King Air at Gillam, MB

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Locked
rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2319
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by rigpiggy » Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:33 am

Its been a while since flying the KA200. The aux fuel, is it electrically pump or does it use the jet pumps from bypass fuel? I seem to recall that if there is no fuel in the mains, it wont transfer? Maybe an alternate theory was lineman filled wrong tank, and in hurry crew simply looked at total litres, but not enough fuel in the mains to siphon all from the aux's...... and tried to stretch it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7737
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by iflyforpie » Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:49 am

It uses a jet pump that takes fuel from the motive flow valve and the engine driven boost pump.

It’s nacelle fuel that you need. If you don’t have nacelle fuel, you’ve got more problems.

You’re not supposed to have empty mains and full auxes, and it’s not really possible to burn the mains and the nacelle dry first on both engines unless both motive flow valves are stuck closed and you’ve got both no fuel transfer lights on.

But yeah... I don’t know how you don’t grab enough gas either. Order the fuel, watch them fuel, get the fuel ticket and look at the amount, look at the gauges, read the checklist. Not one but two of you.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?

MUSKEG
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:49 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by MUSKEG » Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:48 am

I believe they declared a fuel emergency shortly before actual event. Fuel gauges on this aircraft are not great and are MELable. Been there done that. If they were, there is no cockpit indication of fuel on board and first indication would be the fuel pressure light. For whatever reason they didn’t have the fuel they thought they had.
---------- ADS -----------
  

yhz41
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:34 pm
Location: Windy Hell

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by yhz41 » Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:55 am

These aircraft are G1000 equipped. Provided you punch in the right fuel load on start up it will automatically calculate what you will have on descent and be reasonably accurate.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Illya Kuryakin
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Location: The Gulag Archipelago

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by Illya Kuryakin » Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:01 am

iflyforpie wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:51 pm
The auxes are transferred directly to the nacelle tank via the jet pump and to the engine. A flapper valve keeps the main fuel from entering the nacelle tank until the auxes are empty and the nacelle level/pressure drops due to the jet pump stopping.

It is possible for main fuel to be contaminated and aux fuel to not be. Unlikely, but possible.
[/quote]

Since the mains are always filled first, and the aux are always burned first......possible, you say? When pigs fly.
They ran out of gas.....still nobody willing to stand on their hind legs and say it?
Cheers
Illya
---------- ADS -----------
  
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.

greygoose
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:54 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by greygoose » Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:39 pm

Since the mains are always filled first, and the aux are always burned first......possible, you say? When pigs fly.
They ran out of gas.....still nobody willing to stand on their hind legs and say it?
With a huge Mb medevac contract under decision you can bet EIC will be doing all they can to brush this under the rug as Keewatin was their best player to do bidding with. I’m actually surprised the LifeFlight/union folks and gov opposition aren’t using this as ammo against the privatization.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7737
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by iflyforpie » Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:54 pm

Illya Kuryakin wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:01 am
[quote=iflyforpie post_id=<a href="tel:1076459">1076459</a> time=<a href="tel:1556419860">1556419860</a> user_id=16238]
The auxes are transferred directly to the nacelle tank via the jet pump and to the engine. A flapper valve keeps the main fuel from entering the nacelle tank until the auxes are empty and the nacelle level/pressure drops due to the jet pump stopping.

It is possible for main fuel to be contaminated and aux fuel to not be. Unlikely, but possible.
[/quote]

Since the mains are always filled first, and the aux are always burned first......possible, you say? When pigs fly.
They ran out of gas.....still nobody willing to stand on their hind legs and say it?
Cheers
Illya
[/quote]

Stranger things have happened.

Sediment or water is going to be the first thing drawn out of a tank. First into the mains held back from the engine by the flapper valve, and will go to the lowest point on the nacelle tank as soon as auxes are dry.

I don’t really care if they ran out of gas or didn’t. They probably did. Why is that so important to you?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?

porcsord
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by porcsord » Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:39 pm

Doc just wants to blame people.

That being said, it does take some skill to either have a dual engine failure or run out of fuel in a twin turbine. I can think of a couple instances, but it's pretty rare. I'm willing to bet that the combined experience in the cockpit totals less than the average of our King Air F/Os.... pay peanuts....
---------- ADS -----------
  

bobcaygeon
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 543
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by bobcaygeon » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:06 pm

porcsord wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:39 pm
Doc just wants to blame people.

That being said, it does take some skill to either have a dual engine failure or run out of fuel in a twin turbine. I can think of a couple instances, but it's pretty rare. I'm willing to bet that the combined experience in the cockpit totals less than the average of our King Air F/Os.... pay peanuts....
I heard they are in the middle of pilot contract negots. Tough to negotiate with the boss if they did burn the tanks dry.....
---------- ADS -----------
  

Illya Kuryakin
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Location: The Gulag Archipelago

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by Illya Kuryakin » Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:40 pm

iflyforpie wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:54 pm
Illya Kuryakin wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:01 am
[quote=iflyforpie post_id=<a href="tel:1076459">1076459</a> time=<a href="tel:1556419860">1556419860</a> user_id=16238]
The auxes are transferred directly to the nacelle tank via the jet pump and to the engine. A flapper valve keeps the main fuel from entering the nacelle tank until the auxes are empty and the nacelle level/pressure drops due to the jet pump stopping.

It is possible for main fuel to be contaminated and aux fuel to not be. Unlikely, but possible.
Since the mains are always filled first, and the aux are always burned first......possible, you say? When pigs fly.
They ran out of gas.....still nobody willing to stand on their hind legs and say it?
Cheers
Illya
[/quote]

Stranger things have happened.

Sediment or water is going to be the first thing drawn out of a tank. First into the mains held back from the engine by the flapper valve, and will go to the lowest point on the nacelle tank as soon as auxes are dry.

I don’t really care if they ran out of gas or didn’t. They probably did. Why is that so important to you?
[/quote]

Why is it important to me? Seriously? Doesn't bother you to have crews flying around running out of gas? Bothers me.
Illya
---------- ADS -----------
  
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by goingnowherefast » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:46 am

Cause we can't say for certain that they did. Looking likely, but not for certain. It bothers me IF they ran out of gas, but I'd like to give this crew the benefit of the doubt first. It's the shoot first, ask questions later style that bothers people.

There is the possibility that it is fuel contamination, but yet some posters come across that they want it to be empty tanks so they can continue their rhetoric that pilots run out of gas. A very self supporting conclusion, not drawn from facts, but speculation.

Maybe the apprentice put both fuel systems together wrong? It's anybody's guess how it would behave then. Perhaps the fuel gauges were way out of whack and they thought they had enough? Fuel leak?
---------- ADS -----------
  

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4505
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by trey kule » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:48 am

What bothers me is the rationalization that speculation is ok because it is all about learning.
And that we need to know right now.

I predict that the cause of this accident will not be the first time that it has happened.

Which makes me wonder why the all fired rush to need to speculate at all. Or castigating TSB for taking the necessary time to get it right. Unlike many here, they have the annoying habit of checking everything.
This should be an easier case because the crew is available and the plane is pretty much intact.

Lets all wait awhile shall we.

Then we can bring out the tar and feathers.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everyone is a genius in hindsight

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4037
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by pelmet » Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:57 pm

trey kule wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:48 am
What bothers me is the rationalization that speculation is ok because it is all about learning.
And that we need to know right now.

Which makes me wonder why the all fired rush to need to speculate at all. Or castigating TSB for taking the necessary time to get it right. Unlike many here, they have the annoying habit of checking everything.
This should be an easier case because the crew is available and the plane is pretty much intact.

Lets all wait awhile shall we.
It is bizarre. There will be all this endless speculation and arguing on a thread after an accident. Then, it eventually stops. After a year or two a report comes out and we find out the actual story(perhaps not always but frequently). It gets posted by someone like me and there is a fraction of the discussion.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by digits_ » Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:16 pm

pelmet wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:57 pm

It is bizarre. There will be all this endless speculation and arguing on a thread after an accident. Then, it eventually stops. After a year or two a report comes out and we find out the actual story(perhaps not always but frequently). It gets posted by someone like me and there is a fraction of the discussion.
Not really. The final report usually says exactly what happened. There is much less to talk about. It's usually also one of the many options that people already speculated about. A lot of the possible options have already been "pre-discussed" if you wish.

The only thing remaining could be the discussion as to why it happened, or what lead to the accident, but even that is usually covered in quite some detail in the TSB report.
---------- ADS -----------
  

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4505
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by trey kule » Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:21 pm

Pelmet.

It is as you say.

People seem to enjoy speculating without any facts.
When the report does come, there seems to be no desire to learn from it.

BTW. I read all your accident posts. I have found lots to learn from them.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everyone is a genius in hindsight

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by digits_ » Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:27 pm

If you were to post a TSB report from an accident that nobody heard from before, there would be much more discussion because a lot of new possibilities and "what-ifs" could be discussed.
trey kule wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:21 pm

People seem to enjoy speculating without any facts.
When the report does come, there seems to be no desire to learn from it.

BTW. I read all your accident posts. I have found lots to learn from them.
That's where you are wrong. The speculating *IS* the learning: what could have gone wrong, why could it have gone wrong, who or what caused it, etc.

For example, viewers of this thread have now a better understanding of the King Air fuel system. Information that probably wouldn't have been included in the TSB report.
---------- ADS -----------
  

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4505
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by trey kule » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:25 pm

If you fly a King Air, you will, or should have, an understanding of the fuel system. It is, or should be, part of the training. If it is not,then your training organization is the place to learn it.
If you do not fly a king air, exactly what value does learning about a king airs fuel system do for you. Allow you as an anonymous future poster to pretend you understand the system? don,t you think that should be part of a training program and not a casual internet thread where you may, or maybe not, be getting factual information, or maybe it only applies to certain models and years of king airs. A little knowledge can be very dangerous in an airplane.

I am very biased towards good and thorough training. Not so called learning from speculation. To many computer captains who really don’t know much pretending they do.

To put it bluntly, “ the learning” is just an excuse to gossip.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everyone is a genius in hindsight

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1075
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by C.W.E. » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:39 pm

If you fly a King Air, you will, or should have, an understanding of the fuel system. It is, or should be, part of the training. If it is not,then your training organization is the place to learn it.
If you do not fly a king air, exactly what value does learning about a king airs fuel system do for you. Allow you as an anonymous future poster to pretend you understand the system? don,t you think that should be part of a training program and not a casual internet thread where you may, or maybe not, be getting factual information, or maybe it only applies to certain models and years of king airs. A little knowledge can be very dangerous in an airplane.

I am very biased towards good and thorough training. Not so called learning from speculation. To many computer captains who really don’t know much pretending they do.

To put it bluntly, “ the learning” is just an excuse to gossip.
The above should end this discussion because it is factual.

However I do have one question to ask.

If a crew wrecks an airplane through gross mismanagement such as running out of fuel should there be a price to pay for their mismanagement... or is just a learning experience?
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by goingnowherefast » Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:30 pm

If it truly is taking off without enough fuel, and continuing on regardless, then wrecks the plane and survives. Then it will probably cost them their jobs and careers.

If somebody does take off without enough gas, own the mistake, turn around and go back and get more. You'll get in shit, but that's the least of your worries compared to continuing on and running out.

If it's a fuel leak, fitting vibrated loose and dumped fuel at scary rates, then could be "good job making it almost to a runway".

A lot of "if" statements because nobody on avcanada knows why they maybe ran out of gas.
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1075
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by C.W.E. » Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:51 pm

If a crew wrecks an airplane by running out of fuel because they did not have enough in the airplane for the trip would the insurance company pay for the damage?
---------- ADS -----------
  

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4505
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by trey kule » Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:36 pm

It is not that simple, as there are some other factors to be considered, but from my experience, almost certainly if there are no personal injury claims or large third party losses.
In the grand scheme of things a simple hull loss is not a huge deal to an insurer.
There is however, the matter of subrogation , and holding the crew liable for the loss.
The old policies had, for an extra premium, a breech of warranty clause for just these kinds of situations. Taking off without the required fuel might just fall into that category.
But it is never usually that black and white.
Maybe someone who is current on insurance can post if these clauses are still included in policies. Can get really ugly for a crew if they are.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everyone is a genius in hindsight

corethatthermal
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by corethatthermal » Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:06 am

WoW What a huge big safe lake they landed on ! UM, I mean touched down on on their way to destroy the plane !! How many landable lakes did they overfly on the way to totalling their aircraft? Did they do a high/steep approach path with the lake as an alternate? Boy, were these pilots STUPID !!!!
---------- ADS -----------
  

Crsaviation
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 8:50 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by Crsaviation » Wed May 01, 2019 8:56 am

Do tell me; how the hell is a flight crew supposed to know how thick the ice is on the lakes below? Don't remember seeing surrounding lake ice thickness on METAR reports. The speculation here, based entirely on a vague CBC article is sick. Get a life people and show some respect.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
703doge
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:18 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by 703doge » Wed May 01, 2019 12:22 pm

The CADOR almost reads as a non event :roll:


Aircraft Event InformationFuel - leakDiversionHard landingCollision with terrain

Occurrence Summary

Date Entered:

2019-05-01

Narrative:

A Keewatin Air Beech B200 (C-FRMV/KEW202) reported minimum fuel due to a fuel leak and advised diverting to Gillam, MB (CYGX). Aircraft landed and nose gear collapsed. No other impact to operations







http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/c ... =2019C1526
---------- ADS -----------
  
Bork Bork

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by digits_ » Wed May 01, 2019 12:35 pm

703doge wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 12:22 pm
The CADOR almost reads as a non event :roll:


Aircraft Event InformationFuel - leakDiversionHard landingCollision with terrain

Occurrence Summary

Date Entered:

2019-05-01

Narrative:

A Keewatin Air Beech B200 (C-FRMV/KEW202) reported minimum fuel due to a fuel leak and advised diverting to Gillam, MB (CYGX). Aircraft landed and nose gear collapsed. No other impact to operations







http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/c ... =2019C1526
"No other impact to operations"

I'm wondering what you need to do to impact operations.
Closing an airport and writing off an airplane isn't enough apparently.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Locked

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”