NT Air King Air Accident - Pilot Discussion Thread

[Diadem]

If the quotes are accurate this Cross person is a complete wingnut. What a load of make believe.

+1. She said there were four passengers in front of her, which means she was sitting at least three rows behind the pilots; how could she see a hand trembling? Why did she believe they were going to die from the moment the pilot announced they were returning to Vancouver, even though there was no indication of a serious problem? How would she know "[t]hey went very high up"? On what basis did she determine "[t]he pilots were taking us much higher than normal and I understand that is because they were going to glide us in"? They weren't gliding; at least one engine was running. Most of all, how did she know "that they were not going to make it despite a gallant effort" before the wing dropped? They weren't trying to glide in without power, and prior to the wing drop it appears the approach was normal and they were going to make the runway. The human mind has an incredible capability to inject new information into memories and add detail where none previously existed, which I suspect is the case here. I hope the TSB doesn't place a great deal of credence on her testimony.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the accident, but she flagrantly broke the law by sending e-mails in flight. Regardless of whether the signal disrupted navigation equipment, the phone is one more projectile flying around the cabin.

[RatherBeFlying]

The lady is in hospital with several fractures. I'd cut her some slack.

Waiting for the sanctimonious lecture on using a cellphone during an approach in VFR conditions.

[cncpc]

The lady is in hospital with several fractures. I'd cut her some slack.

Waiting for the sanctimonious lecture on using a cellphone during an approach in VFR conditions.

+1 Loudly.

She said what she thinks she saw. The reporter ate it up. People are hurt, people are grieving, and a lot of pilots in this thread are contributing to understanding what happened. It is the story of one human being who has been through a very trying ordeal. What does it possibly contribute to start belittling a woman in a hospital bed?

[pelmet]

Wingnut? Sounds like she was fairly accurate about not making it and people dying. So she texted in flight. Probably was never told not to. Maybe she figured they were climbing because she saw the altimeter increasing or heard the engine power increase on both engines. Maybe from 10 feet away you can see someone's hand shaking.

[180]

Doesn't look like the plane climbed after they turned around:

The flight path, air speed and altitude of Flight 204.

3:41 p.m. - Plane takes off from Vancouver International Airport

3:51 - Speed: 295 km/h, Altitude: 4,000 metres over Coquitlam Lake

3:54 - Speed: 327 km/h, Altitude: 4,600 metres over Golden Ears Park

4:01 - Speed: 331 km/h, Altitude: 2,652 metres heading southwest toward Coquitlam

4:05 - Speed: 410 km/h, Altitude: 1,311 metres over Fraser River near Port Coquitlam

4:07 - Speed: 302 km/h, Altitude: 884 metres over North Delta neat Scott Road and 96 Avenue

4:09 - Speed: 295 km/h, Altitude: 457 metres over Richmond

4:10 - Speed: 266 km/h, Altitude: 366 metres over Highway 99 in Richmond

4:11:28 - Speed: 162 Km/h, Altitude: 61 metres near airport

4:11:34 - Speed: 198 km/h, Altitude: 61 metres (Final reading on radar before plane disappears from radar)

Source: WebTracker: YVR

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[cncpc]

If the quotes are accurate this Cross person is a complete wingnut. What a load of make believe.

+1. She said there were four passengers in front of her, which means she was sitting at least three rows behind the pilots; how could she see a hand trembling? Why did she believe they were going to die from the moment the pilot announced they were returning to Vancouver, even though there was no indication of a serious problem? How would she know "[t]hey went very high up"? On what basis did she determine "[t]he pilots were taking us much higher than normal and I understand that is because they were going to glide us in"? They weren't gliding; at least one engine was running. Most of all, how did she know "that they were not going to make it despite a gallant effort" before the wing dropped? They weren't trying to glide in without power, and prior to the wing drop it appears the approach was normal and they were going to make the runway. The human mind has an incredible capability to inject new information into memories and add detail where none previously existed, which I suspect is the case here. I hope the TSB doesn't place a great deal of credence on her testimony.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the accident, but she flagrantly broke the law by sending e-mails in flight. Regardless of whether the signal disrupted navigation equipment, the phone is one more projectile flying around the cabin.

Sonny, I didn't see this post when I responded to the one below, but here's a bit of advice for you

One day you're going to have to come down off that high horse with the Microsoft Flight Simulator built into the saddle horn and walk through a door. The real world is going to be out there, and you ain't going to fit in well with a sanctimonious berate the injured attitude like you have in this drivel above. It's a Vancouver Sun story, sonny. It's not like it was a real newspaper. Get over it.

[oldtimer]

I have read a number of posts by others about the PT 6 and the King Air 100. I used to fly a 100 years ago and in fact I was the one who delivered GXRX to the new owners many moons ago. Also flew GXVX, a sister ship, both as a straight 100 and as a Raisbeck mod airplane. GXRX is a very early model 100 that has the Raisbeck performance mods. One thing I noticed was that the 4 blade prop will create a lot more drag when either the power levers are brought to idle or the engine quits. Also, the prop will not feather right away when an engine looses oil because there is an oil pump as part of the prop governor, driven by the prop shaft, that will keep the prop on speed until the governor and pump also looses oil supply. With the engine failed and the prop in high RPM or even in cruise RPM, the drag will be considerable. The oil will stream out of the engine and stain the cowl if a cap is left loose. The oil pressure will fluctuate slightly with the cap off, even if there is lots of oil still in the engine. That is why the tank is pressurized. there was no oil pressure fail light in the airplane as delivered, just an AC powered oil pressure gauge that can at times also jiggle a bit when all is well. Also, the King Air 100 will set up a high sink rate if the speed is allowed to decrease and it can catch one by surprise. This was a tragic accident and my heart goes out to all involved. It was a sad day.

[privateer]

A big +1

Four blades is great for performance as long as the engine is operating, and the worse thing ever when you no longer have an engine. I've flown 3 blade B200's and four blade B200's. They have a lot of bite!

[HS-748 2A]

Is anybody certain that one of the engines was indeed not making any power at the time of the crash?

From what I see, the detached propeller and the one that stayed with the aircraft both look like they were being driven at the time they contacted.

There is nothing to say though that they weren't in beta, perhaps but I do not think either one displays indications of having hit while feathered.

When I first saw this accident, my thought was that maybe with their unscheduled return to the airport, they'd been slotted in too close behind a heavy jet and got caught up in the wake turbulence; reminiscent of the Navajo that ended up in Ikea's parking lot a couple years ago.

Just a thought.

'48

[ahramin]

Another lesson learned. After the crash someone at Vancouver Airport Authority called Vancouver General Hospital to give them advance notice. Great idea but they didn't know how many people were involved so they gave no information. VGH thought they were dealing with an airliner crashed and called in 60 people on overtime.

[cncpc]

Is anybody certain that one of the engines was indeed not making any power at the time of the crash?

From what I see, the detached propeller and the one that stayed with the aircraft both look like they were being driven at the time they contacted.

There is nothing to say though that they weren't in beta, perhaps but I do not think either one displays indications of having hit while feathered.

When I first saw this accident, my thought was that maybe with their unscheduled return to the airport, they'd been slotted in too close behind a heavy jet and got caught up in the wake turbulence; reminiscent of the Navajo that ended up in Ikea's parking lot a couple years ago.

Just a thought.

'48

They were No. 1 from a long ways back and no wake turbulence caution on the tape. Wind was right down the runway at 5 knots, so I doubt there would be any driftover from 26 right, HS.

[Rowdy]

I dont have a ton of time on the 100's. Heck I still have more time in DHC's.. which still isnt saying much..but...

I'd be looking closely at the props and the gearboxes/governors! A low oil pressure indication could be many many things and IIRC in the book it didnt warrant an immediate shutdown until below a certain pressure, just a power reduction! (Can someone confirm the #'s, I dont have my POH or GS book handy..) Its a tough call to shut down an engine that is still producing some power, providing bleed air and a gen! For those that havent flown one, King airs are very much electrically run airplanes. Flaps, gear motor, both the main and stby trim in the 100 plus all the instrumentation, GPS's etc. Sure one gen will suffice, but why put all that strain on the system and risk more issues? Dont forget that they arent fresh spring chickens either and I dare you to see what happens if you close ONE bleed at alt. It wont hold a cabin alt. and who would believe it should at 30 some odd years old with how many thousand hours and cycles? ahramin.. do you remember that conversation we had enroute sachs harbour about the time I'd had troubles with the YRB machine with joe?? I can 100% see and agree with the thought process and decision to keep it turning under the conditions and I'm also playing the devils advocate a bit here. Food for thought!

Now this could have been a total non event and as we've now seen something went drastically wrong in the very last few moments of the flight that changed that. Short short final.. No panic or strain in the pilots voices prior.. so it'll be interesting to see what comes of the CVR tapes and proper investigation. Could it have been a gearbox decide to come apart catastrophically in that last few seconds? How about the governors failing? Oil leak resulting in a fire near the accesory gearbox etc right towards the end? Lots and lots of theories.. lots and lots of maybes. The human brain always wants to determine the cause of something so it can be put at ease.. I know, I want to understand why a friend is no longer with us.

ahramin, I 100% agree.. she does sound a bit out to lunch, but I'll forgive her as she's probably higher than a kite on all that morphine. Been there! We should all also remember to discredit much of the eye witness bs as what do they say.. 80% of it is usually false and people have a tendency to distort facts and 'see' things. I also fail to see how some feel the trucks should have been called out regardless. That would make sense IF the aircraft impacted on the airport grounds and not outside of them and on the other side of a rather large fence/culvert! However it didnt and luckily there is a fully staffed hall just a few hundred meters up russ baker that responded incredibly quickly! Impeccably swift in their response times actually.. Kudos to themn and to the many who helped pull the passengers out, and I do believe that included one helijet employee! Can someone confirm that? If so, they deserve a solid avcan pat on the back and a round of beers or cheers. Or both!

SOmeone else also brought up a fantastic point. The LACK of available exits for the pilots on the 100! What a joke! One over the wing plug and the rear door. Brutal. Perhaps its time those old birds get crushed! Make em into pop cans I say, I never did much like them anyways

[ahramin]

Rowdy I do indeed remember that flight. However that close to the return airport I don't think the extra pack and gen would be factors affecting the shutdown decision. I'd be more prone to shut it down except for 2 things. We don't know what indications those guys had and we don't know what performance issues they would have been worried about. On a 200 or better I'd be inclined to shut down but a 100 is a different story, you can't always maintain altitude on 1 engine. Unless I had everything else going for me (weather, load, distance, etc) I'd be inclined to run it to failure.

As for rolling the fire equipment, in my King Air days with 1 shut down and everthing else normal I probably wouldn't have called for it either. After seeing this accident it's solidified my decision to call for it on every Pan Pan or Mayday to do with airplane issues.

[Jim la Jungle]

Hi Rowdy,

The numbers for oil pressure on the A100 are:

Between 80 and 40 psi, throttle back to 70% N1, which is pretty much high idle.
Below 40 psi is a shutdown.

I've had lot's of weird oil pressure indications in my king air days. Turned back a few times to find that it was always indication. This accident makes me wonder....scary. The mechanics told me that if you loose oil pressure, the prop will go towards feather, which is logical when you look at the system. This was discussed earlier.

As for gen or bleed off, it doesn't matter in this situation. 1 gen is sufficient and maybe you can get a few pounds of torque by turning the bleed off on the remaining engine. But this is not in the book. I'd be more worried about the ice vanes that are supposed to be on during landing. Turn them off and you get 100 pounds of torque more, which could help you a lot on that heep.

Also very good point on that cockpit. It's a trap. It's hard to get in or out in normal time, can you imagine when you're in shock and or injured...

With this post I'm merely answering technical questions. I have no clue on what happened that day.


Safe King air flying boys and girls. That plane can bite.

[Brown Bear]

I'm guessing the original cause was a dip stick was not properly placed in its hole. What happened next is for the investigators to establish. But I'll bet the dip stick got it started.

[Rowdy]

I like that this thread has stayed the course as a logical and proper discussion, without any mud slinging or bickering.

BB, It could very easily have been an oil cap/disptick not properly seated as much as it could have been a weak line or a crack in the case etc. Sometimes the cause is the most straightforward and simple and often initially overlooked answer.

Jim La jungle, thats also a very very solid point. A heavy 100 on a single engine sure can use every last bit of power.. She is a bit of a brick! Doubtful they put out the vanes under such conditions. Also doubtful if they figured it was just an indication that there would be reason to even think of all the things we've mentioned and discussed.

I honestly wonder how they were configured and what was going through their minds. It truly is hard to judge decisions and actions that they had but minutes and often seconds to think through, where we have the liberty of many years as we sit on the ground and pontificate.

It has solidified in my mind that if asked by the tower during such an occurence , I wouldnt hesistate for an instant to let them roll the trucks! Those fine gents in the nomex gear could use the exercise

[plhought]

Are the instrument AC fuses still by the co-pilot elbow there in the 100?

Is there any definite info that it was a single oil pressure indication? or both?

Good job though to those who ran up to help extricate those they could.

[The Hammer]

How many people has SFAR 41C killed over the years???

The demand to travel would have created aircraft designs that met higher standards had SFAR 41C never existed.

Did anyone really benefit from SFAR 41C other than the manufacturer's?? ie cheaper to design and sell due to lower standards

[PanEuropean]

The numbers for oil pressure on the A100 are: Between 80 and 40 psi, throttle back to 70% N1, which is pretty much high idle. Below 40 psi is a shutdown.

Folks:

I don't want to make any comment on this unfortunate accident, so I will confine my remarks to the limitations published for the engine - specifically oil pressure limitations, without any prejudice to the circumstances of the accident.

I think that the interpretation of the oil pressure limitations on the small PT6A series engines (for example, the -27 or -28) as posted by Jim is an example of what you could call "looking through the wrong end of the telescope".

The normal oil pressure range for these engines is 80 to 100 PSI (the green arc). As the engine gets older, oil pressure at idle will sometimes stabilize below 80 PSI. Pratt & Whitney permits continued operation of the engine at idle power (defined as less than 72% Ng) with oil pressure between 40 and 80 PSI (the amber caution range) provided that oil pressure increases to above 80 PSI (i.e. into the normal range) when the engine speed is increased above the idle range.

In other words - the rationale for publishing the 40 to 80 PSI caution range is to enable continued operation of the (presumably older) engine on the ground with lower than 'normal' oil pressures at idle, as long as the oil pressure rises up into the 'normal' range for flight operations. The 40 to 80 PSI caution range was not published when the engine was first certified, it was added in the late 1960s or early 1970s several years after first certification of the engine.

I have often seen people interpret the permission granted by the caution range 'backwards' - in other words, state, as Jim did, that if oil pressure in flight decreases below 80 PSI, Ng should be reduced to the idle range. I don't believe that this interpretation is congruent with Pratt & Whitney's original objective, which was to eliminate the need to pull and overhaul an older engine if oil pressure at idle was below 80 PSI.

For the purposes of flight, if the engine oil pressure drops below 80 PSI in flight (presuming normal flight power), there is a serious problem with the engine. Whether or not the limitations permit us to continue to operate the engine at Ng within the idle range for the remainder of the flight is kind of moot. Although the engine could continue to provide us with electrical generation and (perhaps some) bleed air, it's certainly not going to provide any useful propulsion. Plus, in the case of a drop of oil pressure below the green arc during flight, what we have encountered is a sudden degradation of the engine oil pressure system, not the gradual degradation at low Ng in older engines foreseen by P&W.

Michael

[The Old Fogducker]

How many people has SFAR 41C killed over the years???

The demand to travel would have created aircraft designs that met higher standards had SFAR 41C never existed.

Did anyone really benefit from SFAR 41C other than the manufacturer's?? ie cheaper to design and sell due to lower standards

Hammer .... what does this category of certification has to do with the Beech 90/100/200 series of aircraft which are certified under FAR 23?