Learjet incident near Salt Lake City, Utah, August 12, 2007
On August 12, 2007 at about 7:30 pm local time, a Learjet, registered N244F, was involved in an incident near Salt Lake City, Utah (Salt Lake City International airport). It was a flight of an unrecorded kind under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The fatigue fracture of the fan blade due to the blade vendor's improper setup of the forging dies, which resulted in fan blades with airfoils that were below the minimum thickness in the highest stressed area of the airfoil and resulted in operating stresses that exceeded the material's capability. Contributing to the incident was the engine manufacturer's lack of a dimensional inspection of the fan blade's airfoil.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- August 12, 2007 · about 7:30 pm local time
- Place
- Salt Lake City, Utah · Salt Lake City International · map
- Type
- Incident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- not recorded
- Aircraft
- Learjet 60
- Registration
- N244F · no longer on the register
- Damage
- Not recorded
- Flight
- Flight of an unrecorded kind · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The airplane experienced an in-flight fan blade separation in the left engine, a Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) PW305A turbofan, while the airplane was climbing through FL 380 shortly after takeoff from Salt Lake City (SLC), Utah. The airplane returned to SLC for an overweight, single-engine landing without further incident. Examination of the engine revealed that two fan blades were fractured transversely across the airfoil adjacent to the blade root platform. Metallurgical examination of the fan blades determined that one fan blade had separated from a fatigue fracture and the other separated from overload, although the fracture had coincided with a preexisting fatigue crack. A fluorescent penetrant examination of the left engine's remaining fan blades revealed that several blades had crack indications. A dimensional inspection of the cracked fan blades revealed that they were under the minimum thickness in a highly stressed area of the airfoil. The investigation determined that the fan blades were too thin due to an improper forging die setup when the blades were manufactured. At the time the fan blades were made, PWC did not require a dimensional inspection of the fan blade airfoils.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
The aircraft
- Maximum gross weight: 23,500 lb
- Seats: 10
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine 1: Pratt & Whitney Canada PW305A (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Engine 2: PW305A (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Operator: D&D Aviation
The flight
- Departed from: KSLC Salt Lake City UT
- Destination: KICT Wichita KS
- Flight plan: IFR
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Temperature: 0°F (-18°C), dew point 0°F (-18°C)
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crew | 2 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.
Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.