A Bombardier CL30 flying from Dillant-Hopkins Airport in New Hampshire to Leesburg Executive Airport in Leesburg, Virginia encountered severe turbulence over New England , which left one of the 5 on board dead. The plane diverted to BDL.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ntsb-to-in ... nger-dead/

Never specified anywhere whether the pax in question had a seatbelt on.

On a different note, RIP to the deceased pax.

Tail Number? Haven't spotted it in any of the articles. Sad news.

canyonblue17 wrote:

Tail Number? Haven't spotted it in any of the articles. Sad news.

Not sure but this appears to be the flight

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/XSR ... /KEEN/KBDL

Based on the Callsign, there's some correlation to this N number.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N300ER

jetmatt777 wrote:

canyonblue17 wrote:

Tail Number? Haven't spotted it in any of the articles. Sad news.

Not sure but this appears to be the flight

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/XSR ... /KEEN/KBDL

Based on the Callsign, there's some correlation to this N number.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N300ER

That does look like it.

Jon Ostrower of "The Air Current" (someone whom I trust implicitly) retweeted a tweet about this originally posted by Robert Sumwalt, a former chair of the NTSB.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1631881529101266944

This is not meant to be sensationalist, but: how can you die from turbulences? Of course, not buckled up, yes. So she/he fell so unfortunate that her/his neck was hurt? Or was it maybe a heart attack triggered by the turbulences?

Whatsoever, R.I.P.

N14AZ wrote:

This is not meant to be sensationalist, but: how can you die from turbulences? Of course, not buckled up, yes. So she/he fell so unfortunate that her/his neck was hurt? Or was it maybe a heart attack triggered by the turbulences?

Whatsoever, R.I.P.

I suppose if you hit the ceiling hard enough, it could happen. Certainly not the first time it's happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... Flight_826

AirKevin wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

This is not meant to be sensationalist, but: how can you die from turbulences? Of course, not buckled up, yes. So she/he fell so unfortunate that her/his neck was hurt? Or was it maybe a heart attack triggered by the turbulences?

Whatsoever, R.I.P.

I suppose if you hit the ceiling hard enough, it could happen. Certainly not the first time it's happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... Flight_826

Wow, I didn’t remember this deadly accident. Thanks for the information.

Local rumor is the victim was in the lav at the rear of the cabin. Just because you own or charter the plane doesn’t mean physics doesn’t apply. It’s happened on airliners, too. First fatality in the Challenger 300 type. RIP, and best wishes to the survivors.

Personally no matter what Aircraft I am in my seatbelt stays on for the entire flight. I know sometime you have to use the lav but I try to only do that when the seat belt sign is off or wait it out to arrival if not urgent. Most people wear a seatbelt in a car always but can't seem to wait to unlatch an aircraft seatbelt. Condolences to all involved.

I guess this is one of those “Mother Nature” accidents that we can’t really prevent for the most part? When you have to go you got to go, hypothetically. Rest in peace.

Boeing757100 wrote:

Never specified anywhere whether the pax in question had a seatbelt on.

On a different note, RIP to the deceased pax.

Just about guaranteed that the deceased individual did NOT have a seat belt secured.

How do you guys know it wasn’t CAT. You’re acting like you’ve never taken a piss on a flight. Or by your estimation all drink service should be canceled so the attendants can be strapped in

RobertS975 wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

Never specified anywhere whether the pax in question had a seatbelt on.

On a different note, RIP to the deceased pax.

Just about guaranteed that the deceased individual did NOT have a seat belt secured.

Somebody above said there was a rumor that she was in the lavatory, so if that's the case, then yes, she wouldn't have had a seatbelt on.

AirKevin wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

Never specified anywhere whether the pax in question had a seatbelt on.

On a different note, RIP to the deceased pax.

Just about guaranteed that the deceased individual did NOT have a seat belt secured.

Somebody above said there was a rumor that she was in the lavatory, so if that's the case, then yes, she wouldn't have had a seatbelt on.

Not that you would use it for a routine visit, but most mid size biz jets come with belted lav as an option for an additional seat. With nobody in the back trained to manage the cabin who knows what cabin baggage would be out to become missiles.

There’s cargo netting in baggage, required by design plus a solid door between baggage and lav. The belted lav is, nowadays, common only in light bizjets, not an option in Challengers, Falcons, Globals, Gulfstreams.

Very tragic to hear. Also it appears 1 person succumb to injuries on the LH AUS-IAD last week.


Here is an article about multiple deaths including a Greek minister back in 99 while on a Falcon. https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xp ... story.html

I know there is a very in-depth report floating on the internet about the Falcon event that was eye opening. Mentioned just how bad of shape the cabin was in upon landing.

bourbon wrote:

Very tragic to hear. Also it appears 1 person succumb to injuries on the LH AUS-IAD last week.


Here is an article about multiple deaths including a Greek minister back in 99 while on a Falcon. https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xp ... story.html

I know there is a very in-depth report floating on the internet about the Falcon event that was eye opening. Mentioned just how bad of shape the cabin was in upon landing.

*edit - No one perished on the LH flight. The photo from LH cabin was included in a broader article that also talked about the GA aircraft death.

Here is an update. According to this article an issue with the trim had been reported just before the severe turbulence.
https://www.wmur.com/article/keene-new- ... 3/43214810

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/forme ... r-AA18ijfm

She was a 55 year old mom and former White House official per the Post. RIP

RobertS975 wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

Never specified anywhere whether the pax in question had a seatbelt on.

On a different note, RIP to the deceased pax.

Just about guaranteed that the deceased individual did NOT have a seat belt secured.

Would you have one on in a lavatory? But, on a sidenote, because something in particular is not stated in any article does not guarantee anything.

Vicenza wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

Never specified anywhere whether the pax in question had a seatbelt on.

On a different note, RIP to the deceased pax.

Just about guaranteed that the deceased individual did NOT have a seat belt secured.

Would you have one on in a lavatory? But, on a sidenote, because something in particular is not stated in any article does not guarantee anything.

Earlier small jets had what were called “belted potty”; allowed marketing types to advertise one more seat. Citations had them.

FlyingSicilian wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/former-white-house-official-killed-after-business-jet-hit-turbulence/ar-AA18ijfm

She was a 55 year old mom and former White House official per the Post. RIP

In addition to turbulence, the article also is stating -

"In addition to probing what it initially described as a turbulence event, the NTSB said Monday, its investigators are “now looking at a reported trim issue that occurred prior to the in-flight upset.” The agency did not describe the nature of the reported issue, but trim generally refers to a plane’s ability to maintain its altitude."

Turbulence not involved in passenger death.

https://apnews.com/article/turbulence-j ... fd42a7fd07

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/24/us/turbu ... index.html

"The plane pitched up and down like a roller coaster several times: First 3.8Gs up, then 2.3Gs downward, followed by 4.2Gs upward." Holy crow! I'm surprised the AC survived.

Here’s the NTSB preliminary report. From it we learn the crew used the wrong checklist for the indicated EICAS message. EICAS messages were AP STAB TRIM FAULT and AP HOLDING NOSE DOWN, which is serious situation but they went with the PRI STAB TRIM FAIL, which nowhere addresses the out of trim condition indicted by the two messages. When they selected the PRI STAB TRIM to OFF, which disconnected the AP right now; the effects of the message AP HOLDING NOSE DOWN became clear. With the AP OFF, there was no nose down pitch being applied, so off to the races.

The plane is plenty strong, but it might not fly again.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/ ... 106816/pdf

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Here’s the NTSB preliminary report. From it we learn the crew used the wrong checklist for the indicated EICAS message. EICAS messages were AP STAB TRIM FAULT and AP HOLDING NOSE DOWN, which is serious situation but they went with the PRI STAB TRIM FAIL, which nowhere addresses the out of trim condition indicted by the two messages. When they selected the PRI STAB TRIM to OFF, which disconnected the AP right now; the effects of the message AP HOLDING NOSE DOWN became clear. With the AP OFF, there was no nose down pitch being applied, so off to the races.

The plane is plenty strong, but it might not fly again.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/ ... 106816/pdf

I wonder who did the sloppy walk-around? They seemed sloppy all around.

AirKevin wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

This is not meant to be sensationalist, but: how can you die from turbulences? Of course, not buckled up, yes. So she/he fell so unfortunate that her/his neck was hurt? Or was it maybe a heart attack triggered by the turbulences?

Whatsoever, R.I.P.

I suppose if you hit the ceiling hard enough, it could happen. Certainly not the first time it's happened.

Heck, IIRC even not too hard a hit could be enough to cause brain injury. I seem to recall reading a recent-ish study regarding head injuries in soccer players from hitting their head against balls (though TBF if anything like what I had experienced briefly getting involved in rugby in undergrad, game balls are a lot harder than practice balls - and getting hit in the head feels like getting hit in the head with a rock.)

johns624 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Here’s the NTSB preliminary report. From it we learn the crew used the wrong checklist for the indicated EICAS message. EICAS messages were AP STAB TRIM FAULT and AP HOLDING NOSE DOWN, which is serious situation but they went with the PRI STAB TRIM FAIL, which nowhere addresses the out of trim condition indicted by the two messages. When they selected the PRI STAB TRIM to OFF, which disconnected the AP right now; the effects of the message AP HOLDING NOSE DOWN became clear. With the AP OFF, there was no nose down pitch being applied, so off to the races.

The plane is plenty strong, but it might not fly again.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/ ... 106816/pdf

I wonder who did the sloppy walk-around? They seemed sloppy all around.

Agreed.
First the forgotten Pitot cover.
Then the already had a message on the ground vis-à-vis the flight controls.
There seems to be a lot of complacency involved.

I wonder - does the fact that lots of biz jet pilots fly multiple types play into maybe grabbing the wrong procedure? Basically, how often do they fly this type, and is the naming not super consistent that could help lead to that mistake?

The report doesn't paint a very good picture of the flight crew. While both had 13,000+ hours TT, they both apparently were typed on the aircraft Oct. '22 as PIC, and each had under 100 hours in the type. Not catching the pitot cover and then selecting *and verifying* the wrong checklist seems problematic. I'm not a pilot, so my view is from the outside looking in, but having the AP disconnect twice previous to the upset (both due to manual trim input) would seem to indicate there was a trim issue with the aircraft. What isn't clear from the report is how the aircraft was flying. Sure, they were making manual inputs, but were the warnings advisory in nature, or were they something that was screaming this aircraft is in peril?

tcfc424 wrote:

The report doesn't paint a very good picture of the flight crew. While both had 13,000+ hours TT, they both apparently were typed on the aircraft Oct. '22 as PIC, and each had under 100 hours in the type. Not catching the pitot cover and then selecting *and verifying* the wrong checklist seems problematic. I'm not a pilot, so my view is from the outside looking in, but having the AP disconnect twice previous to the upset (both due to manual trim input) would seem to indicate there was a trim issue with the aircraft. What isn't clear from the report is how the aircraft was flying. Sure, they were making manual inputs, but were the warnings advisory in nature, or were they something that was screaming this aircraft is in peril?

Well the airplane was literally trying to tell them to not take off. The "Rudder limiter fault" CAS message is a no-go item.

The decisions these pilots made are inexcusable.

It doesn’t, just looking at the report and g loads. There are maintenance procedures to be followed. That said, the 605 over-g’d over the IO and the Luftwaffe Global were both written off. Just saying, it’s not impossible, but resell has gone down considerably. All Part 25 planes are incredibly strong, watch the video of Asiana 214 in SFO. Or the 604 over the IO, Or the Air China upset.

That’s not the case here, not contractors. But, it is a concern as was documented by the KTRK accident. I’ve actually flown with lots of international crews and, with challenges, there’s better standardization that you might imagine. US operators never use international pilot contractors as the work visa prohibits it.

Avatar2go wrote:

Here is an analysis by Peter Lemme. He raises several good points.

https://www.satcom.guru/2023/03/severe- ... t.html?m=1

Raises good points, but he doesn’t know daily bizjet operations in the field. If they couldn’t fix the problem, Bombardier has a mobile team 65 miles away. Sometimes, you’re in Africa, no mobile team, so you call home, done that, too. The crew does it all including some basic servicing—fueling, oiling, etc.

This crew missed the pitot cover, which caused the cascading events. The ADCs saw two indicated speeds on the first take-off and treated as a failed ADC. That RTO latched an event causing the RUDDER LIMITER FAULT, a “no go” item. The manuals provide the crew with fix to clear the event and restore the plane to airworthy, or, if that doesn’t work, call for maintenance. As opposed to an airline, business jet operators don’t have techs every place they transit. With modern computerized planes, their best option here was shutdown the plane completely, reboot it with the pre-flight completed this time, it’d have 100% almost guaranteed to clear the problem. The “hard reboot” is not unusual, even needed occasionally on the FMS-equipped C-5. Did it at times on both Challengers and Globals, especially when the start up is rushed and the crew doesn’t wait for all the computers boot up. BATT SW to ON, set the clock for 5 minutes, then APU, then wait for cabin system to boot up signified by flashing interior lights. Ready to start the checks now. It’s fast, if you go slow.

We had a hard policy, the outside pilot shows the inside pilot the covers and gear pins, verbally says “3 pins, 3 covers”. Both pilots “new to type” happens outside the airlines, simply a fact of life. Early on, I flew trips in both military and civilian planes where the two or three of us didn’t have 300 hours in type.

Juan Brown has a very good synopsis of the incident. Covers the obvious issue and asks pilots of the aircraft for comment.
https://youtu.be/Oc_71HNJZhU

Maybe it's time to change the title of this thread since this wasn't a turbulence event.

JohanTally wrote:

Maybe it's time to change the title of this thread since this wasn't a turbulence event.

Yes, please do.
I do believe that finding out who in the media, and why, they jumped to this conclusion (air turbulence), is a newsworthy topic to investigate to ensure this type of false info is minimized in the future.

hardalphaTi22 wrote:

I do believe that finding out who in the media, and why, they jumped to this conclusion (air turbulence), is a newsworthy topic to investigate to ensure this type of false info is minimized in the future.

In the original NTSB tweet (linked in the article listed in the OP) called it a 'turbulence event'. I assume that's why the media 'jumped to this conclusion'.

https://twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom/statu ... 4011039744

NTSB is investigating the March 3 turbulence event involving a Bombardier Challenger 300 airplane that diverted to Windsor Locks, Connecticut and resulted in fatal injuries to a passenger.

I hope those who rushed in with the usual judgemental comments about seatbelts, before knowing any facts, will pause to reflect now. It's interesting how quick they are to criticise what they perceive as someone else's mistake but none have returned to apologise for their own. Personally I'd place rushing in to incorrectly blame an innocent person for their own death as a far worse mark of a person's character than whether someone had a seatbelt on or not at a particular moment. I'm sure at some point we've all for one reason or another at some point not had our seatbelt on when we should have. The need for some to feel superior by judging people without nay knowledge of the facts, without any sympathy, when they just died I find very very ugly.

It also shows such lack of awareness of flight, or deliberate ignorance just to get an ego boost from knocking a dead persons. Turbulence happens in clear air, it's called CAT. Perhaps you guys don't know about it? Or do you never use the toilet or just stretch your legs on a long flight? Then sometimes someone has gone to the toilet when the seatbelt sign is off then the crew make a hasty announcement to return to seats because they've clearly just spotted or been alerted to something close. Then we have the crews that put the sign on at the first slight bump and never switch it off. A very US thing for some reason. Various theories for this, sometimes they forget, sometimes it's to give the crew a quiet day. Whatever the reason, the sign loses all meaning when it's on for hours without a bump, the crew are wandering around, and happily letting pax use the toilet (if they knew there was a really a threat they'd tell pax to sit down). So sometimes it's the crew's fault.

Finally, at the end of the day, this person died. There's no higher price to pay than that. The way some people almost seem to think they deserved to for the grand crime of not wearing a seatbelt doesn't reflect well on them. But we all know these people, who will spend their lives criticising everyone else, without ever being accountable themselves. They tend to end up as CEOs.

RIP to the poor passenger.

CarlosSi wrote:

I guess this is one of those “Mother Nature” accidents that we can’t really prevent for the most part? When you have to go you got to go, hypothetically. Rest in peace.

Actually, it sounds like this lady did not have to go. There will be lawyers.

hardalphaTi22 wrote:

Juan Brown has a very good synopsis of the incident. Covers the obvious issue and asks pilots of the aircraft for comment.
https://youtu.be/Oc_71HNJZhU

Juan was not happy about the lack of memorization, nor the quick reference "card" being an iPad buried in a flight bag.

Avatar2go wrote:

Here is an analysis by Peter Lemme. He raises several good points.

https://www.satcom.guru/2023/03/severe- ... t.html?m=1

Indeed:

The NTSB report makes no mention of PRI STAB TRIM FAIL alert being activated. For some reason, the flight crew chose to follow this unannunciated failure checklist. The first action was to select Stabilizer Trim to OFF. This action would immediately disconnect the autopilot.

Autopilot disconnect with the stabilizer mistrimmed nose up would result in an immediate pitch up. It was entirely predictable based on the alerts displayed. The flight crew should have been prepared for the pitchup, also by reference to the flight control position indicator (which would show the elevator position nose down).

Instead, the flight crew reacted too late to the pitch up, and then by over-controlling pitch down, and then over-controlling pitch up.

We can all see where this is going...

If the crew’s instruction is to be in your seats with the seat belt fastened and you aren’t, you have definitely contributed to whatever up injuries you or others around you suffer. Not saying that’s the case here, but not be belted when directed is assuming a lot of risk.

Her not being belted is certainly not causal to rhe event, but she did contribute to the outcome, IF directed to do so. It sounds harsh, but that’s the way it is.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

If the crew’s instruction is to be in your seats with the seat belt fastened and you aren’t, you have definitely contributed to whatever up injuries you or others around you suffer. Not saying that’s the case here, but not be belted when directed is assuming a lot of risk.

Her not being belted is certainly not causal to rhe event, but she did contribute to the outcome, IF directed to do so. It sounds harsh, but that’s the way it is.

I don't look at it this way. Even if she wasn't belted, an ordinary person would not consider death as a possible outcome. Also, according to Juan, these G forces could kill a person using only a lap belt.

"According to the Federal Aviation Administration, between 2009 and 2020, just 30 people were injured as a result of turbulence during flights, and no one died, making mid-flight deaths from turbulence an extreme rarity, the Association Press reported".

This is the reason Airlines don't get all gangster checking for people who might not be belted. But this is really irrelevant as the flight was part 91.

In my opinion, the pilots' incompetence and negligence caused an upset of 4.2g to -2.3g directly resulting in her death. If I were he family, I would be considering pushing for criminal charges somewhere in the vicinity of negligent homicide given the sequence of events. I don't know if federal regulations preclude this as a consequence of a part 91 flight.

Not disagreeing with this crew’s failures, but the seat belt rules are based on the fact that passengers are not competent to judge the potential risks; that it is why it is the crew’s knowledge that dominates. Rare doesn’t mean 10E-9 unlikely.

I’m not sure why Part 91 is irrelevant; it’s Part 91that says the PIC is directly responsible for the operation. Part 91 is misunderstood as being unregulated; not true. The crew here can easily see emergency revocation for their actions or inactions. The FAA doesn’t have criminal authority and it’s a rare case where criminal charges are pursued Imin aviation. Wrongful death civil suit will bankrupt them and possibly the operators.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Not disagreeing with this crew’s failures, but the seat belt rules are based on the fact that passengers are not competent to judge the potential risks; that it is why it is the crew’s knowledge that dominates. Rare doesn’t mean 10E-9 unlikely.

I’m not sure why Part 91 is irrelevant; it’s Part 91that says the PIC is directly responsible for the operation. Part 91 is misunderstood as being unregulated; not true. The crew here can easily see emergency revocation for their actions or inactions. The FAA doesn’t have criminal authority and it’s a rare case where criminal charges are pursued Imin aviation. Wrongful death civil suit will bankrupt them and possibly the operators.

Juan made the point that under part 121, this incident could have never happened.
I'm guessing the Federal Judicial Branch would have jurisdiction if the pilots kill somebody. I remember a Fed Ex pilot tried to kill his copilots in the air and he is now in prison.