Crash of a Learjet 35A in Chicago: 2 killed

Date & Time: Jan 5, 2010 at 1327 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
N720RA
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Pontiac - Chicago
MSN:
156
YOM:
1977
Flight number:
RAX988
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Captain / Total flying hours:
7000
Captain / Total hours on type:
3500.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
6500
Copilot / Total hours on type:
2400
Aircraft flight hours:
15734
Circumstances:
The flight was scheduled to pick up cargo at the destination airport and then deliver it to another location. During the descent and 14 minutes before the accident, the airplane encountered a layer of moderate rime ice. The captain, who was the pilot flying, and the first officer, who was the monitoring pilot, made multiple statements which were consistent with their awareness and presence of airframe icing. After obtaining visual flight rules conditions, the flight crew canceled the instrument flight rules clearance and continued with a right, circling approach to the runway. While turning into the base leg of the traffic pattern, and 45 seconds prior to the accident, the captain called for full flaps and the engine power levers were adjusted several times between 50 and 95 percent. In addition, the captain inquired about the autopilot and fuel balance. In response, the first officer stated that he did not think that the spoilerons were working. Shortly thereafter, the first officer gave the command to add full engine power and the airplane impacted terrain. There was no evidence of flight crew impairment or fatigue in the final 30 minutes of the flight. The cockpit voice recorder showed multiple instances during the flight in which the airplane was below 10,000 feet mean sea level that the crew was engaged in discussions that were not consistent with a sterile cockpit environment, for example a lengthy discussion about Class B airspeeds, which may have led to a relaxed and casual cockpit atmosphere. In addition, the flight crew appears to have conducted checklists in a generally informal manner. As the flight was conducted by a Part 135 operator, it would be expected that both pilots were versed with the importance of sterile cockpit rules and the importance of adhering to procedures, including demonstrating checklist discipline. For approximately the last 24 seconds of flight, both pilots were likely focusing their attention on activities to identify and understand the reason for the airplane's roll handling difficulties, as noted by the captain's comment related to the fuel balance. These events, culminating in the first officer's urgent command to add full power, suggested that neither pilot detected the airplane's decaying energy state before it reached a critical level for the conditions it encountered. Light bulb filament examination revealed that aileron augmentation system and stall warning lights illuminated in the cockpit. No mechanical anomalies were found to substantiate a failure in the aileron augmentation system. No additional mechanical or system anomalies were noted with the airplane. A performance study, limited by available data, could not confirm the airplane's movements relative to an aileron augmentation system or spoileron problem. The level of airframe icing and its possible effect on the airplane at the time of the accident could not be determined.
Probable cause:
A loss of control for undetermined reasons.
Final Report:

Crash of a Learjet 35A in Guadalajara

Date & Time: Aug 2, 2008
Type of aircraft:
Registration:
XB-KPB
Survivors:
Yes
MSN:
35-379
YOM:
1981
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
4
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
Shortly after takeoff from Guadalajara-Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla Airport, the crew encountered high voltage problems. While trying to resolve the issue, the electrical system failed. The crew informed ATC and was cleared to return for an emergency landing. Upon touchdown, the landing gear collapsed. The aircraft slid on its belly and came to rest, bursting into flames. All six occupants escaped uninjured while the aircraft was destroyed.

Crash of a Learjet 35A in Kisangani

Date & Time: Jun 12, 2008 at 1245 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
D-CFAI
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Kisangani – Bukavu
MSN:
35-365
YOM:
1981
Region:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
The crew was completing a cargo flight from Kisangani to Bukavu on behalf of the United Nations. During the takeoff roll, the crew decided to reject takeoff for unknown reasons. The aircraft deviated to the right, causing the main gear to be torn off. The aircraft then slid for few dozen metres and came to rest with its right wing severely damaged. Both pilots escaped uninjured.

Crash of a Learjet 35A in Campo de Marte: 8 killed

Date & Time: Nov 4, 2007 at 1410 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
PT-OVC
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Site:
Schedule:
Campo de Marte - Rio de Janeiro
MSN:
35A-399
YOM:
1981
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
8
Captain / Total flying hours:
10049
Captain / Total hours on type:
3749.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
643
Copilot / Total hours on type:
125
Aircraft flight hours:
10583
Circumstances:
The aircraft was returning to its base in Rio de Janeiro-Santos Dumont following an ambulance flight to Campo de Marte AFB. Shortly after takeoff from runway 30, while climbing to an altitude of 1,400 feet, the aircraft rolled to the right to an angle of 90° then entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed onto several houses located on Bernardino de Sena Street, bursting into flames. Both pilots as well as six people on the ground were killed. Six others people were seriously injured.
Probable cause:
A possible loss of control during initial climb consecutive to a fuel imbalance. The following contributing factors were identified:
- Crew fatigue,
- Non-compliance with published procedures,
- Poor distribution of tasks prior to the flight and during the initial climb,
- Overconfidence on part of the crew,
- Poor flight preparation,
- Loss of situational awareness,
- Incorrect application of controls,
- The crew failed to follow the pre-takeoff checklist.
Final Report: