Learjet N722BD crash in Palm Beach County
Sad day for aviation in Florida, A 2003 Learjet 60 en route from Texas to the Bahamas crashed into a house here in Palm Beach County, about 30 miles south of us. The crash of N722BD is reported (NY Post) to have occurred shortly after 1 pm, 1300 local or 18Z. Here’s the archived radar from November 1, 2026 at 18Z:
(The crash was just southwest of the W in “West Palm Beach.”)
Anecdotally, it has been rainy all day here.
There is some horrific ATC video that is so bad it sounds as though it might be AI:
If we believe the audio to be genuine, the plane was getting hit by some pretty bad turbulence (up and down at least 600′), consistent with being on top of or next to a thunderstorm. What’s confusing is that the pilot monitoring (a Learjet 60 is a two-pilot aircraft and, therefore, it is not the pilot on the controls who communicates with ATC) reports “we’re managing the ice” (i.e., the plane’s hot wings are preventing ice from accumulating) and also that the outside air temperature was -47C, We’re normally taught that icing tends to be prevalent when flying through heavy clouds at between 0 and -20C. The official government story is that icing can happen down to -40C.
An aviation friend sent me this, but I’m not sure what his source is:
Assuming no mechanical problems, what could have brought a Learjet down in these conditions? Turbulence can become so severe that, unless the pilots have anticipated it and slowed down quite a bit, a plane comes apart. Icing can become so severe, with supercooled liquid droplets, that it overwhelms even a fully certified flight-into-known-icing (FIKI) system. A tailplane stall is theoretically recoverable, but if not corrected will result in a nosedive. Ordinarily a plane’s wing’s pull up while the horizontal stabilizer of the tail pushes down. This is what gives a standard (non-canard) aircraft its stability. If the tail stalls, e.g., due to ice formation, the plane can pitch down. Partial failure of the anti-icing system, which depends on running compressed hot air from the engines (“bleed air”) into the wing and tail leading edges, can result in an uncontrollable bank and/or spin (on wing producing dramatically more lift than the other).
Anyway, a sad day. Based on a search, the plane was actually based here in South Florida at KFXE and, therefore, the pilots should have been more than familiar with thunderstorm hazards. So the crash is a mystery at this point, but almost surely the weather played an important role.
Update: An ADS-B-tracking web service shows that the crew were successfully avoiding the most severe weather, but not slowing down to a speed that would have resulted in the airplane stalling before it became overstressed by turbulence. They blundered into a narrow but severe cell at full cruise speed shortly before impact. Some people who have reviewed dashcam footage of the crash are saying that the horizontal stabilizer (tailplane) was entirely missing as the plane crashed into the ground (even worse effect than a tailplane stall).
Even small turbojet airliners have been brought down by thunderstorms. Braniff 250 was an 80-seat airliner that experienced structural failure in 1966 due to turbulence even though the pilots had slowed down almost to the recommended turbulence penetration speed (source). This would be much less likely today because Air Traffic Control now has access to high quality weather radar.
You might reasonably ask “Why would anyone be crazy enough to try to get through weather like this?” One answer is that if you’re going to fly in Florida or Texas and aren’t willing to try to get through ugly convective weather you’re not going to be able to fly on a schedule. That’s not a problem for private aircraft owners, but for airlines and charter pilots the passengers expect the schedule to kept. The second answer is that most of the time it is possible to stay in clear air and navigate around the worst cells visually. One thing that investigators will want to look at is why ATC gave them a descent when they were over Naples, Florida and why the crew accepted the descent. They’d been at 41,000′ (“FL410”) over the Gulf of Mexico and apparently descended to 35,000′ (FL350) on arrival in Florida. Why not stay as possible until past all of the ugly weather? It is possible to be assertive with ATC, though when above 18,000′ ATC has the authority to say “Well, if you can’t accept lower then I’m going to have to vector you to Cuba and back”.
(Weather is much lower in New England than in Florida. I was with a friend in a Pilatus PC-12 turboprop coming back towards Bedford, MA (KBED) from Ohio. There was some ugly stuff on the in-cockpit NEXRAD over western-central Massachusetts. I insisted on staying at our cruising altitude (25,000′?) because that would keep us from entering the tops of the clouds. Everyone else on Boston Center was an airliner and ATC pushed us with “Everyone else is going through it.” I responded with “Well, they’re Boeings and Airbuses and we’re not. If we have to circle to lose altitude once we’re clear of this that’s okay.” They plainly thought we were absurdly conservative/chicken, but let us do what we asked for, eventually entering a rapid descent once clear. Our little 9-seater probably could have handled the tops of the rain clouds painted by NEXRAD, but why subject our passengers to the turbulence and ourselves to the stress if we didn’t have to?)
Related:
- “How Airplanes Survive In Extreme Turbulence” (Simple Flying) explains why slowing down should prevent turbulence from bending or destroying an airplane





































