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

[ErezS]

A small plane flying in blizzard-like conditions crashed shortly after takeoff on Saturday in South Dakota, killing nine people, including two children, the authorities said.

Three people survived the crash, which happened just before noon local time outside Chamberlain, S.D., according to information from local officials and the Federal Aviation Administration.

The condition of the survivors, who officials said were transported to hospitals in Sioux Falls, S.D., about two hours east, was not immediately available.
The Pilatus PC-12, a single-engine turboprop, had been traveling from Chamberlain to Idaho Falls Regional Airport when the crash occurred, an F.A.A. spokeswoman said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/us/south-dakota-plane-crash.html

[3WE]

Ban all non commercial aviation in IMC.

[Gabriel]

Not necessarily non-commercial. Boutique Air operates a fleet of PC-12 for regular scheduled flights.



EDIT: Just found that this PC-12 was no one of Boutique's. So go ahead ban all non commercial aviation in IMC.
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/1...-accident.html
https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinq...umbertxt=N56KJ

[3WE]

EDIT: ...go ahead ban all non commercial aviation in IMC.

The pilot probably had the training and cared about safety (they always do), but it seems that ATL Crew and VNav and Bobby probably benefitted from having more training and more experience and less distractions and more crew help, and the biggie- practicing it all “every day” with a sole focus.

Just making a general, total assumptive statement based on how things often seem to go.

On the other hand, we also see those reckless cowboys (and not talking by Evan's definitions) who seem to make this eye-rolling predicable.

[Evan]

The pilot probably had the training and cared about safety (they always do), but it seems that ATL Crew and VNav and Bobby probably benefitted from having more training and more experience and less distractions and more crew help, and the biggie- practicing it all “every day” with a sole focus.

Just making a general, total assumptive statement based on how things often seem to go.

On the other hand, we also see those reckless cowboys (and not talking by Evan's definitions) who seem to make this eye-rolling predicable.

Really? What's so predictible about taking off into a blizzard and dying in a blizzard? I think we should wait for the report.

[BoeingBobby]

Ban all non commercial aviation in IMC.

A joke right?

[3WE]

A joke right?

Yes, and no.

Obviously, it's a gross over statement.

Conversely, it's sad when a plane load of family and friends go down. Moreso with a great big turboprop single with a dozen of them.

When I was younger, I envisioned using a light plane to travel around. Private Pilot & Instrument and you can go anywhere, right? I read about Richard Collins challenging weather in his P-210.

BUT (that's a big but)…

Sometimes, Richard parked it and got on a 7X7.

You guys (and Cape Airways for that matter), do amazing things and keep folks moving through lots and lots of weather with very very good safety stats.

Conversely, we (no italics this time) seem to regularly crash airplanes even in cases of capable aircraft and rated, technically current pilots.

The value of you guys, your recurrent training, the fact that you do it "daily" with a sole focus, AND with the usual benefit of two crew members and good CRM makes me see a HUGE difference in the safety of flying.

ANOTHER WAY to look at it- Stats suggest that putting around in your Cub on beautiful sunny days is rather safe. But BUSINESS TRAVELING from point A to B in a light plane is more dangerous...Could it be that the ratings EXPOSE you to more risk- EVEN IF you are TRULY competent. And sorry, the P210 (or Bonanza or Cirrus or Pilatus) doesn't have the redundancy or reliability of an ERJ, Airbus, or 737-MinLav.

If we really want to eliminate these sad crashes, arguably one might say "ban all airplanes" (or non-commercial IMC flight, to allow you to fly your Cub)

Maybe it's also an admission that stuff happens. That's the non-joke side of it.

[BoeingBobby]

Yes, and no.

Obviously, it's a gross over statement.

Conversely, it's sad when a plane load of family and friends go down. Moreso with a great big turboprop single with a dozen of them.

When I was younger, I envisioned using a light plane to travel around. Private Pilot & Instrument and you can go anywhere, right? I read about Richard Collins challenging weather in his P-210.

BUT (that's a big but)…

Sometimes, Richard parked it and got on a 7X7.

You guys (and Cape Airways for that matter), do amazing things and keep folks moving through lots and lots of weather with very very good safety stats.

Conversely, we (no italics this time) seem to regularly crash airplanes even in cases of capable aircraft and rated, technically current pilots.

The value of you guys, your recurrent training, the fact that you do it "daily" with a sole focus, AND with the usual benefit of two crew members and good CRM makes me see a HUGE difference in the safety of flying.

ANOTHER WAY to look at it- Stats suggest that putting around in your Cub on beautiful sunny days is rather safe. But BUSINESS TRAVELING from point A to B in a light plane is more dangerous...Could it be that the ratings EXPOSE you to more risk- EVEN IF you are TRULY competent. And sorry, the P210 (or Bonanza or Cirrus or Pilatus) doesn't have the redundancy or reliability of an ERJ, Airbus, or 737-MinLav.

If we really want to eliminate these sad crashes, arguably one might say "ban all airplanes" (or non-commercial IMC flight, to allow you to fly your Cub)

Maybe it's also an admission that stuff happens. That's the non-joke side of it.

That is the difference between between being legal to fly IFR, and being proficient. You will find, if you research it, that insurance companies require yearly FlightSafety/Simuflight type classes for all turbine aircraft. Just because you have that instrument rating in your pocket, an ITO, instrument take off, is something that should be trained for. I flew single pilot IFR both corporate and Part 135 for years before I went to the airlines. I went to FlightSafety every year and got an ICC each time.

[kent olsen]

And maybe de-ice the airplane??

[3WE]

That is the difference between between being legal to fly IFR, and being proficient.

Please bear with me as I "argue" with you- and it's not an argument as much as digging deeper.

1. Absolutely legal and proficient are different things and this comment is said over and over.
2. I'm just taking in one step further.

It's MORE than a recurrent annual deal for turbine singles as required by insurance. I bet a beer the pilot in this crash had exactly that, AND that it was a good thing AND that it made him a good pilot.

BUT

As I get older and read about MORE of these, I feel that it means a LOT that you are doing it "every day" and that it is your sole focus. That the "daily practice and sole focus" puts you in much better shape and SA to deal with stuff. I suspect that had you or ATL or VNav been the pilot, they probably would not have crashed. Maybe it would be your sage ability to NOT take off, or to DeIce one more time, OR MAYBE your ability to do CRM (even if the crew is 1), or knowledge of systems, or knowledge of buttocks and HSI's to keep it together.

ATL crew (I think) once pointed out the commendable safety record of Cape Airways who run passenger service in Cessna 402s. No pressurization, DEMANDING piston engines (cowl flaps, mixture, props and some need for babying), I THINK there's no autopilot, and I THINK often it's single pilot operation.

Single pilot vs. two...yes, single pilot can be done and is done in many many instances with excellent safety...then again, the very simple act of sharing duties such as flying vs. all the "other crap", and someone doing + someone WATCHING AND DOUBLE CHECKING....sure makes life easier and USUALLY reduces mistakes.

Anyway- I think amateur-flown planes crash more than commercial ones- ESPECIALLY in IMC, thus the statement: "Ban all non-commercial IMC".

I don't GENUINELY mean it, but hopefully you get it. PS, there's also a jab at Evan and even me for that matter- lots of free advice for "you" from we outsiders- but instead of proposing more regs and procedures and computer monitoring stuff, and programs to stop Airbus pilots from 37,000 ft stalls and the conundrum of making and overweight landing...maybe just ban all airplanes.

[BoeingBobby]

And maybe de-ice the airplane??

Do you have information as to the aricraft not being de-iced?

[BoeingBobby]

Please bear with me as I "argue" with you- and it's not an argument as much as clarification/dig deeper.

1. Absolutely legal and proficient are different things and this comment is said over and over.
2. I'm just taking in one step further.

It's MORE than a recurrent annual deal for turbine singles as required by insurance. I bet a beer the pilot in this crash had exactly that, AND that it was a good thing AND that it made him a good pilot.

BUT

As I get older and read about MORE of these, I feel that it means a LOT that you are doing it "every day" and that it is your sole focus. That the "daily practice and sole focus" puts you in much better shape and SA to deal with stuff. I suspect that had you or ATL or VNav been the pilot, they probably would not have crashed. Maybe it would be your sage ability to NOT take off, or to DeIce one more time, OR MAYBE your ability to do CRM (even if the crew is 1), or knowledge of systems, or knowledge of buttocks and HSI's to keep it together.

ATL crew (I think) once pointed out the commendable safety record of Cape Airways who run passenger service in Cessna 402s. No pressurization, DEMANDING piston engines (cowl flaps, mixture, props and some need for babying), I THINK there's no autopilot, and I THINK often it's single pilot operation.

Single pilot vs. two...yes, single pilot can be done and is done in many many instances with excellent safety...then again, the very simple act of sharing duties such as flying vs. all the "other crap", and someone doing + someone WATCHING AND DOUBLE CHECKING....sure makes life easier and USUALLY reduces mistakes.

Anyway- I think amateur-flown planes crash more than commercial ones- ESPECIALLY in IMC, thus the statement: "Ban all non-commercial IMC".

I don't GENUINELY mean it, but hopefully you get it. PS, there's also a jab at Evan and even me for that matter- lots of free advice for "you" from we outsiders- but instead of proposing more regs and procedures and computer monitoring stuff, and programs to stop Airbus pilots from 37,000 ft stalls and the conundrum of making and overweight landing...maybe just ban all airplanes.

May have been a professional pilot. Again there is a tremendous difference between being legal and proficient. 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.

[Evan]

I wonder what they mean by 'blizzard-like conditions' because I see nothing that looks 'blizzard-like' here:

https://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/K9V9.html

[3WE]

I wonder what they mean by 'blizzard-like conditions' because I see nothing that looks 'blizzard-like' here:

I don't think we need to over-analyze it. It WAS snowing and there were 20+ MPH wind gusts within 24 hours and it was likely a light, fluffy snow that could blow...That is more than enough to constitute blizzard-like conditions to the media.

ALSO, the visibility and ceiling were most definitely limited to "real" IMC based on your NWS data link.

[LH-B744]

Ban all non commercial aviation in IMC.

That's exactly what I sometimes think about my home airport, Lohausen International (DUS). But we still are open for all propellers, down to a quite ridiculous size for an Intercontinental airport. Cessna 172P? Yes, why not, if you pay the landing fee at DUS.

Somehow I'm also proud that we here are open for almost all engines, single prop without turbo (Antonov AN2P, e.g.), single prop with turbo, all twin turboprops, all jets (two engines, B773ER e.g.), and even all jets (four engines). Antonov 124, Boeing 747 and even the rather fat swan A380, here we bring you into the air again.

The only exception might be, balloons. Once, the EDDL CT had such a request. Which we had to deny, afaik. No gliders and no balloons. You don't want a 773ER in your neck if you sit in a glider don't you. But almost every engine which is bigger than a Rasenmäher is able to get clearance to land here at DUS.

Imho, the guys at the EDDL CT take it as a sport. #1 a Cessna 152 (not more than 100 hp!), #2 an Antonov 124, #3 a Piper Cherokee (160 hp)
and #4 Dubai with their rather fat swan, 4 jet engines, 72 meters long and 80 meters wide.

Good that we own two runways. Sittn at the EDDL CT? Must be a sport. And they manage it, 7 days a week. They are really good at it. I love it.

PS: How could I forget two species. Helicopters are also allowed here at DUS, all sizes afaik.
Zeppelins? I have never seen a Zeppelin landing at Lohausen during the last 30 years. Theoretically it is possible, but I know airfields near DUS which are specialized for Zeppelins.
Ask me, or the EDDL CT, imho they also know the best Zeppelin airfield near DUS..