Kapowsin Air Sports Caravan Crash

[ORAC]

YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - Ground searchers following the smell of fuel found the wreckage of a plane that crashed in the rugged central Washington Cascades, but neither the pilot nor nine skydivers aboard appeared to have survived.

Jim Hall, director of Yakima Valley Emergency Management, said all on board were believed dead, and that their families were notified. The aircraft was found about 7:40 p.m. PDT and searchers were able to verify by serial number that it was the missing aircraft, said Yakima Valley Emergency Management spokeswoman Tina Wilson.

The Cessna 208 Grand Caravan left Star, Idaho, near Boise, Sunday evening en route to Shelton, Wash., northwest of Olympia. The plane was returning from a skydiving meet in Idaho when it crashed.

One man at a Red Cross center at White Pass said his 30-year-old son was aboard the plane. He displayed a family photo of the young man skydiving with a brother and sister. "He worked hard and he played hard - we just want to find him,'' said the father, who did not give his name.

When members of the Tacoma Mountain Rescue Team came upon the wreckage they found that the tail section was separated from the rest of the plane, Wilson said. It has not been located.

The names of those aboard have not been released.

Based on radar transmissions and a hunter's report of seeing a plane flying low Sunday evening and then hearing a crash, the search was focused on a steep, densely forested area near White Pass, about 45 miles west of Yakima. The search was centered in a relatively small area of 5-10 square miles along the north fork of the Tieton River.

Elaine Harvey, co-owner of the skydiving company Skydive Snohomish, told The Seattle Times that nine of the 10 aboard were either employees of her business or else licensed skydivers who considered Snohomish their "home drop zone.'' Skydive Snohomish operates a training school and offers skydiving flights at Harvey Field in Snohomish County, about 20 miles north of Seattle. Skydive Snohomish had nothing to do with the flight to Idaho or the event held there, Harvey said.

"These people were beloved friends,'' she told the Yakima Herald-Republic. Harvey did not return telephone messages from The Associated Press seeking additional comment.

The plane was registered to Kapowsin Air Sports of Shelton, south of Seattle near Olympia. Geoff Farrington, Kapowsin's co-owner, said the family-owned company had never before lost a plane. He also said the plane had never experienced mechanical problems.

The single-engine plane was built in 1994, according to FAA records.

[Finals19]

This is not the first time this sort of tragedy has occurred in that part of the world in a C208, and it really does beg the question of the suitability of the aircraft in this region for passenger carrying operations. On 21st January 2006 a similar incident took place over Vancouver Island, British Columbia, where a cracked turbine wheel shattered in the PT6 and the pilot was left with 9 pax on board, gliding over inhospitable terrain.

In Canada there are 5 DMR's (Designated Mountainous Regions) - DMR 1 and 5 having the biggest terrain clearance requirement. IMHO, there is a strong argument for this a/c not to be used in these DMR's for pax carrying operations.

[haughtney1]

YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - Ground searchers following the smell of fuel found the wreckage of a plane that crashed in the rugged central Washington Cascades, but neither the pilot nor nine skydivers aboard appeared to have survived.

This is not the first time this sort of tragedy has occurred in that part of the world in a C208, and it really does beg the question of the suitability of the aircraft in this region for passenger carrying operations.

Hardly a passenger carrying operation:=

[Avman]

So what were they haughtney, cargo?

[Finals19]

Hardly a passenger carrying operation

What a tremendously valuable contribution to the thread :confused:

Bottom line is that they were being transported in an a/c that questionably was unable to glide clear given terrain conditions in that area. The fact it has a PT6 up front has made it certifiable for passenger operations in IFR conditions in the US and Canada and also other parts of the world. Accidents as documented are showing that its performance / reliability record is starting to put a big question mark over its operational feasability. Just my 2 cents.

[haughtney1]

Avman
So what were they haughtney, cargo?

No, certainly not..(with the qualifier that I am assuming this was a skydiving operation/flight)
The caravan in its skydiving form offers no seats, no restraints, and an ability to exit the aircraft through a movable sliding door.
Which is why, in the strictest sense I made the comment that this is HARDLY a passenger operation ala a scheduled airline. If you wish to compare the two, then I'm, afraid you are comparing apples and oranges.

Bottom line is that they were being transported in an a/c that questionably was unable to glide clear given terrain conditions in that area.
Bottom line is they were flying in an aircraft with a single engine....which must then make by your inference EVERY other single engine aircraft just as unsafe?
We don't even know the circumstances of the accident..was it weather related? was it mechanical? was it pilot error? and yet..with a local media report you Finals19 have inferred that the aircraft is unsafe due to its PT6 powerplant.

[Sqwak7700]

I think what haughtney1 is trying to say is that a company certified to carry out skydiving is not really certified to transport people. I would assume that taking people on a cross country flight is transporting, kind of like an airline. The big difference being that in this case, it sounds like the passengers were not paying for a ticket, so it isn't commercial transoprt.

At least, they better have not payed to be transported. If they did, then the FAA would have to really take a close look as to why they where paying passengers at a company which might not be certified for such operations.

On a side note, it sounds like the pilot was scud running. I don't imagine that a skydiving airplane (even though it is a caravan) would be well equipped for IFR or even icing (?) in this case.

[Finals19]

Bottom line is they were flying in an aircraft with a single engine....which must then make by your inference EVERY other single engine aircraft just as unsafe?

We don't even know the circumstances of the accident..was it weather related? was it mechanical? was it pilot error? and yet..with a local media report you Finals19 have inferred that the aircraft is unsafe due to its PT6 powerplant.

Yes, bottom line is that there is an inherent degree of danger in flying a single engine aircraft over inhospitable terrain where you have little or no suitable forced landing options - stands to reason doesn't it?

I agree, the nature of the accident is yet to be established and it could have been any of the reasons you stated. I didn't however state that the aircraft was unsafe purely due to the PT6 powerplant, there is a combination of factors and conditions that make it so. I was closely involved in an incident where a PT6 catastrophically failed in flight on one of these machines, (in very similar conditions / terrain etc) and do not draw my assumptions from pure media speculation (rather TSB accident information and documented maintenance records)

So, to answer your question on my inference regarding the PT6 powerplant, that is my position. I agree at this point it may have no relation to what was a very tragic accident (i.e. if it was pilot error, CFIT etc)

[currawong]

One engine or four, none of them like flying without a tail.

Thoughts to those involved.

[SNS3Guppy]

Bottom line is that they were being transported in an a/c that questionably was unable to glide clear given terrain conditions in that area. The fact it has a PT6 up front has made it certifiable for passenger operations in IFR conditions in the US and Canada and also other parts of the world. Accidents as documented are showing that its performance / reliability record is starting to put a big question mark over its operational feasability. Just my 2 cents.


You're clearly not from the United States, and don't fly there. A good share of the country is mountainous terrain, and there are very few places where one is going to glide to an airport.

The performance and reliability of the Caravan is hardly in doubt...the type flies a LOT of annual hours without incident. In this particular case, little detail is available...certainly one shouldn't be questioning the use of the type when we could have any number of causes.

You have no reason to question the viabiliy of the Caravan, the powerplant, nor the operation as no facts arein evidence. Talk about jumping to wild conclusions.

I experienced an engine failure in very mountainous terrain last year while piloting a special missions single engine turbine airplane, and executed a successful forced landing. That no airport is available isn't really relevant, nor is the fact that its over mountainous terrain. When was your last forced landing, and how much experience do you have with that?

This wasn't a passenger operation. It was a group of skydivers that flew to a jump meet in Star, Idaho, and took the jump airplane as their ride to get there. They flew home the same way. I've done the same thing. In fact, I've jumped the airplane in question, in mountainous terrain, and flown jumpers in it. I've climbed out of it in the traffic pattern, and at 18,000', always in mountainous terrain.

Everybody on board the airplane was a skydiver; an experienced skydiver in a jump-configured airplane going to a jump meet and coming home. Every one was experienced in getting out of the aircraft in flight, in operating the door, in handing emergencies under demanding conditions. Every one was equipped with his or her own parachute gear, including the pilot. Every one was conditioned to jump out, everyone was prepared to do so without hesitation, everyone had ample experience doing so on a regular basis.

The fact that nobody got out is suggestive of many possibilities, but to assume that because a fatal crash occured under unknown circumstances the entire fleet should be prevented from doing what it was designed to do, is a ridiculous assumption.

[forour10]

The jump plane was configured for passenger operations both on the way to Idaho and on the way back. As soon as a jump aircraft has to travel over 25 miles, it cannot stay in its jump configuration and has to meet all regulations for carrying passengers. Including a different door than the jump door.

So, NO, they were not in a situation where they could have easily jumped out. No matter how experienced a skydiver they were or where their gear was.

[SNS3Guppy]

That would be a first. I've flown jump aircraft around the country, and I know for a fact that Kapowsin aircraft don't change out the door to reposition, nor is there any reason to do so or practical means to accomplish the change. I know one pilot there who threw his Harley in the back for each reposition. No seats to put back in. I've flown long distances to jump in various aircraft, which are permenantly confiured as jump airplanes, and have never had seats in them...not is there a requirement to have seats in them.

Jumpers may use the floor of the aircraft as a seat, with belts permenantly attached according to the jump configuration.

Most caravans use a roll-up plexiglas segmented door, which isn't replaced for cross country work.

If you have personal knowledge of the arrangements of this particular flight, then so be it, but a jump aircraft is not requred to be reconfigured to fly cross country or beyond 25 nm. Show me the regulation.