1. Not approved for 14 people even if they can fit in.:yuk:

2. Fuel required for the trip plus those pax (even if the kids were light) would have likely been over max gross. :=

According to records it had 6 place exec interior with lavatory, etc.

Assume empty weight of 6,400 lbs plus 2000 lbs of fuel leaves about 1,600 lbs. 7 adults at average of 180lbs (Not your average American) and kids at 75 lbs each = 1,785 lbs of pax. Ski trip with no baggage or warm clothes?

For F*%&K'S SAKE! :ugh:

JUST CAUSE THE AIRPLANE WILL DO IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD:mad:

My heart goes out to those who loved those kids:{

Just asking the question ...
Could the plane have been flipping left to right, and nose diving due to an out-of-centre gravity issue with the PC12???

Not speculating guys, as I'm a aircraft engineer, ust wondering how an aircraft with a pretty good safety record could lose control like that??

The flight control system is hydraulic or cable or electric servo??

The latest report from BBC News says that there were 14 fatalities, seven of whom were children. A very sad day indeed. I have flown in a PC12 only once (VH-PIL) during the RFDS Outback Air Safari in 2003 and I can't see how you could fit in that number of people safely.
Mind you, it was the all singing, all dancing demonstrator for Oz.

overload and stalled
 

Sounds like an overladen aicraft flown at normal vref speeds...and surprise,,,surprise...!well at least the cemetry was there to receive them...was that part of his flight plan routeing...only GOD knows...Pilot error...easy to think...but lets let the crash investigators do their bit before we all get worked up.:rolleyes:

I owned a PC-12 for several years. This acft has excellent flying qualities and is quite docile flown within limits. The safety record is superb overall, with just a handful of fatal accidents over 15 years and about 1000 acft, with all fatal accidents attributed to pilot error. (NTSB website shows three fatal in US since 1994, excluding one accident in which a line tech walked into a propeller - all pilot error).)The acft carries up to 2700 lbs of fuel, so there is considerable loading flexibility in terms of pax vs fuel. However 14 on board raises significant W&B and other safety issues, especially in a 6+2 seating configuration.

Quote:

---

Fuel exhaustion?

---

Not likely looking at the size of the flames in the first pictures.

In a co-ordinated turn it would make no difference and nobody would put the outlets anywhere requiring some sort of slip.

Can one get torque induced roll with such a big single in a go-around type situation? Re the TBM 700 accident at Kidlington the other year and other similar incidents?

Is there a FDR or CVR on this A/C type?

No flight recorder according to Flightglobal:

Pilatus joins US safety board to investigate PC-12 Montana accident

Children sharing lap belt
 

I have seen this with two-seater gliders. The kids go in the back seat and there is no problem with c/g or gross weight.

Of course the kids have to be small enough to fit together in the seat.

Your national CAA may or may not throw a fit.

Max pob = 11
 

As others have correctly stated, 9 pax are allowed, but -

The type certificate (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/...0issue%203.pdf) shows for all variants "Maximum passenger seating capacity - 9 PAX excluding pitots seats".

Therefore (excluding babes in arms - not in this case) the maximum pob cannot legally be more than 11. The certification basis is not just made on mass + balance, but on emergency egress criteria.

It is not acceptable to put two small people in a seat instead of one big person, as the aircraft was not certified for more than 11 occupants.

Fuel, not required on a flight this short. This plane was designed for extended range RECON work. Nonstop flights SEA to MIA are possible nearly year around at LRC. Max Endurance can net you 9hrs+ on station.

Aircraft has dual AOA systems (one on each wing), Shaker and a pusher, Flap lock out if either is more than 3 degrees apart or there is any rotational differential detected in any screw drive in the flap torque tube input, Aircraft has a yaw damper system to counter torque from the 1000hp cont, 1200hp T/O PT6 (PT6-67B, Derated from 1600hp).

The PC-12 is the only aircraft EVER to demonstrate crash survivability, and the only aircraft to be approved for a stall speed in excess of 61 knots due to the crash survivabilty demonstration. No aircraft has EVER demonstrated or been approved to this standard and all others fall under the FAA exemptions by reducing the stall speed or adding another engine.

The aircraft does have a Digital engine recording system, so data will be stored there.

DBW

"Aircraft has a yaw damper system to counter torque from the 1000hp cont, 1200hp T/O PT6 "

DBW,

My recollection is that the yaw damper is not approved for TOL. I recall Pilatus test flight videos showing what happens when the acft is allowed to stall in the landing config at high power setting (go around) - acft almost rolls inverted. The stall protection system prevents this from happening unless mis-managed by the pilot, or as a result of a system failure.

I think the critical factor here might be baggage loading. Skis, poles, boots, and heavy luggage full of ski clothing can add up fast in extra weight.

I ran a W&B assuming 7 @ 170 and 7 @ 85 lbs. This can be made to work within the W&B envelope and without being at the aft end of the envelope. It does require a light fuel load, however. Of course, it is possible to get the acft to the aft end of the envelope and beyond depending on how it is loaded. My biggest W&B issue with the PC12 was staying inside the fwd edge of the envelope - had to carry extra stuff in the aft baggage area to do this (with full fuel and 2-3 in the cabin, 1-2 up front). No really good place for skis in the PC-12 except the aisle of the main cabin or the aft cabin assuming rear seats removed - this could be legal as there were approved cargo tie downs in this area. Fuel burn results in minimal CG shift - I doubt that this would have been an issue for this flight. So, to me it looks possible to do this from a purely technical view, but why would you? So many other safety issues involved.

The "big flame" in the photograph is a tall (40'+) western evergreen tree going up like a torch, not a single flame from the ground. The impact was in that small grove of trees in the cemetery.

Anyone who has seen much video of Western US wildfires will recognize it.

And the fire is not much larger in area than the diameter or "footprint" of a single tree - 10 feet (3 meters) or so.

Not that that says much about the fuel state one way or the other, except that the impact involved at least enough fire to ignite the trees.

(edit): Stock Photo of Forest fire, Montana

At least three of the dead were babes in arms; aged 3, 4 and 2.

91.205 (13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching device for each occupant 2 years of age or older.

Tragic accident.

Fuel exhaustion? When those fuel pumps lights start blinking you still have plenty of time to divert.

The PC12 is sensitive to fuel icing on long flights though and anti-ice additive needs to be added.

W&B? I've flown the /47 and W&B and handling have never been an issue.

Severe roll tendency during a go around? Nothing out of the ordinary. The PC12 is a very tamed airplane. BTW YD must be off for take off and landing.

14-17 aboard = :yuk: I can think of that happening on a part 91 flight, but gosh that was 135, wasn't it?

My $.02.