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.

I hear what you're saying, but these guys (one of them anyway) was a Naval Aviator. They weren't two rich guys fooling around in a Beach Bonanza. We Naval Aviators are specifically trained to avoid cognitive dissonance. We're also trained to keep in mind that an Aviator is more valuable than even the most expensive aircraft and when it's time to toss the airplane aside, then you don't worry about the consequences. Still, highly trained professional pilots don't like the idea of giving up on an airplane which might be safely recovered. We may never know exactly what happened here, but I think it's safe to say plenty of people would expect an engine failure (if that's what really happened) to have a better outcome than the death of two young men.

The entire south end of Baldwin County is covered with airports. Since my day, many of the Navy OLF's are no longer in use, but the runways are still there. Plus the area is literally covered in huge sod fields, even more so than when I learned to fly here back in the days of the T-34B. My options if the engine decided to shoot craps (I thought about it ALL the time) were to jump out or make a forced landing. With nothing wrong other than an engine stoppage, making an emergency landing either on an airport or in a field was considered a good option and we practiced exactly that down to pretty low altitude. It's actually pretty difficult to find a place in this area where you are not in gliding range of either an airport or a suitable field unless things go wrong at very low altitude.

Of course, the T-34 and T-6 are not the same and I have NOT flown the T-6. Plus I am ignorant of the SOP when it comes to a high altitude engine stoppage. I also don't know about the capability of the ejection seat. However, the T-6 is a relatively simple airplane and I suspect an engine-out emergency landing is well within the capabilities of the aircraft. Perhaps a Naval Aviator with experience in the T-6 can chime in here because I have some questions.

Is it reasonable to think that the instructor would elect to make an emergency, engine out landing? Single engine front-line fighters or attack airplanes mandate an ejection when the engine quits. Forced landings in those rare cases when the ejection fails to function have sad endings in nearly every case. Is the T-6 the same?

Does the seat have sufficient performance so that if he misjudged his glide and it became apparent that a safe landing could not be made, they could safely eject at a few hundred feet? I would assume so, but I don't know.

I suspect there is more to this story because a simple engine failure leading to the death of two guys just doesn't make sense to me.

some T-6 numbers:

ejection seat: altitude 0 to 35,000 ft. airspeed 0 to 370 knots.

uncontrolled: min ejection altitude 6000' AGL. Safe ejection possible in 10,000 fpm descent. controlled ejection: recommended 2000-3000' AGL.

forced landing: high key 3000-2500' AGL, trained to proficiency

(family member was a T-6 instructor....and T-34)

Not the F-16. There have been numerous successful engine out landings, one notable at the old NAS Glenview, down thru the wx.:eek:

Agree.

The PC-9 design has a good safety record overall across a lot of operators. birdstrike features high in losses where fatalities occur. Engine failures are usually resulting in ejection or successful landings. MAC's ended up with one crew ejecting the other not, which is about par for the course for sharing cockpits airborne. CFIT, very few cases, but one notable one far away in a land needing civil works programs on their buildings was pretty untidy. For an aircraft that goes from basic to advanced training, the PC is a very effective and reliable and safe platform. OBOGS issues... not alone in that score, refer 22's... etc.

The Navy safety mags were always great reading and hammered home target fixation, cognitive overload, dissonance by another name. As the oceans were littered with F8's, SLUFs, F4's, Whales, A6's F14's F18s, scooters, etc that still had drivers installed at splashdown, it is no wonder that Fitts, Jones, and others added to the global knowledge of why ejections don't occur. The PC-9/T6 record suggests that the training around the world has been excellent, it is more likely that incapacitation causes such an outcome, our sharing space with birds that as yet don't have ADSB fitted is a perennial problem.

Statistically for this type dissonance is not likely to be a culprit.

R.I.P. guys.

I can only think of one reason ‘some’ might be reading this forum.

Draw your own conclusions if you will. :sad:


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....888d2e4a41.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....274844441b.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1138d5aecf.jpg

A breakup.

The PT-6 can be feathered...

Thats what I’m thinking.
With the skill level involved one would think that an unsuccessful outcome has to be the result of unexpected and sudden events.

Does the T6 have `Command Ejection` from both seats....?

You answered my question regarding training for engine failure, thanks.

I don't understand why they rode it to the ground and then hit a house? The guy in the USMC C-130 rode it to the ground and found a field.

Surely a mysterious accident. RIP to the deceased.

Those ejection seat numbers look a bit odd. I believe the T6 has a. Martin Baker Mk 16 seat which has 0/0 capability when level.

Even in the older seat like the Mk 4 which I used in anger, could be used in descent to a level which was at least equal to 10% of your ROD.

So, in a 10,000. fpm descent one could probably survive if ejecting at 1000 feet or higher.

Strange and very sad accident..

Sorry for the confusion. It is a 0/0 capable seat. Those numbers just describe the entire envelope in terms of airspeed and altitude individually. Create your own speed/altitude combination within those two ranges.

edit: And that out of control 6000' min altitude is a recommended altitude just like any aircraft has a recommended loss of control ejection altitude. The ones I flew it was usually 10,000' AGL.

Flying Debris
 

The aerial view of the crash site shows what appears to be roof damage in all directions (blue tarps) indicating a high energy near vertical impact.

The purpose of discussion of accidents serves to narrow the initial realm of posible causes and serves to focus the discussion.

When I was going through the training command we were killingh on average 1 person per week and we avidly read the CNATRA weekly accident report to better understand the numerous ways you can have a bad day.

I think FDR is probably pretty close to the truth with his thoughts on bird strikes. If proven, perhaps some reinforcement of the canopy or other structure would be warranted.

The fire engines are still on scene, and the number of tarps indicates that they were in place prior to the accident. I would guess leftover hurricane damage and not related to the crash.

And an F16 out of Bentwaters in the Eighties. Had engine failure just off the top of the SID (Long time ago but IIRC somewhere north of Coltishall towards the North Norfolk coast and10000 feet) and made it unpowered all the way back to Bentwaters.

All the tarps in the photos are from recent hurricane damage - not debris from the accident.

Thanks. So one impact only.

It is worth noting that the recommended minimum abandonment height is determined by the altitude lost during the recovery pull-out rather than the capabilities of the ejection seat. You will always be able to eject safely at a lower height than the recommended minimum abandonment height.

The minimum abandonment height that we use in the PC-21 is 4000 ft and, from memory, we used 3000 ft in the Tucano.

" about 30 miles (48.28 kilometers)"

That is just silly. Does anybody actually LOOK at their press releases before they are published?

LOMCEVAK, thanks for the clarification.

Generally, the manual for the ejection seat equipped aircraft I'm familiar with used the phrase, "If not recovered by 'x' altitude AGL, eject."

In practicality, this was the typical safety hedge, leaning towards the unlikeliness of an actual recovery from spin/departure conditions before reaching the minimum altitude required in the actual pullout + some buffer recovery completion altitude above terrain level. The aircraft I flew with 10,000 AGL as recommended ejection altitude could all be pulled out in quite a bit less than 10,000' with flying speed regained and no rushed secondary departures. The hedge was against the odds of regaining controlled flying speed below 10,000 AGL if you already couldn't do it above 10,000'. Really wasn't ROD dependent.

If you departed an F-4, for example, at 3000' AGL, I fully understand the ejection system could get you out safely with timely action. It's been done of course. You could depart an A-7 at 5000' AGL for example, and because of the 100% reliability of a recovery not even need to honor the 10,000' out of control ejection recommendation that also applied to the A-7.

More explicit guidance like that for F-100F spins...."After one turn, recovery is not possible"....was much more definitive, regardless of altitude.

It's just a shame these guys couldn't get out at 6000'....or any altitude.