Plane crash Gillespie Field, San Diego

Fearless Tower said:
Someone on Beechtalk found previous flights they made where they circled to 27R. In the previous ones, they went past the 8/67 interchange as they turned downwind.

In this flight they turned well inside. There is no way they could have made that turn successfully in that airplane.

I suspect they completely lost their sene of position in the reduced vis and we’re trying to salvage a crappy approach.
Click to expand...

There's no question that situational awareness played into this big time. It is clear a go around was not an option in their minds.
 
N1120A said:
A Lear 35 is fully capable of using Runway 17, particularly for landing.
Click to expand...
Although it's been over 40 years since I last flew a 35, IIRC, you need to add in the order of 40% for a wet runway, are not allowed to use thrust reverser data for landing distance and must be able to stop within 60% of the runway length if a commercial operation (dry, add another 15% to the distance if wet). Some 91 operators (me for example) would abide by commercial standards. Not 100% sure of my memory on those figures, so I'll leave it to you to point out my errors. :)
 
Rwy 17 has a displaced threshold only giving it 3695 feet for landing and it was wet. I do not have time in a Lear but it sounds too short to me.
 
dtuuri said:
Although it's been over 40 years since I last flew a 35, IIRC, you need to add in the order of 40% for a wet runway, are not allowed to use thrust reverser data for landing distance and must be able to stop within 60% of the runway length if a commercial operation (dry, add another 15% to the distance if wet). Some 91 operators (me for example) would abide by commercial standards. Not 100% sure of my memory on those figures, so I'll leave it to you to point out my errors. :)
Click to expand...

Based on published figures, it would be close to, but not at 40%. Of course, the airplane likely wasn't at MLW either, and who knows how wet it actually was, but it was probably a lot better idea than a low visibility circle to 27R.
 
Are you type rated in the Learjet with operational experience?
 
dtuuri said:
Although it's been over 40 years since I last flew a 35, IIRC, you need to add in the order of 40% for a wet runway, are not allowed to use thrust reverser data for landing distance and must be able to stop within 60% of the runway length if a commercial operation (dry, add another 15% to the distance if wet). Some 91 operators (me for example) would abide by commercial standards. Not 100% sure of my memory on those figures, so I'll leave it to you to point out my errors. :)
Click to expand...
Since you asked… ;)
The wet runway adjustment per Part 135 is 15%, and has no basis in physics.

Even though they are landing distance corrections, the 15% and 60% numbers are technically planning requirements for departure and not landing requirements.

but unless conditions changed from your planning, I’m sure they would be considered binding by the FAA.

One of the Lears (I think it was the 35, but I’m not sure) was included when we looked at the TALPA fiasco…a runway condition code of “5” can result in the same takeoff & landing distances as a runway condition code of “3”…and wet runways were the “5” that was the outlier in the data.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Someone on Beechtalk found previous flights they made where they circled to 27R. In the previous ones, they went past the 8/67 interchange as they turned downwind.

In this flight they turned well inside. There is no way they could have made that turn successfully in that airplane.

I suspect they completely lost their sene of position in the reduced vis and we’re trying to salvage a crappy approach.
Click to expand...
I looked at some history back to summer and I didn't see that...but I did notice they ONLY used 27r/9L (and 9L only once) out of numerous flights. They also did many on the 17 approach, then circled well before reaching the airport with a right downwind.
 
N1120A said:
There's no question that situational awareness played into this big time. It is clear a go around was not an option in their minds.
Click to expand...
IFR question since I'm not rated: What do you do if you've already cancelled IFR and have to go around, but that's going to take you into IMC? I would regard that as an emergency, but would tower clear you?
 
In fact, even if you were flying a visual approach (which is still an IFR procedure), you don't have authorization to enter clouds or perform the missed approach. The answer is the same. You tell the ATC immediately you're deviating. In most non-RADAR situations, there isn't going to be another IFR guy in close proximity. In a RADAR environment, ATC will see what is happening.
 
Lindberg said:
IFR question since I'm not rated: What do you do if you've already cancelled IFR and have to go around, but that's going to take you into IMC? I would regard that as an emergency, but would tower clear you?
Click to expand...

Basically at that point you do what you have to do to survive, and handle the legal paperwork and repercussions later. You can declare it an emergency if need be, but there will be questions asked. At least you'll be alive to answer them.
 
Lindberg said:
IFR question since I'm not rated: What do you do if you've already cancelled IFR and have to go around, but that's going to take you into IMC? I would regard that as an emergency, but would tower clear you?
Click to expand...
I’d probably work my way back onto the missed approach procedure, as it’s unlikely that ATC has given that airspace to someone else in such a short time.

Bottom line is that you climb someplace safe from terrain, tell tower you’re going back into the clouds and declaring an emergency, and hope they can do something to keep you clear of traffic.

because “hope” is an effective safety strategy.

I’d also ask the controller to please pass the phone number I’m supposed to copy down along to the folks on the ground wherever I happen to land, because I’m a little busy.
 
PS - a friendly note to pass along. I mentioned this in another post of mine up thread.. no one goes in the sky one day thinking 'I'm a crap pilot, I'm going to die today' .. everyone has made a decision while flying that they learn from and can look back on. For people who fly around here it's not at all uncommon to cancel IFR once VMC and circle south to 27R.. I mention this because a friend sent this to me from a reddit post about this accident. I don't use reddit, but feel it is relevant to this conversation:

"
I woke up 20 minutes ago to a text I never thought I'd read. A link to this post and a realization that one of my closest and dearest friends had his final seconds recorded and published to the internet for all to hear and criticize.


We sat around the firepit not too long ago answering a question from my wife about the Challenger crash at Truckee. What followed was a long diatribe about the perils of circling in poor conditions or at night. He used a clever analogy comparing his flying style to that of driving a boat. No squared turns, never rushing, and always choosing the safest route to the runway instead of the quickest.


Yet he didn't choose the localizer. He did what him and I are probably guilty of calling others "idiots" for. I want to know what happened. He texted me before he left, we had plans in the near future. If I texted asking about his flight last night, would I jokingly refer to his boat analogy and make sure he was planning to load up that LOC-D? I don't know. It's driving me ****ing nuts. It's impossible to describe the feeling I have right now. I had a busy week of flying ahead of me. Those flights are now scrubbed.


This absolute gem of a human being was a gift to this world. He was a great pilot. Perhaps in the days that follow, we will learn of something that challenges this statement. Perhaps we will hear more from the users here about how stupid he was and how they'll never make the same mistake. Maybe Dan Gryder will bless us with his safety analysis while capitalizing on the death of my friend.


Know that he was an active user on this subreddit. Do not ask me his username or RL name.


If there is any one crash that really cements that this type of tragedy can happen to any of us, it's this one for me.


Be safe out there guys. And for the love of god, show some ****ing respect.


"
 
I’m guessing a pilot that cancels IFR in very marginal conditions for scud running to accomplish something then enters IMC again and wants to “go missed” will probably just say “ATC, I’ve entered IMC again and need an IFR clearance”, as if it were a pop up IFR. I doubt they will voluntarily declare an emergency. At least I would hope they do that and not believe that HAVE to make their first poor choice work.
 
Lindberg said:
IFR question since I'm not rated: What do you do if you've already cancelled IFR and have to go around, but that's going to take you into IMC? I would regard that as an emergency, but would tower clear you?
Click to expand...
What you're supposed to do anytime you lose visual on a circle to land. Fly the missed approach procedure. That procedure will keep you safe. Aviate Navigate Communicate. Call ATC let them know you're on the missed and you need a clearance again.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I bet he was that low because he didn’t want to be in the clouds. I would also bet you a nice bottle of scotch the willingness to cancel and scud run the pattern was a direct result of that familiarity you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is something I was thinking. Oh, I'm a rye drinker.

These guys were based just a couple hangar rows down from me. One nurse was identified. Her husband recently retired as a fire chief in Oceanside, Tina Ward.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I'm sorry for your loss, truly. As I get older I get all the more keenly aware of how dangerous and fleeting life can be.
Click to expand...

That is one thing to remember when discussing these accidents. That flight was completely routine for those pilots up until it wasn't, about 10 seconds or so before it ended. It was probably something they had done many times without fail. But all it took was one time.
 
Here were the 4 on board
 

Attachments

  • 3327DAF9-6570-4B37-89CC-7B1867DCDD07.jpeg
    3327DAF9-6570-4B37-89CC-7B1867DCDD07.jpeg
    119.8 KB · Views: 167
Bill said:
“Instrument flying, I had concluded, is an unnatural act, probably punishable by God.” -- Gordon Baxter, Flying Magazine, 1974.

:(
Click to expand...
Given the instruments available at the time [and still used in many legacy planes, including the one I learned on] I tend to agree.
 
Tantalum said:
...This absolute gem of a human being was a gift to this world. He was a great pilot. Perhaps in the days that follow, we will learn of something that challenges this statement. Perhaps we will hear more from the users here about how stupid he was and how they'll never make the same mistake. Maybe Dan Gryder will bless us with his safety analysis while capitalizing on the death of my friend."
"
Click to expand...

Wow. Sympathy for that Reddit user.

When you do challenging things over and over that work, you build confidence they will work again the next time. When something unexpected happens your options may dissipate quickly. This is why taking a conservative approach mitigates the risks associated with some operations. You build a buffer around you in case bad stuff happens quickly.
 
Rgbeard said:
Have you seen Lear 35 cockpits in TAP? You have no reason that I can imagine to 100% expect what you’re proposing.
Click to expand...


Absolutely not a 100%..hence my question mark. It is a corporate med jet. Assumption would be some glass with a TAWS. I mean, many GA aircraft, including mine have that
 
N1120A said:
There's no question that situational awareness played into this big time. It is clear a go around was not an option in their minds.
Click to expand...
Which is the trap you get into when you cancel IFR. You're in, or you're out.
 
Captain Sweet T said:
Absolutely not a 100%..hence my question mark. It is a corporate med jet. Assumption would be some glass with a TAWS. I mean, many GA aircraft, including mine have that
Click to expand...

Its a much bigger and more expensive process to upgrade a panel in a jet than the average 4 seater. Its not as simple as swapping out the old AI for an Aspen, or fitting a Garmin 650 into the panel. You don't often see it done because the cost can be a significant % of the value of the overall aircraft. Same reason airline's don't usually upgrade avionics. If I recall correctly, one of our based jets had to pay $50k just to get ADS-B compliant.

Whatever it left the factory with, it probably still has today. Unless the owner has some sentimental value and decided to pay for the upgrades, which often the guy in the back couldn't care less what the pilot has to work with.
 
Just a general comment

For the most part we are all pilots here. Weather you will admit it or not we’ve all had an OH **** moment that we learned from, fortunately didn’t kill us, and most likely we will avoid in the future. From the sound of it this pilot was very well trained with extensive familiarity with the airport he was flying into. I can’t help but think that because of exactly those facts he was confident about what he was attempting to do. Unfortunately the negative sequence of this loc happened to quickly for a recovery.

We see this all to often. Very experienced pilots pushing the safety envelope just a bit to far. In some respects this makes a newer, low time pilot that’s not comfortable pushing any limits, a safer pilot.

It’s just another reminder for all of us to stay on the conservative side of that safety envelope. After all, the safety of our pax and innocent people on the ground depend on us to uphold our responsibility to operate in the absolute safest manner possible.
Another important fact to keep in mind is there are a growing number of people that would like nothing more than to take away our ability to enjoy our passion for Avaition. Let’s not give them any ammunition
 
MauleSkinner said:
$440k for G5000 in the Beechjet, last I heard.
Click to expand...

And most Beechjets these days are going for around $1M. I know of one that got scrapped not necessarily because there was anything wrong with it, but both engines were nearing timeout, the airframe was coming up on a C-check I think, and it needed ADS-B. All told it was going to cost nearly the value of the airplane in routine maintenance items to keep it flying.
 
midwestpa24 said:
And most Beechjets these days are going for around $1M. I know of one that got scrapped not necessarily because there was anything wrong with it, but both engines were nearing timeout, the airframe was coming up on a C-check I think, and it needed ADS-B. All told it was going to cost nearly the value of the airplane in routine maintenance items to keep it flying.
Click to expand...
On the flip side, even with the expense and upgrades, it’s a lot of capability for the money. Many operators are spending the money.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The problem is, who decides where the conservative side starts?
Click to expand...
As much as I chafe at regulations, rules, and procedures, I think it starts there, at least when you are flying for hire. I have done things I shouldn't have, and have had some oh **** moments, but I survived. I think getting away with something over and over make it more likely to try the same thing again. Not saying this is what happened here. All I know is the Lear 35 is unforgiving of getting too slow... or too fast for that matter. It's also sensitive in pitch.
 
Everskyward said:
As much as I chafe at regulations, rules, and procedures, I think it starts there, at least when you are flying for hire. I have done things I shouldn't have, and have had some oh **** moments, but I survived. I think getting away with something over and over make it more likely to try the same thing again. Not saying this is what happened here. All I know is the Lear 35 is unforgiving of getting too slow... or too fast for that matter. It's also sensitive in pitch.
Click to expand...
One of the problems with regulations is they can eventually become part of the problem. There are a couple of things in this accident that were specifically intended to comply with regulations, but pushed them further into the corner they couldn’t fly out of.
 
MauleSkinner said:
One of the problems with regulations is they can eventually become part of the problem. There are a couple of things in this accident that were specifically intended to comply with regulations, but pushed them further into the corner they couldn’t fly out of.
Click to expand...
That's true too.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I'm sorry for your loss, truly. As I get older I get all the more keenly aware of how dangerous and fleeting life can be.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I didn't know the pilot actually but wanted to pass along the note that was on reddit. It's easy, myself included, to sit safe at home and say what we would have done different when discussing an accident.. but ultimately these are real people. Easy to forget that sometimes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top