Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-03-2019, 10:04 PM   #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
EMAW's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 297
Default

Assuming 8 adults, 2 crew and 30 lbs a piece loaded in the aft, with 50 lbs of stuff in the lockers, and minimum IFR reserves with no alternate.

2300 lb burn makes min fuel roughly 2800 lbs no alternate.
With the pax load as mentioned that puts you just under 15000 and at the aft limit. Even with kids on board, if loaded wrong you could be outside the aft limit. That’s also assuming 2 crew and 8 pax. Put a 9th passenger on the lav and take away the SIC and it gets worse quick.
That burn is at 31000 ft normal cruise, assuming RVSM capable. Also across the gulf, if equipped with a raft.

Of course that’s as ours are equipped, with stock and a raft.
EMAW is offline  
Old 07-03-2019, 10:46 PM   #22  
In a land of unicorns
 
dera's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: 175 FO
Posts: 3,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMAW View Post
Assuming 8 adults, 2 crew and 30 lbs a piece loaded in the aft, with 50 lbs of stuff in the lockers, and minimum IFR reserves with no alternate.

2300 lb burn makes min fuel roughly 2800 lbs no alternate.
With the pax load as mentioned that puts you just under 15000 and at the aft limit. Even with kids on board, if loaded wrong you could be outside the aft limit. Thatís also assuming 2 crew and 8 pax. Put a 9th passenger on the lav and take away the SIC and it gets worse quick.
That burn is at 31000 ft normal cruise, assuming RVSM capable. Also across the gulf, if equipped with a raft.

Of course thatís as ours are equipped, with stock and a raft.
We are confusing nautical and statute miles. It's just under 800nm, I thought that was the unit we were using. Anyways...

The plane had 2 crew. 2 kids, and pax were not 180lbs average.
They filed it at FL310, so yes, they were RVSM.

Really - W&B was not an issue. The plane was easily capable of completing the mission, something else happened here.
dera is offline  
Old 07-04-2019, 02:21 AM   #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FNGFO's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dera View Post
We are confusing nautical and statute miles. It's just under 800nm, I thought that was the unit we were using. Anyways...

The plane had 2 crew. 2 kids, and pax were not 180lbs average.
They filed it at FL310, so yes, they were RVSM.

Really - W&B was not an issue. The plane was easily capable of completing the mission, something else happened here.
It wasnít filed direct. It sure as hell wasnt going to be cleared direct. Thereís a bit of airspace in the panhandle that everyone gets to go around. And a 350 pilot just laid out the numbers to show the plane was right up against MTOW, and could be aft loaded.

You realize thatís an issue with an engine failure right? Even is the plane is under MTOW and within the envelope? That an engine failure in that situation is now at best right up against the limits of the plane? No one said itís the only issue. It is likely a contributing issue. And it doesnít matter what the actual average weight is with two kids, because their only bringing two bags per person, particularly with kids, is being conservative in the planning. It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that they had more.

Do you have some information that shows their weight and that they only brought one backpack per person, or are you just staying out this position because the plane should normally do it?
FNGFO is offline  
Old 07-04-2019, 05:22 AM   #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BMEP100's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Boeing CA
Posts: 963
Default

I havenít flown a King Air since 1979, so my memory is foggy. However, the max gross weight people are referring to is a structural limit, not a single engine climb performance limit...isnít it?

What was the weather in Addison that day, around 90 something degrees? So density altitude would have been above 3000 feet.?

What would the single engine climb performance limit weight have been for that?
BMEP100 is offline  
Old 07-04-2019, 05:56 AM   #25  
In a land of unicorns
 
dera's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: 175 FO
Posts: 3,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FNGFO View Post
It wasnít filed direct. It sure as hell wasnt going to be cleared direct. Thereís a bit of airspace in the panhandle that everyone gets to go around. And a 350 pilot just laid out the numbers to show the plane was right up against MTOW, and could be aft loaded.

You realize thatís an issue with an engine failure right? Even is the plane is under MTOW and within the envelope? That an engine failure in that situation is now at best right up against the limits of the plane? No one said itís the only issue. It is likely a contributing issue. And it doesnít matter what the actual average weight is with two kids, because their only bringing two bags per person, particularly with kids, is being conservative in the planning. It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that they had more.

Do you have some information that shows their weight and that they only brought one backpack per person, or are you just staying out this position because the plane should normally do it?
A 350 pilot didn't show anything. He was under MTOW and for the aft loading, it included assumptions like "put the 9th passenger in the back" - the plane was flown with 2 pilots so there was no 9th passenger in the back.

When was the last time you flight planned anything in statute miles? It was not a "1000 mile trip". This trip was easily doable in that plane.

With an engine failure I'm sure W&B won't help you, but it also wasn't the reason why this accident happened.

And just FYI: I do know who the victims were, they were friends of someone I know. I live 2 miles from the country club they were members of. I think I met him once when I had dinner at a restaurant he owned. They were not big people.
dera is offline  
Old 07-04-2019, 07:06 AM   #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
F4E Mx's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 239
Default

The typical scenario is loss of an engine after Vmc but before the best single-engine rate of climb is achieved. If the crew was late getting the gear up and setting a lower than normal positive attitude to allow the aircraft to accelerate to the single-engine rate of climb airspeed it may not have climbed at all. At the end they may have tried to force it up, decayed the airspeed to Vmc, and it rolled. Not saying at all that's what happened here but it has happened in the past.
F4E Mx is offline  
Old 07-04-2019, 07:30 AM   #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,412
Default

As you get more high performance, away from pistons, you get big massive propellers that can move a lot of air and move the airplane faster. It's a double-edged sword. It means when you have an engine failure, if it doesn't feather, it affects control significantly more, as in having a great big drag source. These will slow down fast, compounded by not pushing the nose down. Keeping one of these in a climb attitude and with an unfeathered failed engine is going to likely Vmc roll it every time. It's on the before takeoff checklist to feather the engines on the ground and bring them out with the manual feather to make sure this is possible in the air and the first cockpit item besides control for an engine failure is to verify that it's feathered and manually feather if it hasn't. You can't screw around with that in these planes, they slow down quickly. It's rare for the autofeather to fail, but it has happened.
JamesNoBrakes is offline  
Old 07-04-2019, 07:48 AM   #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FNGFO's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dera View Post
A 350 pilot didn't show anything. He was under MTOW and for the aft loading, it included assumptions like "put the 9th passenger in the back" - the plane was flown with 2 pilots so there was no 9th passenger in the back.

When was the last time you flight planned anything in statute miles? It was not a "1000 mile trip". This trip was easily doable in that plane.

With an engine failure I'm sure W&B won't help you, but it also wasn't the reason why this accident happened.

And just FYI: I do know who the victims were, they were friends of someone I know. I live 2 miles from the country club they were members of. I think I met him once when I had dinner at a restaurant he owned. They were not big people.
There it is. I knew the people, therefore they couldnít have had the plane near itís structural limits.

The King Air pilot showed that the plane loaded with 8 pax, 30 lbs of baggage a piece, and 50 lbs total in the wing lockers would be at MTOW, and near the aft limit. Oh, but theyíre small people. Thatís nice. When was the last time you saw someone take a private plane and only have 30lbs of baggage per person short of a day trip? He only mentioned aft of CG with someone on the lav. Weíre talking about a hot day, MTOW, aft loaded (even if in CG) plane that had an engine failure on takeoff. Iím sorry if you donít see how W/B is likely a contributing factor in that scenario. There was no fudge factor for the crew. They basically had the worst case scenario.

Again, do you have some information about the actual load on the the plane, or is this just a block because youíre familiar with the victims? Does having dinner with them once inform you of their travel habits?

With regard to your NM question I havenít planned flights for myself in two decades. I missed that the information I looked at was in statute. That doesnít change the fact that I could look at the numbers and trip and have a good idea that the plane was at or near itís limits.
FNGFO is offline  
Old 07-04-2019, 09:14 AM   #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
EMAW's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMEP100 View Post
I havenít flown a King Air since 1979, so my memory is foggy. However, the max gross weight people are referring to is a structural limit, not a single engine climb performance limit...isnít it?

What was the weather in Addison that day, around 90 something degrees? So density altitude would have been above 3000 feet.?

What would the single engine climb performance limit weight have been for that?
Using APG numbers, structural is the limit.

With six adults an two kids in the back, (standard weights), just 240 lbs. pax baggage (standard 30 lbs a piece) min fuel with Legal IFR reserves, it does work with around 200 lbs to spare. But not a whole lot of fudge factor, and it can still be loaded wrong and aft of the limit.

Iím not saying what did happen, but even if all the iís were dotted and tís were crossed, this situation would be a lot to handle.

I figured 1000 miles, because I figured the typical route to expect. Direct is out Of the realm of possibilities due to all of the special use airspace, something is gonna be hot.
EMAW is offline  
Old 07-04-2019, 09:33 AM   #30  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 24,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F4E Mx View Post
The typical scenario is loss of an engine after Vmc but before the best single-engine rate of climb is achieved. If the crew was late getting the gear up and setting a lower than normal positive attitude to allow the aircraft to accelerate to the single-engine rate of climb airspeed it may not have climbed at all. At the end they may have tried to force it up, decayed the airspeed to Vmc, and it rolled. Not saying at all that's what happened here but it has happened in the past.
Distinct possibility.

Near MGTOW + density altitude = poor SE performance

Aft CG = reduced rudder authority.

Taken together could have been a real challenge, even with immediate and proper crew actions, and even with a feathered prop. And if the prop didn't fx under those conditions...
rickair7777 is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Amazon Expanding Shipping Capability Birdsmash Cargo 74 06-11-2019 11:51 AM
Beechcraft King Air 350 Pilots Wanted! mbruni Hiring News 8 05-30-2017 06:59 PM
Part 91 King Air 350 SIC Champeen07 Part 91 and Low Time 11 06-11-2013 03:37 PM
Beechcraft 1900 type good for a King Air 350? gearcrankr Corporate 23 02-10-2013 10:26 AM
King Air 350 in MEM wareagle07 Hiring News 3 08-10-2009 08:30 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:32 AM.