A Routine Flight Takes a Deadly Turn
On May 15, 2017, a Learjet 35A on a short positioning flight from Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) to Teterboro Airport (TEB), New Jersey, crashed while attempting to land. The jet, operated by Trans-Pacific Air Charter, LLC, was supposed to make a standard circling approach to Runway 1. Instead, it spiraled out of control, crashing into a commercial building and parking lot, killing both pilots on board.
The crash was a textbook case of poor decision-making, procedural violations, and inadequate training, leading to a fatal aerodynamic stall at low altitude. Let’s break down what happened, the errors that led to this tragedy, and the lessons the aviation industry can take from it.
The Flight: A Quick Hop Ends in Disaster
The Learjet 35A, N452DA, was a positioning flight, meaning it wasn’t carrying passengers—just the pilot-in-command (PIC) and second-in-command (SIC). Their task? A short, 28-minute flight to Teterboro to pick up their next passengers.
The flight itself was uneventful until the approach to Teterboro. The plan was to land on Runway 1 using a circle-to-land approach after first aligning with Runway 6. This maneuver requires precision—pilots must maintain situational awareness, follow proper approach speeds, and execute a smooth turn to line up with the final runway.
Unfortunately, none of that happened.
Warning Signs: A Crew Struggling with Procedures
- The PIC (Pilot-in-Command) had 6,898 total flight hours, but only 353 as a Learjet PIC. He had struggled with training, requiring extra simulator sessions to pass his checkrides.
- The SIC (Second-in-Command) had 1,167 total flight hours and was only supposed to act as a supporting pilot. Company policy forbade him from flying as the pilot flying (PF) due to his lack of experience.
- Yet, on this flight, the SIC was at the controls. The PIC allowed him to fly against company rules, regularly coaching him during the flight.
Their lack of thorough preflight planning was another red flag. The PIC failed to check the weather before departure, violating company policy. Strong, gusting winds of up to 32 knots at Teterboro should have alerted them to the need for a stable, well-planned approach.
Final Approach: A High-Risk Maneuver Gone Wrong
As the Learjet approached Teterboro, things started to unravel quickly.
1️⃣ Lack of situational awareness: The pilots mismanaged their descent and were flying too high for a smooth transition to Runway 1. They failed to set up their navigation systems properly, causing confusion about their location.
2️⃣ Failure to execute a stabilized approach: The aircraft crossed key approach points hundreds of feet too high, meaning they would have to descend aggressively to get on the proper glidepath.
3️⃣ The turn that sealed their fate: Instead of aborting the landing and going around, the PIC—who had now taken over the controls—tried to force the landing. He began a sharp right turn to align with Runway 1.
4️⃣ The stall and crash: The Learjet slowed below its safe approach speed, and in the final moments, the PIC lost control. At just 650 feet above the ground, the aircraft stalled—meaning the wings no longer produced enough lift. The pilots did not recover in time, and the jet slammed into the ground half a mile south of the runway.
The Aftermath: A Fiery Wreckage and Hard Lessons
The Learjet crashed into a commercial building and parking lot, erupting into flames. Miraculously, no one on the ground was injured, but the two pilots perished on impact.
The NTSB investigation uncovered a pattern of procedural noncompliance, poor training, and bad decision-making. Among their findings:
- The SIC should never have been at the controls. The PIC knowingly violated company policy by letting him fly.
- The PIC failed as a leader. He did not take control early enough and made poor decisions under pressure.
- Trans-Pacific Air Charter lacked safety oversight. The company had no system to track pilot performance issues, allowing unsafe practices to continue.
Key Safety Lessons from the Teterboro Crash
This accident is a cautionary tale about the dangers of ignoring procedures and poor cockpit leadership. Here are the critical takeaways:
✅ Adherence to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) is non-negotiable. The SIC should not have been at the controls. Rules exist for a reason—to prevent tragedies like this.
✅ Stabilized approaches save lives. If a landing setup isn’t right, go around. Forcing a bad approach can end in disaster.
✅ Leadership training for captains is critical. The PIC needed to assert authority earlier and take control before the situation got out of hand.
✅ Part 135 operators need stronger safety management systems. Better pilot monitoring and training programs could have caught these performance issues before they led to a fatal accident.
What’s Changing?
After the crash, the NTSB issued multiple safety recommendations, including:
✈️ Requiring flight data monitoring programs for charter operators (Part 135) to track pilot performance.
✈️ Implementing better leadership training for captains to prevent cockpit authority breakdowns.
✈️ Stronger FAA oversight to ensure pilots follow SOPs and companies enforce them.
Final Thoughts
The Teterboro Learjet crash was completely preventable. Had the pilots followed the rules, conducted proper preflight planning, and executed a go-around when necessary, two lives could have been saved.
Aviation relies on discipline and adherence to procedures—when those break down, the consequences can be tragic. This accident serves as a harsh reminder that cutting corners and ignoring safety protocols can cost lives.
