US Navy TexanT6 crash fatal 10-23
 

FOLEY, Ala. (AP) — A U.S. Navy training plane that took off from Florida crashed Friday in an Alabama residential neighborhood near the Gulf Coast, killing both people in the plane, authorities said.

Zach Harrell, a spokesperson for Commander, Naval Air Forces, said both people in the T-6B Texan II training plane died, but they weren’t immediately releasing their names. No injuries were reported on the ground.

Foley Fire Chief Joey Darby said responders encountered a “large volume of fire” with a home and several cars engulfed in flames. Firefighters were able to make “a quick stop on the fire,” the chief told local news outlets.

The crash occurred southeast of Mobile, near the city of Foley and the town of Magnolia Springs. Darby called the neighborhood a “heavily populated” residential area. No firefighters were injured, he added.

The plane had flown out of Naval Air Station Whiting Field, about 30 miles (48.28 kilometers) northeast of Pensacola, Florida, Navy spokeswoman Julie Ziegenhorn said.

The U.S. Department of Defense and the Navy were set to handle the investigation, the Baldwin County Sheriff’s Office tweeted.

Foley in my day was an out lying field used for circuit training. No fire fighting or rescue facilities.

BB 207 on Flightaware.

Looked like it was maneuvering in box at 8K and lost engine. Prop blades in crash photo show no rotation is why I assume that. They were right over Foley but is too short for Texan to use legally. It looks like they may have been trying for Callahan. That was about 9 miles west of crash site.

The Flightaware at about 35 minutes shows them at 8K and 250 knots. As they head west they lose attitude but speed also drops off very quickly which could be an ADS B anomaly. It is pretty linear so it makes me think it’s accurate. Losing an engine and feathering it should produce a much longer glide and different profile than what is there.

The other possibility is they did eject and we are seeing the post ejection result on Flightaware. News is sketchy but there is no report they ejected. My assumption is they rode it in as that likely would have been reported. Someone mentioned on Facebook about incapacitated crew, but the maneuvers just prior were all normal and at that altitude extremely unlikely.

Why the poor glide profile and why they didn’t eject are mysterious. No ATC replay I can find.

In the end it is a tragic outcome with lots of questions.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....05342bf14.jpeg

This is a single engine aircraft so I doubt there is a capability to feather.

I’m not sure the legality of the runway length would be uppermost in my mind if I’d lost my engine.

https://quizlet.com/36895716/t-6b-pr...r-flash-cards/

Re: feathering

Number of engines is irrelevant.

edit: BTW Foley runway is 3700' long. Wouldn't use it in an F-105, but sounds fine for a T-6B with limited options.

3000' minimum runway length for emergencies below 3500' pressure altitude.

page8image1064766432 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
CHIEF OF NAVAL AIR TRAINING
250 LEXINGTON BLVD SUITE 102
CORPUS CHRISTI TX 78419-5041
CNATRA INSTRUCTION 3710.17C
Subj: CNATRA GUIDANCE FOR T-6 OPERATIONS
Ref: (a) NAVAIR A1-T6AAA-NFM-100
(b) NAVAIR A1-T6BAA-NFM-100
CNATRAINST 3710.17C
N33
23 Apr 15

page8image10647990561. Purpose. To publish guidance for flight operations in the
T-6 Texan II, in order to ensure safe and efficient use of this
asset.
2. Cancellation. CNATRAINST 3710.17B
3. Action. Comply with subject guidance. Submit recommended
changes to Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA) N33.
a. Minimum Runway Requirements:
(1) A 4,000 ft minimum for dual operations and 5,000 ft
minimum for student solo operations shall apply. This length
has been demonstrated to be safe for all normal dry operations
at Mean Sea Level (MSL) up to 3,500 ft pressure altitude. When
operating at pressure altitudes in excess of 3,500 ft, a minimum
runway length in compliance with references (a) and (b) takeoff
and landing data or 5,000 ft, whichever is greater, should
apply.
(2) All operations on runways other than dry may
significantly increase the stopping distance required. Minimum
runway required in this case should be per references (a) and
(b).
(3) At the discretion of the Aircraft Commander, minimum
runway length recommended for emergency field selection is 3,000
ft when operating below 3,500 ft pressure altitude and 4,000 ft
when operating above 3,500 ft pressure altitude.
(4) Landing on runways less than 4,000 ft in length is
prohibited except in an emergency, where a wave off is not
practical.

Harvard 2 has a Pratt and Whitney PT6 engine which is feathered prior to every shutdown. Feathering the prop after engine failure is the SOP and makes a very significant difference in glide performance

Smilin_Ed
 

I’m guessing that either you have mis-typed your post or you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how the T6 Texan engine works that it might have been best to not have contributed to such a thread.

I’ll admit that it’s been a long time since I’ve flown a turboprop (Tucano in 2002)
that I thought I should double check my knowledge and nomenclature. Chapter 1, para 18 confirms what I remember.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque..._passthrough=1

So I have to ask. Was it a mistype or a total lack of knowledge of military turboprop trainers (or aircraft for that matter)?

BV

It seems amazing and especially tragic that 2 folks can die following an engine failure at altitude in a military training aircraft equipped with modern ejection seats. More so as they appear to have overflown a 3700' runway first. My thoughts to those closely involved.

Unfortunately, it's not a rare event. It is often related to cognitive dissonance, where as humans we attempt to resolve mental and physical conflicting scenarios by utilizing denial, rationalization and other unproductive defense mechanisms to try and reach a state of psychological comfort. When pilots haven't accepted the loss of the aircraft is likely, they will often fixate on other actions that don't change the outcome. In a military trainer, not using the ejection system in time is an obvious example of cognitive dissonance.

We obviously don't- know what happened here, but that's what cognitive dissonance is.

According to the type certificate data sheet this is a feathering propeller as you would expect.
If they were in a designated maneuvering area do they have a designated alternate landing site?
If they were in the maneuvering area what type of maneuvers were practiced?
Chances of a mechanical failure after which they attempted to fly home and they encountered an Inflight breakup?
Flight control malfunction followed by loss of control?

Two people are dead. My condolences to their relatives. There are times when speculative posts and corrections are inappropriate.

There is a difference between respectful discussion and malicious gossip.
This is an aviation forum and this is what we do, discuss all aspects of aviation including its darker sides. With respect we are all free to choose to participate or not.

I'm with beardy.

There are times to hold back before speculating, and wait for official investigations to be concluded before offering personal - and possibly unsubstantiated - opinions which might be right, but might also be wrong, and which could be even more distressing to those more closely linked to the individuals who are now no longer with us.

Some might even read this forum.

Yes - it is (supposed to be) a rumour forum, but there are times and places..........

The family and friends will be having a difficult time without any an-wanted comment at this stage.

If the families are reading this stuff - my condolences to you all, and there but for the grace of my God, go I.

As am I. Never understood the need to opine on accidents while lacking the relevant information to do so.

We've always done it, entirely understandably - but we did it in the privacy of our crew rooms and bars.

Unfortunately a lot of people now don't see the difference between a private group of half a dozen people in a pub and a worldwide forum seen by anyone and everyone where they can say what they wish whilst hiding behind anonymity.

I trust that our membership will keep such discussion as is to be had professional in tone.
Very sorry to see the loss of the crew. :(

Agree with all to just sit back and wait a bit. OTOH....
The pics show a literal smokin' hole, as if a near vertical inpact and not a stretched out debris field. And I agree with several about not punching out. We shall see.
Being 40 miles east of their field and with more than a few Naval folks here plus some friends that trained there, anything the investigation can find to prevent another crash is crucial.

So here's a nickel on the grass.

This is an excellent comment. "Pushing on" in spite of irretrievable situations can be very common in these types of tragedies. RIP.