Plane hits Flight Safety building at Wichita, Kansas airport

[jumbocpt]

over my years of flying recip's and turbine Beech's, I often thought of what a former Beechcraft test pilot told me years ago. "...if it would fly on 1 engine, Mr Beech would have built it with only one."

[Jumbo744]

Jumbocpt,

I fully agree with what this former beech test pilot told you!

We all know the 'engine failure after V1' drills but on the King Air, you'd better be 100% on top of the situation if you want to keep control of the plane. You can't waste 1 second thinking, you can't miss 1 item, you have very little room for error.

Handling an engine failure in the B1900D is much easier than on the King Air in my opinion as it has much more power and it will fly on 1 engine.

[drag king]

I Europe we can not fly this ac with pax ,singel pilot.!

YES, WE CAN! As a matter of fact I do and I do it on a AOC OPS.

My guess is he left the gear down on purpose.

It would had been a very stupid thing to do, then.

• P - P - P: PRESS (GA button, that will set FD to 8 deg nose-up for pitch ref.), POWER (firewall the PLs), PITCH (up 8-10 deg).
  
• GEAR/FLAPS: UP
  
• Once failed engine has been POSITIVELY identified:
  
• F - F - F: FUEL (CL to CUT OFF on affected engine), FEATHER (it covers the drag bit even if AF is installed and it has worked fine), FIREWALL (valve closed if you have reason to believe you might be on fire)

That's what is regularly drummed into our head by our TRI/TRE.

A near-standard-specs 200 (no Raiseback, no cargo door, no EMS configuration interiors) with just one on board, no cargo and even on full fuel would be somewhere around 11,500 to 12,000 Lbs of TOW. Plenty of power to continue with an EFATO, sort it out and come back. What happened in this instance, well we shall let the NTSB to find out rather than speculating.

DK

[framer]

Rotorhead,

My guess is he left the gear down on purpose.

I highly doubt that. Only a moron would do that and I don't think this chap was a moron.

So he has the brain space, in the heat of an engine failure, to do this;

the pilot notes (correctly) that a lightly-loaded King Air of any breed has plenty enough power to maintain altitude with gear down and approach flaps, at least near sea level and at reasonable temperatures.

Yet he somehow does this;

He doesn't pay attention to airspeed during the process (aggravated by calling the tower) and gets too slow ...

I think your assessment of the way this likely unfolded is fanciful.

[BluSdUp]

Drag Queen

You are not flying commercialy , with pax, IFR, legaly, in Europe.
SINGLE PILOT.
Regardless:
Any company or contractor letting anyone , regardles of continent, do a testflight in this aircraft single pilot,must shurely be self-insured. ,,,!?
He was a lowtimer and , yes NTSB will recomend and FAA shall roule,,!
Cpt B. Now a lowtimer on B200,,,,,,

[peekay4]

FlightSafety Sues Engine Repair Firm

FlightSafety suit says engine-repair firm responsible for crash at Eisenhower airport | The Wichita Eagle

FlightSafety International has filed a lawsuit in Texas against a company it alleges was responsible for the October 2014 crash of a Beechcraft King Air into its Eisenhower Airport facility that killed four people, including the pilot.

The lawsuit, filed in Dallas County District Court, said that Dallas Airmotive repaired the King Air’s PT6A-42 engines 10 days before the crash.

“Dallas Airmotive returned the engines and their subcomponents to service, representing that they were airworthy when they were not,” the lawsuit said. “This crash and Plaintiff’s damages were proximately caused by the above negligence.”

The National Transportation Safety Board has not issued a cause of the crash. In a preliminary report issued by the NTSB in November 2014, the report said one minute and 11 seconds elapsed between the time the plane departed the runway and the pilot, Mark Goldstein, radioed to the air-traffic control tower that he was declaring an emergency and had lost his left engine.

[...]

[inbalance]

You are not flying commercialy , with pax, IFR, legaly, in Europe.
SINGLE PILOT

EU-OPS1:
Appendix 2 to OPS 1.940
Single pilot operations under IFR or at night
Aeroplanes referred to in OPS 1.940(b)2 may be operated by a single pilot under IFR or at night when the following requirements are satisfied:
1. the operator shall include in the Operations Manual a pilot’s conversion and recurrent training programme which includes the additional requirements for a single pilot operation;
2. in particular, the cockpit procedures must include:
(i) engine management and emergency handling;
(ii) use of normal, abnormal and emergency checklist;
(iii) ATC communication;
(iv) departure and approach procedures;
(v) autopilot management; and
(vi) use of simplified in-flight documentation;
3. the recurrent checks required by OPS 1.965 shall be performed in the single-pilot role on the type or class of aeroplane in an environment representative of the operation;
4. the pilot shall have a minimum of 50 hours flight time on the specific type or class of aeroplane under IFR of which 10 hours is as commander; and
5. the minimum required recent experience for a pilot engaged in a single-pilot operation under IFR or at night shall be 5 IFR flights, including three instrument approaches, carried out during the preceding 90 days on the type or class of aeroplane in the single-pilot role. This requirement may be replaced by an IFR instrument approach check on the type or class of aeroplane.

[Dragon43]

Just an observation:

Flying for an airline that moves paying passengers as it's primary purpose.

Flying an airplane for a company as a paid pilot who carries company personal & their guests or does some other work that has other people in the airplane.

Not the same thing and the rules are different.

I'm not so sure everyone in this thread is talking about the same thing.

If everyone is on the same page, I am mistaken in my interpretation of the posts & what is actually said.