King Air crashes into building at Wichita

HighFlyingA380 said:
I personally feel that, so long as people don't make blind accusations and such, that it is still helpful. With many minds talking and thinking through the various scenarios, we all benefit by freshening up on proper procedures and may even learn new techniques and such. Perfect example in the "this just in" thread, which the discussion prompted somebody to ask about if a Vmc roll tends toward the live or dead engine. Again, the discussions are getting people to think about and learn more about various situations to improve their knowledge and skill.
Click to expand...

:yes:
 
timwinters said:
Thank you. Nothing upsets me more here than the immediate posts of "do you think this happened?" & "do you think that happened" & "no, I think this happened!" when there's a crash. I don't understand why people feel that they need to make wild unsubstantiated speculations after every crash.

Wait for the report.
Click to expand...

I appreciate not wanting egregious speculation and don't care to partake in it myself. The key to your post is "wild, unsubstantiated speculations." However, I can't fault anyone here for having some curiosity or even expressing an opinion based on whatever REAL facts actually exist at the time.

I think most of us would agree that those who rush to the be the first to speculate and create their own version of the NTSB report based on sketchy evidence at best can kick rocks.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
I personally feel that, so long as people don't make blind accusations and such, that it is still helpful. With many minds talking and thinking through the various scenarios, we all benefit by freshening up on proper procedures and may even learn new techniques and such. Perfect example in the "this just in" thread, which the discussion prompted somebody to ask about if a Vmc roll tends toward the live or dead engine. Again, the discussions are getting people to think about and learn more about various situations to improve their knowledge and skill.
Click to expand...

You put it much more succinctly than I, good sir.
 
DrewG said:
I appreciate not wanting egregious speculation and don't care to partake in it myself. The key to your post is "wild, unsubstantiated speculations." However, I can't fault anyone here for having some curiosity or even expressing an opinion based on whatever REAL facts actually exist at the time.

I think most of us would agree that those who rush to the be the first to speculate and create their own version of the NTSB report based on sketchy evidence at best can kick rocks.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
With many minds talking and thinking through the various scenarios, we all benefit by freshening up on proper procedures and may even learn new techniques and such.
Click to expand...
With the data available to the public at this point you might as well brush up on your 'flaming porcupine in the cockpit' and 'meat servo failure' procedures as anything else. Using bad data to justify successful results is pointless.

Nauga,
who has had to stuff the smoke back in the bottle before
 
Cool cartoon on his FB page. :)
10441965_825540310789954_2588825696130197694_n.jpg
 
KSMooniac said:
Another thing wrong with the "fact" in the linked article... the FSI facility he hit was for Cessna Citations and Caravans, not Beech products.

I believe someone posted on another board that new engines were just installed on the plane at the Beech service center. Perhaps another case of maintenance induced failure? Hopefully they'll be able to determine something from the debris, but with such an extensive fire there might not be enough evidence.
Click to expand...

A little worried about my primary instructor, he works on the caravan sim.

Jim
 
Of course people speculate about an incident like this! Very natural to do so. Especially when the 200 is often taken to altitude during a sales demo, an engine is shut down and it is banked into the dead engine for demo purposes. If one has flown a twin, they might wonder why this happened even though the engine failed, unless of course, both engines failed. Should have been a survive able occurrence which makes one very curious as to why it happened. Any pilot, twin or single should be interested in this, not to mention the fellow who asks if he should load his family in a twin even though he plans to fly " only occasionally."
 
Well Jim, I certainly did take note of this accident. Keep in mind I was throwing that idea out there for discussion and was no where near implementation. That being said, it is interesting (and sad) to note that flying a twin as a primary didn't help this guy much. Let's face it, small twin aircraft are a ***** when they lose an engine at low altitude and no amount of training or experience may be able to save you.
 
FlyingTiger said:
Well Jim, I certainly did take note of this accident. Keep in mind I was throwing that idea out there for discussion and was no where near implementation. That being said, it is interesting (and sad) to note that flying a twin as a primary didn't help this guy much. Let's face it, small twin aircraft are a ***** when they lose an engine at low altitude and no amount of training or experience may be able to save you.
Click to expand...

Huh.....

This was a King Air..........

Far from a "small twin"....:mad2::mad2:
 
FlyingTiger said:
Well Jim, I certainly did take note of this accident. Keep in mind I was throwing that idea out there for discussion and was no where near implementation. That being said, it is interesting (and sad) to note that flying a twin as a primary didn't help this guy much. Let's face it, small twin aircraft are a ***** when they lose an engine at low altitude and no amount of training or experience may be able to save you.
Click to expand...

While I'd agree with that in a piston twin, a King Air with the fully functional systems including autofeather and rudder boost is in a much different camp. Especially when you have just the pilot on board.
 
So are you guys saying that an engine out in a King Air on takeoff should of been a non incident?
 
FlyingTiger said:
Well Jim, I certainly did take note of this accident. Keep in mind I was throwing that idea out there for discussion and was no where near implementation. That being said, it is interesting (and sad) to note that flying a twin as a primary didn't help this guy much. Let's face it, small twin aircraft are a ***** when they lose an engine at low altitude and no amount of training or experience may be able to save you.
Click to expand...

This is not a small twin aircraft and is very capable of flying after losing an engine on takeoff and still fly to a satisfactory landing. . Good training and experience will certainly save a good pilot at low altitude. The 200 is a real fine stable aircraft with no bad habits.
 
FlyingTiger said:
So are you guys saying that an engine out in a King Air on takeoff should of been a non incident?
Click to expand...

I would never say that it's a piece of cake, but yes, the plane has the capability to safely handle an engine out on takeoff, especially when lightweight.
 
FlyingTiger said:
So are you guys saying that an engine out in a King Air on takeoff should of been a non incident?
Click to expand...
Yup. As soon as you detect a failure, be sure to feather the prop (the KA does it automatically) and reduce pitch to stay above Vmca (about 91kias in the KA200, IIRC), and it'll stay flying. Sure, your climb performance may be minimal or negative; But since we know it failed about a minute after takeoff, I'm guessing he'd be around 1,000agl. Plenty of altitude to come back around and land on one engine, again, as long as you keep it above the blue line.
 
Small is a relative term to be sure. In the big picture, it may have a few more gadgets and features then some of the GA twins out there, but it's still rather small compared to what the airlines fly every day, even for commuters. In the end, if it can't climb or even hold altitude on one engine, it's small in my book, and prone to the same dangers as some of the even "smaller" twins out there. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
FlyingTiger said:
Small is a relative term to be sure. In the big picture, it may have a few more gadgets and features then some to the other GA twins out there, but it's still rather small compared to what the airlines fly every day, even for commuters. In the end, if it can't climb or even hold altitude on one engine, it's small in my book, and prone to the same dangers as some of the even "smaller" twins out there. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I'd agree. Even though the 200 is bigger than my daily driver, I'd call it small. Although lightly loaded like it appears it was, should have no problem climbing, or at least holding altitude, on one engine.
 
FlyingTiger said:
Small is a relative term to be sure. In the big picture, it may have a few more gadgets and features then some of the GA twins out there, but it's still rather small compared to what the airlines fly every day, even for commuters. In the end, if it can't climb or even hold altitude on one engine, it's small in my book, and prone to the same dangers as some of the even "smaller" twins out there. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Compared to a 310 or a twin commanche or say an aerostar no, it's not small. It's an excellent flyer and with proper inputs is designed to overcome an incident exactly as this occurred. Not opinion, fact.
 
One thing folks are missing is that right now we have no clue as to the nature of the engine failure. Not all engine failures are a simple loss of thrust like we usually train for.
 
FlyingTiger said:
So are you guys saying that an engine out in a King Air on takeoff should of been a non incident?
Click to expand...

Yes....and if was as simple as that we will get a little something like this from the NTSB...."The pilot’s failure to maintain airspeed above minimum control speed (Vmca) after losing power on left engine during initial takeoff, which resulted in a subsequent aerodynamic stall/spin."

Fearless Tower said:
One thing folks are missing is that right now we have no clue as to the nature of the engine failure. Not all engine failures are a simple loss of thrust like we usually train for.
Click to expand...

Also agree here...pilot was seasoned....my gut tells me or I just want to believe there is much more to the story than a simple engine out procedure.(DONT take simple too mean easy)
 
Last edited:
FlyingTiger said:
Small is a relative term to be sure. In the big picture, it may have a few more gadgets and features then some of the GA twins out there, but it's still rather small compared to what the airlines fly every day, even for commuters. In the end, if it can't climb or even hold altitude on one engine, it's small in my book, and prone to the same dangers as some of the even "smaller" twins out there. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

A Beech 1900 isn't anything more than an oversized King Air, used by airlines every day.

It is able to climb on one engine just fine.

Fearless Tower said:
One thing folks are missing is that right now we have no clue as to the nature of the engine failure. Not all engine failures are a simple loss of thrust like we usually train for.
Click to expand...

Correct. If the autofeather didn't work and he didn't catch it, he'd be that red dot on the screen in the sim that Wayne would always point to on students who crashed with the autofeather failed.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
so....twins are safer than singles?;):idea::stirpot:
Click to expand...

The FAA considers them to be, see 14 CFR Part 25. No singles allowed.

But you single drivers have a hard time understanding what us twin drivers all know for a fact. ;)
 
TEFLONSEAN said:
Yes....and if was as simple as that we will get a little something like this from the NTSB...."The pilot’s failure to maintain airspeed above minimum control speed (Vmca) after losing power on left engine during initial takeoff, which resulted in a subsequent aerodynamic stall/spin."
Click to expand...

A twin pilot must really be on his or her game in a case like this.

In unexpected emergencies, it's not unusual for there to be a 3 or 4 second "deer in the headlights" delay. We like to think we could and would react immediately, but such is usually not the case.

And in that few seconds, speed can decay rapidly.

And one can end up as that "red dot" Ted mentions, only tragically with no "RESET" button.

No matter the cause, a reminder of how quickly things can go downhill.
 
Eddie has it right. There is always room for pilot error. Even a G-V can crash. Even a 777 can crash.

But, the plane can do it fine under otherwise normal conditions. The KA200 is a very good plane.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
But since we know it failed about a minute after takeoff, I'm guessing he'd be around 1,000agl. Plenty of altitude to come back around and land on one engine, again, as long as you keep it above the blue line.
Click to expand...

Slight correction... I believe his radio transmission of engine failure came 1 minute after he was CLEARED for takeoff, not after takeoff, so he was substantially lower with far less altitude and time to react to the emergency.

I fear there won't be enough debris left to analyze and determine if there were or weren't any other mechanical issues with the plane, and the pilot will get blamed for a simple Vmc rollover.
 
A KA 200 with one on board, even with full fuel, "should" be able to climb away on one with no problem, 500+ FPM. That being said, a failure of the engine, could have actually been a prop failure or the prop failed to autofeather, may not have been turned on etc. You don't see many KA 200's lightly loaded falling out of the sky after a "routine" engine failure. But, lacking a smoking gun, it will likely be pilot error. :rolleyes:
 
In the absence of auto-feather, and a failure/inability to feather the dead engine: Will the plane still fly? Asymmetric loads too high? Can it always be feathered from the pilot controls?
 
King airs are safe aircraft from what I thought. I figured it should be able to climb on one engine, or atleast be controllable to fly with one out. Is anyone speculating pilot error or AC?
 
OK, I've been reading the comments here and so many are just speculation and grasping at straws.
I'm not a King Air expert by any means, but, I have flown a 200 for a couple of years about 8 years ago.
All the King Airs are great planes and they're a great IFR platform, solid and stable in flight. That's why they made hundreds of them and most are still flying around. Sit in one sometime and you'll get that feeling just by sitting there in the pilots seat.

The 200 has auto feathering and rudder boost in the event of an engine failure. It doesn't do all the pilots inputs for you, but it helps a lot. Of course they have to armed before flight or they won't do you any good at all. Still, with both, you have to be alert and on top of things with the correct inputs if an engine fails at TO. Even if auto feather wasn't armed, you can still manually feather the engine with the engine controls. This plane will climb under the conditions at ICT yesterday. Looking at the video, obviously it was good VFR with a breeze out of the NW. Assuming it was somewhat cooler than summer, lets say about 70 degrees, but maybe less, and he was under the gross weight of 12500# even with full fuel. By my calculations from my Flight Safety performance charts, and at gross, he should be able to climb at 700 FPM, or a climb gradient of 5.5%, assuming 0 flaps on TO,... single engine of course.
All that assumes of course you fly as trained in the climb profile, flaps up, gear up, prop feathered and Vyse of 121 at gross. If you can't fly the profile as trained then all that go's out the window.
That being said, I say again, this plane will fly under those conditions that I think were there at the time of the crash.
In my training we did multiple engine failures at rotation and climbed out and came around for an instrument approach and a single engine landing, sometimes a single engine go around was done too. This plane will do both!

As for the cause of the crash, none of us were there in the cockpit and none of us here can guess why the pilot wasn't able to deal with an engine out situation, assuming that was the only problem. They will look into the pilots training and history, was he current, was he competent, obviously maintenance will be looked at closely too.

I know it's human nature to be curious, so am I, but to wildly speculate with opinions that are sometimes are way out there, like engine failure and then a heart attack seconds later is almost beyond the chance of probability.
I don't want to dump on a dead pilot that's not able to defend himself, but I would be looking in 2 areas, one of them being maintenance, as the NTSB and FAA will obviously be doing.

By the way, it looks like from the photos that the plane hit in the corner of the sim bay which sounds like it collapsed part of the building on the sims. There is fire suppression in there as all of the Flight Safety buildings have because of all the hydraulics involved.
Also, there is an FAA building just next door on the north side of Flight Safety.
I've done Citation training there a few times and know the building and area somewhat well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top