Plane crash has occurred in Philidelphia; Jan 2025

The cockpit voice recorder is extraordinarily important in this particular crash.

The angle of the impact means that just about every part of the aircraft was completely destroyed. It’ll be very difficult to determine if there was a mechanical failure.

I do not think the aircraft is on fire, otherwise every UPS Van that drives by my ring camera at night would be on fire. I think it’s just the nature of doorbell cameras to show “bloom“ from bright lights when the background is dark.

However, when I see the flight parameters, as broadcast by ADS-B, I think this will turn out to be a spatial disorientation, a somatogravic illusion, very similar to that experienced by the crew on Atlas air 3591. I talked a lot about that kind of illusion in the thread on that crash. I recommend folks go back and read it.

The plane did not stall, the air speed steadily increased, and as the aircraft went nose down, airspeed increased rapidly. There was no abrupt change in pitch, or decrease in air speed, representing a stall, that would lead me to believe that the cargo had shifted or the airplane was outside of its center of gravity limits

This aircraft went into the cloud somewhere between four and 600 feet, while significantly nose up and at full power. The combination of pitch attitude, climb rate, and right hand turn can very easily create vestibular anomalies.

The climb rate on a Lear 55 is pretty good.

It is hard for people who have never experienced flight and instrument conditions to imagine how powerful the effect of a somatogravic illusion can be. But that effect is the reason that nearly every non-instrument rated pilot loses control of the airplane when they fly IMC.
In the article @Just a civilian pilot posted they mentioned examining the engines for mechanical issues but that sounded unlikely to me looking at that crater in the ground. The data recorder was 8 feel below ground, how well do those hold up to that type of impact?
 
I'd like to see the thread kept to facts instead of speculation by uniformed parties but I'm never going to get what I want either.
Last 8 years we’ve gotten 20 million extra “rocket scientists” who comment on every accident, disaster and event. Seems to be louder lately.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/new...sion-deadly-valentina-guzman-murillo/4096778/


On a more serious note, Will see if we are past the staffing breaking point as we seem to racking up more strange accidents than normal as staff is continuing to be spread thinner.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ort-employee-hit-plane-wing-catches-fire.html

Hopefully by the rule of 3’s we are done with this for a while.

Too many disasters and accidents lately,
 
Last edited:
Last 8 years we’ve gotten 20 million extra “rocket scientists” who comment on every accident, disaster and event. Seems to be louder lately.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/new...sion-deadly-valentina-guzman-murillo/4096778/


On a more serious note, Will see if we are past the staffing breaking point as we seem to racking up more strange accidents than normal as staff is continuing to be spread thinner.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ort-employee-hit-plane-wing-catches-fire.html

Hopefully by the rule of 3’s we are done with this for a while.

Too many disasters and accidents lately,
People want simple solutions for complex problems. That is because even knowledge turned into "2nd day delivery." People want answers to everything right now. When they don't have it, they come to stupid conclusions, and they ask stupid questions.
The accident at DCA and social media comments are truly something else.
 
Why is the fact that “oxygen tanks” are onboard seem important? How many ambulances have had issues? Has any medical plane had issues with them? Do they not have oxygen tanks on every jet flying for the pilot’s emergency oxygen?
 
Why is the fact that “oxygen tanks” are onboard seem important? How many ambulances have had issues? Has any medical plane had issues with them? Do they not have oxygen tanks on every jet flying for the pilot’s emergency oxygen?
Because it is constantly in use. My neighbor is retired flying ambulance nurse. And some time ago talking about his job, he mentioned it how it is critical safety issue because it is used often. they are very often operating it because patients that they transport are usually of complex nature.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is the fact that “oxygen tanks” are onboard seem important? How many ambulances have had issues? Has any medical plane had issues with them? Do they not have oxygen tanks on every jet flying for the pilot’s emergency oxygen?
Oxygen tanks are a safety concern in a little airplane like a Lear because, used improperly, they can increase the oxygen concentration in the cabin, which increases the risk of a fire.

This is why the CVR is so important. I think spatial disorientation was the cause, but if there was a fire in the back, that would certainly be distracting and could lead to spatial disorientation as the crew turns their heads to look in the cabin…

What the crew said on the CVR will help us understand what they were seeing and doing.
 
As an airline pilot, it's hard for me to understand how spatial disorientation ( which is what I think happened ) confused two pilots unless something else was going on.
 
..I do not think the aircraft is on fire, otherwise every UPS Van that drives by my ring camera at night would be on fire. I think it’s just the nature of doorbell cameras to show “bloom“ from bright lights when the background is dark...

I think you're right.

Later photos have shown a whiter light possibly from the take-off lights and not an orange glow. I think the sodium street lights may have contributed to the orange glow and may have been reflecting off of the mainly white fuselage.
 
As an airline pilot, it's hard for me to understand how spatial disorientation ( which is what I think happened ) confused two pilots unless something else was going on.

I'm not a pilot, but I can't understand it either. Why don't pilots trust their artificial horizon? On a aircraft like that there are 3 of them.

What are the chances they could all be giving false readings the same way at the same time? The probability has to be in the tens of billions. So why don't professional IFR rated, high performance jet pilots trust them?
 
I'm not a pilot, but I can't understand it either. Why don't pilots trust their artificial horizon? On a aircraft like that there are 3 of them.

What are the chances they could all be giving false readings the same way at the same time? The probability has to be in the tens of billions. So why don't professional IFR rated, high performance jet pilots trust them?
I understand that it can happen to even IFR rated pilots ( trained to trust their flight instruments ) , I just have a problem accepting that TWO commercial, IFR rated pilots could lose control.

It’s the other pilots job to monitor what the aircraft and pilot flying the aircraft is doing.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2014/Dec/SA17_Spatial_Disorientation.pdf
 
Last edited:
Oxygen tanks are a safety concern in a little airplane like a Lear because, used improperly, they can increase the oxygen concentration in the cabin, which increases the risk of a fire.

What the crew said on the CVR will help us understand what they were seeing and doing.

Something I’ve always found unbelievable but very real is if even a small amount of concentrated oxygen leaks against even a metal object you can get a flame, oxygen is non-flammable but it makes everything it touches flammable, even dust, sometimes explosively so.

Also small increases in oxygen percentages (a few percent) can drastically increase flammability of common objects that are normally somewhat fire resistant.
 
Something I’ve always found unbelievable but very real is if even a small amount of concentrated oxygen leaks against even a metal object you can get a flame, oxygen is non-flammable but it makes everything it touches flammable, even dust, sometimes explosively so.

Also small increases in oxygen percentages (a few percent) can drastically increase flammability of common objects that are normally somewhat fire resistant.
Timely reminder - it's been just over 58 years from the deadly Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967.

The Command Module was pressurized to 5 PSI with pure oxygen. A lot of stuff burned that wouldn't have under normal atmospheric conditions.
 
I understand that it can happen to even IFR rated pilots ( trained to trust their flight instruments ) , I just have a problem accepting that TWO commercial, IFR rated pilots could lose control.

It’s the other pilots job to monitor what the aircraft and pilot flying the aircraft is doing.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2014/Dec/SA17_Spatial_Disorientation.pdf
They may be commercial, and they may have been IFR rated, but they lack your 20,000 hours of experience and the quality of your training.

Just because somebody’s been doing something for a while doesn’t mean that they’re good at it.

We see this in auto mechanics all the time, don’t we?
 
I'm not a pilot, but I can't understand it either. Why don't pilots trust their artificial horizon? On a aircraft like that there are 3 of them.

What are the chances they could all be giving false readings the same way at the same time? The probability has to be in the tens of billions. So why don't professional IFR rated, high performance jet pilots trust them?
The odds of multiple instrument failures, all showing the same erroneous result, are infinitesimally small. I really do not think that was at work here.

But your question, “why don’t pilots trust their artificial horizon“, is a matter of basic human physiology. In order to fly IFR, you have to overcome physiology.

The vestibular input to your brain has been a developed pathway since you were born, when you learned to walk, you learned to rely on the vestibular input for balance, it’s how you determine when you are level, how to put one foot in front of the other.

It’s extraordinarily powerful. Most people have never experienced a disconnect between what their visual input and vestibular input. A lot of pilots who have never flown truly high-performance aircraft have never experienced it, at least, not significantly.

I watched a friend* of mine fly a perfectly good airplane into the water one night. It was March 15, 1996, on the John C. Stennis. You’ve never experienced dark until you’ve been on an aircraft carrier at sea, at night, under a cloud layer. There are no lights. There are no stars. There is absolutely no way to determine where the horizon is because everywhere you look is the same uniform inky blackness. An experienced naval aviator. A pilot with extensive training - there was nothing wrong with the airplane. Most likely scenario, because the airplane sank in 15,000 feet of water, was that he looked down at a warning light and then looked back up immediately, following a catapult shot. His plane nosed over and descended into the water. I was on the LSO platform at the time, watching the launch, and I grabbed the radio, realized I was on a different frequency than he was, and by the time I had rotated the selector, he was gone.

A significant longitudinal acceleration, like a catapult shot makes you feel that you’ve been tilted backwards. That is the effect of the fluid in your inner ear, rushing backwards under the acceleration. It makes you think that you’ve tilted nose up. You haven’t, of course, but the somatogravic illusion is strong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_illusions_in_aviation

https://skybrary.aero/articles/somatogravic-and-somatogyral-illusions

Things like a strong acceleration, like a Lear 55 on takeoff, confuse your inner ear, and the effect is more powerful than people realize. I’ve watched it kill an experienced, capable and disciplined crew.

I sincerely doubt that the crew of this Lear 55 had the skills, training, and discipline of my friend, and it is my belief that they simply succumbed to the same illusion that overpowered him.


*LT Don Cioffi, from Freehold, NJ. A good man, a good pilot, and a good LSO.
 
Last edited:
The odds of multiple instrument failures, all showing the same erroneous result, are infinitesimally small. I really do not think that was at work here.

But your question, “why don’t pilots trust their artificial horizon“, is a matter of basic human physiology. In order to fly IFR, you have to overcome physiology.

The vestibular input to your brain has been a developed pathway since you were born, when you learned to walk, you learned to rely on the vestibular input for balance, it’s how you determine when you are level, how to put one foot in front of the other.

It’s extraordinarily powerful. Most people have never experienced a disconnect between what their visual input and vestibular input. A lot of pilots who have never flown truly high-performance aircraft have never experienced it, at least, not significantly.

I watched a friend* of mine fly a perfectly good airplane into the water one night. It was March 15, 1996, on the John C. Stennis. You’ve never experienced dark until you’ve been on an aircraft carrier at sea, at night, under a cloud layer. There are no lights. There are no stars. There is absolutely no way to determine where the horizon is because everywhere you look is the same uniform inky blackness. An experienced naval aviator. A pilot with extensive training there was nothing wrong with the airplane, most likely scenario, because the airplane sank in 15,000 feet of water, was that he looked down at a warning light and then looked back up immediately, following a catapult shot. His plane nosed over and descended into the water. I was on the LSO platform at the time, watching the launch, and I grabbed the radio, realized I was on a different frequency than he was, and by the time I had rotated the selector, he was gone.

A significant longitudinal acceleration, like a catapult shot makes you feel that you’ve been tilted backwards. That is the effect of the fluid in your inner ear, rushing backwards under the acceleration. It makes you think that you’ve tilted nose up. You haven’t, of course, but the somatogravic illusion is strong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_illusions_in_aviation

https://skybrary.aero/articles/somatogravic-and-somatogyral-illusions

Things like a strong acceleration, like a Lear 55 on takeoff, confuse your inner ear, and the effect is more powerful than people realize. I’ve watched it kill an experienced, capable and disciplined crew.

I sincerely doubt that the crew of this Lear 55 had the skills, training, and discipline of my friend, and it is my belief that they simply succumbed to the same illusion that overpowered him.


*LT Don Cioffi, from Freehold, NJ. A good man, a good pilot, and a good LSO.
That's an awful thing to witness and go though. Condolences to your friend Mr. Cioffi and Mr. Wilcox. I wondered if that's the case since I don't imagine they fly all the time and Mexican aviation standards are genuinely lower than US standards. I have no issue spending more to not fly on aeromexico when traveling unless they're the only option at the time. Driving through the border has become far too dangerous with the government over there doing next to nothing. I tried to look up the crew to see if there's any public info on their flight hours being captain Alan Alejandro Montoya Perales and copilot Josue de Jesus Juarez Juarez but couldn't find anything. I imagine pilots can find info on other pilots better than non pilots. I imagine there's some database operators and employees have access to but likely aren't able to publicly disclose them.
 
They may be commercial, and they may have been IFR rated, but they lack your 20,000 hours of experience and the quality of your training.

Just because somebody’s been doing something for a while doesn’t mean that they’re good at it.

We see this in auto mechanics all the time, don’t we?
My point was I don't think TWO of them would be confused ( losing their scan ) at the same time unless something else was going on.

They didn't just take off and crash due to disorientation. I am unfamiliar with any crash due to a two operation crashing just because both pilots were low time ( airlines, commercial aviation ) and got disorientated.

Flying time/training doesn't always mean the person behind the controls is a strong pilot ( I could say more about that, but ).

I learned to fly at a flying club. My first flying jobs were flying with other low time pilots like myself, no auto pilot, no flight directors, nothing.

The 27,000 hours I have today took 40 years , and many of the airlines I flew for didn't have good training.

It's not just flying hours and training, some pilots are weak.

To be honest, off the top of my head, the only crash I can remember caused by losing control was the F14 that took off ( cleared unrestricted high performance climb ) in Tennessee.

That guy had the best training but he was weak, and there was only one pilot ( not sure what instruments the RIO had ) .

I am fully aware after flying this long just because a pilot has been flying for years doesn't make them a good pilot ( and where they learned to fly doesn't matter. It depends on the pilot ).

Edit: We don't even know if the auto pilot was on in the Learjet.
 
Last edited:
My point was I don't think TWO of them would be confused ( losing their scan ) at the same time unless something else was going on.

They didn't just take off and crash due to disorientation. I am unfamiliar with any crash due to a two operation crashing just because both pilots were low time ( airlines, commercial aviation ) and got disorientated.

Flying time/training doesn't always mean the person behind the controls is a strong pilot ( I could say more about that, but ).

To be honest, off the top of my head, the only crash I can remember caused by losing control was the F14 that took off ( cleared unrestricted high performance climb ) in Tennessee.

That guy had the best training but he was weak, and there was only one pilot ( not sure what instruments the RIO had ) .

Edit: We don't even know if the auto pilot was on in the Learjet.
Given that it was a minute after take off isn't one pilot flying and the other doing other things? I'm not a pilot and I know you are so I'm not saying I'm right in the slightest but the plane is over 40 years old so maybe less automated and more manual? Could the other pilot have been too pre occupied with tasks like the radio to not be able to do anything in time to help the possibly struggling pilot flying who might've kept quiet, at least until it was too late at that point? It may be a possibility.
 
I kind of don't want to own or personally fly a plane anymore after reading this thread.

My dreams of getting around in an Aero Albatross L-39 are slowly fading.
 
Given that it was a minute after take off isn't one pilot flying and the other doing other things? I'm not a pilot and I know you are so I'm not saying I'm right in the slightest but the plane is over 40 years old so maybe less automated and more manual? Could the other pilot have been too pre occupied with tasks like the radio to not be able to do anything in time to help the possibly struggling pilot flying who might've kept quiet, at least until it was too late at that point? It may be a possibility.
In a two pilot operation, one pilot flies, the other pilot monitors and provides feedback when required.

Exactly ( and if you watch that video, the non flying pilot was talking to the Tower and switching - they never did establish contact with departure control - frequencies around the same time they started having problems ) , one pilot could have been distracted.

The pilot not flying is always supposed to monitor what the pilot flying is doing ( and what the aircraft is doing ) , but even more so when the auto pilot is off and close to the ground ( below 10,000 critical phase flight many airlines ).

The Learjet has to have a auto pilot or else its not allowed to fly above 29,000 ( ATC RVSM ) and it wouldn’t have nearly as much range if capped at 29,000.

Some pilots put it on right after take off, some Like to hand fly to 10,000 thing.

If you’re not used to taking off at night right into low ceilings with a turn coming up, put the AP on right after take off.
 
Last edited:
I used to do simulator testing for business jets for an aerospace company before semi-retirement. And no, I am not a real pilot (as yet).

One night I was the PIC in the simulator and on takeoff the FO was fiddling with the FMS and wasn't watching me at the controls, totally against procedure. The FMS is supposed to be programmed on the ground before rollout according to the flight plan. On take-off, I made a sharp left bank at about 190 knots indicated air speed at about 500 feet and purposely nosedived. As can be expected, the screen went red. The FO asks, "What happened?" I requested a new FO/engineer to assist with the simulation.

And while I understand vestibular functions and visible clues, I only state this as a possible scenario—a theory. Could the pilot monitoring may not have been properly monitoring the pilot flying on takeoff?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom