Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Owner’s Past, Pilot’s Age Raise Suspicion in Rivera Learjet Crash

By Mark Phelps / Published: Dec 13, 2012
Rate it! or

The 1969 Learjet 25 that crashed in the early morning of December 9, killing singer Jenni Rivera and six others, was owned by Las Vegas-based Starwood Management LLC. But the company said the fatal flight was not a charter. Rather, it was described as a final demonstration flight in anticipation of Rivera purchasing the jet for $250,000.

At the controls were 78-year-old Miguel Perez Soto, PIC, and a “green” copilot, Alejandro Torres. Investigators are focusing on the separate possibilities of mechanical failure and pilot incapacitation. Reports say 10 minutes into the flight from Monterrey, Mexico, to Toluca, the twinjet descended from 28,000 feet to the ground in 30 seconds, traveling only 1.5 miles laterally from the start of the descent to the point of impact.

Of deep interest is the background of Starwood and one of its principles. In a telephone interview with The Los Angeles Times, Starwood operations manager Christian Esquino Nunez said, “Obviously, my past – there is a story to it. It’s unavoidable that they are going to look at my past … I think it’s fair to bring it up right now and question it.”

Esquino referred to his decades-long record of bankruptcies, restraining orders, civil judgments, a drug trafficking conviction and criminal charges for falsifying logbooks and other records involved in aircraft sales. He spent two years in a U.S. federal prison after a 2005 conviction on the aviation-related charges. Starwood lists Esquino’s sister-in-law Norma Gonzalez as its only corporate officer, but Esquino, told the newspaper, “I’m the one with the expertise.”

Starwood was formed in 2007 shortly after Esquino was released from prison and deported. San Diego attorney Joseph Milchen, who has represented Esquino over the years described him as, “ … a very likable person.”

Comments (13) Post a comment

All Comments

TLewis111's picture

Could this be a classic case of mach-tuck common in early lears

Stan3818's picture

Final demo flight, my eye. Coming from an operator with a long and well-established history of flaunting regulations, I do not believe this for a second. When will someone finally grow a pair and crack down on "demo flights" used to disguise illegal charters?
I say you should only get ONE demo flight. If you want more than one, be prepared to show the FAA you've put down earnest money and have a pending purchase contract. Otherwise it's people taking advantage of a loophole and avoiding legitimate 135 operations.

Tonyairplane's picture

Seems similar to the Payne Stewart crash.
Question: if a Lear loses cabin pressure, does an alarm sound?
If it never pumps up, does an alarm sound?
If not, that could be part of the cause of both accidents.

N714JG's picture

FL280
TO GROUND IN 30 SECONDS???
DESCENT RATE EQUALS 56000 FPM. IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE WITH POWER ON?

elmog's picture

$250,000 for a 43 year old Learjet might seem like a good deal to the layman, but we know that $250,00o won't even buy you a new Skylane. Look like you get what you pay for.

txd's picture

The demo flight !!! What a joke. People owning junk aircraft getting uneducated people involved in flying these things thinking all is nice. Many more in the bushes.

hotwings's picture

Not similar to the Payne Stewart accident in that Stewart's Lear flew thousands of miles at FL320 (assumingly trimmed and on autopilot) before exhausting fuel and auguring in. If this was hypoxia and they all simply passed out and died wouldn't this aircraft have maintained it's heading at FL280 overflying Toluca and beyond. The early reports of this accident seem dubious.

Martin E Haisman's picture

I hope the NTSB involvement means they will also complete their own report. Never assume anything but there are so many pointers to pushing the boundaries too far and pushing the loopholes too far all in the name of keeping up with the Joneses. Old pilot, old aircraft, old loophole. The maintenance history will be very interesting. Mid 1970's models sell for around $200k to $250k so it will be interesting what this bargain was bought for.

No one can tell until the final "probable cause's" are summarised but on the face of it this was not an accident it was a high risk activity that failed.

FAAinspector's picture

Whenever a model 20 series LearJet crashes it peaks my interest. As a former inspector pilot I gave many Type checkrides in the Lear 25D. It is a very unforgiving aircraft as all the early 20 series aircraft were, so any investigation into this accident will focus on the pilots.
When you pair an older PIC with an inexperienced Second-in-Comand issues resulting from Crew Resource Management could be relevent in this investigation.

FAA conducts surveillance on it's Certificated Air Carriers but next to little on these so called "Demo" operators. Are these companies operating in confllict with the regulations? The answer is unequivically YES. FAA has been accused of being a "tombstone" agency and accidents of this type only lend creedence to this belief.

It is a tragedy that innocent lives are lost in events such as this. Only increased inspections by FAA Flight Standards will make any impact on these type of activities.

Let the NTSB conduct its investigation and pressure the Flight Standards arm of the FAA to do their job.

Tonyairplane's picture

So you claim to be an FAA inspector, but you don't know the difference between peak and pique? Oh wait, that explains a lot actually.

FAAinspector's picture

So you claim to be a learjet expert in accident investigation and a professor of English.I once heard that it was better to be thought the fool by not giving an opinion than to speak and remove all doubt.
Talk is always cheap and I make no claims that can't be proven by experience and knowledge.

SuperDobieDad's picture

"Could this be a classic case of mach-tuck common in early lears"

I shouldn't think so as the report the aircraft moved only 1.6 miles laterally, which would be contrary to "Mach Tuck" development, which does not happen instantaneously.

For those of you enamored with "regulations and more regulations", I'd like to point out that paperwork alone rarely causes an accident, and as far as I know, has never prevented an accident. Most often, it is a cascade of events unrelated to pen and ink.

Tonyairplane's picture

Okay, fine, Mr. so called FAA Inspector (shaking in my boots over having to face someone so scary in my next check-ride.)
Show me where I claimed to be a Lear expert. You can't because I am not and I didn't say that.
No matter, you've proven yourself barely literate.
Just please don't run the EGT lean of PIQUE!
hahahahaha

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use