Learjet60 (N722BD) Crash near Palm Beach, Florida, US on Nov 1, 2026

[Astronuc]

The NTSB team will spend days collecting every piece of the plane they can find. Investigators said Tuesday that pieces of a key part of the tail called the elevator, which controls the plane’s pitch, were found more than a mile away from the main crater. That confirms the plane started to break apart before impact.

https://apnews.com/article/florida-...nvestigation-ab8ee2ceefe09c87b1a4364a384a90c6

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/artic...ssengers-and-pilots-identified-145407805.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_60. (note elevators on tail (vertical stabilizer)

The aircraft quickly went nose-down with a 60 degree bank while attempting to increase altitude (climb from 35000 ft to 37000 ft). The descent speed increased quick to 20000+ ft/min to 30000 ft/min just before impact. I wonder if the right wing stalled (lost lift, due to icing) causing a bank to the right, then the craft quickly lost altitude.

Was the de-icing system inactive? Or, was the de-icing system inadequate for the given conditions (-47°C, -52.6°F)? When did the aircraft lose the elevator(s)? Structural failure before or after aerodynamic forces exceeded structural limits (due to overspeed condition)?

How could this catastrophe been avoided?



Mentour video - Everything We Know About The LearJet Crash





Pilot Debrief (Hoover) video - The Learjet Plane Crash Was Worse Than We Thought!





Understanding the Learjet Crash in Palm Beach | Captain Steeeve

 

[.Scott]

I have been following this.
I think the key issue is why did they enter that rapidly developing cumulonimbus.
I have my suspicions about exactly what happened. Before the mayday, the copilot reported "moderate turbulence" and manageable icing. But the deviations from their target altitude at that point were 700 or 600 feet. When Captain Steeeve noted this, he treated it as a misstatement and that the turbulence must have been much more than "moderate" by normal standards. Another possibility is that there were already very serious elevator issues.
I realize that my little Cessna and other craft handle very differently than biz jet, been in "moderate turbulence", I have always been able to hold to within 75 feet of my target altitude - and most often to within the common expectation of 50 feet. When flying IFR (as was 2BD), precision within a few feet is expected. According to Google, IFR traffic would normally hold to within 100 to 200 feet. This does not surprise me. Small planes are more responsive to quick corrections.
I would not expect an experienced pilot to loose or gain 700 feet in moderate turbulence, nor would I expect an experienced copilot to report "moderate" turbulence if the turbulence had actually been the cause of the of the 700 foot deviation.
Some consideration needs to given to the possibility that they were running into broad regions of updrafts but with only moderate local turbulence - but I think that is stretching things.
Instead, I suggest that the altitude deviation was the result of icing or damage to the elevator.

Next they report precipitation and request FL370 - and they were given altitude. Almost immediately, 2BD reports descending at 8000fpm then 10,000fpm. This is radical. Most reports think this is a stall. I think this is when the elevator broke free and they went from difficult attitude control to lawn dart mode.

There were later reports of a bank angle of 60 degrees. I suggest this may have been an attempt by the pilot to use combined rudder and aileron controls to get the nose up and reduce the rate of descent. It's called a cross-control slip and is sometimes used to descend without gaining airspeed. In this case, the pilot may have hoped that with engine power, he would be able to use this to maintain an altitude.

Once in "lawn dart" mode, the flight is likely doomed. I say "likely" because, as hang-glider pilots know, there is another way to control aircraft pitch when no elevator control is available. The method would require that as much passenger and payload be moved to the rear of the aircraft until an effect on pitch is noticed. Then begin to carefully move some of the weight forward again to balance the CG over the center of lift. I suspect that would be possible - but not without advance practice.

The NTSB has a long list of things to look at. The location of that elevator will be telling. They need to know how the plane ended up in a cumulonimbus. They will also check the weights and balances. The Learjet 60 does not have a baggage area in the nose, but they will still want to check weights and balances.

 

[gmax137]

I really like Juan at blancolirio for aviation 'analysis.' Lots of fact based opinion, if that makes sense.

 

[Andrew Mason]

The audio recording indicates that they first descended to 35000 feet and indicated that the outside temperature was -47° Celsius. They said: "We are managing the ice but it is moderate turbulence". 20 seconds later (assuming the audio recording provides the full timeline) they reported precipitation and needed to climb. They were directed to ascend to 37,000 feet. 13 seconds after confirming "Climb 370" they issued a Mayday saying they were descending 10000 feet/minute. 10 seconds later they reported "overspeed condition" descending 20,000 feet/minute and 15 seconds after that "We're going to crash into the ground". 7 seconds later they reported descending 22,000 feet/minute then "banking 60 degrees". 16 seconds later as they reported "out of 10" they hit the ground.

The time between reporting Mayday and the impact with the ground was 54 seconds. Let's say it was a full minute. That would make their average descent speed 35000 fpm or about 400 mph (640 kph) so their final descent speed would have been much higher. I suspect the tail broke off due to the high speed descent rather than being the cause of it.

• Here are some of the details of this Learjet:
  • Aircraft Type: Learjet 60
  • Registration: N722BD
  • Serial Number: 60-271
  • Year Built: 2004
  • Owner: LR60271 LLC
  • Operator: Aurora Aviation (dba Upper Jets)

 

[.Scott]

I suspect the tail broke off due to the high speed descent rather than being the cause of it.

That is the popular opinion (and not my best guess). It will be interesting to learn exactly where they found that elevator.

 

[Astronuc]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather-news/articles/pilots-push-level-jet-may-160428355.html

Investigators recovered a part that controls the plane's pitch in three separate pieces, one of them nearly four miles from where the Learjet 60 went down.

Investigators recovered the left tail elevator, a "very important piece of evidence," National Transportation Safety Board member Thomas B. Chapman told reporters Tuesday.

Chapman said that pieces of the left tail elevator were found anywhere from 1.3 to 3.8 miles away from the crash site, explaining that it likely separated from the plane before crashing. Investigators will study it to determine whether losing the part helped bring the plane down or whether forces acting on the aircraft tore it loose.

What about the right elevator? Both elevators control the pitch.

 

[.Scott]

What about the right elevator? Both elevators control the pitch.

In the dashcam videos, both are seen to be missing. But the best view is of that [missing] right elevator.
Looking at FlightRadar24, 3.8 miles roughly corresponds to when they descended below 30,000 feet.

The non-pay version of FlightRadar24 does not give me a good look at when the aircraft almost leveled off for a moment at 8000. But I can tell that that would have been about half a mile from the crash site.

 

[Baluncore]

Maybe, loss of tail elevator control, due to ice forming on both surfaces in freezing rain. Followed by separation of the tail elevator, due to high speed and ice drag in the denser lower atmosphere.

 

[DaveC426913]

there is another way to control aircraft pitch when no elevator control is available. The method would require that as much passenger and payload be moved to the rear of the aircraft until an effect on pitch is noticed. Then begin to carefully move some of the weight forward again to balance the CG over the center of lift. I suspect that would be possible - but not without advance practice.

And, of course, not in the 60 seconds they had left, and not while the plane is pitched at 60 degrees.

 

[DaveC426913]

16 seconds later as they reported "out of 10" they hit the ground.

I thought she said "we're out of time". Is "out of 10" a thing?

 

[Andrew Mason]

I thought she said "we're out of time". Is "out of 10" a thing?

That makes more sense.

The audio was silenced for the final few seconds on the Youtube clip so I was going by the transcription on the screen. See:


AM

 

[.Scott]

And, of course, not in the 60 seconds they had left, and not while the plane is pitched at 60 degrees.

It's a small cabin with lots of hand holds - and as soon as you get the pitch up a little, you start buying time.

On the other side, there is no guarantee you will have that full 60 seconds. One item brought up in one of the NTSB briefings was "Mach Tuck". More broadly, as the Mach number increases, the flight characteristics change for the worse.
As you mentioned, the G forces would not have been consistent in either magnitude or direction, so it would be an effort.
Still, if I knew with certainty that we had lost the elevator, I would have tried to organize the move.

I thought she said "we're out of time". Is "out of 10" a thing?

"Out of 10" would mean that they had just passed through 10,000 feet altitude. That phrasing is used in routine altitude reporting to ATC.
I have listened to those last moments of transmission. I have no doubt that she said "We are out of time".
I can give you the reasoning in context, but only with with this advice: after reading this, you may not walk away exactly as you walked in:

Spoiler

There is serious drama during the final 15 or so seconds. At one point (copilot) Nathalia screams in apparent recognition that nothing can be done. Soon after that she yells "Jeff, Look out the window, Jeff". Since they had been in instrument conditions most of this time, there had been nothing to see out the window. Apparently at that moment, they broke through the clouds. They would have seen the terrain fill their windshield. Having practiced spins as a student pilot and pilot and having practiced aerobatic flying, I can tell you that view can be very distracting. It was after that when Nathalia said "We are out of time". "Out of 10" would make no sense because they would have dropped below 10,000feet before they broke through the clouds (based on the dashcam videos). And beside, she was clearly more interested in her fate than in altitude milestones.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Could the Learjet 60 have experienced a tail stall due to icing? Losing the downward push on the tail could certainly put the plane into an immediate nose-dive.

According to what I have been able to find, the Learjet 60 uses electrical heating on the horizontal stabilizer leading edge for de-icing but does not have any other de-icing system such as the inflatable rubber de-icing boots. The horizontal stabilizer is too high to catch any direct heat from the engine exhaust and does not receive recycled heat from the engines. The de-icing of the wings is by piping engine bleed air through the leading edges of the wings. It does not use a leading edge rubber boot system. (See Ch. 10 of the Learjet 60 Pilot Training Manual):

 

[Astronuc]

Another insightful video.

Could Any Pilot Have Saved This Learjet 60?​

The narrator addresses the situational awareness. Did the pilots know they were heading into a convective cell? The small nose on the aircraft has a small radar dish, which means a narrow radar cone. Did the cell rise up under/outside the onboard weather radar cone?

The weather conditions my have involved 'super-cooled' water that then froze on the wings and control surfaces - a dangerous condition. Cold water can flow backward across the wing over unprotected areas.

A little bit of clear icing can reduce maximum lift by 25 to 30%! The narrator indicates that fuel loading and 9 souls onboard, the aircraft might have been in the upper range of permissible weight/load.

Freezing rain and severe icing may have removed any margin to stall, i.e., there was no longer any safe airspeed.

Guidance - 'slowing down for turbulence' conflicts with 'going faster for ice accumulation'. Manufacturers specify a maximum airspeed for turbulence, but few specify the same for en route icing conditions.

The video asks the question, "Did the elevator or stabilizer separate before the dive, or during it?

The NTSB indicated that 3 pieces of the left elevator were found 1.3 to 3.8 miles from the impact site indicating that the left elevator separated during the dive. An estimate of peak airspeed during the dive was 180 kts over the maximum rated speed! Yikes! Control surface flutter and aerodynamic forces may have caused loss of left elevator.

 

[Lnewqban]

Coffin corner as additional hypothesis:

Please, see:
https://simpleflying.com/what-worries-pilots-flying-above-40000-feet/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics)

Perhaps someone in power was being inflexible about timing of arrival or used fuel.
It could have been so simple to land in many of the regional airports in Naples or Fort Lauderdale or Miami for a couple of hours...

 

[DaveC426913]

It's a small cabin with lots of hand holds -

60 seconds is 60 seconds. That includes time of the pilots to attempt a recovery, then to think of talking to the passengers and telling them to move back, and be heard over the screaming. What's that? About 15 seconds left? How fast can a passenger realize what is being asked and actually climb up a 60 degree bucking bronc—and you're out of time.

and as soon as you get the pitch up a little, you start buying time.

Getting the nose up 15 degrees with 10 seconds left buys you approx. 2.5 seconds. You have 45 degrees to go.

 

[.Scott]

I ran into this article and this video describing an N722BD flight from May 6, 2026.
This is the same aircraft and reportedly the same crew.

It's an exchange between 2BD and Newark ATC. I am using "2BD-P" is the male pilot voice and "2BD-C" for the female co-pilot voice. The voices sound like Jeff and Nathalia and are reported in the video as being them - the same two crashed 6 months later.

EWR: November two bravo delta, why are you climbing?

2BD-C: We were just about to call you.
2BD-C: We are experiencing moderate chop and it's impossible to hold altitude; 2BD.

EWR: Just that, that's not moderate. Descend to 4000 immediately.
EWR: Traffic alert 11 o'clock, 4 miles, Citation or make it a Gulfstream at 5.

2BD-C: We're descending to 4000; 2BD.
2BD-P: We got moderate chop, sir.

EWR: If you can't maintain altitude, that's not moderate, that's sever turbulence.
EWR: Are you experiencing severe turbulence?
EWR: 2BD, are you experiencing severe turbulence?

2BD (in unison): Affirmative. Affirmative, sir.
2BD-P: Can you give us a better heading?

...

At that time, 2BD was within 2.5 miles of two other aircraft, N69ME to the SSW and TFF938 to the north.

Flight 938 was at similar altitudes about 2 miles to the north. It reported "IMC" (instrument flight conditions) but no turbulence.

Less than a minute later:
EWR: 2BD, any injuries?
2BD-C: No injuries as of now, but we are still experiencing severe turbulence; 2BD.
EWR: 2BD, turn right 040 ...


If I had to guess, ... well, I guess I will keep my guess to myself. At least until we get more data.

 

[DaveC426913]

If I had to guess, ... well, I guess I will keep my guess to myself. At least until we get more data.

Sorry, colour me obtuse. How is this account related to the current disaster? Same crew? Same plane?
Or merely comparable incident? I dont get what im supposed to be reading into this.

 

[phyzguy]

Sorry, colour me obtuse. How is this account related to the current disaster? Same crew? Same plane?
Or merely comparable incident? I dont get what im supposed to be reading into this.

Same crew and same plane.

 

[DaveC426913]

Same crew and same plane.

I thought that perhaps, but this reads as if theycthen crashed.

the same two crashed 6 months later.

OK I guess Nov 1 is six months after May.

 

[.Scott]

Sorry, colour me obtuse. How is this account related to the current disaster? Same crew? Same plane?
Or merely comparable incident? I dont get what im supposed to be reading into this.

Sorry, I have added a line near the top of my post to make this more explicit.
I shouldn't assume that all PF readers would key off "N722BD".

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry, I have added a line near the top of my post to make this more explicit.
I shouldn't assume that all PF readers would key off "N722BD".

No, i got that. I was just having trouble with where you were leading us. Was it the same crew or just the same plane?

 

[berkeman]

No, i got that. I was just having trouble with where you were leading us. Was it the same crew or just the same plane?

From what I have read, the same crew, same plane, same weather issues.

 

[DaveC426913]

From what I have read, the same crew, same plane, same weather issues.

Right, so there seems to be an implication here.

The only possible theory that leads to is they made a bad call going in. Because once they were in the crisis, it creeps there was nothing they could have done.

Right?

 

[.Scott]

No, i got that. I was just having trouble with where you were leading us. Was it the same crew or just the same plane?

Where this is leading me is that they knew what the problem was six months before the crash. Either that or I have to believe that they really don't know what moderate chop is and that they traversed at least ten miles of airspace and found severe turbulence where those around never saw more than IMC. On top of that, we are dealing with a copilot wired for factual reports - even to the point of updating climb rates mid-sentence.

 

[Lnewqban]

 

[Point Conception]

From the link:

 

[Point Conception]

 

[.Scott]

Let me address the "optics" of that Newark conversation - with a bit more aviator background.

If you're in controlled airspace and do not follow ATC instructions, you are creating a serious hazard. If you are assigned 4000msl (as an example) and drift to 4100, you're altimeter pressure reading will be transmitted through your transponder to ATC where it will be corrected for the current barometric pressure and reported on the ATC "radar screen". The ATC operator will then contact you about this. In this case:

EWR: November two bravo delta, why are you climbing?

The pilot is definitely on the spot. He/she should have reported any altitude problem already - before drifting or very soon after drifting from the assigned altitude.
Here is their response:

2BD-C: We were just about to call you. 2BD-C: We are experiencing moderate chop and it's impossible to hold altitude; 2BD.

So, unless you didn't catch it, that "We were just about to call you." is basically an apology.
As I mentioned earlier, given her other radio reports, she seems to be wired for accurate reports.
It is clearly possible to have "moderate chop" and still be unable to hold altitude. But in that case, something other than the "chop" is at work.
Nathalia had much more pilot hours than I ever had, but there is something that the very experienced Jeff should know and that Nathalia is not considering. If ATC doesn't get an acceptable explanation for this altitude deviation, they will start a process that begins with supplying the pilots with a phone number and continues with reports and interviews. Depending on the results of that process, it could result in the grounding of the plane or either pilot for sometime - during which there will be no income from their jobs.
"Moderate chop" won't hack it.

The ATC is a bit tongue tied. He's just been put into "policeman" mode and he needs to set priorities. Air traffic first, phone number later.

EWR: Just that, that's not moderate. Descend to 4000 immediately. EWR: Traffic alert 11 o'clock, 4 miles, Citation or make it a Gulfstream at 5.

Then both pilot start to sync up with what's happening with ATC and each responds:

2BD-C: We're descending to 4000; 2BD. 2BD-P: We got moderate chop, sir.

So think, "double apology".
Normally, one pilot (Jeff, who I call 2BD-P) would do the aviating and the other (Nathalia, 2BD-C) would handle communications. So Jeff is letting ATC know that they have their full attention.

Soon after ATC returns to policeman mode.

EWR: If you can't maintain altitude, that's not moderate, that's severe turbulence. EWR: Are you experiencing severe turbulence? EWR: 2BD, are you experiencing severe turbulence?

( he had time to ask twice )

2BD (in unison): Affirmative. Affirmative, sir.

Actually, Nathalia say "Affirmative" first and then Jeff started in with "Affirmative, sir" before Nathalia finishes.
( as in "we are eager to make you happy")

Jeff then requests:

2BD-P: Can you give us a better heading?

In a previous post, I said that this suggested to me that the pilots knew what the real problem was six months before the fatal crash. But it is also possible (maybe even likely) that they really did not. If they had stuck to their guns and with "moderate chop", the subsequent investigation might have turned up the real problem.

 

[Point Conception]

Yes , And I may add that a flight crew that calls severe turbulence "moderate " above Newark : May also have a following mindset to classify dangerous weather conditions ahead ( that this flight crew was warned about 15 minutes before the crash in Florida by ATC) as moderate/manageable. And as noted in post above diverting to a local Florida airport would have saved them. At the least, gone very wide around these dangerous conditions in Florida would have been expected by experienced commercial pilots.