RNAV GPS on 17 would have been the best bet. And if you can't land on it because the runway is too short, then the pilot should have made sure he arrived during daylight hours, so as to be able to land on 27R via a circling.

Interesting discussion of the "KSEE Conundrum" from about 18 months ago...https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... -conundrum

I went back and looked at every approach made by this aircraft to KSEE in the last two months. It was away from the West for about a month, operating all over the country. But 12 approaches were made, including a few coming in from points far East, but many from Northern California, coming down the Coast from origins similar to the accident flight origin. Importantly, several were plainly after dark (including one at 10pm). Every single one of them, except for the accident flight and one that landed on 9L (e.g. same runway, other direction), used a straight-in approach to 27R over the hills, a few apparently right down the LOC-D arrival.

I don't know if, as mentioned in the link I posted above, the crew cancelled IFR at DEBEY and landed VFR to keep it legal, but every approach I looked at was straight in, including one that plainly was in weather.

The accident flight was the only one that flew the RNAV (GPS) Rwy 17 approach and then tried to circle to 27R. So this apparently wasn't a common practice. I suppose I could go back on ADSBExchange and look at flights even earlier than the last two months, but this is probably a big enough sample to see what the common practice was, and the accident flight wasn't it. If they actually briefed before departure that the LOC-D approach wasn't available and they were instead going to do what they did, knowing the weather was that marginal...that should be a cautionary tale.

Layman's opinion: Came across the airport after changing to 27R, was too low as turned to the left. Was looking for runway when saw the big hill at Mazzola Street straight ahead. Banked hard left and pulled up, stalled, and crashed.

TravelbyAir wrote:

Layman's opinion: Came across the airport after changing to 27R, was too low as turned to the left. Was looking for runway when saw the big hill at Mazzola Street straight ahead. Banked hard left and pulled up, stalled, and crashed.

Possible. But this was these guys' home airport, so you'd think they would know what was involved.

TravelbyAir wrote:

Layman's opinion: Came across the airport after changing to 27R, was too low as turned to the left. Was looking for runway when saw the big hill at Mazzola Street straight ahead. Banked hard left and pulled up, stalled, and crashed.

Still happened so fast I think you are right that he was looking for runway rights to the left that he lost track of where he was when he noticed the ground it was too late. Do these bizzers usually have FDRs? I am thinking they don't.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

IIRC, the Localizer approach is not available at night, since it isn’t a straight in?

The LOC-D approach is authorized at night, just circling to 27R and 35 is not authorized. That’s from Jepp 21-1 dated 14 Jun 2019. This crew wasn’t circling, they had cancelled IFR, were off the Part 97 approach and flying a night visual pattern in barely legal VFR weather with terrain. Lots of risks there.

I don't know. I would tend to agree with FlyingElvii on this one.

The LOC-D is a circling procedure. How can you be authorized to fly it at night when it clearly says you are not allowed to for runway 27R.

A straight in landing on 27R via the LOC-D (by no means a sure bet, especially with the weather minimums at the time of the crash) would be a risky maneuver as well, considering you would have to nose dive inside 3 nm final for the runway, at night, with high terrain just below you.

I think this guy knew that the only way to get in on 27R at night was to cancel IFR over the field and request a VFR circuit for that runway.

The strategy was sound. The execution, well.....

FlyingElvii wrote:

Blancolirio has weighed in with his initial thoughts, and he seems to be going down the same path that I am.
https://youtu.be/lalLdpFAryI

Again, he's suggesting a LOC-D approach would have been better, and yet, it's not available at night for 27R.

The straight in RNAV GPS on 17 would have been the best bet. And if you can't land on it because the runway is too short, then the pilot should have made sure he arrived during daylight hours, so as to be able to land on 27R via a circling.

The LOC-D is a circling approach because of the descent gradient, not for alignment to a runway. There is no LOC-D to 27R, only a LOC-D to KSEE with circling restrictions. With light winds, the could have landed straight in on the LOC-D to 9L, planning for the increased gradient on final. That’s what Juan Brown is thinking. No problem with flying the LOC-D at night, just have to plan for the limited options which apply at night.

NIKV69 wrote:

TravelbyAir wrote:

Layman's opinion: Came across the airport after changing to 27R, was too low as turned to the left. Was looking for runway when saw the big hill at Mazzola Street straight ahead. Banked hard left and pulled up, stalled, and crashed.

Still happened so fast I think you are right that he was looking for runway rights to the left that he lost track of where he was when he noticed the ground it was too late. Do these bizzers usually have FDRs? I am thinking they don't.

They do by regulation.

NIKV69 wrote:

...he was looking for runway rights to the left that he lost track of where he was when he noticed the ground it was too late.

Apologies for sounding so macabre, but I don't think this aircraft was flown into the ground - it was stall-rolled based largely on the exclamations broadcast over the air; the first "Oh sh*t..." sounded pensive, a "normal" response to an uncommanded roll in the opposite direction of the turn. The second more declarative "Oh sh*t!" due to a sudden increase in opposite roll as the outboard wing of the turn becomes further stalled with the instinctive application of more aileron to correct the uncommanded roll and greater recognition of the predicament, rapidly followed by full recognition of aircraft uncontrollability.

Again, my apologies but as others have stated, by trying to place ourselves in the situation, we educate ourselves and hopefully become safer pilots...

wjcandee wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

I sure would love to hear the CVR because so far on the audio there is no alarms to pull up or stall or anything which would almost suggest he didn't know where he was until he was about to hit the ground.

I have enough trouble reading the official, edited, written CVR transcripts when they involve fatal accidents. I think I would find it very-difficult to listen to the actual CVR. But I know what you're saying: the assigned investigators will absolutely need to listen to the whole CVR, if there is one, to understand the cues the aircraft was giving, as well as the pilots' apparent decision-making.

It's one way the various u2b channels are doing things well. Many will use voice-over so we don't hear the voices of the actual participants. Some do use the actual radio calls, but those are typically made before the situation has gotten out of hand with the crew realizing what they are saying is going onto a public airwave. They usually stop the analysis once things are no longer recoverable. I haven't seen any that I think crossed the line. There's actually more sensitive content in this thread than the u2b videos I've seen.

I watched the Juan Browne / Blancolirio channel coverage of this incident linked above and don't feel like he crossed the line although maybe friends of the pilot might not want to hear his criticism. Juan says the LOC-D approach should have been chosen and would have allowed for a stabilized approach as opposed to such a low level turn so close to terrain. EDIT: GF just reported this while I was typing.

I don’t have the savvy to post pictures, but ground tracks from previous flights show this plane has done exactly this pattern twice since summer into KSEE. Both of the earlier tracks were flown much farther south of the accident track.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The LOC-D is a circling approach because of the descent gradient, not for alignment to a runway. There is no LOC-D to 27R, only a LOC-D to KSEE with circling restrictions. With light winds, the could have landed straight in on the LOC-D to 9L, planning for the increased gradient on final. That’s what Juan Brown is thinking. No problem with flying the LOC-D at night, just have to plan for the limited options which apply at night.

Wow, You have no idea how many people who purportedly use that airport did not understand that. Their posts are all over the internet at this point.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I don’t have the savvy to post pictures, but ground tracks from previous flights show this plane has done exactly this pattern twice since summer into KSEE.

It's relatively straight forward to find the internet address to use to point to 'static content' i.e pictures hosted by other web sites.

It's really different when dealing with 'dynamic content' i.e. things like the ground track created on the fly by a web site using the ADS-B data.

The best thing to do in that case is just copy/paste the address from the web browser bar at the top of the page into your a.net post. It won't result in a picture being embedded in the post, only a link, but chances are good others can use that same address and get the same content, presuming the web site doesn't require membership.

Another thing to do is use a third web site to host a screen shot of what you are seeing, but that gets even more complicated.

Both of the earlier tracks were flown much farther south of the accident track.

Very interesting. Could be they simply were further north than they thought they were.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I don’t have the savvy to post pictures, but ground tracks from previous flights show this plane has done exactly this pattern twice since summer into KSEE. Both of the earlier tracks were flown much farther south of the accident track.

You went back further than I did -- bravo, that must have been a lot of work. As noted above, in the last 2 months, the aircraft never did this track -- always over the hills straight into 27R, except when it came straight in for 9L.

There is a RNAV(GPS) 9L approach but Cat A&B only, presumably due to terrain in the missed approach segment.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There is a RNAV(GPS) 9L approach but Cat A&B only, presumably due to terrain in the missed approach segment.

Yeah, I was assuming that the landing on 9L a few weeks ago was VFR.

wjcandee wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I don’t have the savvy to post pictures, but ground tracks from previous flights show this plane has done exactly this pattern twice since summer into KSEE. Both of the earlier tracks were flown much farther south of the accident track.

You went back further than I did -- bravo, that must have been a lot of work. As noted above, in the last 2 months, the aircraft never did this track -- always over the hills straight into 27R, except when it came straight in for 9L.

I cheated, it’s from PPW.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

https://imgur.com/5OwjsXZ

Just trying to help due to your earlier note about pictures
If you right click on the image on the page you are on, you can copy the image address, and then use the image icon in ANET to insert the address between the quotes.

or just edit as below.
https://i.imgur.com/5OwjsXZ.jpeg
between <img><\img>
replace the angles with square brackets.

Thanks everyone!

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

https://imgur.com/5OwjsXZ

Just trying to help due to your earlier note about pictures
If you right click on the image on the page you are on, you can copy the image address, and then use the image icon in ANET to insert the address between the quotes.

or just edit as below.
https://i.imgur.com/5OwjsXZ.jpeg
between <img><\img>
replace the angles with square brackets.

You just made the investigators job a whole lot easier…

This illustration clearly shows why the two previous attempts were successful, and this one was not. He was lower, slower, and much more inside the turn at the outset than previously.

To the experts on here, Would this meet the definition of “Normalization of Deviance”?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

https://imgur.com/5OwjsXZ

Complimenting GalaxyFlyer's excellent image (https://imgur.com/5OwjsXZ), here are the ADS-B Exchange logs from 4 circle-to-land approaches to Gillespie Field Airport KSEE for N880Z in the last 3 months (the last one being the fatal one). Click on the one of the Playback speeds buttons under Time on the lower left side of the screen (e.g. 5x) to replay the circle-to-land approach:

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ac2014&lat=32.822&lon=-116.965&zoom=14.0&showTrace=2021-09-25&leg=2&timestamp=1632544625
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ac2014&lat=32.822&lon=-116.965&zoom=14.0&showTrace=2021-09-27&leg=2&timestamp=1632706201
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ac2014&lat=32.822&lon=-116.965&zoom=14.0&showTrace=2021-09-28&leg=1&timestamp=1632791832
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ac2014&lat=32.822&lon=-116.965&zoom=14.0&showTrace=2021-12-28&leg=2&timestamp=1640661159 (Crash)

se210 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

https://imgur.com/5OwjsXZ

Complimenting GalaxyFlyer's excellent image (https://imgur.com/5OwjsXZ), here are the ADS-B Exchange logs from 4 circle-to-land approaches to Gillespie Field Airport KSEE for N880Z in the last 3 months (the last one being the fatal one). Click on the one of the Playback speeds buttons under Time on the lower left side of the screen (e.g. 5x) to replay the circle-to-land approach:

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ac2014&lat=32.822&lon=-116.965&zoom=14.0&showTrace=2021-09-25&leg=2&timestamp=1632544625
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ac2014&lat=32.822&lon=-116.965&zoom=14.0&showTrace=2021-09-27&leg=2&timestamp=1632706201
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ac2014&lat=32.822&lon=-116.965&zoom=14.0&showTrace=2021-09-28&leg=1&timestamp=1632791832
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ac2014&lat=32.822&lon=-116.965&zoom=14.0&showTrace=2021-12-28&leg=2&timestamp=1640661159 (Crash)

I'll be very interested to read more about this event as information becomes available. I'm not a pilot or flight planner, but it really jumps off the screen how much earlier the successful attempts deviate from their path so that they remain west of Runway 17, then fly a broader arc to the south to allow the final turn into Runway 27R to be west of the terrain. I realize this is a small sample, but all of these uneventful flight tracks remain entirely west of First Street and the large hills east of it.

Speculatively, it's easy to imagine a scenario where the pilot of this fateful flight broke free from cloud to find terrain on his left when it had been expected to be on his right. That may or may not have actually contributed to anything, but I imagine would've been unsettling and made them realize they weren't where they intended to be.

FlyingElvii wrote:

You just made the investigators job a whole lot easier…

I will be most-interested in what the NTSB has to say about the local practice of coming in IFR on the LOC-D and trying to break into approach (if tower closed) to cancel IFR so it's legal to either circle to land or just land. Same on the 17 approach. It bears scrutiny.

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

https://imgur.com/5OwjsXZ

Just trying to help due to your earlier note about pictures
If you right click on the image on the page you are on, you can copy the image address, and then use the image icon in ANET to insert the address between the quotes.

or just edit as below.
https://i.imgur.com/5OwjsXZ.jpeg
between <img><\img>
replace the angles with square brackets.

The Stable Approach principle and criteria is clearly not prevalent amongst Part 91/135 operators.

They've identified all on board by name now: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne ... spie-field

The younger guy (45) was an ATP, the guy in his 60s had a commercial license. Both had type ratings only in the Lear. Be interesting to see the experience and training when it is documented in the NTSB report a year or more from now.

KCaviator wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

https://imgur.com/5OwjsXZ

The Stable Approach principle and criteria is clearly not prevalent amongst Part 91/135 operators.

Nope, as a whole, it isn't. I look back at my 135 days and I did stuff I wouldn't dream of doing today because I just thought it was the way it was done.

The Lear wing is very unforgiving on the 30 Series, especially down low and slow while circling and fully configured. The Learjet will get you into, and out of, trouble very quick.

FWIW, CBS8 is reporting that the widely-used photo of 4 people in front of the aircraft was in fact a selfie of the crew taken by Ms. Ward while on the mission from which they were returning. It wasn't clear initially that the photo was of any of the victims other than she. Sadly, now it is. So that's the actual crew, taken that day.

tb727 wrote:

Nope, as a whole, it isn't. I look back at my 135 days and I did stuff I wouldn't dream of doing today because I just thought it was the way it was done.

The Lear wing is very unforgiving on the 30 Series, especially down low and slow while circling and fully configured. The Learjet will get you into, and out of, trouble very quick.

Good to see you on this thread, our friend. So, I am just curious, given what I know from years ago about your extensive experience in aircraft this size: Is there anything about the approach plate for the LOC-D arrival to KSEE that would have precluded them, in a Lear, from shooting straight down that approach and onto 27R in IFR, or, as is apparently a local practice, cancelling IFR at DEBEY and plopping it VFR on the runway straight ahead? There has been a lot of talk on the forum about it being a "circling" approach, apparently because of what's in the box in the lower left, and thus forbidden at night per the T box restrictions, but my own impression is that, as GalaxyFlyer pointed out, this is not an approach specifically to Rwy 27R but rather an approach to KSEE generally, so does this necessarily mean that circling was required to all runways? I'm just not sure I understand why people are assuming that the Lear couldn't make the runway straight in on the IFR gradient without circling. And -- thus -- Juan Browne wasn't wrong to say that they had a straight in LOC-D arrival that they could have taken that would have had them lined up and ready to land on 27R. Upthread here, I reported a little research that I had done showing that of the 12 approaches this aircraft made to KSEE in the past 2 months, there was a single one straight-in to Rwy 9L (presumably VFR), and every one of the others, including approaches at night, in weather, etc., were all straight over the hills on at least the track of the LOC-D arrival and right down onto 27R with no circling. I'm just confused as to why some folks are saying that such an approach was NA at night.

Thought that your wisdom on this would be helpful to the class if you choose to weigh in. Or anybody else who does this stuff, for that matter.

Current approach plate: https://flightaware.com/resources/airpo ... AP/all/pdf

FlyingElvii wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

https://imgur.com/5OwjsXZ

Just trying to help due to your earlier note about pictures
If you right click on the image on the page you are on, you can copy the image address, and then use the image icon in ANET to insert the address between the quotes.

or just edit as below.
https://i.imgur.com/5OwjsXZ.jpeg
between <img><\img>
replace the angles with square brackets.

You just made the investigators job a whole lot easier…

This illustration clearly shows why the two previous attempts were successful, and this one was not. He was lower, slower, and much more inside the turn at the outset than previously.

To the experts on here, Would this meet the definition of “Normalization of Deviance”?

Yep, prior tracks cut it short and avoided the hill. That round green patch at the end of the red track is a decent hilly obstruction at least 300ft higher than the surrounding houses. Maybe hit the hill and not a stall. Probably the first Oh $h!t moment.

FWIW, and I think we've well-explored the accident so far, Dan Gryder's video on this is pretty-good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pS17RPgqfI

Caution: it starts out with the accident audio, because he is angry and trying to reach his audience of corporate pilots and executives, and he's particularly-upset that people are being trained in these jets without being taught something that the airlines apparently do, which is DMMS, or defined minimum maneuvering speed, a speed that would give you the ability to put the thing into a 25-30-degree bank on approach when fully-configured without suffering a stall/spin. He claims that the training companies don't teach pilots to calculate it, and that it should be calculated and known before anybody does another circling approach to anywhere. The video is a little-disjointed and technical because he was trying to get it posted promptly, and is clearly-frustrated, but I follow his point.

Also, Dan's analysis of ground track and such shows pretty-clearly what Juan Browne was saying from the beginning: that this is a classic stall/spin that was entirely-preventable.

One other interesting take is from the guy who posted a video last night which included the dumb comment that the accident crew were probably trying to land 27R so they could be closer to their hangar, which was totally-wrong. He pulled that video and replaced it with this one, which actually gives an interesting analysis focusing on the lower-than-typical altitude that they were flying and the misperceptions that it can cause when estimating one's distance from the runway while on the downwind, and noting that the fog/mist can affect one's perception of distance from the ground. Again, showing the track and altitude of the aircraft makes clear they likely didn't hit anything and this was a typical stall/spin as they made the turn to final. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-kVsCi41i0 This guy intentionally does not include the horrible ATC audio.

wjcandee wrote:

FWIW, and I think we've well-explored the accident so far, Dan Gryder's video on this is pretty-good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pS17RPgqfI

Caution: it starts out with the accident audio, because he is angry and trying to reach his audience of corporate pilots and executives, and he's particularly-upset that people are being trained in these jets without being taught something that the airlines apparently do, which is DMMS, or defined minimum maneuvering speed, a speed that would give you the ability to put the thing into a 25-30-degree bank on approach when fully-configured without suffering a stall/spin. He claims that the training companies don't teach pilots to calculate it, and that it should be calculated and known before anybody does another circling approach to anywhere. The video is a little-disjointed and technical because he was trying to get it posted promptly, and is clearly-frustrated, but I follow his point.

With all due respect, I could not disagree more. IMO it's the opposite of the videos I praised earlier in this thread. To me it's disgusting that he emphasizes the death of the pilot, crew, and passengers to make whatever point he's trying to make about training firms. It's disgusting that he not just points out the obvious that the pilot is dead but also that the pilot knew he was about to die. We get it, at some point in an accident sequence, chances are good people realize the end is at hand. Let it be. Instead he leans into it, even putting "He Knew" into the thumbnail.

He comes off as rambling and wild-eyed, repeating the same thing over and over again thinking that would help it stick. The time he spends repeatedly criticizing training firms would be better spent going through DMMS in a calm manner, or pointing his audience at training resources that do teach things the way he wants them to be taught if he can't do so himself.

Unfortunately I clicked on another video of his ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ixX9KOBQIU ) that is titled "Death by Jet - N66BK. Gwen Shamblin and her Cult is DEAD. Thank God!". Note the recurring theme, using the death of the pilot, crew and passengers to push an agenda. He even went to the church that the victims were involved with that was the site of their funeral and their graves and used it as a backdrop for his video, which is again mostly disjoint rambling as opposed to useful content.

My personal advice is to forget this clown, he's a real life version of the proverbial uncle you hope you don't have to sit next to at family gatherings. Channels like Blancolirio and Mentour Pilot and Mini Air Crash Investigation do it better, IMO.