Falling out of the sky is a pretty good description of the flight plan of a skydiving flight after the last jumper has exited. It’s not uncommon for the drop plane to beat the jumpers to the ground.I will be interested in the cause of this. Caravans don't fall out of the sky without provocation.
Hey, I'm a big "chop and drop" fan, but something went wrong here. Hopefully not a control surface failure.Falling out of the sky is a pretty good description of the flight plan of a skydiving flight after the last jumper has exited. It’s not uncommon for the drop plane to beat the jumpers to the ground.
That rate alway sounds so huge, but it's not even 80 mph vertically. Still too fast if down low.7,000 fpm descent rate starting just over top of the field. Seems like the usual jump plane dive bomb routine.
Just out of speculation what would your guess be as to the cause of this incident?I bring down turbine jump planes as quick as possible. At the end of a 15-20 load day I can save an hour and a half on the tach… and at a cool grand an hour…
That being said I do LOTS of clearing. I reckon it’s COMPLETELY on me to avoid traffic.
Used about 18 gallons a load, I put 55 to 60 gallons in every third run. Like all airplanes, I pretty much run fuel academically, basically referencing the gages pretty much only as a cross check or to find a leak. Running them empty isn’t uncommon… the dangerous days were slow days when ya ran two loads… shut down, wait… stand up, sit down, fight fight fight. Easy to interrupt the flow. Insert the mixed runs, 6 chutes… two sport hop and pop at 5k, 3 tandems at 14 then the last tandem and videographer at 18k. Messes up fuel planning too.
And being in a hurry to get down, the prop provides a lot of drag. Losing your motor and subsequent auto feather REALLY presents a different sight picture, making overrunning the field way more likely than coming up short. Rarely if EVER practiced.
Probably not a glitch. With a 16,500fpm descent rate and increasing, and returns every 15-30 seconds, the aircraft probably hit the ground after the 7,100 ft. reading before another data point could be recorded.I was looking at the FlightAware site and an unusual appearance is at the very end of the flight log and it terminates at 7100 ft which may not be other than a glitch but nothing else kind of lines up terminating early and if you look and see from the timestamp of the probable drop at 12300 to the termination timestamp which was only one minute later looking at $5,000 ft which is higher than most of the other decent profiles I was looking at.
Not sure if it means anything but that was the last notation posted where any of the other dessent or load profiles show down to 300 ft or so for the termination at the drop zone
Not likely. Aside from fuel starvation/exhaustion not causing an uncontrollable dive, it would be highly improbable to occur right as the jumpers exit. I will vote for aircraft structural damage/loss of control due to an improper parachute deployment, or loss of control for another reason.My speculation is that it ran out of gas/jp. But I would hope not
Hope I can post this link it's from a news site https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/l...-york/71-5ae34cfa-0cf9-48c1-a325-357d877d3332 and if it does post scroll down and then view the video you'll see the area fairly clearly where the crash took place , the fire was not intense which in this case to me that there was not a lot of fuel involved and that does appear apparent to me. The other thing I was trying to determine was the location of that road relative to where the drop zone is and it's fairly close so my thought is the same- that ran out of fuel and you see where she was trying to make a landing which was a pretty clear shot if she could have cleared the road and probably didn't make it at that point.that's, my guess.Probably not a glitch. With a 16,500fpm descent rate and increasing, and returns every 15-30 seconds, the aircraft probably hit the ground after the 7,100 ft. reading before another data point could be recorded.
Not likely. Aside from fuel starvation/exhaustion not causing an uncontrollable dive, it would be highly improbable to occur right as the jumpers exit. I will vote for aircraft structural damage/loss of control due to an improper parachute deployment, or loss of control for another reason.
I'm guessing you are not a pilot. A plane does not go straight down at 16,000 feet per minute when it runs out of fuel. That's just not how it works.the fire was not intense which in this case to me that there was not a lot of fuel involved and that does appear apparent to me. The other thing I was trying to determine was the location of that road relative to where the drop zone is and it's fairly close so my thought is the same- that ran out of fuel and you see where she was trying to make a landing which was a pretty clear shot if she could have cleared the road and probably didn't make it at
"Probably not a glitch. With a 16,500fpm descent rate and increasing, and returns every 15-30 seconds, the aircraft probably hit the ground after the 7,100 ft. reading before another data point could be recorded."Probably not a glitch. With a 16,500fpm descent rate and increasing, and returns every 15-30 seconds, the aircraft probably hit the ground after the 7,100 ft. reading before another data point could be recorded.
Not likely. Aside from fuel starvation/exhaustion not causing an uncontrollable dive, it would be highly improbable to occur right as the jumpers exit. I will vote for aircraft structural damage/loss of control due to an improper parachute deployment, or loss of control for another reason.
I had to go back up thread a little bit and look but at nowhere that I say the plane was coming down at 16,500 ft a minute I did make reference to the last flight to where information that showed it at I think 7,100 ft or something on its last reading.I'm guessing you are not a pilot. A plane does not go straight down at 16,000 feet per minute when it runs out of fuel. That's just not how it works.
You didn't say it. I did.nowhere that I say the plane was coming down at 16,500 ft a minute
How did you arrive at that number?You didn't say it. I did.
I think we're getting pretty closeDon’t know about the Garrett powered vans, but if a pt-6, if the engine quits the prop feathers and you go FASTER. Need that prop flat to come down fast.
That being said, I’ve never lost a engine in a turboprop…
At about 2gs, idle, prop set for about 1800rpm, 160 kts, I get about 6k fpm down.
Maybe engine quit, and when the plane suddenly blasted through Vne, a sudden pitch to fix it and rip the wings off?
How did you arrive at that number?
You can go with an ignorant theory but it would still be wrong.I'm still going with ran out of juice on the descent and slow to catch the correction excessive airspeed and either over control or just flat ass failure of the air frame.
Dumb spaghetti just won't stick.You can go with an ignorant theory but it would still be wrong.
I had been using the same chart and looking at that on what I would approximate the first 15 seconds of descent looked somewhat normal
You don't point your nose at the ground when you run out of fuel. That's not how it works at all. It's like saying running a redlight will cause your car to spontaneously combust.I had been using the same chart and looking at that on what I would approximate the first 15 seconds of descent looked somewhat normal
I'm still guessing nose trimmed down loss of power from lack of fuel, standing on your nose 4 3 to 5 seconds response correction what would your airspeed be?
Slight difference- speed shows the drop the jumpers- still have fuel nose it over to go get another load or gas up first. I don't know the tanks on it but how low and what pitch angle causes loss.You don't point your nose at the ground when you run out of fuel. That's not how it works at all. It's like saying running a redlight will cause your car to spontaneously combust.
In English?Slight difference- speed shows the drop the jumpers- still have fuel nose it over to go get another load or gas up first. I don't know the tanks on it but how low and what pitch angle causes loss.
See if you can open this link.woudnt work check the screeshotYou don't point your nose at the ground when you run out of fuel. That's not how it works at all. It's like saying running a redlight will cause your car to spontaneously combust.
English versionIn English?
In a steep descent, especially in a turbine aircraft, the power is already idle. When the engine quits, nothing happens.English version
You drop your jumpers and configure for your descent and start down.You run out of juice and slight Oh Frack
Over speed-heavy hand and suffer whatever
It might help if you quit trying to throw your spaghetti at the greased stainless steel backsplash. I don't know enough about this accident to say the plane did not run out of fuel, but even if it did, that would not have caused the plane to behave as it did. It was most likely some sort of structural failure, whether pilot induced or wear induced. It is actually much, much easier and more likely for an overspeed event to happen while the engine is capable of - and currently is - producing full power. As far as the pictures go, I don't see an "obvious grass fire", as the plane looks like it was mostly burning in the cabin and inboard wing area, which would correspond with leaking wing tanks and fuel from said tanks being the main fuel of a fire, not an outside influence such as grass.. The sheriff also said that they had received multiple reports of an explosion in the area at the time the plane went down. Last time I checked, grass fires don't create explosions but planes crashing with even what may be only ten gallons of fuel left generally do create some sort of fireball.I'm open to anything that helps the spaghetti stick.
Increased drag makes you go faster? I always thought drag was used to slow down.Well, I think the prop will FULL feather in the event the engine quits. With the nose down ya got at that point, you’re gonna pick up speed awful quick…