IAD02FA018

A commercial pilot, who observed the airplane during the takeoff attempt, stated that it used "lots" of runway, and that the nose lifted "too early and way too slow." The airplane "struggled" to get in the air, and it appeared tail heavy, with "extreme" pitch, about 45 degrees nose-up. It also appeared that the only thing keeping the nose up was ground effect. The airplane became airborne for "a very short time," then sank to the ground, and veered off the left side of the runway. The nose was "up" the whole time, the airplane never "rolled off on a wing," and the wings never wobbled. The engines were "really loud," like a "shriek," and engine noise was "continuous until impact." Another witness at a different location confirmed the extreme nose-high takeoff attitude and the brief time the airplane was airborne. It seemed odd to him that an airplane with that much power used so much runway. A runway inspection revealed no evidence of foreign objects or aircraft debris. Tire tracks from the airplane's main landing gear veered off the left side of the paved surface, at a 20-degree angle, about 3,645 feet from the runway's approach end. They continued for about 775 feet, then turned back to parallel the runway for another 650 feet, before ending about 50 feet prior to a chain link fence. There was no evidence that the nose wheel was on the ground prior to the fence. The fence, which was about 1,300 feet along the airplane's off-runway ground track and 200 feet to the left of the runway edge stripe, was bent over in the direction of travel. Ground scars began about 150 feet beyond the fence, and the main wreckage came to rest 300 feet beyond the beginning of the ground scars. The first officer advised a witness that he'd be making the takeoff; however, the pilot at the controls during the accident sequence could not be confirmed. When asked prior to the flight if he'd be making a high-performance takeoff, the captain replied that he didn't know. There was no evidence of mechanical malfunction.

History of flight

On November 22, 2001, at 1305 eastern daylight time, a Gates Learjet 25B, N5UJ, operated by Universal Jet Aviation, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, was destroyed when it veered off runway 28 Left (28L) during an attempted takeoff at Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The certificated airline transport pilot and the certificated commercial pilot were fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for a flight to Boca Raton Airport (BCT), Boca Raton, Florida. The positioning flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

According to the president of Universal Jet Aviation, the pilots dropped off passengers at a general aviation fixed base operator (FBO) the previous evening and spent the night in Pittsburgh. On the morning of the accident, the pilots were anticipating a revenue flight to Washington, D.C., but the flight was cancelled, and they planned to return to their home base.

A witness to the accident, an employee of the fixed base operator, wrote:

"On Nov 22, 2001, a Lear 25 (N5UJ) taxied out from the FBO full of fuel. When an old airplane, especially an old Lear, takes off, I make sure I get to see it. I like to hear the noisy engines and watch them rocket out of the airport. On this morning, I stood on the airstairs of a chartered 737 on the ramp of the FBO.

As the plane began its takeoff roll, I noticed for an empty Lear 25; it was sure using lots of runway. The nose then came up off the ground but it seemed too early and way too slow. The airplane struggled to get in the air. It looked like the airplane was tail heavy because the pitch was extreme.

The plane started to veer to the left side of the runway because I could see the engines kicking up dust and dirt. The plane became airborne for a very short time, but it still struggled due to the extreme nose-up attitude. The plane then sank into the ground left of the runway, about [half] way down the runway. There was lots of smoke and a huge fire."

The witness was subsequently interviewed at the airport on November 24, 2001. He described the crew's arrival at the FBO, their discussions about a possible revenue flight, and the fueling of the airplane. When questioned about his flying experience, the witness responded that he was a commercial pilot with about 400 hours of flight experience, and ratings for airplane single engine land, multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. He also stated:

"I love to watch the old Learjets get up and go. I always make a point of going out to watch them take off.

For an empty Learjet, he was using a lot more runway than usual. The nose came up, and he was in an extreme nose-up attitude. I mean it was extreme. He was riding the tail and he did it for a long time. The nose was almost 45 degrees, even more, pitch up.

From the beginning of the takeoff roll, it just didn't seem to be going fast enough to take off. I don't know if it was because he was stalling the wing, because the nose was high. Very high. It was like he was doing a short field takeoff. Yoke back, and then as you lift off, you push the nose over, but he never pushed the nose over.

It was like he was stalling the wing, and the only thing keeping the nose up was the ground effect.

When he veered off the runway, the nose was up the whole time. The airplane never rolled off on a wing. The wings never wobbled, and the nose never came down. I didn't realize he was off the side of the runway until all the dust and dirt started flying. I mean it was a lot."

When asked about the engine noise, the witness stated:

"It sounded like a regular old Learjet. I didn't hear anything weird, and there were no pops. It just seemed like a regular old Learjet. It didn't seem right, or quite loud enough at first, but when he got the nose up, it was loud.

The engines were loud, they were really loud. Like they were really trying to get it off the ground. It was like a shriek. When he went off the side of the runway, it was extremely, extremely loud, and the engine noise was continuous until impact.

You ever watch the Blue Angels? When the guy flies really low and slow down the runway with the nose really high in the air? When the only thing holding him up is thrust? That's what it looked like. That's what it reminded me of."

The witness estimated that the nose of the airplane lifted off the runway approximately 3,000 to 3,500 feet beyond the approach end of runway 28L.

The witness also stated that he had briefly spoken to both pilots when they paid for the fuel. He asked who would be flying the next leg, and the "younger pilot" said that he would be flying it. When the witness noted that the airplane was not carrying passengers, he asked the captain, "Would you be able to pull a high performance takeoff?" According to the witness, the captain responded, "I don't know."

In a written statement, an Air Force Staff Sergeant reported that he was performing security duty for the 171st Pennsylvania Air National Guard when he saw the accident airplane. According to the Sergeant:

"At approximately 1300 hrs, I noticed a white Learjet come off the taxiway onto 28L. My eyes were fixed on the aircraft because through the course of the day I had spent time watching the airplanes take off and land.

I witnessed the nose upon takeoff come off the ground, but from my angle the nose of the aircraft seemed to be very high and the tail seemed to be very low. At this point, I could see the thrust from the aircraft engines were causing a large cloud of dirt and debris. Years of being around aircraft told me this isn't normal.

The climbing of the aircraft still appeared to be tail heavy. Within seconds of witnessing the clouds of dirt that the engines of the aircraft were kicking up, the plane still appeared to be tail heavy.

From my position, it would appear the aircraft was approximately 100 ft. off the ground. At this point, I could see the aircraft starting to go down, and it went out of sight. Immediately a very large fireball and smoke appeared from the area of where I lost sight."

During a follow-up telephone interview, the Sergeant stated:

"He did a right turn off the taxiway, throttled up and went. It was a rolling takeoff. It seemed odd that an aircraft that small, with that much power, used so much runway. That guy used a lot of runway, the nose came up and the nose was very high and the tail was very low.

The nose was extremely high, and with the nose very high, the airplane went off to the left. The thrust kicked up this giant whirlwind of dust and dirt. Then, it looked like the airplane got airborne, but it was hard for me to judge exactly how high.

The airplane disappeared from view and then there was this huge ball of fire. I mean, it was huge, and it lasted a few seconds."

A preliminary review of air traffic control (ATC) tapes revealed that there were no radio transmissions from the airplane to report any problems or emergencies. ATC personnel described the radio conversations as "routine".

Personnel information

The captain, age 41, held an airline transport pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single engine land, multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. He also held a flight instructor certificate with ratings for airplane single engine land, multi-engine land, and ground instructor. His most recent first class medical certificate was issued June 4, 2001.

The operator reported that the captain had 5,952 hours of flight experience, 3,030 hours of which were in Learjets. His most recent biennial flight review was completed September 6, 2001.

The first officer, age 34, held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single engine land, multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. He also held a flight instructor certificate with rati