Ads skipped

Learjet Crash: The Disturbing Evidence Against the Pilot

268K views · Nov 3, 2026 · Music

Beyond Capture

1.1K subscribers

Comments · 1.4K

@starfall8604 · 6 days ago
Why is the thumbnail the co-pilot instead of the pilot who was actually flying the jet?
627
@ESUSAMEX · 6 days ago (edited)
The 20 year-old co-pilot wasn't at the fight controls, she was responsible for the radio. And she did a great job giving the information during a hellish situation. The investigators will not be able to find the black boxes because they were destroyed, so her work on the radio will be key.  They all died a horrible death and worse still they all knew it beforehand. I find it disgusting that so many people in the media and others are placing the blame on the young woman without knowing how things work in the cockpit.
235
@rsinfelt1 · 6 days ago
Nobody is talking about the warning they were given when they first entered the West Coast of Fl, when they could have just went South over the Keys and been well away from these storms.
137
@TradinTigerJohn · 6 days ago (edited)
Clear ice at that altitude indicates supercooled water droplets, and the OAT reported by the crew was abnormally <b>high</b> for that altitude. No manmade flying machine "manages" ice under those conditions. Their point of no recovery may have been as many as several minutes before the upset in such conditions, and its avoidance maneuver would have been a carefully executed 180 degree turn away from the line of thunderstorms and the supercooled water its powerful convection currents were carrying to that altitude, and then a plan to divert south to circumnavigate the storms.  The Lear 60 uses electrically heated leading edges on the tail to reduce icing, and bleed air heated surfaces on the wings. Both systems are considered anti-icing measures, not de-icing systems. Once you start picking up ice, the anti-icing systems are already overwhelmed. Most pilots consider altitude deviations of 50-75 feet to be moderate turbulence. 700 foot deviations represent an aircraft being tossed like a leaf in severe, or more likely, extreme turbulence. Combine that with the stall characteristics of the highly loaded Lear wing and the inherent structural weakness of a t-tail and the only question remains, "how did it manage to fly as long as it did." God have mercy on the passengers and crew.
135
@dougnorton5143 · 6 days ago
It is really, Really irritating that the so called experts on here keep alluding that the young lady was the pilot when in FACT she was NOT! STOP IT DAMNIT!
141
@ycplum7062 · 6 days ago
The pilot, not the copilot is in command of the aircraft. His word is final. Furthermore, the person on the radio is not the one actually flying the the aircraft. In such a situation, the person flying has all their attention of just flying. That girl's job was to communicate between the pilot and control tower. In my opinion, the did an outstanding professional job. She she communicated clearly and accurately in the face of death. That is outstanding for anyone, much less a person her age.
111
@JadesPrediction · 5 days ago
considering the speed they were falling, that young woman held it together and relayed info, Ive only ever been on a ride that drops freefall about 200ft with a 4.5g force, which is difficult to get through, the heart and stomach turn. She talked and relayed real information all while dropping straight down. Bless their souls, may they find peace in heaven xx
62
@TFBITRCY · 6 days ago
Waiting until the NTSB report is issued.  If the tail assembly broke free from the airplane the pilots/passengers never stood a chance.
53
@ronhunt2477 · 6 days ago
You are missing some very important points as to why they might have made the decision to not stay at 41,000 ft. In my opinion it was possibly for a couple of reasons. #1. The high speed - low speed buffet margin you might know as "coffin corner" which would have been significantly lower at higher altitude. #2. It was an attempt to get under the anvil of the storms ahead to give them a wider ability for deviations and possibly give them some visability in clear air under the anvil clouds to better see the storms they were trying to get around. 41,000 feet didn't guarantee them to be able to clear the tops of the storm and the turbulence within the anvil cloud could be significant. Lastly we don't know what they saw on the onboard weather radar as compared to the ground based radar that you are showing. As they approached that storm it was below them at 33000 feet,  depending on how they had the radar set up it may not have appeared to be a concern. Also at that time they were still headed northeast so that storm may have been far enough off to the right of their radar display they didn't see what they were getting into until they made the turn to the east.  Additionally, depending on how they had the radar tilt, gain and other settings, they may have not seen the storm to be a threat due to the bulk of the storms energy still being below them. Your comments from your experts are questionable. I flew for all around the world for a major airline and you don't always have a choice to cross above the storms, many times you have to find a way around them and in fact there are many times getting back to point #1 above, where it can actually more dangerous to cross above the storms if you cannot guarantee that you will clear them by a good margin. Additionally, their request to climb most likely had nothing to do with the speed of the engines at the time. The request to climb, in my opinion, was most likely to get out of the ice which was unusual at that altitude and tempature. You can tell they were already concerned about the ice from what they said and requested from ATC.  There is also no indication that they pulled the nose up to climb abnormally causing the stall. You don't climb a business/passenger jet that way at that altitude, not even a Learjet. If the engines were already at max power and the airspeed was bleeding off they simply didn't have the ability to climb at all. What I believed happened is this - They were in heavy to severe turbulence, the aircraft was being loaded with ice accumulation at an incredible rate.  The autopilot reached it's limits and as the airspeed bleed down it disconnected resulting in an uncontroled pitch movement resulting in a stall and roll as the nose fell to a 20 - 30 nose down attitude. With the sleek design of the Learjet and with climb power on the engines when that happened, the airspeed would have exceeded VMO in a matter of seconds while the crew was still in there "surprise" moment of "what's happening" that every single flight crew experiences no mater how experienced they are when something like this is dumped on them unexpectedly.
67
@JosephOlson-ld2td · 6 days ago
Lear 60, produced 1993 to 2013, three runway fatal accidents, first In-Flight fatalities. Weather storm scopes and de-ice systems are to AVOID HAZARDS, not bust through them
42
@voyaristika5673 · 6 days ago (edited)
These tragedies remind us that we just never know. It's so sad. (Thank you for not including cockpit audio. That was considerate).
3
@DianeSchwartz-g8t · 5 days ago (edited)
The weather here on that day was highly unusual and foreboding.  I’m a 30 year resident in Southeast Florida. The sky was filled with heavy low lying clouds, with different shades of grey from medium to dark…  it was only 1pm but the sky was eerily dark… it was dismal and actively changing from moment to moment.  It was volatile… that’s the best word to describe it… and constantly in motion with heavy rains one moment and inky drizzling the next.  Spooky is another word I’d use.
8