KA ditches

Let'sgoflying!

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,872
Location
west Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Taylor
posted? Couldn't find.
Await your insightful comments on the fuel leak theory.
 

Attachments

  • ka.jpg
    ka.jpg
    69.1 KB · Views: 121
Don't buy it, not at all. Brand-new plane, pilots possibly unfamiliar, possible fuel mismanagement?
 
LearDriver said:
Did he close the door after getting out?
Click to expand...
No, they egressed through the hatch over the right wing.
1....images.stories.news.2012.april.03.avion.Image_2.jpg
 
LearDriver said:
Insurance job?
Click to expand...
Brand new airplane on a delivery flight.

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=144773

A Beechcraft C90GTx King Air, (brand new aircraft, FAA Certificate Issue Date 02 April 2012 !!) enroute from Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport - KFXE, Florida, USA to Hato-Curacao International Airport - TNCC, Willemstad, Curacao, reported an emergency due to fuel starvation and tried to reach Queen Beatrix International Airport - TNCA, Oranjestad, Aruba, but didn't made it and ditched into Caribbean Sea, about 20 miles northeast of Oranjestad, Aruba. The damage was relative minor, but the aircraft later sank to the bottom of the sea.

Both occupants were rescued and hoisted by Westland SH-14D Lynx 261 of the Dutch Defense Helicopter Command's 860 Sqn. and taken to its stationship "Hr. Ms. Amsterdam" for a medical checkup.

Note:
A brand new aircraft, FAA Certificate Issue Date 02 april 2012 (!), on a delivery flight to Brazil and registration PR-MGP was reserved for it.
Click to expand...
 
Those are a couple ferry pilots looking for a new job.
 
Man....would that be depressing or what? That has got to be one of those deals when the joy of surviving is quickly overshadowed by the reality of what is ahead because you survived. No plane...No job......Crap.

-John
 
Just curious... is it possible to not secure the fuel filler cap/door on those? That'd suck the fuel from the tank(s) pretty quickly, I would think.
 
Possible to misalign the caps causing siphon action. Should be visible to crew. How long airborne prior to exhaustion?

I always planned a fuel stop in PR when southbound from FL.

DaleB said:
Just curious... is it possible to not secure the fuel filler cap/door on those? That'd suck the fuel from the tank(s) pretty quickly, I would think.
Click to expand...
 
If the fuel is carried in the wings (pretty sure that's true) and unless there's an automatic crossfeed, a leak or loose cap shouldn't empty the tanks on both sides.
 
There is speculation as always. If they didn't turn on the fuel transfer pumps, the last 56 gallons wouldn't get from the wings to the nacelles. Could account for them running out of fuel before expected. No light or indicator for that. Wings would still show fuel, but nacelles would be dry.

Best,

Dave
 
If the fuel onboard (or thought to be so by the crew) is necessary to reach destination, the result is the same if the flight is over water.

gismo said:
If the fuel is carried in the wings (pretty sure that's true) and unless there's an automatic crossfeed, a leak or loose cap shouldn't empty the tanks on both sides.
Click to expand...
 
The C90 has fuel in the wings and nacelles. The wing will gravity feed into the nacelle except for the last 56 gallons. The feed into the nacelle isn't at the very bottom. Thus, if the fuel transfer pumps aren't turned on, there won't be a problem until the last 56 gallons are needed.

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
The C90 has fuel in the wings and nacelles. The wing will gravity feed into the nacelle except for the last 56 gallons. The feed into the nacelle isn't at the very bottom. Thus, if the fuel transfer pumps aren't turned on, there won't be a problem until the last 56 gallons are needed.

Dave
Click to expand...

You may be on to something. Without a CVR to recover it is supposition, but considering the sea state in the photo I can see a beautiful day taking its effect. A new plane humming along perfectly, and perhaps, relaxed cockpit discipline.
 
wabower said:
If the fuel onboard (or thought to be so by the crew) is necessary to reach destination, the result is the same if the flight is over water.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the notion that a leaking fuel tank or filler cap might have cause them to run out of fuel earlier than expected. Certainly if you depart with insufficient (but equal) fuel in both wings it's likely that both engines will run out at roughly the same time.
 
It is a stretch to think the crew wouldn't see fuel leaking from the cap area in the daytime. It would be beyond obvious. All four fuel caps are clearly visible from the cockpit.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
The C90 has fuel in the wings and nacelles. The wing will gravity feed into the nacelle except for the last 56 gallons. The feed into the nacelle isn't at the very bottom. Thus, if the fuel transfer pumps aren't turned on, there won't be a problem until the last 56 gallons are needed.

Dave
Click to expand...

Exactly. Fuel management is something not to be taken lightly in a King Air.
 
Fuel management is pretty simple, except for a couple things. Transfer switches on is one, boost pumps are also on during flight. On a longer range flight, once all fuel is transferred from wings to nacelles, transfer pumps can be turned off. If one engine is out, fuel automatically cross feeds. One could drain one tank leaving fuel in the other if cross feed isn't properly managed.

Best,

Dave
 
Looks to me the tanks were not top off at FLL but they set the fuel totalizer to full. If they had a leak (tank or fuel line) they would had seen a fuel imbalance halfway the trip. They could have save on fuel by shutting down one engine and transfering fuel to the running one. Nevertheless this incident shows how safe is to ditch a plane, specially a low wing. Overland at night my first choice is a lake if unable to reach an airport. Water bodies are clearly shown on GPS terrain.

José
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Pure speculation at this point.
Click to expand...

It is not unusual for an inexperienced line man not to top off large wing tanks due to the fuel settling time in the wing. You have to allow at least five minutes after fuel top off to insure full tanks. The fuel gauges will read full even with 30 gallons missing.

José
 
Piloto said:
It is not unusual for an inexperienced line man not to top off large wing tanks due to the fuel settling time in the wing. You have to allow at least five minutes after fuel top off to insure full tanks. The fuel gauges will read full even with 30 gallons missing.

José
Click to expand...

True, but you're still speculating.

I prefer facts.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
True, but you're still speculating.

I prefer facts.
Click to expand...

If everyone on this board just spouted facts, it would be boring. Nice to get facts but with a few exceptions I enjoy hearing everyone's opinions and speculation! And doing some myself
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
If everyone on this board just spouted facts, it would be boring. Nice to get facts but with a few exceptions I enjoy hearing everyone's opinions and speculation! And doing some myself
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was pointing to Jose's post #24 in which he appears to have come to the conclusion of what caused the accident without any knowledge of the facts.
 
What's funny to me is:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N8116L

Check out the picture of the aircraft.

Be interesting to find out what the cause was. Isn't 4 hours a good bit of time in a King Air? I suppose at FL270 it's not burning much fuel relatively speaking.
 
True, but you're still speculating. I prefer facts.
Click to expand...

Over the years I have been aggravated by seemingly crass and baseless speculation on the cause of various accidents......but I also find myself seeking answers by running scenarios in my mind or even posting them, to see if others agree or not.

It is human nature to seek the cause of accidents in order to avoid their repetition (or out of curiosity), so thoughts and discussion about them - before the ntsb final report of facts, which takes years - is natural and to be expected.
We might as well accept that it is not going to stop anytime soon.

A ) I think if speculation is posed as a suggestion, or question rather than "I know what happened" - it is going to be more tolerated on forums.

B ) Also, if speculators show some sensitivity to those affected (the pilots, the family) when they post, their thoughts will be more welcome. We have way too much slamming of fellow pilots, without any consideration that it could be you who screws up next!
 
Rotor&Wing said:
True, but you're still speculating.

I prefer facts.
Click to expand...

Dr. House

Any scientific research or detective investigation starts with a hypothesis. A hypothesis creates a path of where or what to look for. You could have a lot of facts but without a hypothesis you don't have an idea on how the facts are related. I am surprised you use Dr. House avatar since he administer medical treatment before having all the facts.

The speculations, theories or hypothesis presented on this forum are not be taken as absolute but as possiblities of what may have lead to the incidents. This is what makes Dr. House show interesting to many, either as recipient or care givers of medical services.

José
 
Going back to the C90 ditching.

The only fact that is known is that there was insuficient fuel to make it to Aruba.

Assumptions:

1) Pilots were qualified, experienced and familiar with the aircraft. This can easily be verified. They planned the trip according to the fuel onboard, speed, fuel flow, winds and allowed for a 1 hour reserve. Although I found on flightaware the filed speed of 260kts a little bit too high too leave a more reasonable reserve. A lower speed like 230kts would have reduced susbtantially the total fuel required for the trip.

2) Aircraft was properly assembled. No prior problems reported such as fuel leaks on the ground. Unlike AVGAS blue stains, Jet fuel leaves no visible stains on the wings but a drip is clearly visible on the wing and on the ground.

3) Pilots never reported an excessive fuel flow.

4) Pilots indicated a possible fuel tank leak. If your fuel totalizer (based on fuel flow and qty set.) indicates more fuel onboard than the fuel tank gauge it is a reasonable assumption.

5) Pilots asked for tank top off at KFXE. But never themselves checked fuel level at the filler point. Not unusual for the C90 pilot due to wing height, pilot trust on the lineman and the fuel gauges

Based on the above I came to three possible hypothesis.

1) The tanks were never completely full. If the lineman didn't allow for fuel settling in the wing that can take up to 15 minutes. For true top off you come back to the previous filled wing after servicing the opposite side. This allows for settling time. Even on a Mooney with long range tanks this settling time can take 15 minutes.

2) The fuel tank upper vent holes or lines were all blocked. This would cause air entrapment at each fuel tank compartment thus deceaving the lineman of a filled tank. I find this a remote possibility since the tanks are well inspected at the factory and it takes multiple compartments.

3) A sniper on a boat shoot at the plane at over 20,000 feet. But no bullet holes were reported.

Comments on the above are welcome. Anyone with another possible hypothesis please post it It will make us safer pilots.

José
 
Last edited:
Piloto said:
5) Pilots asked for tank top off at KFXE. But never themselves checked fuel level at the filler point. Not unusual for the C90 pilot due to wing height, pilot trust on the lineman and the fuel gauges
Click to expand...

Noted that there's no facts to back up the theoretical scenario yet, but if... if... It wasn't fully fueled...

If you're too "professional" to get up there and look in a King Air before a long overwater flight, you deserve what you get. Get a frakkin' ladder off the fuel truck and don't be a lazy ass. It's not a Boeing.
 
denverpilot said:
Noted that there's no facts to back up the theoretical scenario yet, but if... if... It wasn't fully fueled...

If you're too "professional" to get up there and look in a King Air before a long overwater flight, you deserve what you get. Get a frakkin' ladder off the fuel truck and don't be a lazy ass. It's not a Boeing.
Click to expand...

BINGO!! I would be interested in knowing the human factors aspect here. Specifically:
1.) Had this crew worked together before?
2.) Had they flown this route before?
3.) How much experience in type did they have?
 
Since you're obviously knowledgeable about King Air fuel systems, what would you tell the pilots to look for when they got on the ladder? How many King Air pilots have you seen look into the filler? Can you think of any good reasons they might not do so?

denverpilot said:
Noted that there's no facts to back up the theoretical scenario yet, but if... if... It wasn't fully fueled...

If you're too "professional" to get up there and look in a King Air before a long overwater flight, you deserve what you get. Get a frakkin' ladder off the fuel truck and don't be a lazy ass. It's not a Boeing.
Click to expand...
 
Don't mind Wayne - he is just using the Socratic method, which (as it works out) he learned from Socrates, himself.
 
Yeah, Sock flew copilot for me in the early 90-series airplanes. Maybe not the best stick-and-rudder guy you ever saw, but smart as hell. Even better, he had a good understanding of the fuel system and plumbing on a King Air. That might be the reason why he asked so many questions of those who didn't. Too bad he's not around, we could ask him.

SCCutler said:
Don't mind Wayne - he is just using the Socratic method, which (as it works out) he learned from Socrates, himself.
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
. Isn't 4 hours a good bit of time in a King Air? I suppose at FL270 it's not burning much fuel relatively speaking.
Click to expand...

Can't tell from what we've been given Ted, but not with normal fuel burns. One can go faster by using more fuel if they want and cut down range quite a bit. In my C90 at FL180 I have over six total hours of fuel at 800 pounds of torque which gets me about 210 TAS heavy on a standard day. This would have the 750HP engines which burn more, but higher up they should true out much faster on a decent fuel flow. I would think 4.5 to 5 hours at the normal -135 P&W at higher power settings, but facts aren't in evidence to support where they were running the engines. They certainly could have been in the go real fast mode, but it wouldn't make much sense if they wanted range.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Can't tell from what we've been given Ted, but not with normal fuel burns. One can go faster by using more fuel if they want and cut down range quite a bit. In my C90 at FL180 I have over six total hours of fuel at 800 pounds of torque which gets me about 210 TAS heavy on a standard day. This would have the 750HP engines which burn more, but higher up they should true out much faster on a decent fuel flow. I would think 4.5 to 5 hours at the normal -135 P&W at higher power settings, but facts aren't in evidence to support where they were running the engines. They certainly could have been in the go real fast mode, but it wouldn't make much sense if they wanted range.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, Dave. Since I haven't had the opportunity to fly with Socrates (or Wayne), I don't know anything about these systems and was curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top