4 fatalities

2013-11-19: Learjet 35 (XA-USD) — AeroJL — Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, United States of America

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, United States of AmericaTakeoff (climb)

On November 19, 2013, a Learjet 35 (registration XA-USD) operated by AeroJL was involved in an aviation accident near Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, United States of America during takeoff. 4 people were killed. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane following an inflight deployment of the left engine thrust reverser. This summary draws on records from the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A).

Sourcesthe Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A)Primary reportUpdated 1781193874Data APIEditorial standards

A twin-engine jet experienced an inflight deployment of the left thrust reverser during takeoff. The crew did not perform appropriate emergency procedures, the copilot was unqualified, and the pilot lost control, resulting in an ocean impact.

Accident Overview

During takeoff to the east over the ocean, the twin-engine jet climbed to about 2,200 ft and 200 knots groundspeed. The copilot reported an "engine failure" and requested radar vectors back to the departure airport. The controller assigned an altitude and heading, but the copilot replied "not possible" and requested a 180-degree turn. The controller approved, but the airplane continued a gradual left turn to the north while slowing and descending.

Cockpit Communications and Actions

The copilot declared a "mayday" and again requested vectors. Over three minutes, the copilot acknowledged multiple instructions to turn left to the southwest, yet the airplane maintained its slow left turn and descent northbound. It slowed to 140 knots and descended to 900 ft while flying parallel to the shoreline, away from the airport. Eventually, the airplane tracked toward the airport but continued descending, impacting the ocean about 1 mile offshore.

Cockpit Voice Recorder Findings

CVR conversations revealed that no checklists were called, offered, or used during normal operations or after the emergency. After the "engine failure" declaration, the pilot asked the copilot for unspecified "help" because he did not "know what's going on" and could not identify the emergency or direct the copilot. The copilot did not identify or verify a specific emergency and provided no guidance or assistance.

Wreckage Examination

Recovered wreckage showed damage to the left engine's thrust reverser components, including separation of the lower blocker door. The stretched filament of the left engine's thrust reverser "UNLOCK" status light indicated illumination at impact, demonstrating that the thrust reverser became unlocked and deployed (at least partially, possibly fully) in flight. Impact damage precluded testing of electrical, pneumatic, and mechanical continuity, so the reason for deployment could not be determined. No previous instances of inflight thrust reverser deployment on this make and model were documented.

Emergency Procedures and Data

The airplane's flight manual supplement contained procedures for inadvertent thrust reverser deployment during takeoff. For deployments above V1, the procedure included maintaining control, placing the rocker switch in "EMER STOW," shutting down the engine, and performing a single-engine landing. Data from the left engine's digital electronic engine control (DEEC) showed that the rocker switch was not placed in "EMER STOW" and the engine was not shut down. DEEC data indicated a reduction in N1 about 100 seconds after takeoff, followed by a rise about 35 seconds later, consistent with deployment and subsequent separation of the lower blocker door. Full engine power was applied throughout the flight.

Crew Performance and Qualifications

Neither crewmember recognized the problem as an inflight thrust reverser deployment. Certification flight test data indicated the airplane would have been controllable in its configuration. If the crew had applied the "engine failure" procedure (the perceived problem), the airplane would have been more easily controlled and could have landed successfully. The airplane required two fully-qualified flight crewmembers; however, the copilot was not qualified to act as second-in-command and provided no meaningful assistance. The pilot's performance was highly deficient: he did not adhere to best practices in executing checklists, was unprepared for the emergency, did not refer to appropriate procedures, and did not direct the copilot to checklists.

Probable cause

The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane following an inflight deployment of the left engine thrust reverser. Contributing to the accident was the flight crew's failure to perform the appropriate emergency procedures, the copilot's lack of qualification and capability to act as a required flight crewmember for the flight, and the inflight deployment of the left engine thrust reverser for reasons that could not be determined through postaccident investigation.