|
Aircraft down in Montana?
17 dead according to Sky News but no further information thusfar...just breaking...anyone hear anything?
|
Sorry - see edit - 17 fatalities apparently...nothing coming up on google news though - strange...
|
AP initial story
BUTTE, Mont. - A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman says 17 people are dead after a plane crashed while approaching the airport in Butte.
Spokesman Mike Fergus says the single engine turboprop plane departed from Orville, Calif., at about 11 a.m. Pacific time. The pilot had filed a flight plan showing a final destination of Bozeman. Fergus says the pilot canceled his flight plan at some point and headed for Butte. The plane crashed about 500 feet from the airport while attempting to land and caught fire. |
BBC -
A plane has crashed in the northern US state of Montana, aviation officials say, with reports of some fatalities. US news reports said a small plane crashed as it approached the airport in the town of Butte. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) spokesman told the AP news agency that 17 people had been killed, with some children among the dead. The small single-engine plane crashed some 500ft (150m) from Butte's airport while attempting to land, he said. An FAA spokesman told the BBC that the plane crashed at approximately 1527 local time (2127 GMT). Les Dorr said the plane was a Pilatis PC-12 Swiss-made turboprop aircraft. Preliminary information says it was en route from Orville, California to Butte, he said. The spokesman stressed that the numbers of those killed can be very fluid early on in a crash, and that nothing could be confirmed at this stage. |
FlightAware has some more detail, including the plane's registered owner: FlightAware > News > Pilatus PC-12 turboprop private aircraft crashes in Montana
Questions: is it OK for a plane certified for 12 to be carrying 17, even if they were kids? |
A Pilatis, eh. Good old BBC. I see it was important to make clear that it was a Swiss-made turboprop aircraft.
The BBC wireless version says it piled into a cemetery. No link to listen again yet. |
From the Sacramento Bee:
Plane that crashed in Montana had stops in Vacaville and Oroville this morning ShareThis By Phillip Reese and Jennifer Garza Published: Sunday, Mar. 22, 2009 - 5:15 pm Last Modified: Sunday, Mar. 22, 2009 - 5:30 pm A plane that left Oroville, a small town about 90 miles north of Sacramento, this morning crashed in Montana three hours later, killing up to 17 people, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said. "The plane was in route from Oroville to Bozeman for reasons we don't know," said FAA spokesman Les Dorr. "They diverted into Butte and crashed 500 feet short of the runway." Tom Hagler, a mechanic at the Oroville airport, said this evening that he arrived at the airport at 11 a.m. and saw the plane. He let about a dozen children who were on the plane use the airport bathroom. The plane didn't refuel. Hagler said he spoke briefly with the pilot but he didn't recognize the pilot or any of the children. He didn't know if any members of the group were local. Hagler said he would be surprised if as many as 17 people could have been on the single prop plane. An FAA spokesman told the Associated Press that the children could have been part of a ski trip. The plane had left Redlands, CA, early today and flew to Vacaville, according to records at flightaware.com. It stayed in Vacaville for 50 minutes before taking a short flight to Oroville. It was on the ground in Oroville for 30 minutes before leaving for Montana. Oroville law enforcement authorities said they knew nothing about the plane. No one from Oroville Airport could be reached for comment. Dorr says the plane was registered to Eagle Cap Leasing Inc. in Enterprise, Ore., but he didn't know who was operating the plane. Calls to local authorities in Butte were not immediately returned. (Vacaville is <100 miles SSW of Oroville. Redlands in the foothills East of Los Angeles, over 400 miles from Oroville. Speculation: Did they pick up skiers in Redlands, refuel in Vacaville or Oroville, then head to Montana???)) Edit, further speculation: Lunch in Vacaville at the Nut Tree Airport? It's a fun airport to visit. Nut Tree, Vacaville, CA Very sad. |
Crash Picture
A picture at this link, .:: The Montana Standard ::. , shows a large fire indicating fuel aboard.
|
Go to Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com. You will be able to read about the Fed Ex tragedy as well
|
17 in a PC 12 ?
Humm, interesting.... To my knowledge a PC 12 accommodates 1 (up to 2) pilots and 6 seats ?!? Split. |
To my knowledge a PC 12 accommodates 1 (up to 2) pilots and 6 seats ?!? VFD |
With several thousand hours in the PC-12/45M I can tell you there is NO WAY you can "stuff" 17 people in this plane. If they in fact had 17 they were probably sharing seats and seat belts, illegal as hell. The PC-12 is very docile and well balanced in respect to loading and CG accross a very wide range.
Having flown medical flights into the Enterprise valley, OR (where this outfit was located) I will look into what the deal was on this operator. Even if the aircraft had an engine failure you should never allow yourself to be in a situation where you can't make the runway. The PC-12 is flown like a glider i.e. always with sufficient energy and altitude to make your intended landing point (Engine or no engine). Operations with this airplane require following similar profiles to noise abatement departures as well as constant rate decents on all approaches with no/minimal drag until landing is assured. Even with an engine failure at 500 feet, it is possible to land back on the departure runway thanks to the extraordinary glide ratio of this plane. Sad to say the least. DBW |
New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/us/23crash.html Re-states fatalities as "14 to 17" (all on board), notes that THIS particular aircraft may have been configured for 12 seats (although not clear if that includes cockpit or just the px seating) "It was unclear if that many people, including children, could be safely accommodated on the plane...." "The aircraft was described by F.A.A. officials as a Pilatus PC-12 that was registered to Eagle Cap Leasing of Enterprise, Ore., and was apparently rented from that business." 128CM,EAGLE CAP LEASING INC Oregon registration record N128CM? FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker > N128CM Looks like decision to divert to KBTM took place over Challis, ID - about 100nm out. Aircraft N128CM Photo by Mike Khansa Here's a PC-12/45 listed as seating 12 (NOT the crash aircraft) Pilatus PC-12/45 - N167AR - Aircraft For Sale |
from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine:
PC 12 - Configurations - Standard Seating up to nine passengers in airline comfort, the PC-12 standard aircraft transports your staff directly to their destinations, avoiding the delays and frustrations created by airline hubs. The excellent range and high speed of the PC-12 provide the best operational flexibility of any aircraft in its class. http://web.archive.org/web/200212281...s/pb_stand.gif |
17 in a PC-12?
Packed in like sardines...not good, at all. If this is true, there will hell to pay, legally speaking, in the aftermath. |
The only thing vaguely factual (eyewitness) directly related to the impact with the ground so far is this, from the NYT story:
"Witnesses at the scene of the crash said the aircraft was turning at a steep angle as it approached Bert Mooney Airport on the outskirts of Butte at midafternoon when it abruptly went into a nosedive, plunged into a wooded area in Holy Cross Cemetery and burst into flames upon impact." FlightAware indicates the cruise altitude was FL250, thus an IFR flight plan, and thus presumably the pilot amended the plan to divert to Butte 'sted Bozeman. Whether he gave ATC a reason....? And that reason may have been relatively benign and had nothing to do with the crash itself. ------------ Edit: CNN reporting (01:55 MDT Monday) FAA reporting 14 dead - 7 children, 7 adults. If we assume both cockpit seats were filled (this was a casual private flight, so even if only one pilot, a px might have been riding up front), that leaves 5 seats for 7 kids. Babes in laps? Crash scene is 500 feet SW of approach end to Rwy 03. |
Also from the NYT story (which includes the first sentence from the Sacramento Bee report):
It was unclear at what point the children boarded the flight. Tom Hagler, a mechanic at the Oroville airport, said he let about a dozen children from the plane use the airport bathroom. They were about 6 to 10 years old, Mr. Hagler said, “a lot of really cute kids.” Dletabravowhiskey or others, could you belt two six-year-olds in one seat? Could you have a six-year-old belted in on an adults lap? Is there enough room? The Nut Tree Airport in Vacaville was a tourist attraction for decades. It was fun for children because it has a toy (small) train ride and other amusements. However, the "Family Park" area closed on January 14th, 2009, because attendance levels dropped along with the economy. It still has a shopping mall. Did the pilot know the amusement park closed two months ago? Did they make two stops to pick up or discharge passengers, to give the children a break, or because there was a problem? |
does anybody know if a PC12 can carry a total of 12 people including pilots, or if the 12 refers to just passengers?
|
In the "Commuter" Configuration you have to remove the lavatory module (Explains the potty stop)
We used a single commuter seat in our air ambulance config located in front of the aft door on the bulkhead. I honestly can't see how you could put two kids in a commuter seat. If the airplane had a corporate config it gets worse and you only have 6 business class seats which "may" be able to seat two VERY small kids (talking infants here), BUT there is no way you could safely strap them in. Pilot - PIC PAX - FO/Right Cockpit seat (due to yoke no room for an adult with a child Seats: L1 L2 L3 L4 (L5) Is usually not used, the seat track layout allows a seat to be installed in this location. R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 The aircraft is not approved for more than (11) total occupants. 2 Pilots and 9 Pax. A lap child is a valid case for more than BUT with accounts of 12 kids running into a bathroom, not quite sure what to make of this. They are now saying between 14-17 people I guess we will see. DBW |
Fuel exhaustion?
Please don't flame me... we're all entitled to speculate and discuss..
No record of taking-on fuel en-route... Diverted from filed destination to one closer... Observed turning steeply.... (maybe trying to get remaining fuel to outlet points?) A truly shocking tragedy..... just hope it wasn't bad airmanship bm |
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.
|
Fuel exhaustion? Not likely looking at the size of the flames in the first pictures. Observed turning steeply.... (maybe trying to get remaining fuel to outlet points?) |
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 |
Therefore (excluding babes in arms - not in this case) the maximum pob cannot legally be more than 11. |
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. |
FAR violations galore . . here come the ambulance chasing attorneys . . oh the $$ liability of those owning / operating this airplane!
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.