PC-12 Crash In South Dakota, 9 dead, 3 survivors (CFIBlizzard?)

nauga said:
Unless they support our opinion. Then they are the gospel truth.

Nauga,
and a strong BS filter
Click to expand...
I love how the knock on CNN post got a bunch of likes but yours got ignored. Too funny!
 
bobmrg said:
Given what has been said about the height of the T-tail and the lack of deicing at the airport, I'm guessing tailplane stall....not engine related in any way.

Bob
Click to expand...
That would certainly do it. But ... they got off the ground, and rotation would likely have a higher tailplane AoA, I'd think. Or, even worse, it was marginal on takeoff, and the pilot thought he had it made.
 
Rockymountain said:
Yes it does look like it hit under power. 2 of the 4 blades are bent, and that is a solid metal prop. It will stop the engine when it hits something hard.

View attachment 80519

Like this Meridian that flew into the ground short of the runway under power in low IFR conditions with 3 bent and one perfect blade. These solid metal Hartzell paddle props are nearly indestructible.

View attachment 80521
Click to expand...

it always bothers me on Piper planes how cleanly the wing breaks off right at the fuselage joint.. you look at pictures of crashes of just about any airplane, and obviously there's going to be some destruction, but the wing tends to break somewhere mid-span or even in some cases stay attached and largely intact.. just crumpled.
 
bobmrg said:
Given what has been said about the height of the T-tail and the lack of deicing at the airport, I'm guessing tailplane stall....not engine related in any way.

Bob
Click to expand...

If he operated in those condition enough he should have means to spray the plane himself, when I flew we did, pain in the butt but we could spray every part of the plane.
 
mryan75 said:
Does this look like a prop that was turning at impact to you guys?
Click to expand...
Omalley1537 said:
sure doesn’t to me.
Click to expand...
Tarheelpilot said:
no. Not even a little bit. Also doesn’t look to be feathered, Just at the pitch stops.
Click to expand...
FWIW: Considering the blades are not feathered and the engine was ejected during the accident sequence the only way to confirm whether it was operating or not is by the internal turbine/compressor blade damage. Once the fire goes out in a turbine engine it loses all it's torque especially on very light-weight prop blades. Seeing how the blades are bent and offset clock-wise I would think the engine was producing power at impact. The key to this with be the attitude of the aircraft during impact and how the energy was directed/dissipated.
 
I saw photos of the aircraft today, the day of departure. A lot of ice/snow on the wings. They were attempting to clean off the wings, but did they have a 12 foot ladder for the tail? And did they get the wings completely clear with the rubbing alcohol? Who knows...
 
Z06_Mir said:
I saw photos of the aircraft today, the day of departure. A lot of ice/snow on the wings. They were attempting to clean off the wings, but did they have a 12 foot ladder for the tail? And did they get the wings completely clear with the rubbing alcohol? Who knows...
Click to expand...
Can you share the pictures?
 
mryan75 said:
Can you share the pictures?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately they weren't sent to me, just showed to me. One of my friends/customers had a connection with the airport in Chamberlain.
 
The Meridian has a minimum approach speed of 85 knots 98 mph, and most instructors recommend 95 knots 109 mph. So I am guessing this Meridian hit the ground at a little over 100 mph. What does a Cirrus look like when it hits the ground at 100 mph?? There is nothing weak about the central spar of a Meridian. at GW it is certified to hold a minimum of 25,000 lbs without breaking, and will hold more than that. Run a 20 foot lever arm into the ground at 100 mph and something is going to snap off.
 
When you chose to operate an airplane with more people on board than seat belts, what other rules do you disregard....

From another board with a fair number of PC-12 pilots, it sounds like that airplane would have needed at least 90% of the available runway to takeoff in those conditions leaving virtually no room for error.
 
Last edited:
If the anecdote about people witnessing lift/control surface contamination the day of and no de-icing/decontamination of consequence is true, then you'd need higher airspeeds overall to attain the same lift and controllability as a clean airplane. MGW kind of ops would certainly not lend themselves to compensate for that loss of margin.

I can see an airplane that slept outside all day and night in that kind of weather would be frosted over good. Brushing the dust off ain't gonna cut it.
 
mryan75 said:
I love how the knock on CNN post got a bunch of likes but yours got ignored. Too funny!
Click to expand...

Look again... Original got 5 likes, Nauga's got six (not zero).

Fearless Tower said:
From another board with a fair number of PC-12 pilots, it sounds like that airplane would have needed at least 90% of the available runway to takeoff in those conditions leaving virtually no room for error.
Click to expand...

Or snow on the runway, or on the surfaces.

I'm guessing they used all 90% and then some, pilot freaked out because he could no longer abort, tried to yank it into the sky, but it just wouldn't fly.
 
nauga said:
Unless they support our opinion. Then they are the gospel truth.

Nauga,
and a strong BS filter
Click to expand...
mryan75 said:
I love how the knock on CNN post got a bunch of likes but yours got ignored. Too funny!
Click to expand...
I noticed too haha.. it seemed to even out now. Granted, CNN is comically bad at "news" - they're borderline tabloid status. Even if they said something that supported my opinion I'd be embarrassed to admit it came from CNN...

"Opinion" though is kind of the dangerous part of the media.. vs new. Right? It really should be opinion free..

It's the difference in:
"Man contracts salmonella after not microwaving frozen turkey dinner long enough"
VS
"Is the meat lobby trying to murder your family? What did Black and Decker know? You could be NEXT! Find out how a frozen turkey dinner sent one man to the hospital!"
 
Tantalum said:
It's the difference in:
"Man contracts salmonella after not microwaving frozen turkey dinner long enough"
VS
"Is the meat lobby trying to murder your family? What did Black and Decker know? You could be NEXT! Find out how a frozen turkey dinner sent one man to the hospital!"
Click to expand...

Reminds me of....

6b0983f56fe329d18d8d305fde4254ea.jpg
 
RWY 31, 4299 ft, the wind at 020 didn’t help much. 1 mile from the airport sure isn’t far.

The weather sure seems nice when the NTSB pictures were taken, maybe the next day.

Scuttlebutt is that an FBO worker asked them to postpone the trip, no verification on that.

50F398F7-7271-4498-813C-EDE848101D43.png
 
Also, on Sunday many try not to work, but to instead spend time with family. They also try not to do any activity that would require others to work on Sunday. If they had a professional pilot in their employ, that might have been a reason to not fly on Sunday.

Rockymountain said:
This would be, if a true statement by the deceased, a personal interpretation of the Church doctrine. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has no such formal doctrine. People are quite free to interpret how they honor the Sabbath day, with only very loose guidelines. They may have wished to be back in time for Church, and may have had responsibilities that they felt they needed to honor. But no restriction on flying or traveling. Very sad event, and a very generous and charitable family devastated.
Click to expand...
 
Barring any crazy mechanical issue, which is hard to imagine on a pc12 that’s flown a lot,
This would rank as one most easily avoidable accidents given the loss of life. Befuddling. Seems like they flew this area a lot. Should have know about ice contamination. How can you walk out to the plane and see the wings and say “damn it we aren’t going anywhere” then pack 11 more ppl in the plane and a crap ton of hunting gear.
 
benyflyguy said:
Barring any crazy mechanical issue, which is hard to imagine on a pc12 that’s flown a lot,
This would rank as one most easily avoidable accidents given the loss of life. Befuddling. Seems like they flew this area a lot. Should have know about ice contamination. How can you walk out to the plane and see the wings and say “damn it we aren’t going anywhere” then pack 11 more ppl in the plane and a crap ton of hunting gear.
Click to expand...
Again, the number of people is telling.

That a trained PC-12 pilot would have put 12 people onboard the airplane after the Butte, MT crash says a lot.
 
Tantalum said:
"Opinion" though is kind of the dangerous part of the media.. vs new.
Click to expand...
To some, perhaps, but I was referring to the 'factual' side of things - we ridicule 'The Media' when they get facts wrong, but when similar harebrained 'facts' are posted that support our opinions, they are posted as corroboration with no apparent consideration for the possibility that they may not be, in fact, factual. There's an example of the former in this thread, the latter in other threads.

Nauga,
who knows Jack
 
I thought rotation of the TPE331 after shutdown was to prevent warping of the engine shaft that occurs with uneven cooling, which can cause interference contact between the turbine and the case.
 
nauga said:
To some, perhaps, but I was referring to the 'factual' side of things - we ridicule 'The Media' when they get facts wrong, but when similar harebrained 'facts' are posted that support our opinions, they are posted as corroboration with no apparent consideration for the possibility that they may not be, in fact, factual. There's an example of the former in this thread, the latter in other threads.

Nauga,
who knows Jack
Click to expand...

Kinda like your political views are extreme, but not mine. :D
 
Fearless Tower said:
When you chose to operate an airplane with more people on board than seat belts, what other rules do you disregard....
This is what I just do not get. How many of us being GA pilots have said "No I don't like the weather?" Sorry you weigh to much with my fuel load, the CG is not good.

Such a tragedy for so many folks. My prayers are with the family and friends. A senseless waste of life, because no one in the group of 12 said, "lets wait to deice and let the weather clear"
Click to expand...
 
the accident takeoff began from runway 31 about 1231:58. The airplane lifted off 30 seconds later
Click to expand...

That sounds like a pretty long takeoff roll.
 
3393RP said:
I thought rotation of the TPE331 after shutdown was to prevent warping of the engine shaft that occurs with uneven cooling, which can cause interference contact between the turbine and the case.
Click to expand...
"Bowed rotor". Some new jet engines have a little motor that is there just to rotate things as they cool.
 
skyking3286 said:
Sounds like that points to aerodynamic rather than strictly and solely a mechanical issue. A rotation below the new stall speed of a snow contaminated wing? Or pitot/static system iced over?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm thinking grossed up airplane (or over gross) combined with contaminated wings and/or control surfaces, and, well,...
 
Clearly they made some mistakes, but the bit saying they spent 3 hours trying to clear the airplane of ice is sobering. They were obviously determined to try... and spending that much time out in inclement weather couldn't have been fun.
 
34F this time of year for someone from Idaho Falls like this family is balmy weather. My kids would be wearing shorts. The temp right now in IFA is 7F. Doubt they were suffering in that weather. Does sound like they tried to get the plane flying before it was ready. Certainly weather, visibility, contaminated runway and possibly a contaminated plane were contributors. Looking at the air speed and knowing the shaker and pusher were activated, sounds a lot like an aerodynamic stall and loss of control with probable some degree of spatial D in white out conditions. Lots of holes in the swiss cheese lined up on this one.
 
Google told me a pc12 needs 2650' to clear a 50' obstacle....at max gross. Will be interesting to see what they estimate t/o weight at. Would also like to know what the r/w surface looked like.
 
Not a lot of surprises here. Lot of opportunities for PIC to step up and say no go.
 
asicer said:
NTSB final report:
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/100636/pdf
Click to expand...
What is absolutely amazing about that report, is that the NTSB is essentially saying that all the abysmal ADM aside (gethomeitis, manually de-icing the airplane with alcohol from Walmart, not removing any contamination from the tail, overloading the airplane and out of CG, ignoring the airport manager's warnings and taking off into crap conditions on a runway that wasn't clear...etc), in the end the airplane could have actually flown away if the pilot had just been a better stick.

Testament to the PC-12.
 
An airplane performance analysis indicated that the accumulated snow and ice on the empennage did not significantly degrade the airplane performance after takeoff.

Flight recorder data revealed that the accident pilot tended to rotate more rapidly and to a higher pitch angle during takeoff than a second pilot who flew the airplane regularly. Piloted simulations suggested that the accident pilot’s rotation technique, which involved a relatively abrupt and heavy pull on the control column, when combined with the extreme aft CG, heavy weight, and early rotation on the accident takeoff, contributed to the airplane’s high angle-of attack immediately after rotation, the triggering of the stick shaker and stick pusher, and the pilot’s pitch control difficulties after liftoff. The resulting pitch oscillations eventually resulted in a deep penetration into the aerodynamic stall region and subsequent loss of control.
 
You would think a few passengers would of spoke up & said, ‘he77 no, I ain’t getting in that plane with these conditions’. Like a survival instinct kicking in.
 
woxof said:
Flight recorder data revealed that the accident pilot tended to rotate more rapidly and to a higher pitch angle during takeoff than a second pilot who flew the airplane regularly. Piloted simulations suggested that the accident pilot’s rotation technique, which involved a relatively abrupt and heavy pull on the control column, when combined with the extreme aft CG, heavy weight, and early rotation on the accident takeoff, contributed to the airplane’s high angle-of attack immediately after rotation, the triggering of the stick shaker and stick pusher, and the pilot’s pitch control difficulties after liftoff. The resulting pitch oscillations eventually resulted in a deep penetration into the aerodynamic stall region and subsequent loss of control.
Click to expand...


There is for some reason in the PC12 community a large amount of instructors who teach this “technique”. I believe the fascination lies in treating the PC12 like a jet, which it is not. I’ve seen guys get shaker on takeoff from doing this on a hot day at actual gross weight. I think it stems from most PC12 instructors also being jet instructors who want to pitch for the command bars after rotation.

In reality, the PC12 should be rotated until the nosewheel is off the ground and let it fly off when its ready, like every other single-engine plane, with a smooth and gradual pitch to whatever gives you Vy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top