Airplane down at Addison (KADS)

sel2006

sel2006

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
12
Location
Dallas, TX
Display Name
Display name:
sel2006
A large twin, I think a King Air, went down this morning at Addison. 10 souls, no survivors.

A friend saw it happen on take-off and it appears that on departure it might have lost the left engine. Just after rotation, it banked steeply left and then impacted a large hanger at a downward angle.

The hanger didn't have anyone inside at the time. At least as they are reporting now.

Prayers for all concerned.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5581.jpg
    IMG_5581.jpg
    221.6 KB · Views: 398
  • IMG_5584.jpg
    IMG_5584.jpg
    217.8 KB · Views: 367
  • IMG_5585.jpg
    IMG_5585.jpg
    173.9 KB · Views: 372
Zeldman said:
No auto feather.??
Click to expand...

That doesn't eliminate a massive amount of yaw from the right engine if the left one grenaded, unless the autofeather also pulls power to the other engine.
 
I'm guessing the aircraft was being operated by Wheels Up or a similar on demand operation. It seems unlikely 10 people would be going to Florida in a 350 on a Sunday morning unless it was that reason.

A terrible tragedy. There's much grief and sorrow to be assuaged.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Kinda doesn't look like that.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/General...n-plane-crash-Addison-Texas/5-2234177/?page=2
Click to expand...

Are you referring to this post?

"Someone that flies out of there said everyone on board were employees. Not sure what company though."

Rather vague.

FlightAware history shows multiple flights last week between Addison, Eagle County, Denver, and Aspen, making my supposition more likely, but certainly not definitive.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N534FF/history/20180116/2133Z/KDPA/KDPA
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
That doesn't eliminate a massive amount of yaw from the right engine if the left one grenaded, unless the autofeather also pulls power to the other engine.
Click to expand...

It has rudder boost, too.
 
This is not the first 200/300/350 LOC incident after liftoff. The most recent that comes to mind is the 300 in Tuscon in 2017.

3393RP said:
I'm guessing the aircraft was being operated by Wheels Up or a similar on demand operation. It seems unlikely 10 people would be going to Florida in a 350 on a Sunday morning unless it was that reason.
Click to expand...

It was not a wheels up aircraft, and not sure what the point is that you are trying to make.
 
Zeldman said:
No auto feather.??
Click to expand...

Z: You know better than probably anyone else that OEI emergencies demand critical decision-making and flying skill from the pilot; auto-feather, rudder-boost, etc. may slightly decrease the workload, but they aren't going to extract the aircraft from the emergency by themselves. This airplane sounds heavily loaded ( 10 pax ), and I'll speculate that the takeoff was not methodically briefed or executed. Flame away, but it strikes me as a careless and reckless loss of life. Blessings
 
Let me start off by saying, I have very, very little twin time. I'm not twin rated and don't claim to know anything about them. When the C-47 Bluebonnet Belle crashed, a guy named Dan Gryder gave an great explanation of what happened. He wrote the following about the Hawaii accident a few weeks ago. I like what he has to say. He seems to be a very well informed pilot/instructor.

Dan Gryder - HAWAII PLANE CRASH. The dramatic effect of losing an engine after takeoff causes a tremendous amount of drag of the side of the failure. Engines are mounted outboard on each wing so when one quits it causes a large differential between existing thrust on one side and drag on the other.

The Hawaii crash lost the left engine and it pulled it hard left and inverted, coming to rest 355 feet north of the centerline of runway 08.

The following eyewitness quote is from someone that was there and watched it happen. In the comments section I’ll include a link to another fatal crash that was caught on video / not the exact same plane but same left engine failure and same flight path.

The problem is that in the parachute industry, pilots are the lowest paid, most worked, and few operations will ever spend a dime on pilot training.

This accident will cost the business owners millions, the US government will spend $.5M investigating and in the end nothing will change. $4000 worth of pilot training, review and practice would have PREVENTED this in the first place. It’s the same $4G no one wants to spend up front.

This was a totally survivable mechanical failure. The real tragedy is that no change in required LOTOT training will come out of it.

The government will likely eventually figure out what gizmo failed. And they will be satisfied with that, maybe issue an order to inspect all gizmos. I don’t really care what gizmo failed. I want your driver to be expecting a gizmo failure, ready for it, and be able to absolutely handle it when it happens.

“Steven Tickemyer said he saw the plane take flight, get 75 to 100 feet (22 to 30 meters) off the ground and turn away from the mountain range nearby.
He said the plane then started to nosedive and flip over belly forward so that it was upside down. The aircraft then flipped over again and hit the ground nose first. There was an explosion when it hit the ground.”
 
Bobanna said:
Z: You know better than probably anyone else that OEI emergencies demand critical decision-making and flying skill from the pilot; auto-feather, rudder-boost, etc. may slightly decrease the workload, but they aren't going to extract the aircraft from the emergency by themselves. This airplane sounds heavily loaded ( 10 pax ), and I'll speculate that the takeoff was not methodically briefed or executed. Flame away, but it strikes me as a careless and reckless loss of life. Blessings
Click to expand...

How does the plane being fully loaded mean that the departure wasn’t properly briefed?
 
Bobanna said:
Z: You know better than probably anyone else that OEI emergencies demand critical decision-making and flying skill from the pilot; auto-feather, rudder-boost, etc. may slightly decrease the workload, but they aren't going to extract the aircraft from the emergency by themselves. This airplane sounds heavily loaded ( 10 pax ), and I'll speculate that the takeoff was not methodically briefed or executed. Flame away, but it strikes me as a careless and reckless loss of life. Blessings
Click to expand...

I'm amazed you are alive since it sounds like you were in the cockpit of the accident aircraft. Blessings.
 
They don't do anything small in Texas.

Sorry for the gallows humor. I hope this wasn't an Vmc rollover due to a failed engine. Guys flying twins are supposed to be trained for that kind of thing. Someone flying ten people should really be very well trained indeed.
 
steingar said:
They don't do anything small in Texas.

Sorry for the gallows humor. I hope this wasn't an Vmc rollover due to a failed engine. Guys flying twins are supposed to be trained for that kind of thing. Someone flying ten people should really be very well trained indeed.
Click to expand...
From what we heard from witnesses, that's exactly what it was. There was a lot of activity on the North Texas FB page, including witnesses, before a moderator removed it.
 
Lowflynjack said:
From what we heard from witnesses, that's exactly what it was. There was a lot of activity on the North Texas FB page, including witnesses, before a moderator removed it.
Click to expand...
What the guy you quoted said. A few thousand bucks in training. Makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
 
steingar said:
What the guy you quoted said. A few thousand bucks in training. Makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
Click to expand...

Flying that (the Addison) plane, he had the training. Whether it was implemented or not, however...
 
ateamer said:
How does the plane being fully loaded mean that the departure wasn’t properly briefed?
Click to expand...
The plane being fully loaded doesn't mean it wasn't properly briefed. But the pilot's actions on take off may have been the result of poor planning. It's too early to tell whether the pilot made mistakes and thereby caused or contributed to the cause of this accident. But it is conceivable that the pilot did make mistakes as the result of poor planning. A couple of things-- it is possible that he didn't brief his stop/start distance requirement to know how far down the runway he could go and still abort safely if Vr wasn't achieved by that point. It be that he didn't know how little margin of safety he had from where he started his take-off roll so that he would have known to start his take off further back. Another possible factor is a rolling take off. I know some folks disagree with how much this makes a difference on this forum. I am no expert. But I did retain one-- an Air Force Lt. Col. who instructs at the academy, and was a test pilot himself with time in King Airs-- who advised me in another King Air engine failure on take off that the book numbers assume a standing start and that a rolling start actually increases the take off roll. Any combination of these factors could lead an ill prepared pilot to make a bad decision whether to abort or continue the take off roll.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Flying that (the Addison) plane, he had the training. Whether it was implemented or not, however...
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken, a 350 requires a type rating. So, yes the pilot very well should have had the training.
 
In all honesty a simulator is about the only place you will get training on loosing an engine during takeoff. I'm sure there are exceptions but most places aren't going to do a simulated engine failure 200ft off the ground with a fully loaded plane for training purposes. During this phase of flight you have your hands full getting the plane cleaned up and talking on the radio and all the skydivers cheering in the back to get the students hyped up. It would be very easy to have a failed engine go un-noticed long enough to cause a bad problem.
 
PPC1052 said:
...it is possible that he didn't brief his stop/start distance requirement to know how far down the runway he could go and still abort safely if Vr wasn't achieved by that point.
Click to expand...
I don't see that as a practical SOP. Maybe times have changed, but in my 25 years of flying type rated airplanes it was never a consideration. It would require distance markers on runways, for one thing. I've never seen an AFM that includes the distance you allude to, for another. I would never accuse a pilot of negligence for not being able to identify the spot you describe.
 
Bobanna said:
I'll speculate that the takeoff was not methodically briefed or executed.
Click to expand...
I love how you’re able to come up with such an idea without any factual evidence for.

Great job!
 
dtuuri said:
I don't see that as a practical SOP. Maybe times have changed, but in my 25 years of flying type rated airplanes it was never a consideration. It would require distance markers on runways, for one thing. I've never seen an AFM that includes the distance you allude to, for another. I would never accuse a pilot of negligence for not being able to identify the spot you describe.
Click to expand...

I don't fly these and I don't pretend to be an expert. Would you just get in and go when you have 10 passengers in a King Air, or would you do any kind of calculations before going?
 
PPC1052 said:
I don't fly these and I don't pretend to be an expert. Would you just get in and go when you have 10 passengers in a King Air, or would you do any kind of calculations before going?
Click to expand...
Certainly there are calculations, per say, but might be in the form of a checklist table indicating V1, Vr, V2, takeoff distance (balanced field) for ambient temperature, weight and pressure altitude. If it fits, you're good to go. The fuel load could easily have been predicated on the passenger manifest expected and runway length, climb gradient, etc..

EDIT: Wasn't there a similar crash a year or two ago out west? Albuquerque? Tuscon.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
takeoff distance (balanced field) for ambient temperature, weight and pressure altitude.
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking about. I may not have said it correctly because I am not an expert on the subject.
 
One of the reports said there were "two pilots". That introduces more variables. I'm thinking back to the Taiwan ATR accident.
 
PPC1052 said:
This is what I was thinking about. I may not have said it correctly because I am not an expert on the subject.
Click to expand...
This is an image from Bold Method showing how balanced field is computed. V1 (~engine fail speed) is chosen to render the shortest takeoff distance by the manufacturer. Vr could occur anywhere between the intersection of the two distances (second column from the right) and the top of the dark blue vertical bar below. No idea what distance from start that would be. The best that could be done is use V1 (decision speed) and refer to the accelerate stop chart, but nobody did that when I flew because there weren't runway distance markers anyway, except at joint civil/military airports.

upload_2019-7-1_10-53-49.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The FMS will give them their V speeds and required runway lengths, and post that to the MFD.
 
Bobanna said:
I feel the love. My opinion was offered as "speculation" as a caveat (which we do with abandon on POA). I don't claim to have any advanced knowledge of the specifics, but how can you offer anything besides a botched accelerate-go (for whatever reason). It seems textbook to me. What do you know that I don't?
The factual evidence is a heavily-loaded plane losing directional control and rolling over into a hangar way off the runway centerline. Alternative hypotheses are invited and appreciated.
Click to expand...

At what point did they decide to go, and had the engine failed at that point? If you are in a transport category aircraft, and you have an engine fail beyond V1, what is the correct course of action? And how do you know they did not brief this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top