Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BE-350 crashes immediately after takeoff from Addison, TX. No survivors.

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

  • BE-350 crashes immediately after takeoff from Addison, TX. No survivors.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/small-plan...ry?id=64053080

    Two flight crew and eight passengers on board. Very sad news.

  • #2
    https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/re...7-3718ae31b678

    Crash happened immediately after take-off

    12 seconds before impact the CVR captured confusion.
    8 seconds before impact the CVR captured comments about problems with the left engine.
    There were 3 aural bank angle warnings before impact.
    The there were 10 persons on board, the plane had capacity for 11, and was topped off with fuel.

    There were no survivors.

    --- 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


    • #3
      I posted this speculative analysis in another forum:

      This is painting a picture that a left engine failure is likely a key link in the chain of events. The question then would be why they couldn't maintain control. If the engine failure happened immediately after rotation, they may have been below Vmc, which would then have required reducing thrust in the good engine to remain in control. Overweight may be a factor too, although overweight doesn't affect Vmc (it does affect Vs though, as well as the ability of the plane to climb on a single engine, which, if they were below Vmc is not so important since they were not going to climb anyway no matter what).

      --- 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


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        I posted this speculative analysis in another forum:

        [FONT="]Vmc is not so important since they were not going to climb anyway no matter what).[/FONT]
        Alrighty then. Mr. Engineer, better check that again.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
          Alrighty then. Mr. Engineer, better check that again.
          This one really has him going for some reason...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            Alrighty then. Mr. Engineer, better check that again.
            Please read the full sentence again. I am talking about the importance of an hypothetical overweight. I am saying that overweight affects the ability of the plane to climb especially on one engine, but if they were below Vmc they were not going to climb anyway.

            If the engine failed immediately after rotation and if they were below below Vmc, the only survivable action would have been reducing power on the good engine.
            With 9% of the seats filled and 100% of the full capacity filled, they were very close to if not above MTOW. And they were with the gear down.

            How do you suppose that the plane could possible climb in these conditions after losing one engine and reducing power in the other one? Because if they didn't reduce the power in the good engine, they were not going to climb either under the hypothesis that they were below Vmc, because losing control and going inverted is not conductive to climbing.

            So yes, checked and maintained:

            Overweight may be a factor too, although overweight doesn't affect Vmc (it does affect the ability of the plane to climb on a single engine, which, if they were below Vmc, it is not so important since they were not going to climb anyway no matter what).

            With what part of that you disagree and why?

            --- 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


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              Overweight may be a factor too, although overweight doesn't affect Vmc (it does affect the ability of the plane to climb on a single engine, which, if they were below Vmc, it is not so important since they were not going to climb anyway no matter what).
              Overweight does affect take-off distance and lift-off speed, doesn't it? I don't understand how an overweight (or not overweight for that matter) King Air with a vmca around 95 kts is going to get airborne below vmca. A King Air with full fuel and just the pilots is going to rotate above 100kts. Can you explain that?

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't have the King Air 350 performance numbers. Do you have a link to them?

                Anyway, yes, weight will affect take of speed and take off distance. Information I found in not necessarily reliable sources mention rotation speeds of 100 to 110 knots, which is consistent to what you said.

                So, what happened? Did they rotate too slow? Were they above Vmc and still unable to control the plane due to incorrect technique? Was there any other malfunction? I don't know.

                --- 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


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  So, what happened? Did they rotate too slow? Were they above Vmc and still unable to control the plane due to incorrect technique? Was there any other malfunction? I don't know.
                  Perhaps we should wait for the final report.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    I don't have the King Air 350 performance numbers. Do you have a link to them?

                    Anyway, yes, weight will affect take of speed and take off distance. Information I found in not necessarily reliable sources mention rotation speeds of 100 to 110 knots, which is consistent to what you said.

                    So, what happened? Did they rotate too slow? Were they above Vmc and still unable to control the plane due to incorrect technique? Was there any other malfunction? I don't know.
                    From the horse's mouth, vmca flaps up is 94kts and approach config is 93kts - Beechcraft pdf file:

                    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...EBIaL7qQACjF25

                    Flying magazine article mentioned a rotation speed of 104kts with only two aboard and full fuel.

                    However, the pdf above lists MTOW of 16,500 lbs. Empty operating weight (with one 200lb pilot aboard) is 10,197lbs and fuel capacity is 5192lbs, so even with two 150lb pilots the ramp weight is 15,489lbs, If my math is correct, that means the other 8 passengers need to weigh an average of 139lbs and have no luggage to be within MTOW for a fully-fueled BE-350 (assuming 100lbs of taxi fuel) . Something tells me that, if the plane was indeed fully fueled, they were overweight. So could this simply be an assymetrical stall?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      From the horse's mouth, vmca flaps up is 94kts and approach config is 93kts - Beechcraft pdf file:

                      https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...EBIaL7qQACjF25

                      Flying magazine article mentioned a rotation speed of 104kts with only two aboard and full fuel.

                      However, the pdf above lists MTOW of 16,500 lbs. Empty operating weight (with one 200lb pilot aboard) is 10,197lbs and fuel capacity is 5192lbs, so even with two 150lb pilots the ramp weight is 15,489lbs, If my math is correct, that means the other 8 passengers need to weigh an average of 139lbs and have no luggage to be within MTOW for a fully-fueled BE-350 (assuming 100lbs of taxi fuel) . Something tells me that, if the plane was indeed fully fueled, they were overweight. So could this simply be an assymetrical stall?
                      When the question is "could be" the answer is almost always "yes, it could".

                      Now, I don't thin so.
                      Instrad of the special missions ER version you linked (which has a capacity of up to 15), this other document for the "normal" version (from the horse's mouth too) lists the MTOW as 15000 lb and a full-fuel useful load of 1534 kg, which would give you an average of 153 lb per pax (including their clothes, purses, backpacks and luggage). So I agree that it may have been overweight, but by how much?

                      Even if you take an extra 100 lb per pax, that would give you 1000 lb overweight so the take-off weight would be 16000 lb instead of the 15000 lb MTOW. How much does the 1G stall speed change?
                      SQRT(16000/15000)= 1.033, so 3.3% faster.

                      This document lists the stall speed in landing config as 82 kts. I don't know how much would it be in take-off config (in fact, I don't even k now what take-off config thye used, since it seems that both approach flaps and no flaps are possible) but if it was say 90 kts at MTOW, the new overweight stall speed would be like 93 kts.

                      If, as you speculate, they rotated at more than 100 kts, then stall should not have been a factor initially. And if the engine failed, since Vmc is higher then Vs, stall should not be a factor either since they would lose control before reaching Vs (unless they reduced power in the good engine)

                      (and yes, stall is 100% a matter of AoA and not directly of speed, so if they pulled up hard more than 1G they could have stalled at any speed).

                      https://beechcraft.txtav.com/en/king-air-350i

                      --- 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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                        Perhaps we should wait for the final report.
                        I would speculate that it involves one or more of the causes usually involved in engine-failure-control loss crashes, with the final report possibly detailing what was and wasn't done and additional details. Weight may be a contributing factor. Until the report, that's about it.

                        It was most heroic for the pilot to steer the plane away from the many populated areas in North Dallas.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          Instrad of the special missions ER version you linked (which has a capacity of up to 15), this other document for the "normal" version (from the horse's mouth too) lists the MTOW as 15000 lb and a full-fuel useful load of 1534 kg, which would give you an average of 153 lb per pax (including their clothes,
                          Ah yeah, for some reason I had it in my head that this was an -ER.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            Ah yeah, for some reason I had it in my head that this was an -ER.
                            I didn't check which version it was. Your document listed that special mission ER as having 15 seats, though, which makes me suspect it was not an ER since the accident plane reportedly had 11 seats.

                            --- 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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              I didn't check which version it was. Your document listed that special mission ER as having 15 seats, though, which makes me suspect it was not an ER since the accident plane reportedly had 11 seats.
                              It obviously wasn't an -ER but it could very well have been overweight. Vmca doesn't explain it. Stall due to being overweight doesn't fit. I guess that leaves pilot error, mechanical issue with a control surface or, um... meteor strike.

                              Interesting revelation about the -ER though. It seats 15 but it can't take a full fuel load with more than about 6 passengers at today's average pax weight, so it's really only HALF-ER.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X