Back to Squawk list
  • 12

Tahoe plane crash

At an elevation of 5900 feet, this can be a tricky airport to use. A local pilot indicated this is an airport where you must make a visual landing. There were clouds with moderate fire smoke at the time of the crash. Specific safety warnings are posted at the airport. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

WeatherWise 6
From my perspective, looks like an unstable approach from the get go. Too fast, too high, hence the need for the 360. Overshot the center line and instead of executing a missed, banked it too steep for the speed and stalled it. This guy should have taken it to Reno instead.
WeatherWise 4
To understand now that he was on an RNAV approach to Runway 20 (4,654 feet) and then went VFR to a circling for Runway 11 (7,001 feet) for length, makes his approach even more dangerous, especially at that elevation and over that terrain.
bentwing60 2
Spot on! His ref + 10 maneuvering speed, fully configured, (absolute min. for a corporate jet) would be around 130 to 140 Knts. and to contain the impact area in that small a space says the vertical velocity greatly exceeded the horizontal, trees or no trees. Not your average GA fail.
jbqwik 3
agree. All the earmarks of a stall and steep dive.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

jbqwik 5
Don't think it was hotdogging. I believe factors such as density altitude, reduced vis, and what bentwing60 has identified.
Silent Bob 2
For the love of all that is holy please stop drinking and posting.
Silent Bob 1
That wasn’t a 360, it was a holding pattern while waiting for an approach clearance. The rest is probably accurate, given the high density altitude groundspeed was higher than normal which probably led to an overshoot on final and the dreaded stall/spin while trying to tighten the turn. But if you look at the track the impact is on base as they were starting the turn to final, they never even made it onto final. Most traditional base to final accidents occur after the aircraft crosses the extended centerline and is attempting to correct back. So it’s possible they mismanaged airspeed and stalled early in the turn, or became disoriented with the poor visibility. And you can never rule out mechanical failure or some other factor(s) until the investigators do their thing.
WeatherWise 1
Yes, I stand corrected on that, as more info came in and the audio was made available.
Torsten Hoff 2
For reference, here is the track:
sharon bias 1
As of 2 hours ago, local news stations are reporting 6 people on the plane. Until this time, it was 4 people on board: 2 crew and 2 passengers. It just seems odd that it took 48 hours to figure out how many souls were on board. The smoke they experienced on Monday shifted west today, over my house. I figure I have less than 1 mile visibility at sea level.
bbabis 1
I don't know what the cloud layers were that day but they came out of the freezing level just a few minutes before the crash. A load of tailplane ice may not have come off before full flaps were selected. The C600 series is quite susceptible to tailplane stalls and it puts your nose down in a hurry. No room for recovery.

May all RIP
Silent Bob 1
Highly unlikely for 2 reasons: the extraordinarily dry air in the western US, and the air temperature on the ground was around 90 degrees. Even if they had somehow picked up any ice on descent it would’ve quickly melted as they descended into warm air. The freezing level in that area is currently over 14,000msl, so around 10,000agl.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.