DC-4 crash Alaska

[Del Prado]

The Independent

” (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/plane-crash-fairbanks-alaska-rescue-b2533569.html)An aeroplane has crashed into a river near Fairbanks, Alaska, according to state troopers.

The plane, a Douglas DC-4, was carrying an unknown number of passengers when it crashed into the Tanana River on Tuesday morning, officials said (https://dailydispatch.dps.alaska.gov/Home/DisplayIncident?incidentNumber=AK24037377). Rescue crews are responding to the scene.”

[Del Prado]

Alaska Air Fuel operate these two
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1125x1632/img_0322_c9b0d4ed11a90fc059ebe9322be9ea78ca681257.jpeg

[Del Prado]

Reddit has some eye witness info and FR24 of N3054V.
possible engine issue after departure and request to return.

https://www.reddit.com/r/flightradar24/comments/1cbbxas/a_dc4_has_just_crashed_in_fairbanks/

[Liffy 1M]

I'm pretty sure this was the last DC-4 in commercial operation in the USA. The only other one flying there is the Berlin Airlift Historic Flight aircraft. N3054V was, early in its life, one of ten C-54s to serve with the RAF, in the final months of WW2.

Sister-ship N96358 was damaged beyond repair in a runway overrun in October 2020.

[FUMR]

Just the 2 crew on board according to what I have just read. Unfortunately, no signs of survivors.

[AeroAmigo]

Some harrowing CCTV of the accident has been posted online:

https://x.com/JacdecNew/status/1783013036359323842

Absolutely nothing the crew could have done there, they became passengers. may they rest easy, what a horrible accident. Thoughts with their families

[atakacs]

Seems to be a failry massive explosive event. Could an engine failure create this ?

[EXDAC]

Absolutely nothing the crew could have done there, they became passengers.

How do you know that? Uncontrolled roll over following loss of an engine has killed in the past. That does not necessarily mean that uncontrolled roll over is inevitable after loss of an engine.

[FUMR]

How do you know that? Uncontrolled roll over following loss of an engine has killed in the past. That does not necessarily mean that uncontrolled roll over is inevitable after loss of an engine.

NOT a pilot but with all due respect, it wasn't just the loss of an engine but quite a significant explosion which may have compromised control surfaces. It was sudden and rapid that's for sure.

[KRviator]

Some fairly decent surveillance camera footage of the event. Does look like whatever caused the explosion didn't allow much chance of recovery, the roll commenced and continued after the #1 (?) engine had that explosive failure at the 2:16 mark - it doesn't look like a 'typical' Vmca accident.
https://youtu.be/m4Y0TlD1068

[DIBO]

https://youtu.be/asQhWTfoVf4

[krohmie]

Looks just like this accident, only on the ground

https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/ground-explosion-douglas-c-54b-1-dc-skymaster-ganes-creek

[MechEngr]

Any chance it was a mis-fuel? Certainly would be ironic, but it did happen a number of years ago near me. Ramp worker saw the huge fuel opening and decided that the large nozzle was the one to use on a DC-3. They put enough jet fuel in that it failed to develop power and crashed shortly after takeoff, 3rd low-power attempt. If a smaller amount was used to top off these tanks it may have lasted longer. before getting to the jet fuel.

The rapid roll without the loss of wing structure may be that they were trying to stretch the return and the detonation of the engine dropped thrust just enough to put them into a snap roll from stalling. Certainly longish enough before the explosion they sounded on the radio as if they were already into the competent but terrified part of the flight, realizing the situation was dire. They seemed to know what to do but did not anticipate that explosion.

Had they lost a jug off the engine I think they would have reported an engine failure and at full power the remaining three should have been enough, but if it was misfueled then all the engines would have varying degrees of unexplained power loss. Maybe it was the asymmetric thrust so close to stall that pushed it over the edge.

[Locked door]

Look at the previous post accident report. Identical aircraft and operator, fuel tank explosion that blew the wing clean off, they were just lucky it happened on the ground.

This accident crew had no chance.

[MechEngr]

The wing appears to have remained attached in this accident. Any falling debris is too small to show up on the surveillance camera.

[EXDAC]

A C54 / C54A manual which includes a description of the fuel system can be found here - https://digitalcollections.museumofflight.org/items/show/50154
Scroll the top window to "Part II, Section I, Page J FUEL SYSTEM "

It is my understanding that the wing aux tanks were introduced in the B model and they are not shown in the referenced manual. Other references suggest these Aux tanks were added between the main wing tanks. This seems to indicate they would have been aft of the front spar. That is supported by the ground fire report that says "Within the wing, from outboard to inboard, the fuel tank system consists of the number 1 fuel tank, the left wing auxiliary fuel tank, and the number 2 fuel tank. Each wet-wing type fuel tank contains a submerged electrical boost pump, sump drain valves and fuel quantity transmitters."

The ground fire is assumed to have started in the left wing aft of engine 1 firewall and aft of the aux tank. "Following the startup of the engines, an explosion occurred in the left wing area aft of the number 1 engine firewall and number 1 auxiliary fuel tank." and "An FAA inspector examined portions of the airplane that the operator supplied. The inspector examined a portion of the upper wing surface that had been blown away from the airplane during the initial explosion. He noted that the inside of the upper wing surface, normally positioned over the auxiliary tank, was not charred or sooted. "

In this ground fire event the wing spars failed but at least some of the control cables remained intact.

In the recent accident the wing did not fail but but video seems to show engine 1 had separated before impact.

I see insufficient similarity between these fire events for me to believe the recent crash was the result of an explosion similar to the ground explosion event. All I have seen so far seems to suggest the fire was forward of engine 1 firewall. Given the intensity of this accident fire, I wonder if there will be anything left to determine how this fire spread and what was destroyed before impact.

[wrench1]

Had they lost a jug off the engine I think they would have reported an engine failure.
They radioed engine fire after takeoff and were initiating a return when engine exploded. Unfortunately flight controls can be affected when engines fail in that violent manner which could be the cause given it flew level with fire alone. Hell of an aircraft. Accident will undoutbtibly cause a state-wide support issue especially with remote fuel deliveries. Sad all around.

[MechEngr]

All I could make out on multiple replays from ATC Live was "ire," so perhaps that was it.

[sycamore]

Given that Fairbanks airport is 500 ft ASL,they were only 900-1000agl and in a right turn to track outbound,it may have been `better` to have continued that turn back to the airport,rather than attempt a 270* to the left.As the No1 engine blew,it `may` well have lost all oil and they may not have been able to feather No1,which would probably run to `fine pitch` and create a really large drag factor as well.The only possible help in that situation is to reduce power on No4 engine,but would reduce the yaw and help the bank angle,and enable a bit of time to crank on full right rudder trim. This is all `speculation`,and `what if` and takes longer to write than for the accident to happen,but based on 4k hrs on 4-engined t/props where the effects would be the same,but fortunately it only happened to me `in the Sim-box`...RIP guys...:sad:

[DaveReidUK]

Given that Fairbanks airport is 500 ft ASL,they were only 900-1000agl

Where are you getting your height information from ?

[sycamore]

DRUK,if you look at `Blancos` charts the ADS Info is there.Fairbanks is 500 ft asl,chart shows 600 ft on t/off(1013mb),so a QFE at F-B would be about 1010 mb .ADS HT/SPEED GRAPH SHOWS 15-1600FT.....
Then have a look at G-Earth and check the terrain.

I did spend an hour flying a T/CraftBC12 on floats off the lake between the runways,one evening( my body-clock said it was 01Z UK) in `97`,,It had to be `done` if you end up in Alaska...

[megan]

Fuel System, main tanks are integral, aux tanks collapsable rubber bags.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1108x603/dc_900a0811063f4e8d1470fcbb3dbe91f83969e945.png

[EXDAC]

Fuel System, main tanks are integral, aux tanks collapsable rubber bags.

What was the source of that fuel system schematic and what model does it apply to?

The NTSB report on the ground fire event indicates one aux tank in each wing. I'm attaching a fuel system schematic extracted from "Douglas C-54B-D-E/R5D-2-3-4 Airplanes Flight Operating Instructions" which is for sale on eBay but you can scroll through and view the pages. It also shows one aux tank per wing.

I have seen nothing that indicates the wing aux tanks were bladders although the fuselage tanks do appear to have been.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/454x579/c_54_b_fuel_system_bf30de6776c13285c415367a4273f315570067df. png
Douglas C-54B-D-E/R5D-2-3-4 Airplanes Flight Operating Instructions Original - eBay source
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x1600/saved_image_for_c_54b_fuel_7ab37b3c9dab2b3a753e7896d83be7d69 b5f47b2.jpg
Better resolution image from same source

[megan]

What was the source of that fuel system schematic and what model does it apply toIt's from a manual published under the authority of the Secretary of the USAF and the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics 20 May 1945 and revised 7 February 1952 for the USAF C-54G and Navy R5D-5,I have seen nothing that indicates the wing aux tanks were bladders although the fuselage tanks do appear to have beenThe flight manual for the G I referenced says the aux are bladders. From a flight manual "The fuselage tanks are rubber bags which are supported in dural cylinders". You will note there are no discernable differences in the fuel system between the C-54B-D-E you posted and G models.

[EXDAC]

You will note there are no discernable differences in the fuel system between the C-54B-D-E you posted and G models.

There is no similarity in the wing aux tank configuration between the schematic you posted and the schematic I posted.

Very obvious differences are:
The number of aux tanks in each wing (1 vs 2)
The manifold and valve configuration for feeding engines from the wing aux tanks (use of crossfeed manifold vs direct routing)

The differences are glaring and the schematics are obviously not for the same aircraft type.

[megan]

The number of aux tanks in each wing (1 vs 2)That missed me, good catch, it is for the C-54G never the less, it seems the additional aux tanks, making two per wing, was introduced with the E model from what I gather. Aux tanks #2 and 3 are noted as rubber bladders so presumably aux #1 and #4 are integral.The differences are glaring and the schematics are obviously not for the same aircraft typeWell, they're all C-54's. ;)

[EXDAC]

Well, they're all C-54's. ;)

True, and who knows what, if any, changes in fuel tank configuration the accident aircraft had since it was built.

[RichardJones]

Any crew names published yet? I know one person who flew the DC 4 in the USA.

Easy for me to say this. However the true fact is this.
"If an aircraft arrived at the ground, under control (not stalled) there is a better chance of survivability "
Not being critical, of the crew. However these facts are and will always be the same.

A stall in a turn is an incepit spin. No chance of walking away from that. 20/20 hind sight would have dictated "land ahead"?
With all that Avagas on board it probably would have been a fireball where ever they ended up.

R.I.P. You did your best.

[jimjim1]

.

Maybe have a look at the video posted here at
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/658796-dc-4-crash-alaska.html#post11641740

It shows quite a large explosion near one of the engines and an immediate apparent loss of control.

Blancolirio on youtube has the same video and his commentary.

[FUMR]

Maybe have a look at the video posted here at
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/658796-dc-4-crash-alaska.html#post11641740

It shows quite a large explosion near one of the engines and an immediate apparent loss of control.

Exactly. I said much the same near the beginning of this thread. I wish some posters would watch the video before posting. It is quite evident that loss of control came immediately after the rather significant engine explosion.

[GALWC]

I'm sure RJ has seen the video like everybody else here. RJ might have thoughts of immediately idling 3 and 4, with full power on 2 to see if they could get close to holding the wings level. Thought had crossed my mind also.

[EXDAC]

It is quite evident that loss of control came immediately after the rather significant engine explosion.

Yes, of course that is evident. What is not known is whether any crew action could have kept the aircraft under control.

[FUMR]

Yes, of course that is evident. What is not known is whether any crew action could have kept the aircraft under control.

I believe that what is very evident is that the video clearly shows they had no time at all after that "WTF" moment! Only armchair pilots or Clark Gable could have saved the day!

[EXDAC]

I have watched a DC-4 (C-54), perhaps this one, takeoff from Fairbanks on a very cold winter morning. The rate of climb on the downwind departure leg was close to zero. I doubt it could have maintained altitude on three engines.

What happened before the explosion, and the decisions that were made before the explosion, may be far more important that the explosion itself. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever know.

While researching accidents following loss of an engine I came across a very interesting and informative video. For some reason, when I post a URL, pprune says "video is not available". It should be possible to find it with a search for "Airplane Accidents after Engine Failure - Real Value of Vmc". Perhaps the most important part is the discussion of the effect of bank angle on Vmca. The slope of the plot of Vmca vs bank angle is worth particular attention.

Well worth watching for pilots who are multi-engine rated. Probably a waste of time for non-pilots who already know the cause of this accident.

[1southernman]

EXDAC... "Probably a waste of time for non-pilots who already know the cause of this accident."...:)...B

[ST Dog]

It should be possible to find it with a search for "Airplane Accidents after Engine Failure - Real Value of Vmc".


This one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbu6X0hSnBY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbu6X0hSnBY

[B2N2]

Vmc exists by the grace of asymmetric thrust, if there is none then Vmc doesn’t become zero, it ceases to exist.
There may still be asymmetric drag for a myriad of reasons ( windmilling vs feather) but that’s not Vmc.

If you sense a loss of control take away the asymmetric thrust. It’s better to have a controlled off airport landing then a Vmc loss of directional control.
Reduce power on the ‘working’ side to regain control, this can mean reducing power on just the outboard or on both.
If that engine explosion destroyed hydraulic lines and flight control rods or cables and pulleys then they may have lost all roll control.

[EXDAC]

This one?

Yes, thank you.

[VH-MLE]

This is off topic in relation to the DC4 accident, but asymmetric training in turbine powered aircraft such as the Kingair or Conquest, has no doubt resulted in a lot more fatalities than actual engine failures have caused. The number one reason for this is that trainers are simulating engine failures by retarding a power lever to flight idle, rather than zero thrust. High powered aircraft like the two I've used as examples have a system to assist the pilot in the event of a real engine failure i.e. auto feather or negative torque sensing systems, that will greatly reduce drag on the failed engine & make the pilot's job that much easier.

By retarding a power lever to flight idle, an instructor is introducing a double (unrelated) system failure in that (i) an engine has failed; and (ii) the auto feather or NTS system has also failed. Trying to control such an aircraft in this scenario is extremely difficult & results in a loss of control at a significantly higher IAS than Vmca. I can recall several such accidents in Australia off the top of my head & it shows that regulators & accident investigation bodies are not focusing sufficient resources in this area to educate trainers in such aircraft. As we all know, a type specific flight simulator is the way to go, however at the GA level, such simulators are very few & far between - particularly here in Australia...

Just my 2 lire's worth...

[punkalouver]

This is off topic in relation to the DC4 accident, but asymmetric training in turbine powered aircraft such as the Kingair or Conquest, has no doubt resulted in a lot more fatalities than actual engine failures have caused. The number one reason for this is that trainers are simulating engine failures by retarding a power lever to flight idle, rather than zero thrust. High powered aircraft like the two I've used as examples have a system to assist the pilot in the event of a real engine failure i.e. auto feather or negative torque sensing systems, that will greatly reduce drag on the failed engine & make the pilot's job that much easier.

By retarding a power lever to flight idle, an instructor is introducing a double (unrelated) system failure in that (i) an engine has failed; and (ii) the auto feather or NTS system has also failed. Trying to control such an aircraft in this scenario is extremely difficult & results in a loss of control at a significantly higher IAS than Vmca. I can recall several such accidents in Australia off the top of my head & it shows that regulators & accident investigation bodies are not focusing sufficient resources in this area to educate trainers in such aircraft. As we all know, a type specific flight simulator is the way to go, however at the GA level, such simulators are very few & far between - particularly here in Australia...

Just my 2 lire's worth...

A lot of these aircraft do not have auto-feather or NTS.

[slacktide]

A stall in a turn is an incepit spin. No chance of walking away from that.

That's not really true. A stall in an uncoordinated turn is an incipent spin. A stall in a coordinated turn is called an accelerated stall, I do them all the time, they are not a big deal but are very useful for beating the concept that there is no such thing as a stall speed into the head of excessively 2-dimensional students.

[NoelEvans]

A stall in a turn is an incepit spin.
No it is not! A stall in a turn when balanced is just a stall. A stall when not balanced, in level flight or in a turn, can lead to an incipient spin.

Either your instructor didn't teach you well or you weren't paying proper attention.​​​​​​

I hope that slacktide and I are teaching a bit better!!

[Speed_Trim_Fail]

No it is not! A stall in a turn when balanced is just a stall. A stall when not balanced, in level flight or in a turn, can lead to an incipient spin.

Either your instructor didn't teach you well or you weren't paying proper attention.​​​​​​

I hope that slacktide and I are teaching a bit better!!

With apologies for the drift, but for any newer students this is precisely why it is so so important to learn to keep the ball centred and (I was told many moons ago anyway) why the base to final stall recovery is taught; if one overshoots the extended centerline a temptation is to squeeze rudder to tighten the turn, but to try and avoid over banking using opposite aileron. This puts you in a low energy state, cross controlled, with an increased load factor and in all likelihood flaps out too…

That said I’ve been so thoroughly airbussed at this point in my life that I suspect my own performance would warrant limiting my GA to an Ercoupe should I ever return to an SEP :}

[421dog]

Vmc exists by the grace of asymmetric thrust, if there is none then Vmc doesn’t become zero, it ceases to exist.
There may still be asymmetric drag for a myriad of reasons ( windmilling vs feather) but that’s not Vmc.

If you sense a loss of control take away the asymmetric thrust. It’s better to have a controlled off airport landing then a Vmc loss of directional control.
Reduce power on the ‘working’ side to regain control, this can mean reducing power on just the outboard or on both.If that engine explosion destroyed hydraulic lines and flight control rods or cables and pulleys then they may have lost all roll control.


Have had a couple of misadventures and this is true.
If the aircraft is flying ex-engines, it will keep flying until it runs out of airspeed/altitude (if it still has wings).

without those, you’’ll likely need a better pilot than me (or an in with mssrs
Martin and Baker)

[RichardJones]

No it is not! A stall in a turn when balanced is just a stall. A stall when not balanced, in level flight or in a turn, can lead to an incipient spin.

Either your instructor didn't teach you well or you weren't paying proper attention.​​​​​​

I hope that slacktide and I are teaching a bit better!!

Hang on a moment. Is an aircraft ever in perfect balance? I say no. So a stalled aircraft, depending on type is in danger of entering a spin, as it will be out of balance.

[EXDAC]

ref: AC 61-57C:

110. TYPES OF SPINS.
a. An incipient spin is that portion of a spin from the time the airplane stalls and rotation starts, until the spin becomes fully developed. Incipient spins that are not allowed to develop into a steady state spin are commonly used as an introduction to spin training and recovery techniques.
b. A fully developed, steady state spin occurs when the aircraft angular rotation rate, airspeed, and vertical speed are stabilized from turn-to-turn in a flightpath that is close to vertical.

There are many other sources that define "incipient spin" but I found none for which rotation is not a necessary condition. Rotation does not necessarily follow stall and wing drop.

[VH-MLE]

Defining an incipient spin among pilots is a bit like asking 10 different lawyers the same question & you'll get 15 different answers! :8. Even theory of flight books & aircraft manufacturers cannot agree on what exactly constitutes an incipient spin. I think EXDAC's reference is correct.

There are a variety of reasons that can cause a wing to "drop" at the point of stall i.e a wing drop stall occurs. Autorotation i.e. will develop if opposite rudder is not immediately applied to prevent (further) yaw in the direction of the dropped wing. Contrary to what a number instructors incorrectly teach their students, opposite rudder is NOT applied to raise the dropped wing, but as I said to prevent further yaw...

Apologies for the "off thread" comments & once again, the above is my 2 lire's worth...

[blind pew]

It isn’t true that autorotation will develop with a wing drop at the stall; it depends on aircraft type, what causes the wing drop and control position at wing drop. - from experience.

[NoelEvans]

Agreed.

A wing drop on a C152 or a PA28 is far, far, far less likely to lead to autorotation than a wing drop on a Harvard - from experience.

[DogTailRed2]

If fuel vapour had built up in the engine area or wing and the engine fire ignited this vapour causing a small explosion couldn't that damage the aircraft sufficiently that any recovery was impossible?
Everyone seems to be suggesting that the accident was recoverable. Not possible to determine from the footage. As the aircraft crashed we have to assume it wasn't?

[sablatnic]

If fuel vapour had built up in the engine area or wing and the engine fire ignited this vapour causing a small explosion couldn't that damage the aircraft sufficiently that any recovery was impossible?
Everyone seems to be suggesting that the accident was recoverable. Not possible to determine from the footage. As the aircraft crashed we have to assume it wasn't?

If you look at the leading edge both sides of the missing #1 engine, the leading edge looks slightly deformed, as if the d-box was blown open by the explosion. Images aren't clear enough for a certain diagnose though.

[Liffy 1M]

Preliminary Report by NTSB: Report (https://media.alaskapublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NTSB-preliminary-report-on-Douglas-C-54-crash-near-Fairbanks.pdf)

[Mr Albert Ross]

Ouch!!

With an engine coming off it appears serious enough that it had most likely become unflyable.

[Cedrik]

Typical prune thread, all the armchair experts arguing pedantic points. A couple of experienced pilots couldn't handle a catastrophic explosion obviously taking out controls but because somebody stalled a Cherokee once and survived they know better.

[punkalouver]

An interesting report here about a DC-4 fire that did not result in a crash(Just an overrun). The importance of shutting off fuel and reporting fuel pressure fluctuations and compliance with AD's are mentioned.

Aviation Investigation Report A06W0002 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada (bst-tsb.gc.ca) (https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2006/a06w0002/a06w0002.html)

Accident Douglas C-54G (DC-4) C-GXKN, (aviation-safety.net) (https://aviation-safety.net/asndb/322258)

[Avman]

Typical prune thread, all the armchair experts arguing pedantic points. A couple of experienced pilots couldn't handle a catastrophic explosion obviously taking out controls but because somebody stalled a Cherokee once and survived they know better.

Bang on Cedrik. The crew were experienced C-54 pilots and took all the required actions which may, for reasons not yet known, not have prevented the fire from spreading. Once that engine blew (and possibly took out some vital components) they were passengers for those last few tragic seconds. Some of the "technical" aspects discussed above just make me cringe!

[NoelEvans]

Typical prune thread, all the armchair experts arguing pedantic points. A couple of experienced pilots couldn't handle a catastrophic explosion obviously taking out controls but because somebody stalled a Cherokee once and survived they know better.

Bang on Cedrik. The crew were experienced C-54 pilots and took all the required actions which may, for reasons not yet known, not have prevented the fire from spreading. Once that engine blew (and possibly took out some vital components) they were passengers for those last few tragic seconds. Some of the "technical" aspects discussed above just make me cringe!
Agreed!

"Incipient spins" was entirely Off Topic! (But being Off Topic, still needed correcting.)

An engine coming off an aeroplane like that is very, very serious and very likely to lead to uncontrollability.

(I wonder how many of those 'armchair experts' on here have ever flown in a DC4, even as pax??!)

[EXDAC]

An engine coming off an aeroplane like that is very, very serious and very likely to lead to uncontrollability.

It is clear from the surveillance video that control was lost long before the engine departed. That's not just my conclusion. NTSB prelim says "The No. 1 engine separated from the wing about 100 ft above the ground and eventually came to rest on the frozen Tanana River."

[NoelEvans]

Sorry, I should have said:
Events leading to an engine coming off an aeroplane like that is very, very serious and very likely to lead to uncontrollability.
The engine actually coming off was 'later down the line'.

I was trying to emphasise that the causes for an engine coming off an aeroplane like that (rather than say a B737) would be very, very serious and very likely lead to uncontrollability.

[EXDAC]

Another C-54 in flight engine fire report here - https://tinyurl.com/w74s3p8y

[RichardJones]

Compared to a jet transport, a 4 engined piston operation is much more critical. and demanding especially in an engine out scenario. If the prop doesn't feather you are in real trouble. From the extra drag of course also from a runaway prop, which could depart at anytime and head anywhere. If it hasn't ripped the engine out beforehand.This has not been ruled out in this accident, to my knowledge. Not to mention the highly volatile fuel. Those guys earned their money, that's for sure.
A jet is far far easier to operate in every way. More forgiving therefore, safer.IMHO.

[Bksmithca]

A jet is far far easier to operate in every way. More forgiving therefore, safer.IMHO.
Only problem is that some of the strips these folks service won't support a jet aircraft. Alot of these strips are short and gravel.

[RichardJones]

Only problem is that some of the strips these folks service won't support a jet aircraft. Alot of these strips are short and gravel.

Agreed

[Sailvi767]

Compared to a jet transport, a 4 engined piston operation is much more critical. and demanding especially in an engine out scenario. If the prop doesn't feather you are in real trouble. From the extra drag of course also from a runaway prop, which could depart at anytime and head anywhere. If it hasn't ripped the engine out beforehand.This has not been ruled out in this accident, to my knowledge. Not to mention the highly volatile fuel. Those guys earned their money, that's for sure.
A jet is far far easier to operate in every way. More forgiving therefore, safer.IMHO.

A jet is better in most ways. The ways they are different however are quite relevant in Alaska where a jet would not be able to even consider operations at many of the airfields they need to service.