Pilot had tried to land prior to hitting crane

By SANCHESKA BROWN

Tribune Staff Reporter

sbrown@tribunemedia.net

THE PILOT of the ill-fated Learjet that crashed into a junk pile nine days ago “attempted to land at least once” before smashing into a crane at the Grand Bahama Shipyard, according to an official close to the investigation.

The source, who wished to remain anonymous, told The Tribune the pilot was attempting to land for the second time “and was focused so much on the runway and navigating through the bad weather that he did not see the crane”.

The source also said that the plane was low on fuel, which could be a reason why the pilot did not turn round and return to Nassau.

The revelation came the same day the bodies of Dr Myles Munroe, his wife Ruth, Dr Richard Pinder, pilot, Capt Stanley Thurston and co-pilot Franhkan Cooper, were flown to the capital in preparation for burial.

The caskets, draped in gold (for Dr Munroe) and aquamarine (for Mrs Munroe) fabric, were loaded onto planes in Grand Bahama yesterday.

Family members and loved ones also held a memorial service at a hangar at the Lynden Pindling International Airport to commemorate the sombre homecoming.

The caskets were off loaded from the Sky Bahamas and Flamingo Air planes and placed into five separate hearses. The bodies were escorted by police officers and cabinet ministers to an undisclosed funeral home.

Dr Myles, 60, and his wife and seven others, including newly ordained Bahamas Faith Ministries International (BMFI) youth pastors Lavard “Manifest” Parks, his wife, Radel, and their son Johanan, five, and a 38-year-old US resident were all killed instantly in the crash.

An analysis of the cockpit voice recorder and digital electronic engine monitors that were on board began last week in Washington, DC.

An investigation is also being carried out by the Department of Civil Aviation. The Tribune source said a preliminary investigation revealed that “bad weather caused Captain Thurston to circle the airport, at least one time” before attempting to land.

“They were concentrating so much on the runway, that they didn’t see the crane,” the source, who was not authorised to speak publicly said. “The pilot tried to land once but was unable to do so. They were in trouble but the fuel was too low for them to return to Nassau.

“If they had more fuel, turning around would have been the most likely thing for them to do. A Bahamasair flight was ahead of them and turned about when they faced similar problems. As the plane prepared for landing, its wing clipped the crane, causing it to roll. The jet did not explode, the entire incident happened between nine and ten seconds. They did not feel anything. Some of the bodies were really mangled but not all. Dr Munroe’s body was not disfigured.”

On Sunday, newly appointed BFMI Senior Pastor Dave Burrows confirmed that a memorial will be held for Dr Munroe at the Thomas A Robinson National Stadium on December 3. There also will be overflow seating accommodations at BFMI when the funeral is held on December 4, he said.

A secretariat has been appointed to handle all funeral concerns in the coming weeks.

Comments

B_I_D___ says...

I'd say he circled around more than once...for a Lear Jet, the run from Nassau to Freeport in good weather is about 20 minutes...he was in the air according to the timeline for over an hour.

I also seem to recall hearing that a Bahamasair plane tried and tried and circled as well and ended up giving up and flying back to Nassau.

Posted 18 November 2014, 12:41 p.m. Suggest removal

duppyVAT says...

Who is this source???? He was on the cellphone with the pilot hey?????

Posted 18 November 2014, 8:26 p.m. Suggest removal

Regardless says...

This plane had a 2300 mile range. Surely fuel would not be an issue if fully fueled when it took off.

Posted 18 November 2014, 1:04 p.m. Suggest removal

B_I_D___ says...

Fuel vs passengers...it would not be able to carry 7 people and full fuel...but if fuel was an issue at 1 hour into the flight, he was cutting his margins very thin, especially knowing he was going into bad weather.

Posted 18 November 2014, 1:11 p.m. Suggest removal

TalRussell says...

Comrades isn't the Learjet 35A equipped carry (7) Passengers. It is up Captain decide based upon passengers and cargo weight levels, if they are to cut back on maximum fuel range. Regardless, the FA's requirement is for passenger carrying flights carry enough fuel to continue to an alternate airport plus an additional 45 minutes after that. The alternate airport "has to have good weather" in the forecast. The more the details come out the more I have difficulty with cellular phone calls being made from plane during what obviously is now sounding to have been preparing to land under dangerous weather conditions. There would have been communications with Freeport Tower and the considered as the alternative flight plan's airport's tower. Reportedly, Dr. Myles made a personal cellular call from the plane during landing approach and if correct, it is important to know if he had express any concern over the landing, to party on other end? Did he know they were in trouble? Ambassador Young had serious bad weather concerns and refused to board the flight to Freeport.

Posted 18 November 2014, 1:30 p.m. Suggest removal

proudloudandfnm says...

At the altitude he was at when he hit the crane it appears he would have crashed even if he did not hit the crane. He was about to land smack dab in the middle of the shipyard. One thing for sure. He was not concentrating on the runway. He could not see the runway. The shipyard is lit up very very bright and he didn't see that. Obviously.

This source has no idea what he's talking about. The black box will clear everything up.

I predict instrument problems....

Posted 18 November 2014, 3:35 p.m. Suggest removal

proudloudandfnm says...

Dude was way off course....

Posted 18 November 2014, 3:35 p.m. Suggest removal

proudloudandfnm says...

And I seriously doubt they had any fuel issues. They flew maybe 150 or 200 miles. No way they took off that empty....

Posted 18 November 2014, 3:36 p.m. Suggest removal

B_I_D___ says...

Agreed...he was no rookie pilot, and he was flying into known bad weather...you figure out how much fuel you need to get the job done safely...Tal was on point with the flight to alternate destination, plus another 45 minutes of fuel after they reach the alternate. 45 minutes in a jet like that covers a LOT of territory...from Freeport 45 minutes could get him into Orlando or beyond...Palm Beach...Bimini...back to Nassau, literally about 20 minutes at the most once he is at altitude.

Posted 18 November 2014, 3:49 p.m. Suggest removal

CatIslandBoy says...

All of you are now experts on piloting an Executive Lear Jet, weather conditions, and fuel efficiency. Some of you would just comment on anything, without the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Just makes me sick to read some of your disgusting, "mightier than thou" comments. The Captain was a veteran pilot, who has flown in all types of weather, and was obviously certified to pilot this airplane. End of discussion. May God rest his soul.

Posted 18 November 2014, 4:45 p.m. Suggest removal

B_I_D___ says...

Actually...I am a professional pilot, with as many years behind the stick as Capt Thurston...which is why this particular story in this article does not add up...also why this case is so perplexing. The one thing is for certain is that while he was 'ON COURSE' for the final approach, he was WAY too low. Why, we will need to wait for the finding from the cockpit voice recorders and whatever other data they can put together. I did not know t he Captain personally, so I cannot speak to his flying habits, but anyone who is familiar with Freeport knows all about that area off of the approach end of 6...you do NOT go peaking under cloud layers out there in hopes of spotting the runway...at that particular point in the approach, he should have been 1,000 feet higher. Could be something mechanical, could be some erroneous data being presented...but with the myriad of technology in the cockpit these days and his experience level, this should not have happened if the plane was functioning properly, and he was flying how he should. The FAA/CAA/NTSB report will hopefully give us all some definitive answers for what just doesn't make sense...strictly trying to figure out the flying aspects of it all...not the tragedy behind people losing their lives way too early. Wish I knew the Captain more personally so I would have some idea of where his mind may have been as this was unfolding.

Posted 18 November 2014, 6:23 p.m. Suggest removal

Publius says...

I share your precise questions

Posted 18 November 2014, 6:33 p.m. Suggest removal

Publius says...

I think you are reading more into the comments than what the posters have actually said. None of the persons who posted blamed the crash on pilot error or pilot incompetence.

Posted 18 November 2014, 6:37 p.m. Suggest removal

TalRussell says...

Comrades I am commenting on established facts which so far have pointed to bad weather conditions, well known prior take off from Nassau. That the construction crane height is just under 360 feet, which means the plane's minimum required flying at cruising or descending altitude should have been 150 above tower. That, if as reported the wing of the plane did in fact clip the tower, it had be at flying at 360 feet or below. That a commercial airliner decided, not to risk landing at the same Freeport's airport, due to poor weather conditions. That there is no mistaking that the plane crashed and all aboard were killed. Something went seriously wrong and hopefully on ground investigators and black box recordings can provide family members with answers.

Posted 18 November 2014, 5:10 p.m. Suggest removal

SP says...

................"The source" is a total idiot with obviously absolutely no aviation knowledge ..........

Posted 18 November 2014, 5:15 p.m. Suggest removal

B_I_D___ says...

The 'story' definitely does not all add up as it is portrayed in this article that is for sure.

Posted 18 November 2014, 6:27 p.m. Suggest removal

Publius says...

Agreed 100%. The story as supposedly told by a so-called "source" does not add up at all.

Posted 18 November 2014, 6:29 p.m. Suggest removal

Publius says...

Where in the world does the Tribune get these bloody awful "sources"? Obviously the writers and editors do not know just how low to the ground that plane was in order for it to have clipped one of the Shipyard's cranes. And they don't appear to know anything about the aircraft itself either, or its flight capabilities. Word to the Tribune: get your sources straight and get informed before you come to the nation with foolery

Posted 18 November 2014, 6:24 p.m. Suggest removal

duppyVAT says...

The source is the hologram on the other end of the cellphone with the pilot ........... hellllllllooooooooooo

Posted 18 November 2014, 8:28 p.m. Suggest removal

ohdrap4 says...

> Where in the world does the Tribune
> get these bloody awful "sources"?

They call the posters here.

Posted 18 November 2014, 9:02 p.m. Suggest removal

SP says...

...........................The Tribune is in the business of selling newspapers...................................

Sensationalizing and tweaking news for brain dead idiot consumption is "average" in this realm.

Never forget this same Tribune forecasted their poll of a "hurried land slide victory for the FNM in the last election!

Benjamin Franklin said it best “Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.”

Posted 18 November 2014, 9:34 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment