Plane crash Gillespie Field, San Diego

The Flightaware track is interesting. If the data are reliable, he crossed over SEE midfield southbound at 130 knots groundspeed, at 700' MSL -- which is 312 feet above field elevation. He started the left turn before reaching the south field boundary, then climbed about 250 feet and ground speed increased to 145 knots before the data points stop.

I imagine it's quite difficult to maintain the self discipline required to effect coordinated flight at that altitude and speed. I suspect at this point, the PF had abandoned the by-the-numbers approach, and the PNF simply watched in horror as it all unraveled.
 
Im based at Gillespie and that hill is not that big. You barely notice it when turning downwind to base or base to final.

there’s a few other “hills” that are noticeable, tho. And very nearby.

I don’t really like SEE in the daytime and would never land there at night.
 
there’s a few other “hills” that are noticeable, tho. And very nearby.

I don’t really like SEE in the daytime and would never land there at night.

I literally landed there once at night, when I was forced to rent a SEE-based plane as Plan E. It was CAVU and I still asked for the RNAV 17.
 
I literally landed there once at night, when I was forced to rent a SEE-based plane as Plan E. It was CAVU and I still asked for the RNAV 17.

another one to watch is DVT, North Phoenix. That sonofabiscuit has these hills all around it, too, VFR at night exceeds my risk profiles when landing Westbound.
 
another one to watch is DVT, North Phoenix. That sonofabiscuit has these hills all around it, too, VFR at night exceeds my risk profiles when landing Westbound.

At least DVT has LPV approaches in both directions to fly. Just let the GPS do the work on a straight in.
 
For anyone lazy to look it up, here are the plates.. note that Circling at night is not authorized for 27R...

View attachment 103191
View attachment 103192

According to https://metar-taf.com/history/KSEE
View attachment 103193

Not much more to it than that.
I don't know about LJs but it sounds like he accepted an approach to a runway he couldn't safely land on. He then tried to get around that nighttime IFR procedure restriction. I don't think tower should have cleared him for it either. If knew he couldn't do the LOC-D then there is the ILS at MYF, a 15 minute drive from Santee.
 
Last edited:
seems like the moving map displays with GPS and terrain awareness should provide enough situational awareness to avoid this. I guess if you're scud running in a Lear Jet maybe you don't have time to look at it though.
 
27R has MIRL and REIL

Right. That was a response to a comment that circling was not authorized to 27R, but no such prohibition was in place to 27L. My point was that 27L has no lighting, making the prospect of a circle to land at night to 27L moot.
 
Not much more to it than that.
I don't know about LJs but it sounds like he accepted an approach to a runway he couldn't safely land on. He then tried to get around that nighttime IFR procedure restriction. I don't think tower should have cleared him for it either. Why not fly the LOC-D?
people keep asking this, but have you looked at the chart? it's not a straight in approach it's circling, and it only gets you to 1500' circling minimums basically at the threshold when the field is below 400' msl. if you intend to circle to land on 27R, the RNAV 17 is arguably better

and either way circling is prohibited at night for 27R even on the localizer approach
 
people keep asking this, but have you looked at the chart? it's not a straight in approach it's circling, and it only gets you to 1500' circling minimums basically at the threshold when the field is below 400' msl. if you intend to circle to land on 27R, the RNAV 17 is arguably better

and either way circling is prohibited at night for 27R even on the localizer approach
I completely agree. I haven't flown the RNAV circle to land yet, but the first time I flew OKB VOR-A down to minimums was literally an eye opening experience.
It was also allowed, unlike circling 27R at night.
 
There really was no reason to not use 17 - it is plenty long enough. If they were uncomfortable using 17, they should have gone to MYF, SDM, CRQ or SAN.

I never flew the Lear. So, landing on a wet 3695’ runway using a 4 degree VASI at night is no big deal? Wait the VASI was out of service so scratch that part. Apparently there was some reason they didn’t use 17.
 
Right. That was a response to a comment that circling was not authorized to 27R, but no such prohibition was in place to 27L. My point was that 27L has no lighting, making the prospect of a circle to land at night to 27L moot.
Oops my bad
 
and plenty of people are getting night current, or practice their night landings there, myself included, on VFR nights. Legality aside I would take it as a clue that the approach is going to be more challenging on a marginal vfr, really IFR / IMC night. 3 mile visibility is thin, you pass TOMTY and just barely get the airport in sight.. that's going to be a high workload if you are single pilot with low ceilings, low vis, etc.

No one wants to die, that's a tough audio to listen to. So if you put your blancolirio hat on and work backwards 'up the chain' the decision to take 27R instead of the straight in to 17 started this set of events. Honestly the LOC-D sucks too. SEE is not a great IFR airport tbh, terrain aside, that localizer spits you out monster high, you're going to be circling if it's real IFR


it's not, but someone put the track together above and it certainly looks like he cranked in that base to final turn harder than the plane was willing to give. Maybe it wasn't the mountain, perhaps he just didn't want to overshoot the runway and deal with going around and figuring out a missed approach when you've already cancelled your IFR..


It's really tragic. SEE has had more than it's fair share of accidents this year :(

To be fair, this is the only fatal crash for SEE this year. The guy in the 340 was going to MYF.
 
The Flightaware track is interesting. If the data are reliable, he crossed over SEE midfield southbound at 130 knots groundspeed, at 700' MSL -- which is 312 feet above field elevation. He started the left turn before reaching the south field boundary, then climbed about 250 feet and ground speed increased to 145 knots before the data points stop.

It's hard to visualize how at those speeds he could have lined up with 27R from where he started the left turn, as least without pulling some serious Gs.

Yes, and he remained low right until the end where it appears he climbed to 1200 before losing it. Understandable that he wouldn't be able to make out the runway lights being so low, SEE is in a rather developed community.
 
there’s a few other “hills” that are noticeable, tho. And very nearby.

I don’t really like SEE in the daytime and would never land there at night.

Why? I did my flight training there and never had any issues landing during daylight or at night. Now, I wouldn't recommend what this guy tried to do for obvious reasons, especially given what aircraft he was flying. However, he made bad choices compounded by more bad choices which got him and the three others on board killed. He was based at SEE and likely had done this before. He sure as hell should have been familiar with the airport.
 
Thing I don’t get is why would any pro pilot be yanking and banking/pulling those kind of G’s for that maneuver with pax onboard?

This wasn’t an empty repositioning flight like the TEB crash
 
I don't know why circling is NA at night, but for argument's sake let's say it wasn't night and you decided to try it for operational reasons, such as a longer runway with, say, a headwind component. How would you plan to avoid stalling your Learjet then?

You might start by crossing over 27R perpendicular to the centerline. After all, why waste all that "S-turns across a road" training?

You might make sure you fly as slowly as safely possible, too, such as Vref+10 (1.3 Vso for the weight + 10 kias) because you don't want to waste all your slow flight training either, do you?

You might also make sure to use full flaps, so you don't stall while trying to fly at Vref+10 kias. This is no place to test your stall training, of course, but it might fly in the face of conventional wisdom learned in simulator training, where approach flaps may have been drilled into your head for fear of an engine failure. But, as risk manager, you must decide which is the more important consideration.

And you won't bank even one degree over 30°, no matter what, for the same reason. (No place to test your stall recovery proficiency.)

And you would make sure to avoid the obstructions by maintaining circling minimums until a "normal descent" can be made visually. With such a high circling minimum as at SEE, IF this were an unfamiliar airport and/or if it were a night approach, the only safe way to mitigate the obstruction risk would be to hold those minimums until within 10° of final approach. That could be a deal-breaker if it requires a longer final than the protected circling area.

Above all, though, you'd have to be super alert for the first indication of any of your parameters straying from perfection, in which case you'd simply execute a missed approach.

If this approach was an ad hoc decision to circle, made out of an approach gone poorly by arriving too high and too fast, I'd suspect the crew didn't have time to consider all of these things. It's the sort of 91.103 alternative planning required before takeoff, if such a maneuver is to be accomplished safely that is. :(
 
there’s a few other “hills” that are noticeable, tho. And very nearby.

I don’t really like SEE in the daytime and would never land there at night.

A jet of that caliber would have a terrain warning system, right? Also, the pilot should know where they are at on the GPS screen in front of them. It's not like they're flying this jet off of steam gauges. I guess when he switched to VFR and couldn't see his attention was elsewhere. But even I get a warning in my headset about terrain if I come within 2 miles at the same or lower elevation. Hmmmm
 
It's not like they're flying this jet off of steam gauges.
We’re talking a Lear 35, specifically a mid-80’s model. Many of these are still equipped with ‘steam gauges’ albeit I’m sure there was some glass in the panel too, but flying on conventional round dials wouldn’t be a stretch.
 
Not much more to it than that.
I don't know about LJs but it sounds like he accepted an approach to a runway he couldn't safely land on. He then tried to get around that nighttime IFR procedure restriction. I don't think tower should have cleared him for it either. If knew he couldn't do the LOC-D then there is the ILS at MYF, a 15 minute drive from Santee.
I don't know if a Lear 35 could legally/safely land on RWY17. The controller who cleared him for the approach wouldn't know either. If the reported weather is VMC and the pilot cancels IFR, what what would you expect the tower controller to do? Would it make any difference if it were a C-172?
 
Last edited:
I was warned. I have listened to ATC footage of ppl making the fatal last call but this one was pretty intense. Going to have to find something to distract that out of my mind going to bed.
Watching the ring cams I think you have hear engines spool up right before crash.
It would be interesting to see someone try to fly this in the sim with this plane. If circle to land was the plan the whole time why stay east of 17??? Just tightens the turn and makes everything jus t happen faster then it needs to. Dirty yanking and banking. West of 17 would allow to make that turn more to the south. They found a way to make it as hard as possible
 
I don't know why circling is NA at night, but for argument's sake let's say it wasn't night and you decided to try it for operational reasons, such as a longer runway with, say, a headwind component. How would you plan to avoid stalling your Learjet then?

You might start by crossing over 27R perpendicular to the centerline. After all, why waste all that "S-turns across a road" training?

You might make sure you fly as slowly as safely possible, too, such as Vref+10 (1.3 Vso for the weight + 10 kias) because you don't want to waste all your slow flight training either, do you?

You might also make sure to use full flaps, so you don't stall while trying to fly at Vref+10 kias. This is no place to test your stall training, of course, but it might fly in the face of conventional wisdom learned in simulator training, where approach flaps may have been drilled into your head for fear of an engine failure. But, as risk manager, you must decide which is the more important consideration.

And you won't bank even one degree over 30°, no matter what, for the same reason. (No place to test your stall recovery proficiency.)

And you would make sure to avoid the obstructions by maintaining circling minimums until a "normal descent" can be made visually. With such a high circling minimum as at SEE, IF this were an unfamiliar airport and/or if it were a night approach, the only safe way to mitigate the obstruction risk would be to hold those minimums until within 10° of final approach. That could be a deal-breaker if it requires a longer final than the protected circling area.

Above all, though, you'd have to be super alert for the first indication of any of your parameters straying from perfection, in which case you'd simply execute a missed approach.

If this approach was an ad hoc decision to circle, made out of an approach gone poorly by arriving too high and too fast, I'd suspect the crew didn't have time to consider all of these things. It's the sort of 91.103 alternative planning required before takeoff, if such a maneuver is to be accomplished safely that is. :(

During the daytime you have a many more visual references. At night, under a low ceiling, and low visibility in mist, your visual references are extremely limited, especially with an unlit hill directly in front of you. That's why you heard them call for the lights to be turned up. Way to easy to get yourself disoriented, overshoot the final approach, nearly hit the darkened hillside, and overbank the aircraft all in a matter of seconds.

There is a reason why IFR aircraft are not allowed to CTL at night at this airport.
 
I’m based at KSEE and was there until dark last night, leaving perhaps an hour before the accident. The weather was nasty, I’m guessing he was in and out of clouds after cancelling IFR, lost sight of 27R and thought the 52 freeway to the north was the runway. That or something similar would explain the ground track.

I’ve flown as a non-flying passenger in a Lear 35 to a straight in VMC landing on KSEE 27R. Things happen very quickly given the speed and I can’t personally imagine circling to land from overhead Runway 17 under VFR in poor weather as was done here. FWIW the crew of the Lear 35 I’ve flown in is prohibited by company procedure from doing circle to lands at Gillespie, and lands only via straight ins with high ceilings to 27R. This became an issue because the weather forecast prior to departure was marginal one day and there was a chance of us having to divert from Gillespie for that reason.
 
Last edited:
There is a reason why IFR aircraft are not allowed to CTL at night at this airport.
Maybe it's just an unlit object in the visual segment? Circling minimums at SEE are basically the same as the turbine VFR pattern altitude, so circling under a "low ceiling" would be impossible. Maybe somebody with more curiosity than I have tonight will look up the actual reason for the NA at night restriction? There are lots of mountain airports, like Aspen, with circling minimums so high as to make them impossible to safely descend from within the circling area unless the pilot has intimate local knowledge. Some are approved for night, or at least were when I was actively flying. Banning circling approaches because some pilots aren't maintaining proficiency is a bad idea, IMO.
 
A jet of that caliber would have a terrain warning system, right? Also, the pilot should know where they are at on the GPS screen in front of them. It's not like they're flying this jet off of steam gauges……Hmmmm

Have you seen Lear 35 cockpits in TAP? You have no reason that I can imagine to 100% expect what you’re proposing.
 
Maybe it's just an unlit object in the visual segment? Circling minimums at SEE are basically the same as the turbine VFR pattern altitude, so circling under a "low ceiling" would be impossible. Maybe somebody with more curiosity than I have tonight will look up the actual reason for the NA at night restriction? There are lots of mountain airports, like Aspen, with circling minimums so high as to make them impossible to safely descend from within the circling area unless the pilot has intimate local knowledge. Some are approved for night, or at least were when I was actively flying. Banning circling approaches because some pilots aren't maintaining proficiency is a bad idea, IMO.

El Cajon literally means "The box." It sits in a valley East of San Diego. However, you are not dealing with high altitude nor are the elevations around it that much to deal with. Yes, "Rattlesnake Mountain" on the right of the approach to 27R has some elevation but nothing I'd call a serious issue. Not sure if this pilot forgot it was there and tried to avoid it at the last minute or something else happened but he seemed to be more in a hurry to get on the ground than to ask for assistance and do a proper go around. He was based here, he should have been quite familiar with the area. From what I have seen, however, he was low, 700-800 feet when he should have been double that. No wonder he couldn't see the field. The area around KSEE is well developed both commercially and residentially.
 
fast plane, short runway, @ night, with mountains. Wouldn’t think you’d need CTL in the mix to cause most a pause.
 
Maybe it's just an unlit object in the visual segment? Circling minimums at SEE are basically the same as the turbine VFR pattern altitude, so circling under a "low ceiling" would be impossible. Maybe somebody with more curiosity than I have tonight will look up the actual reason for the NA at night restriction? There are lots of mountain airports, like Aspen, with circling minimums so high as to make them impossible to safely descend from within the circling area unless the pilot has intimate local knowledge. Some are approved for night, or at least were when I was actively flying. Banning circling approaches because some pilots aren't maintaining proficiency is a bad idea, IMO.

Lack of pilot proficiency is not the reason for the limitations. It comes from an objective evaluation of risk against the operational benefit. At least that’s the case for company restrictions I’ve dealt with that were more limiting than the approach limits.

In the case of circling procedures being NA at some airports. That happens when the determination is made by the FAA it’s not safe to operate in that manner. It seems this crew validated the decision to not authorize circling at this airport. You’re just assuming they were bad pilots. I think that’s a terrible assumption. I think the only conclusion we can make at this point is they made bad decisions. Bad decisions kill exceptional pilots often.
 
Last edited:
El Cajon literally means "The box." It sits in a valley East of San Diego. However, you are not dealing with high altitude nor are the elevations around it that much to deal with. Yes, "Rattlesnake Mountain" on the right of the approach to 27R has some elevation but nothing I'd call a serious issue. Not sure if this pilot forgot it was there and tried to avoid it at the last minute or something else happened but he seemed to be more in a hurry to get on the ground than to ask for assistance and do a proper go around. He was based here, he should have been quite familiar with the area. From what I have seen, however, he was low, 700-800 feet when he should have been double that. No wonder he couldn't see the field. The area around KSEE is well developed both commercially and residentially.
I bet he was that low because he didn’t want to be in the clouds. I would also bet you a nice bottle of scotch the willingness to cancel and scud run the pattern was a direct result of that familiarity you mentioned.
 
I never flew the Lear. So, landing on a wet 3695’ runway using a 4 degree VASI at night is no big deal? Wait the VASI was out of service so scratch that part. Apparently there was some reason they didn’t use 17.

27R has a 4.5 degree PAPI, so it isn't like that is an easier deal - even with a little bit of extra length. I'm sure the reason he didn't use 17 is perception of length, even though the airplane had plenty of margin.

Thing I don’t get is why would any pro pilot be yanking and banking/pulling those kind of G’s for that maneuver with pax onboard?

This wasn’t an empty repositioning flight like the TEB crash

The TEB crash was a far safer set of circumstances that was f'ed up by the captain's shocking lack of situational awareness.

It's not like they're flying this jet off of steam gauges.

They probably were.

I don't know if a Lear 35 could legally/safely land on RWY17. The controller who cleared him for the approach wouldn't know either. If the reported weather is VMC and the pilot cancels IFR, what what would you expect the tower controller to do? Would it make any difference if it were a C-172?

The tower controller didn't do anything wrong. A 172 could have flown that much slower and more deliberately, though they might have had icing issues that night.

A Lear 35 is fully capable of using Runway 17, particularly for landing.

I was warned. I have listened to ATC footage of ppl making the fatal last call but this one was pretty intense. Going to have to find something to distract that out of my mind going to bed.
Watching the ring cams I think you have hear engines spool up right before crash.
It would be interesting to see someone try to fly this in the sim with this plane. If circle to land was the plan the whole time why stay east of 17??? Just tightens the turn and makes everything jus t happen faster then it needs to. Dirty yanking and banking. West of 17 would allow to make that turn more to the south. They found a way to make it as hard as possible

The approach to 17 is offset 19.96 degrees, so you are coming from the Northwest. Inertia would take you southeast. The real question is just how low he was when he had the airport in sight. The ceilings weren't bad, but the visibility was pretty marginal. The ADS-B data suggests they descended below the minimums for the "straight in" RNAV 17, let alone circling.
 
Someone on Beechtalk found previous flights they made where they circled to 27R. In the previous ones, they went past the 8/67 interchange as they turned downwind.

In this flight they turned well inside. There is no way they could have made that turn successfully in that airplane.

I suspect they completely lost their sene of position in the reduced vis and we’re trying to salvage a crappy approach.
 
Back
Top