King Air crash in US

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

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

pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: King Air crash in US

Post by pelmet »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:46 pm
C.W.E. wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:25 pm
Your feelings on the current state of flight instruction have changed?
My feelings on the current state of flight instruction has not changed.

This accident from what we know baring a sudden medical crisis the pilot flying that airplane was not capable of basic airplane handling skills flying a certified aircraft.

If basic flying skills are that lacking it stands to logic that the training and certification of the pilot was substandard at best.
Why aren't the school that trained this pilot, and the authority that signed off, held directly responsible for this accident then?
How do you know that he didn’t perform satisfactorily on the day he was signed off. Is that irrelevant for as long as the trainee is flying?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: King Air crash in US

Post by rookiepilot »

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/1 ... s_say.html

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/1 ... _risk.html

Well it's . who's talked about puppy mill pilot training.

While it gets redundant, sometimes I think he has a point.

People here talk about the unsafe operators in the bush. Them, and never a school?

Truckers too. Everyone is out for a profit, safety loses.

FTU's and regulators are not above this.

It seems daring to criticize training and millennial instructors surfing their IPhones during lessons gets everyone upset. Bias, anyone?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
daedalusx
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:51 am

Re: King Air crash in US

Post by daedalusx »

How about that school in YHU that sent their chinese student who could barely speak english on a solo even though he had obviously poor understanding of ATC clearances and seemed like he need more stick time under supervision. That student ended up blowing a tower departure altitude clearance and mid-aired another chinese student in a full blown VMC day. Doesn't seem like anyone is holding them responsible ... :roll:

Quote from TSB
Prior to the occurrence flight, the student pilot of C-FGOI had been authorized for, and had flown, 8 solo flights. Of those, 5 had been devoted to flying circuits, and 3 to practising specific exercises in the training area. The TSB obtained radar and audio data for the latter 3 flights.

Analysis of the historical data showed that on 2 occasions, while returning from the training area, ATC had given the student pilot an altitude restriction of “not below.” On both occasions, the student pilot had incorrectly read back the altitude restrictions as “not above”

...

The historical flight data showed generally that, even when the limitations of the displayed radar altitude were taken into consideration, the student pilot had difficulty levelling off and maintaining a consistent altitude.
---------- ADS -----------
 
In twenty years time when your kids ask how you got into flying you want to be able to say "work and determination" not "I just kept taking money from your grandparents for type ratings until someone was stupid enough to give me a job"
Illya Kuryakin
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Location: The Gulag Archipelago

Re: King Air crash in US

Post by Illya Kuryakin »

iflyforpie wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:32 pm

Also... the fact that we are using accidents from ten years ago as Illya mentioned to slag the skills of modern pilots practically defines irony.
Let's see if I have this right? You think the Air France Swim Team accident was too long ago to be relevant in today's world? It's now okay, that a crew of a "modern" airliner (it wasn't a Connie, or a DC6) to not recognize a stall through about 30,000 feet to sea level? Because today's pilots are better trained? I seem to read about an accident a week here. Kind of like the blind adherence to the SOPs that put a Boeing into the Potomic. But......that is, again irrelevant?
Sure.
Illya
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: King Air crash in US

Post by PilotDAR »

With the posting of this Youtube elsewhere:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3dedIi ... e=youtu.be

I see a relationship of the last moments of that flight, to a special condition on certain King Airs, which I have previously encountered. I am by no means an experienced King Air pilot, though it was my task to explore the characteristics associated with this special condition for a survey tail boom I approved.
The special condition #23-47-CE-5, dated: October 15, 1973 includes the following letter from the FAA:

"Oct 15, 1973

ACE-216

Beech Model 200 angle of skid; Beech Aircraft Corporation
letter 908-189 dated August 23, 1973

Mr. C. A. Rembleake, Manager
Aircraft Production Engineering Division
Beech Aircraft Corporation
P. O. Box 85
Wichita, Kansas 67201

Beech has requested certification guidance for their model 200 relative to the term "appropriate to type" in FAR 23.177(a)(1). A joint Beech-FAA flight test was made August 17, 1973 to establish a basis for this guidance.

A qualitative investigation of the lateral-directional static stability shows the characteristics to be conventional. Skid angles of 20-25 degrees are obtained at 1.3Vs1 speeds and higher. For skid angles of 20-25 degrees, the rudder force and position stability gradients indicate positive stability at 1.2Vs1 speeds and higher.The destabilizing effects of the nose landing gear, the forward mounted nacelles, MC thrust and extreme aft C of G location, however, combine at 1.2Vs to permit skid angles in the 35-38 degrees range. The following observations are noted:

1. These large skid angles can be obtained with any flap deflection, but only in a narrow range of airspeeds of around 1.2Vs1. The skid angles reduce to the 20-25 degree range without pilot input if the airspeed varies as much as +5 knots with full rudder control.

2. The thrust dependence of the 35-40 degree skid angle is shown by immediate angle reduction (without overshoot) when the critical engine is suddenly failed.

3. Essentially, full up elevator is required to hold the airspeed at 1.2Vs1 in the maximum skid. If this deflection input is not precisely timed, the maximum skid will not develop.

4. Rudder position stability remains positive throughout the full rudder deflection range. Rudder force stability is positive at all points as rudder deflection is increased. Plots provided by Beech show that rudder force stability can be very weak as right rudder deflection is reduced through the 16 -21 degree range during airplane skids between 16 and 22 degrees. In practice, this was seen only as a showing of rudder free recoveries initiated at or above these combined values.

In assessing compliance with FAR 23.177, it is recognized that skid angles greater than +-20 degrees can be obtained. These are seen only in one carefully controlled test condition, and under such circumstances that are not likely to be duplicated in service without prior knowledge of both the characteristic, and the entry technique. Recovery by standard control inputs is prompt and straightforward, and there is no unsafe feature associated with either the extreme skid angles or the recovery.

Despite this, the +-20 degree skid angle is more correctly representative of the airplane's response to the flight conditions throughout its flight envelope. You may therefore consider a maximum skid angle of +-20 degrees as "appropriate to type" for the model 200 in interpreting FAR 23.177(a)(1) and amended by 23-1 through 23-9.

William J. Thievon, Chief
Engineering and Manufacturing Branch"
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: King Air crash in US

Post by pelmet »

Classic VMC rollover. It is easy to think that you might handle this OK and not lose control, and maybe that is the case. But if you are losing control, your only hope may be to reduce power on the good engine potentially going as far as chopping power and accepting a wings near level crash.

Something you might want to think about as you taxi out.



The mindset is typically to try to keep going but that may not be possible. Crashing wings level gives you a chance of survival. Surviving a VMC rollover is unlikely.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: King Air crash in US

Post by PilotDAR »

your only hope may be to reduce power on the good engine potentially going as far as chopping power and accepting a wings near level crash.
On most light twins, and heavy mid sized twins, the correct decision to reduce power on the remaining engine pretty well assures a crash. Making it as level as possible is your best chance of survival. Few light twins are going to climb away on one engine with any enthusiasm. This article is an eye opener:

http://www.cfidarren.com/p8740-25.pdf

In the case of what I see in the video of this crash, the King Air was severely yawed. Probably the pilot was too busy to give attention to yaw, but failing to do so had the plane all set to spin as soon as a stall was approached. The King Air is unusually good at masking the high yaw angles by continuing to fly yawed without seeming to be in difficulty.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”