It can take several weeks for a preliminary description to be entered in the database. Budget cuts have been high.

 

The reason I asked is, there are several post Seneca cases shown. Maybe it's the "Riddle Rat" in charge.

 

Fatals usually (though not always) take a little longer.

 

The "prelim" finally appeared on the NTSB site. Seems there was still some fuel. Icing in the area though.

 

Yes, it's interesting and there seem to be both clues and questions. First of all that Seneca was not approved for FIKI conditions (it had hot props, but no boots or windshield plate). Surface OAT near accident site was 3C, so icing was possible, even likely. Even those being fuel injected turbo-charged engines, they are subject to induction icing which could have caused surging and power loss. He reported unspecified engine problems and then that the right one had quit.

If that occurred and he tried to make that airport 10 miles away, the wreckage tells a questionable story. All levers on the quadrant were forward (throttles, props, mixtures), yet the props in the wreckage indicate the left engine was producing at least some power (S-bending, chord wise scratching), while the right prop blades were bent back which indicates no power. In other words, the right engine was inop, yet it's prop wasn't feathered. That's not a good way to fly in a twin. Of course, with both engines causing problems, he may have been reluctant to feather one and lose the other.

Tough choices if so and no hard answers. If he had one with partial power (and possibly surging and stumbling due to induction icing (alternate air ?)) and the other windmilling and unfeathered, it's no wonder he went down and fairly quick.

 

This is a bunch of bull and the reason why we're in debt to the tune of $18,000,000,000,000 dollars at the same time as the federal government has taken in record ... RECORD tax revenues. Why?

Because only in America can an increase in a federal offices budget be described as "cuts have been high."