King Air 200 stolen in Fresno by a 17-yo
 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fresno-...into-building/

As she is reported "disoriented", how did she get the beast up and running? What is the start up procedure on a King Air? What are the odds that one would just figure it out by chance and get it going?

I think the disoriented bit was probably after the incident. As regards the chances; slim to none I would say. Possibly studied it at home on a flight sim. Missed "set parking brake"

You are probably right, it may well be a bit disorienting to do a 360 within 50 foot radius and hit the wall. However, I am hesitant to say she was very much orientated to begin with as she thought it would be a good idea to try that.

I read that her family used to own the airplane, so she had observed the start sequence previously. Apparently, she was running away from home.

looks like she only managed to start the port engine

The damage to the airplane looks to be pretty extensive, and I wonder where the prop wound up. She's lucky that she didn't eat the prop ... or it her. I can sense the insurance companies scrambling, and the lawyers circling (like the buzzards they are).

Christmas Cheers,
Grog

In related news Mesa Airlines has offered her a position in their first pilot class available after her release. A Mesa spokesman stated she has demonstrated excellent ability and has no check ride failures unlike many of our applicants that we hired!

It looks like she was safe from the portside prop because only the starboard engine was running.

The surveillance video is fairly amusing, if you ignore the risk and the damage.

Edit: Can't make link appear. Follow the link in the story cited above to the Twitter post.

What makes you think that "only the starboard engine was running".? The poor quality video shows an unchecked right turn while on the ramp. This would result from asymmetrical thrust and an inability to steer the airplane. The left engine appeared to have been severely damaged, and the right hand engine was feathered (I understand that turboprop engines feather upon routine shut down). If the right engine had been running and producing thrust at the time of the left engine's impact with the fence, I think the damage would have been much more severe and the scene infinitely more chaotic. I also would think that the teenaged girl pilot would have been a bit too dazed to have shut down a running engine herself. Surely outside intervention to shut down the engine would have been mentioned at the press conference.

Oh, well, just my opinion, and I've been wrogn before.

Christmas Cheers,
Grog

I think you may be right. I didn't notice the feathered prop in the still photo and the way the aircraft spun into the fence makes your interpretation more likely. I stand (possibly) corrected.

So . . . lucky girl. Lucky she didn't get it off the ground, too.

She probably has data on her phone:

I like that instructor.

It's a bit concerning that anyone can access this sort of information on a smartphone by simply going to Youtube and searching for a video. I found one on how to start an A320 with a quick search.


Obviously security needs to be increased as equipment such as bulldozers, excavators and railway trains which are attractive toys can now be operated by anyone who can do an internet search. Airport security is obviously of a higher standard but there would be little to stop someone getting into the cab of a train whilst stopped at a station and making off with it. In the days before the internet, information on operating equipment would have been difficult to find for someone outside of that particular industry, not any more.

The PT6A-135 engines are in "feather" when started/shutdown, until you bring the props out of feather for taxi.

Security and secrecy are different things. And relying on secrecy for security is a fundamentally-flawed idea.

In the days before the Internet, it wasn't as immediately easy to obtain operating instructions, but it certainly wasn't difficult. Finally, it simply isn't realistic to expect this sort of information to be kept out of the public sphere -- and in some countries it would be impossible to make laws or rules to try to do that.

Anyway, I'm pretty old and I don't remember stolen trains and airplanes being a major threat to public safety.

" I don't remember stolen trains and airplanes being a major threat to public safety."

Ummm...... 9/11 ?

Ummm . . . not even close. Those aircraft were hijacked by people with a fair amount of flight training, not stolen by people who read manuals or watched videos online.

And as far as major threats to public safety are concerned, it should probably be remembered that as many people as were killed in the 9/11 attacks die in car crashes in the US every month.

Let me guess, you believe 911 never happened.

stealing a cold and dark plane from an airfield is way different from hijacking an airplane midair. I believe this is what was meant.

So? You want to go back to the dark ages, withholding operating information for a very broad interested public and for aviation enthusiasts just because of a few nutcases?
I know then I was young and an aviation enthusiast in the pre-internet age, living somewhere in the boonies, I cursed the fact that it was so difficult to get one‘s hands on any in-depth operating information. Good that these times are gone.

Establish better and more efficient airside access control instead.