Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Plane Crash in Blizzard-Like Conditions Kills 9 in South Dakota.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Back on topic. The Pilatus PC 12 turboprop in my eyes is not really 'a small plane', Erez. Indeed this single turboprop is longer than one twin turboprop which I sometimes fly in the simulator:
    Pilatus PC 12 - length 14,40 m - wingspan 16,28 m. That's not small at all.
    Beechcraft B350 Super King Air Simulator - length 14,22 m - wingspan 17,65 m.

    Once I was asked if I had visited the USA to see how the NTSB is working. The answer is no. But I always sit near my TV when Greg Feith appears in it. You don't know which case I'm aiming at?

    On the evening of July 16th 1999, Mr John F Kennedy Junior entered his new Piper Saratoga (manufacturer code: PA-32R) to fly from Essex County Airport to Martha's Wineyard. One pilot with zero flight hours on type plus unexperienced by night and above the Ocean, plus two female passengers. The result is known: dead, All three souls on board.
    The Saratoga impacted with almost full cruise speed on the Atlantic Ocean, i.e 135 knots, 250 km/h or 156 US-miles. Not survivable, but avoidable. Even before the TV camera, there have been experienced pilots who'd enjoyed to fly JFK jr and his two passengers from Essex to Martha.

    Now the Pilatus PC 12 is bigger and again much faster than the Saratoga. 5 passengers in a Saratoga @ 135 kias. The Pilatus PC 12 is a different caliber: up to 9 passengers plus 2 pilots, so all in all 11 souls on board, @ 285 knots. 528 km/h or 330 mph.

    The Beechcraft B350 Super King Air with her two 1050 hp turboprop engines which I know from a Simulator is not really much faster than such a Pilatus PC 12:
    Beech B350 carries 11 passengers plus 2 pilots, so all in all 13 souls, @ 312 knots. 577 km/h or 361 mph.

    I assume that the type licenses between these two a/c are different. For the Pilatus you only need single engine propeller.
    For the Super King Air 350 you definitely need a twin turbopropeller license. That's basically the same license which you need for flight #
    EW 2083 which is operated with a De Havilland DH8-400 twin turbopropeller with 80 passenger seats, @ 330 knots. 611 km/h or 382 mph.

    285 or 330 knots. That's also a speed which you fly in a jet with more than 80 seats.

    I still miss the biography section. My simulator career was, Cessna single propeller, Beech Baron 58 twin propeller without turbo, Beech B350 Super King Air twin turbopropeller, then B734,
    and then yet the 747-200 with INS navigation, which was not really included in fs9. The next logical step was Randazzo's LH-B744 QOTSI fsx simulator.
    One of the final steps which I plan are Randazzo's B744 QOTSII, and of course the B748 passage jet.

    My trick is, now with the B744, I only really regularly use two licenses. Long haul jet, 4 engines. From there I go back to the twin turbopropeller Super King Air.
    Which in my eyes is the much much easier way than vice versa!
    Once in a jet, the 300 knots in a Super King Air feel very normal. But what if you come from downstairs, from a Cessna 152?

    That circumstance was not only JFK juniors death, at the age of only 38 years, 'be careful, the Saratoga is faster than everything which you have seen before'.


    But I still remember a case where 4 young people took dads key for the BMW M5 engine, somewhere in the USA, and they were very young and very curious how far the new drivers license would take em. On a private airstrip. Not so very far. Only up the next hill behind the strip, and all 4 ended dead in a stable big tree.

    PS: Now that I am old enough to be the father of these 4 young people.. Please don't do that. Do not challenge strong engines which you've never seen before. Not either in a Blizzard. Amen.
    Last edited by LH-B744; 2019-12-03, 06:02. Reason: JFK juniors death at the age of only 38
    LH and the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955. A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.
    LH is member in the 747 club since April 1970. Jubilees do count, believe me.
    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
      a Cessna 152 (not more than 100 hp!)
      Actually, it's 110 hp.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

        Actually, it's 110 hp.
        Hey Gabe. Ok I'll give you the point. But let's be serious. Have you ever sat in an aircraft (!), we do no longer talk about cars, where you have felt the difference between 100 and 110 hp?
        + 10 hp?

        I've once sat in a Renault Captur with 90 hp. That car was not able to accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in less than 13 seconds, in German we call such cars a Wanderdüne. The stronger engine in that Renault is the 118 hp engine. + 28 hp. In a car. Which almost let that Renault take off: in 9.9 seconds from 0 to 100 km/h with a vmax of 190 km/h.

        All that happened after I asked them for a BMW, in advance. I usually get engines like the 320d limousine with 190 hp when I ask them. This one goes from 0 to 100 in 7 seconds.
        They obviously had a bad hair day.

        Even I have never in my whole life used a BMW M5 engine, never during all the 41 years in my life. But that was a message which was discussed when I became a jetphotos forum member in 2008. Nowadays, the M5 F90 limousine is a 4.4 liter V8 engine with ... 600 horse power, which goes 0 to 100 in 3.4 seconds, 0 to 200 km/h in 11.1 seconds and for children who take dad's car key it is reduced to a vmax 250 km/h. Unless you know that switch, for 305 km/h..

        Attention! Again, you young people. Do not try that engine at home, not either if your dad owns one. I own the license for such cars since more than 20 years, so if you are interested, ask me, I don't own a M5, but I know somebody who does not only own one but also knows a racing track where such an engine with all passengers does not end in a stable big tree.

        We need all the young people, and we need Sabine Schmitz. Please do not die in a car.
        Last edited by LH-B744; 2019-12-03, 07:18. Reason: Gesundheit ist unbezahlbar. Nicht nur für Luftfahrzeugtypen die 50 Jahre im Programm sind, junge Frau.
        LH and the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955. A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.
        LH is member in the 747 club since April 1970. Jubilees do count, believe me.
        Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

        Comment


        • #19
          I just tried to edit my #18. But then 'Last edited by LH-B744; Today, 08:18.' gets lost. And that mustn't get lost. Ich bin keine 9 Jahre jünger, es sind nur acht und ein paar Monate. Immer noch oder wieder BMW, nach einem Zwischenspiel bei Porsche. Wenn man einmal dieses komplett auf den Fahrersitz zugeneigte Cockpit erfahren hat, wer will dann noch was anderes.

          Back to the official jetphotos language. Since 2018, I am an official member of the Nordschleife community, with a passive status, i.e. I was only there at the 24 hours as a viewer. I am here in this forum to explain that experience in aviation is priceless. You must come back to the BMW M5, now with 600 horse power. During my 41 years I've never lost someone with that day of birth. The Nordschleife is your road, nobody knows it better than you!

          As I mentioned, 170 PS in a 325i are good, but on the road between Duisburg and Nürburg I can drive that engine for you. Together with Lance David Arnold (also Duisburg), I hope that you come back to the rather interesting engines. I've not talked to him. But he's too young to take the Nordschleife crown from you, imho.
          Panamera GTS V8 with ... 460 hp, which from outside looks like a family limousine.. I love that understatement. You must come back, Frau Schmitz.
          -

          PS: Wo ich mal dabei bin, ich hoffe Alex lässt mich auch mal den verhassten (?) Nachbarn bejubeln.. Thomas Spitzer hat im Sommer 2019 mal einen Schlußstrich gezogen unter 40 Jahre Bandmitgliedschaft, was hier leider erst letztes Wochenende so richtig ankam. So wichtig ist Kommunikation. Wobei ich noch bezweifle ob es nicht doch der Eberhartinger war, der sich alt genug gefühlt hat für den Ruhestand. Wenn man erst eimal 70 ist..
          Spitzer ist ja der Jüngere. Mit einem so unfaßbar süßen Enkel. Jetzt bin ich mal nicht der Jüngste und dankbar dafür.

          Sorry for that rather inofficial forum entry.. And I wish for ALL of us, a good Nikolausi.

          Jubilees do count, believe me. Almost 70 years. Eberhartingers son lost his mother. Well, .. December is hard for those who've lost a parent...
          But the hardest thing must be to lose a child. Thank God, I know no father who's ever lost a child. So, a Merry Christmas for all of us.
          Last edited by LH-B744; 2019-12-03, 10:44.
          LH and the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955. A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.
          LH is member in the 747 club since April 1970. Jubilees do count, believe me.
          Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

          Comment


          • #20
            As usual, WTF do your diatribes have ANYTHING to do with the subject of the original post?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
              An ITO requires you to be "on the gauges" immediately after rotation. Taking off in white out conditions or total darkness is an invitation for spatial disorientation.
              I will probably piss you off now as I draw from my 10 hours of instrument training.

              Is an "instrument takeoff" really THAT hard? I've done several under the hood (which admittedly is not the same as true weather).

              I (personally) break instrument skills into four categories.

              1. Keep the plane right side up by looking at the instruments (I personally don't think it's all that hard and had some experience doing this).

              2. Fight off strange (and sometimes strong) feelings of being in a different attitude than what you are. (I'm not sure I have experienced this in my limited flight time, and don't need to shoot my mouth off about how easy or hard it is).

              3. Flying UBER precise holding patterns and approaches where the ILS signal gets super incredibly sensitive. (From my limited experience, I SUCK at that)

              4. Reading, briefing, understanding and 'briefly memorizing' approach and procedure charts and MAPs and not screwing them up. (From my limited experience I SUCK at that too!)

              An instrument takeoff requires skill #1.
              It can require skill 2 but at least you start at a known place....rotate to a fat, dumb and happy climb attitude and fly away...It's TAKEOFF, so I'd HOPE one would focus on the attitude indication (and speed and turn instrumentation)

              I do remember practicing UBER precise heading control (the scenario was you inadvertently encounter 0 visibility after initiating your takeoff roll with 0.5 miles visibility). Uber precise heading control to not run off the side of the runway. That was a fine motor skill and monitoring skill. But when the time came...pull back and watch the AI and fly away into the big sky where you can be a little bit sloppy.

              Signed irritating amateur poster, but I owe you a beer.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post

                Hey Gabe. Ok I'll give you the point. But let's be serious. Have you ever sat in an aircraft (!), we do no longer talk about cars, where you have felt the difference between 100 and 110 hp?
                + 10 hp?
                Yes, I flew the Cessna 150 (100 HP), Cessna 152 (110 HP), Piper Tomahawk (112 HP) and Piper Tomahawk with engine STC (125 HP).

                The Cessna 150 has 10 HP less but is also smaller and lighter, The main difference is that it was even more uncomfortable than the 152 which is already uncomfortable.

                The Tomahawk, with almost the same power than the 152, is a completely different airplane, totally different wing design (airfoil, planform and flaps), it is low wing and T-tail, so it is impossible to tell what difference, if any, these 2 HP do. Now the 125 HP Tomahawk is identical to the normal Tomahawk, even the engine, except that it has taller pistons which increases the compression ratio hence increasing the fuel efficiency at the same power OR giving you more power for the same fuel. These 13 HP do make a noticeable difference especially in climb rate at full power, it will give you like 100~150 fpm more. You'll see: when flying at 70~80 knots, you are already using about 50~55 HP just to overcome the drag and keep that speed even you fly straight and level. It is the EXCESS POWER what you use to climb. With 112 HP, your excess power is 57 HP. With 125 HP, your excess power is 70 HP. That's 22% more HP and hence roughly 22% more climb rate. However, you would normally fly the 125 HP Tomahawk as if it was the 112 HP one, especially at low altitude. You'll see, only ohter mod that the STC makes on the plane (other than replacing the pistons with taller ones) is to move the red line from 2600 RPM to 2900 RPM. Not only the plane will make an unbearable noise at 2900 RPM, but also you will likely struggle to keep the oil temperature low (since you have more power applied to the engine but the "cooling power" at a given airspeed is the same no matter the engine power). It is in high&hot environments where you can enjoy the difference, since you can use these extra power capacity as a reserve and hence be able to obtain the original 112 HP at density altitudes where you would not get it with the original engine.

                All that said, nothing of that is relevant. You said that the 152 had not more than 100 HP and I just pointed out that it has 110 HP. While 100 HP can be jut a little (or a lot) more than "not more than 100 HP" (since 10 HP is also "not more than 100 HP"), 110 HP is certainly NOT "not more than 100 HP". It is as simple as that. I never claimed that the difference is huge or anything. Just that 110 is more than 100, not "not more than 100".

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Too many people
                  Cessna 150, 152, Tommahwak variants, 172 150 HP, 160 HP Hawk XP 190 HP, 180 HP Cardinal, Skylane
                  Dudes, none of this is relevant.

                  I wanted to highlight that MAYBE (Yes, I need to wait for the final report), the pilot was not a FULL TIME professional pilot and the fact that ATL, VNav and Bobby (in his prior life) flew "EVERY DAY" and REGULARLY dealt with weather and instruments and 6-month recurrent training, AND A SOLE FOCUS ON FLYING makes a difference.

                  And that annual insurance-required Pilatus training and a genuinely caring about safety are very good, but just don't substitute for what professionals USUALLY do "every day with lots of great training and CRM and sole focus".

                  (Yes, sometimes professionals do BAD things, just like amateurs do BAD things).

                  All that being said, there is (apparently from reading Aviation Typists) a statistical difference between putting around LOCALLY on sunny days versus flying light planes CROSS COUNTRY......A shred of "get there itus" (or perhaps more simply EXPOSURE to more weather, even if forecasts SEEM ok)...maybe SLIGHTLY relevant here, but....
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    Dudes, none of this is relevant.
                    I agree. I just digressed after making a small correction to what LH said about the Cessna 152 being not more than 100 HP.
                    It is totally irrelevant for the thread, I apologize.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      Is an "instrument takeoff" really THAT hard?
                      I imagine that it would be in 'blizzard-like' conditions. I can't find the relevant METAR but the NWS records look like more like a cake-walk than a blizzard. The runway (13/31) would have seen some crosswinds but were looking at 10G20 at most. Visibility was varying between half mile and greater than one mile. I've been in enough blizzards to know that's not a blizzard.

                      Icing however, doesn't care so much about winds and visibility... Whatever was on the wings during that ITO might tell the tale.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Is an "instrument takeoff" really THAT hard? I've done several under the hood (which admittedly is not the same as true weather).

                        I (personally) break instrument skills into four categories.

                        1. Keep the plane right side up by looking at the instruments (I personally don't think it's all that hard and had some experience doing this).

                        2. Fight off strange (and sometimes strong) feelings of being in a different attitude than what you are. (I'm not sure I have experienced this in my limited flight time, and don't need to shoot my mouth off about how easy or hard it is).

                        [skipping 3 and 4]

                        An instrument takeoff requires skill #1.
                        It can require skill 2 but at least you start at a known place....rotate to a fat, dumb and happy climb attitude and fly away...It's TAKEOFF, so I'd HOPE one would focus on the attitude indication (and speed and turn instrumentation)
                        Although I have a few hours under the hood and a lot (for PPL standards) in simulated instrument conditions in flight training devices, I have less experience than you in actual IMC, less than 1 minute. During that 1 minute I did feel disoriented, We flew into a white fluffy cloud, and managed but found it hard to keep straight and level. By when we popped out of the cloud the plane was straight and level but my head was tilted. I didn't like it, and I thought that if that had lasted a few minutes longer (and if I wasn't with an instrument-rated instructor) I may have very well lost it. That was before the all the FTD hours I accumulated later. I don't know how well I would have performed in actual conditions afterwards, but I don't feel confident that I would have performed well.

                        So the following comment is from an "academic" point of view, based on someone else's experience and some real accidents.

                        Taking off into solid IMC or solid darkness (like a direct take off over the water in a cloudy night), i.e. where you have zero external visual references, it is a very well documented source of disorientation and fatal accidents with pilots flying back down into the ground shortly after take-off.

                        The reason for that is the somatogravic illusion where our body is unable to distinguish between accelerating (speeding up) and climbing (being tilted back). In both cases what we feel is that we are pushed against the back of our seats. This illusion is so good that it is actually used by the full-motion level D flight simulators to give the illusion of speeding up or slowing down by tilting the whole sim back or forward respectively.

                        A pilot, no matter how good, taking off with no external visual cues is simply unable to tell pointing up from speeding up UNLESS he is paying close attention to the instruments.
                        So a pilot takes off in these conditions, starts to climb normally, but then he gets distracted from the attitude indicator because he is looking at a chart or the moving map or running the after take-off checklist, and he unintentionally he lets the plane start to pitch down. The plane starts to trade climb rate for airspeed, and the speeding-up makes it feel as if he was still pointing up. A constant speed prop makes it more inconspicuous since even the RPM (and the sound of the engine at great) will barely change at all (in a fixed prop the RPM will go up as the speed goes up).

                        This has caused a significant number of accidents to the point that is something that the FAA and NTSB focused on years ago and training and awareness material was developed as a result. I came across that material and that's how I know it.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          It certainly could be the result of pilot disorientation, but I think there is a greater probability of ice/snow contamination being at fault here. 3WE, you bring up piloting experience as a reason commercial pilots can fly in this weather more routinely, but there is also a lot to know about deicing and anti-icing, including understanding the difference between the two. There are a number of ways these procedures can be botched or insufficient and can even worsen the situation. For example, if you deice, then apply anti ice, then sit around for a while and then just apply additional anti-ice rather than deicing again you might have an airplane that is less interested in flying. You also need to understand and anticipate the performance penalties created by anti-ice fluids.

                          Even if you have a $3M pressurized turboprop with all the candy, I think a fine reason not to fly GA in these "blizzard-like" conditions is the lack of professional deicing/antiice services to assure the aircraft is 'clean' enough to fly.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Evan (slight modifications)
                            I imagine that [an instrument takeoff would be difficult] in 'blizzard-like' conditions.
                            I am not a walking FAR encyclopedia. However, I think that most takeoffs are prohibited below 0.5 miles visibility and 200 ft ceilings (yeah, similar to the classic Cat I minimums) (Light airplane viewpoint- maybe airliners have some fancier systems allowing different minimums for takeoff). Takeoff minimums are obviously airport-dependent and vary, but I think 200 & 1/2 is common for airports without significant terrain or obstructions.

                            I would hope, that with 1/2 mile visibility, you could take off reasonably well and as you state, the weather here SEEMS to suggest at least minimally OK visibility (not discounting a random gust and blowing snow at exactly the wrong time).

                            As to Gabriel's comments that take offs into "immediate IMC" are STATISTICALLY tough- OK maybe the minimal silicon, annular fluid ring attitude indicators suck even more for takeoff, but it STILL comes back to the uber basic, diligent monitoring of attitude...and I wonder how taking off, compares with reaching down and back for a map on the back floor board (another known statistically risky activity in IMC).
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              Deicing, blah blah blah.
                              No real disagreement, and icing might be a factor here.

                              You're gonna love this, but Icing seems to be one of those very black and white things...If you need it, get it, or don't go...

                              If icing was dismissed in this case- shame on the pilots.

                              The only devil's advocate I might say for them is if it was light snow, I would think it would not stick to the wings, could be removed before departure and that a takeoff could be made with minimal accumulation that would blow off during the takeoff roll.

                              Finally- someone also pointed out that the plane apparently doesn't really seat 12....so a big load of passengers and guns and game and luggage...W & B gets suspicious (along with W & B AND icing together and so on and so forth).
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                                I am not a walking FAR encyclopedia. However, I think that most takeoffs are prohibited below 0.5 miles visibility and 200 ft ceilings (yeah, similar to the classic Cat I minimums) (Light airplane viewpoint- maybe airliners have some fancier systems allowing different minimums for takeoff).
                                Referencing 14 CFR 91.175(f)(2), standard takeoff minimums are 1SM or 5000RVR (if available) for aircraft with 2 or fewer engines unless specifically authorized or published otherwise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X