This type of accident is not all that rare for King Airs. Here's another one which could have been a lot worse in IMC.

How pilot battled to land aircraft (From Bournemouth Echo)

Pulse 1
 

That is precisely the kind of ill informed speculation I was referring to.

Possible connection ? erm … its a kingair.
Source ? Local paper in Bournemouth.

AAIB report link ? nil

It's a quite few years since I flew KingAirs, but as I recall, there were no takeoff performance figures published for OEI below 200 ft.

Even so, saying "if we get an engine failure before 200 ft I will close both throttles and land ahead" as a take-off brief in front of a CAA examiner was guaranteed to evoke a resonse along the lines of "You wouldn't really do that would you!!??"

Maybe it's different under today's European regs.

@Teddy Robinson
See
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/beec...bm-18-may-2011
Conclusion - no idea why.
BBC report
Men's 'lucky escape' from Dorset light aircraft crash - BBC News

Absolutely shocking news. Condolences to all affected parties.

I was on my driveway taking shopping out from the boot of my car when I briefly saw and heard G-CP at about 400ft. She disappeared fast into the foggy conditions. I heard what sounded like over speed then it all went quite.
I didn't take too much notice as I often hear an engine getting pulled shortly after take off, on what I have always presumed are training flights. I suspect the same here with two crew and the training captain on board, but I could be wrong and it could be something entirely different. :confused: Who knows:confused: I do recall hearing a loud bang in the distance but didn't attribute this to CP.

Very very sad.

Good question, cause I can´t think of a reason to land ahead if it is "only" an engine failure...

A 1981 B200 with just crew on board should be 500-800 lbs below MTOW even when topped off. And even the 3 bladed ones do climb away nicely IF you manage to feather the dead one, keep directional control and clean the airplane.

But that is quite a handful, as Noiffsorbuts suggested quite correctly...

Getting back on track, professional crew, well respected company (i.e. not fly-by-night) etc and things can still go hideously wrong.

A salutary lesson for those of us flying tomorrow. Perhaps I'll just refresh that engine failure procedure one more time before I sign-out in the morning.

Teddy Robinson,

My post was not intended to be speculation and the only connection was that, yes, it was a King Air and it crash landed on Dudsbury golf course shortly after taking off from Bournemouth. My intention was to show that crash landings after take off do not seem that rare for this type of aircraft as previously suggested.

This accident was discussed on PPrune at the time:

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-fl...urnemouth.html

I don't know why there does not appear to be an AAIB report. There wasn't one for another accident which happened near my home some years ago - a Malibu which ran out of fuel trying to get back to Bournemouth. Not speculation because I spoke to the pilot at the scene.

I think the talk of landing ahead if engine fails, is actually a case of if you have an engine failure just after vr and runway permits you may elect to land back on, however you need to consider you will be at takeoff flap and not land and potentially below speed. I don't think the above posts mean land ahead regards of Terrain. Even a mtow it should climb away on SE or at least maintain height, but this is solely reliant on the engine being feathered , whether by an autofeather or Manually..

@pulse1
Read my post No 51 for AAIB report link

In Defense of PPRuNe
 

There is a certain amount of drivel on PPRuNe that you have to wade thru to read some interesting posts. Among the drivel I would include the tiresome "wait for the AAIB report" posts. Why would I read PPRuNe if I was only interested in reading the AAIB report? Should each PPRuNe thread have a title, the obligatory "our thoughts and prayers are with the families" and "wait for the (AAIB, NTSB, etc) report, thread closed"? No thanks.
I do appreciate information- didn't know that PT-6's could run on avgas, thanks for the posts on why that was unlikely (but not impossible) to be the cause of this accident. I also found the info on the similar King Air incident interesting reading- while I'm waiting for that AAIB report. In fact that's one of the things I like best about PPRuNe, posts referencing similar incidents which I can look up now. So- keep the interesting posts coming. Jump in with the facts, though I think that is sufficient, no need to disparage others.

Yes the 'let's wait for the AAIB' mob. Nobody forced you to read this thread and certainly nobody made you post. It would be reasonable to assume that there would be speculation as to the cause. Should the thread be shut and locked whilst we wait two years for the report?

I have, many moons ago - not pure Avgas, rather just a few liters on top of not too much A1 to meet minimum fuel required - and I was very nervous. Fortunately the PT6 did´nt care AT ALL.

But for an entry in the techlog the flight went as any other.

Even IF the metering would be different, one would stop his T/O if he can't achieve the required torque within ITT limits, don´t you think ?

John Farley a wannabe ? Wow, thats a new low I guess...

AVGAS in the PT6..
 

I have used AVGAS in a PT6-34 many years ago, from memory the limitation was no more than 100 hours use during the overhaul cycle (3,500 hrs.) from the pilots perspective it was OPS Normal... If you care to Google VH-AAV Sydney February 1980, you will come across the ATSB report on this accident, some thought that fuel contamination due to micro-biological growth might have been one of the factors.

:ugh:

Two bits of speculation should now just be left behind. The fuel has already been dealt with; it is cleared to operate with any mix of avgas and jet A1, no flight manual warnings about operations using avgas except the 150 hour limit adjusted proportionally to the percentage avgas.

Second this aircraft is perfectly capable on one engine. Although I operated King Airs under performance class B my type rating sim training was to performance class A standards. Of course Stapleford is going to be nowhere near long enough for that, but it is not a poor performer on one once the engine is feathered. With little load it should be capable of over 500 feet per minute.

The Investigation summary of a C90 on a charter that ended up cartwheeling down the main street a few years back had these findings:

1. The left engine failed during a critical phase of the takeoff. The failure was probably the result of a developing problem in the cold section of the engine, which was not detected or corrected due to several compounding deficiencies in the operator’s maintenance system.
2. The aircraft manufacturer’s specified procedures for responding to an engine failure ... stated that the takeoff should be rejected below the ‘take-off speed’, specified as 100 kts. The short flight continued at a speed close to Vmca (90 kts), and the aircraft was not configured to minimise drag.
3. Control of the aircraft was lost in circumstances where recovery was not possible and the subsequent ground impact and fire was not considered survivable.

Yes, that was a C90, and not a B200, but the certification requirements are the same. No matter how good you are, if it goes quiet at the wrong time at the wrong place and you elect to stop you can be off the end with the macho infallibles baying for your blood, or if you keep going, you're upside down in the weeds.

yes - if you have enough speed under your belt. You might not have enough runway / clearway for this if your wheels are just off the deck.

King Air Pilots
 

My condolences to all the family friends and staff of LEA.

I hope this doesn't come across as arrogant but as a TRI who has delivered over 150 King Air type ratings in the last 6 years my former students know I am paranoid about a few things relating to the King Air, namely:-

1. Complete a take off brief whether you are MP or SP to include touch drills as to what to do in the event of an EFATO
2. If nothing else carry out an auto feather check prior to every flight not just first flight of the day. It takes 30secs and may save your life
3. As part of your line up checks ensure that the auto feather is armed

A working auto feather is part of the MEL certainly on Raisbeck and B250 aircraft, without it you will really struggle.

I call "2 off" (for the auto ignition lights) and "2 on" (for the auto feather lights) before brake release.

I have flown with quite a few colleagues who wanted to omit 2... :=

OTOH the A/C in question might not have had an auto feather system fitted.

I had a TRE pull the pwr off one donk on a B200 with 3 blade props just after liftoff (after briefing it`d be pulled at 500agl...) and that certainly got my attention. That was in bright sunshine and a very light A/C. I hope I´ll never have to cope with a real EFATO in darkness or fog with a heavily loaded KA without a working AF.

Throttle friction nuts
 

Having personally watched this happen from the cabin of a 200, and having to run to the front to correct the impending disaster, I will throw his into the fray as its a serious issue if your not fully in control and flying in marginal to bad conditions.
The slow deteriorating performance along with the confusion of the instruments can lead the pilots to miss the actual problem. Read the report to understand.
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5422ebafe5274a13170000a7/dft_avsafety_pdf_022814.pdf

Compressor Stall

You are missing my point, which is to reduce speculation rather than inform it.

Firstly I was commenting on the speculation that being a small prop this would be, in general, difficult to fly on one. That is not the case. While not as capable as a jet it is capable of perf A operation. A jet can have the same problems if being operated privately outside perf A standards, so the prop is not really relevant.

Note that in the incident you mention "and the aircraft was not configured to minimise drag". I did mention configuration.