Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Safety
King Air 350 down in Addison, TX >

King Air 350 down in Addison, TX

Notices
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc

King Air 350 down in Addison, TX

Old 07-03-2019, 09:04 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 459
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, 09:46 PM
  #22  
In a land of unicorns
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,406
Default

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. 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.
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, 01:21 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,787
Default

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 wasn’t filed direct. It sure as hell wasnt going to be cleared direct. There’s 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 that’s 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 it’s the only issue. It is likely a contributing issue. And it doesn’t 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, 04:22 AM
  #24  
Banned
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
Default

I haven’t 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...isn’t 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, 04:56 AM
  #25  
In a land of unicorns
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,406
Default

Originally Posted by FNGFO View Post
It wasn’t filed direct. It sure as hell wasnt going to be cleared direct. There’s 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 that’s 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 it’s the only issue. It is likely a contributing issue. And it doesn’t 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, 06:06 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 281
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, 06:30 AM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,977
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, 06:48 AM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,787
Default

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 couldn’t have had the plane near it’s 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 they’re small people. That’s 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. We’re talking about a hot day, MTOW, aft loaded (even if in CG) plane that had an engine failure on takeoff. I’m sorry if you don’t 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 you’re familiar with the victims? Does having dinner with them once inform you of their travel habits?

With regard to your NM question I haven’t planned flights for myself in two decades. I missed that the information I looked at was in statute. That doesn’t change the fact that I could look at the numbers and trip and have a good idea that the plane was at or near it’s limits.
FNGFO is offline  
Old 07-04-2019, 08:14 AM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 459
Default

Originally Posted by BMEP100 View Post
I haven’t 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...isn’t 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.

I’m not saying what did happen, but even if all the i’s were dotted and t’s 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, 08:33 AM
  #30  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

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  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Birdsmash
Cargo
74
06-11-2019 10:51 AM
mbruni
Hiring News
8
05-30-2017 05:59 PM
Champeen07
Part 91 and Low Time
11
06-11-2013 02:37 PM
gearcrankr
Corporate
23
02-10-2013 09:26 AM
wareagle07
Hiring News
3
08-10-2009 07:30 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices