Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
red750

New video of KingAir crash in Texas

Recommended Posts

This dashcam video of the crash of a KingAir 350 at Addison Texas on June 30 is remarkably similar to the crash at Essendon in February 2017.

 

Texas air crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the King Air at Essendon, go down inverted, as this King Air did? I'd guess an extra 6 pax may have changed the dynamics of the stall here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the dashcam at Essendon, the plane was right way up looking like it wa about to land parallel to rwy 09, but the swing to the left immediately after  liftoff is what I was referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 That result is exactly what will happen if a PT 6 engine loses power and is not able to  be feathered. A turbo prop has the potential to develop DRAG many times that of the rated forward thrust, so has to have auto feather capacity to be safe it low level on initial take off.   This is NOT what happened at Essendon.  Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks very similar to Essendon, especially the side yaw.

 

I still believe that at Essendon the rudder trim cable could have been pulled early in the impact sequence, the left cable was found broken so some force was applied. The fin structure still intact at this point guided the cable on and off the drum in the normal way until the structure deformed leaving the witness mark in the actuator at the full left rudder trim position. 

 

If the the trim was full left prior to take off how did it get there. Why didn't the pilot adjust the trim if he was standing on the right rudder. So many unanswered questions.   

ao2017024_figure-49.png ao2017024_figure-52.jpeg ao2017024_figure-51.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The similarity is only the type  and that a turnback was involved and they both ended up in the roof of a hangar. One was an engine failure and the other was a mishandled rudder trim situation Both involve managing a yaw  and managing energy/drag relationships. This type of aircraft usually relies on auto feather as a turboprop power unit can  generate more drag than it gave in thrust IF it's not feathered quickly you are going DOWN and will have acute YAW problems and may get below VMC(a) rapidly where the  full rudder will not stop a yaw towards the dead engine which will then be followed by a wing drop and roll inverted and a near vertical nosedive into the ground. As well as getting the dead engine feathered the gear must be retracted as soon as a positive climb is achieved. The plane must also be loaded within the limits of the runway conditions. Wind velocity ,temp, density altitude,  obstacle limits  runway length limits etc. The plane should be able to fly after V1 (decision speed, but really a point on the runway) Up till that point it should be able to safely stop within  the confines of the runway and any over run area available. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One would suspect, reading between the lines, that this TX King Air would have been right at, or even over MTOW. Also, with no wind and 79°F temperature, he had no advantage there, in either area.

I am surprised that a 71 yr old ATPL wouldn't have been better prepared for EFATO, and taken more appropriate action to get back down on the ground quickly, when it became obvious that one engine had failed.

It appears that he did little in response to the EFATO, and it looks like he was expecting the King Air to just keep flying and gaining height on one engine, despite everything being against him.

Taking on full fuel for a trip that wasn't all that long, when he was already fully loaded with pax and luggage, seems like a poor choice.

Edited by onetrack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 There is no need to get back down QUICKLY unless there's fire involved. That's  a point that must be made and emphasised. . Maintaining control and performance is all that's required.. Staying on the ground if any degradation of performance or( unusual condition suspected. MY WORDS) is in evidence also, prior to V1. I can't agree with the Fly overloaded (hope?). It flys if it's the right weight and the pilot does ALL the things at the speeds and flying technique required and reacts within  a short time. It's a pretty fine line required but done every renewal though not at limit conditions usually and the engine will be set at a power that simulates the engine feathered and secured, but not shut down.   Modern planes are CERTIFIED to make  certain climb gradients , unlike some of the earlier stuff  where you couldn't even feather a sick or dead  motor and  therefore had two chances of not making it on each take off.  Nev

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...