TBM-700 down in Colorado

It looks like they chose the flattest surface around or maybe just out of the pilots control. The reservoir altitude= 6,864'. There was an icing airmet out at that time. There were very high humidities around 700 mB at -6C and light rain at the surface. Remembering the Morristown, NJ in-flight break-up. N702H registered to Gadsden Avn with the same address as Gadsden Tool.

Report from eyewitness at a wedding...

Steven Vining, who was attending that wedding, told the website the plane's "engine was “screaming" loud, he said, sounding “like what you'd hear at an airshow.” Vining said the plane finally emerged from the clouds in a "flat spin," its nose down slightly, and appeared to be out of control. "I kept thinking that he would pull out of it," Vining said of the pilot’s downward spin, but he soon realized that he was seeing a fatal accident, instead. "Basically, he was falling from the sky," Vining said.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that they don't know how many souls were onboard. I'm betting few TBM flights are not on an IFR flight plan.

Hoping for the best...
 
Info on flightaware:

N702H, Bartlesville, OK to Montrose, CO.
registration pending as of Feb 14, 2014, Rainbow City, AL
Beginning 1:58 pm, increasing descent speed for 3 mins then Denver center lost contact at 11,300 MSL. Looking at the path, it appears they were on the approach into Montrose over the lake.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N702H/history/20140322/1700Z/KBVO/KMTJ
 
Sadly I think I may be two friends removed from some of the folks on board. One article mentioned a possible flat spin.
 
"Officials have not released the identities of the plane’s occupants, pending notification of next of kin. However, multiple social media reports have identified the passengers as Gadsden businessman Jimmy Hill, president of Gadsden Tool; Katrina Vinzant Barksdale and her two sons, Xander and Kobe, students at Mitchell Elementary School; and Seth McDuffie(Katrina's nephew)."
 
Geico266 said:
Damn.
Click to expand...

Yep, my thoughts too. My guess is that the stop in OK was to pickup the nephew, as he should have been able to make the trip non-stop.
 
Last edited:
So sorry for the families. May they rest in peace.
 
If it was in a flat spin, what wrong moves in an icing situation would put a TBM-700 in a flat spin? (or is that just what happens when you turn a fast, low-wing plane into a brick?)

or... does the witness report seem reasonable ... probable?
 
WBI Flyer said:
If it was in a flat spin, what wrong moves in an icing situation would put a TBM-700 in a flat spin? (or is that just what happens when you turn a fast, low-wing plane into a brick?)

or... does the witness report seem reasonable ... probable?
Click to expand...
I thought the witness report indicated that the aircraft came out of the clouds "spinning." Sounds like a disorientation issue if that is true.
 
frcabot said:
Apparently the plane had just been sold to the new owner on March 13, 2014. https://twitter.com/bizjet101/status/447685135165423616

If true, may have been one of the pilot's first flights in type.
Click to expand...
Don't think so.

According to folks over at PPW, the owner on the 13 March registration is the same owner since 2007. Probably just a re-registration or change in registration for tax/legal purposes. Either way it has been in Gadsden for a while.
 
Hmm. So then theories? Flight seemed to be proceeding normally. Disorientation for an ifr pilot on an ifr flight plan shouldn't crash a plane. Poss fuel exhaustion or structural failure/icing?
 
Preliminary NTSB report is out. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140322X03239&key=1

Apparently pilot communicated to ATC that plane was in a spin. No further details. Best guess is pilot-error (i.e. failure to maintain proper airspeed and failure to apply proper spin recovery) and/or icing changing the stall characteristics of the airplane (and requiring a higher airspeed). Possibly also tail stall which can occur in icing conditions when flaps are deployed or airspeed is reduced (but tail stall speed is far higher than wing stall speed).

Icing scares the heck out of me.
 
Looking at the prop, it appeared he was at full power upon impact which matches what eyewitnesses reported. First step in spin recovery...Power to idle. PARE.

"The application of power usually drives the airplane deeper into the spin and can delay recovery. Gyroscopic effects associated with a rapidly rotating propeller can lead to increased rates of rotation and shallower spin attitudes – flat spins. In fact, flat spins, which are resistant to recovery procedures depending on the airplane, can be excited simply by applying full power. Therefore, the throttle should be retarded to idle as soon as possible to avoid aggravating the spin."
 
RV10flyer said:
Looking at the prop, it appeared he was at full power upon impact which matches what eyewitnesses reported. First step in spin recovery...Power to idle. PARE.

"The application of power usually drives the airplane deeper into the spin and can delay recovery. Gyroscopic effects associated with a rapidly rotating propeller can lead to increased rates of rotation and shallower spin attitudes – flat spins. In fact, flat spins, which are resistant to recovery procedures depending on the airplane, can be excited simply by applying full power. Therefore, the throttle should be retarded to idle as soon as possible to avoid aggravating the spin."
Click to expand...
Curious, what makes you think he was at full power? You say "looking at the prop," but where? What link? How does looking at the prop make you think he was at full power?

Re the previous post (N731CA), I think the probable cause report is a little unfair. Criticizes him for entering "severe" icing but no severe icing was forecasted and even the pilot himself only reported light icing. That three other flight crews reported severe icing doesn't mean the icing was actually "severe" icing for them as defined by the FAA, let alone for him. The Socata is certified for FIKI, even if it's not for severe icing (AFAIK, the definition of severe icing is that the ice accretes faster than the de-icing system can remove it, so I'm not sure what plane could be certified for "severe" icing). According to the full narrative, the pireps about severe icing were made at 0749, 0808, and 1042. His crash occurred at at about 10:05, well after the 0749 and 0808 pireps had been made (and in different areas), and before the 1042 pirep. Plus, there's no evidence that the ATC controller ever advised him of these pireps other than to remind him about "moderate" icing between 15 and 17K.

Also, says the pilot failed to depart the icing area but that's exactly what the pilot was doing. I sure hope the NTSB never writes a probable cause determination like that in my case.

The perplexing thing about the N731CA accident is that the pilot voluntarily departed VMC to enter known IMC and icing conditions. That's pretty poor judgment. Even if you think your plane is capable of handling moderate icing conditions, why would you ever want to tempt fate?
 
Last edited:
frcabot said:
Curious, what makes you think he was at full power? You say "looking at the prop," but where? What link? How does looking at the prop make you think he was at full power?
Click to expand...

http://www.ouraynews.com/index.php/...rvoir-ouray-county-coroner-identifies-victims

Notice blades bent in opposite directions. Blades that impacted water first bend opposite of rotation while blades not in water bend with rotation during the sudden deceleration.

Yes, difficult to look at these pics.

The pilot was probably like most of us after initial training and did not practice spin recovery. Especially in a plane with 700 shp and possibly covered with ice.
 
frcabot said:
Re the previous post (N731CA), I think the probable cause report is a little unfair. Criticizes him for entering "severe" icing but no severe icing was forecasted and even the pilot himself only reported light icing. That three other flight crews reported severe icing doesn't mean the icing was actually "severe" icing for them as defined by the FAA, let alone for him. The Socata is certified for FIKI, even if it's not for severe icing (AFAIK, the definition of severe icing is that the ice accretes faster than the de-icing system can remove it, so I'm not sure what plane could be certified for "severe" icing). According to the full narrative, the pireps about severe icing were made at 0749, 0808, and 1042. His crash occurred at at about 10:05, well after the 0749 and 0808 pireps had been made (and in different areas), and before the 1042 pirep. Plus, there's no evidence that the ATC controller ever advised him of these pireps other than to remind him about "moderate" icing between 15 and 17K.

Also, says the pilot failed to depart the icing area but that's exactly what the pilot was doing. I sure hope the NTSB never writes a probable cause determination like that in my case.

The perplexing thing about the N731CA accident is that the pilot voluntarily departed VMC to enter known IMC and icing conditions. That's pretty poor judgment. Even if you think your plane is capable of handling moderate icing conditions, why would you ever want to tempt fate?
Click to expand...

I see it differently...first of all, the pilot apparently did not obtain a weather briefing. The preliminary NTSB report noted:

"weather information was not requested by, nor issued to" [the pilot] before he left Teterboro.
Click to expand...

The final report says:

Although the pilot filed an instrument flight rules flight plan through the Direct User Access Terminal System (DUATS), no evidence of a weather briefing was found.
Click to expand...

Thus the pilot was totally unprepared for his encounter with the conditions.

An examination of weather information revealed that numerous pilots reported icing conditions in the general area before and after the accident. At least three flight crews considered the icing "severe." Although severe icing was not forecasted, an Airmen's Meteorological Information (AIRMET) advisory included moderate icing at altitudes at which the accident pilot was flying.
Click to expand...

He breezily notified ATC that his aircraft could fly through forecasted moderate icing, without any idea of the forecast or the altitudes of the ice:

"We’ll let you know what happens when we get in there and if we could go straight through, it’s no problem for us"
Click to expand...

I remember pulling up the radar track of the flight after the incident, and in the climb from 14,000 to 17,800 his airspeed was showing between 110 and 114 kts. The report notes his final 1,000' of altitude was accomplished at a climb rate of 714 FPM. I don't fly a TBM but it sure seems like the numbers were showing something.

He wasn't criticized because "the pilot failed to depart the icing area but that's exactly what the pilot was doing." as you said. The report says he failed to depart the area "expeditiously". He spent several minutes trying to climb through an icing layer, having no idea of its breadth or altitude.

His decision to attempt a climb through the conditions instead of requesting a lower altitude with known VFR conditions was based on what? Overconfidence? Bravado? I don't know.

Why in the world would did he depart into an approaching weather disturbance and IMC without obtaining a briefing? His declaration that the weather was "no problem for us" was based upon apparent total ignorance of the real conditions.

It was a horrible accident, just as the one this thread is the subject of.
 
3393RP said:
I see it differently...first of all, the pilot apparently did not obtain a weather briefing. The preliminary NTSB report noted:



The final report says:



Thus the pilot was totally unprepared for his encounter with the conditions.



He breezily notified ATC that his aircraft could fly through forecasted moderate icing, without any idea of the forecast or the altitudes of the ice:



I remember pulling up the radar track of the flight after the incident, and in the climb from 14,000 to 17,800 his airspeed was showing between 110 and 114 kts. The report notes his final 1,000' of altitude was accomplished at a climb rate of 714 FPM. I don't fly a TBM but it sure seems like the numbers were showing something.

He wasn't criticized because "the pilot failed to depart the icing area but that's exactly what the pilot was doing." as you said. The report says he failed to depart the area "expeditiously". He spent several minutes trying to climb through an icing layer, having no idea of its breadth or altitude.

His decision to attempt a climb through the conditions instead of requesting a lower altitude with known VFR conditions was based on what? Overconfidence? Bravado? I don't know.

Why in the world would did he depart into an approaching weather disturbance and IMC without obtaining a briefing? His declaration that the weather was "no problem for us" was based upon apparent total ignorance of the real conditions.

It was a horrible accident, just as the one this thread is the subject of.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not known that he didn't obtain a weather briefing. All we know is that there was no log of the weather briefing through DUATS or FSS. He could have obtained a weather briefing from another source, and he could have looked at ADDS or the Aviation Weather Center.

Also, just because he ground track according to radar was 110 to 114 kts doesn't really tell us what his true airspeed was, because there could have been significant variations in winds aloft between the altitudes and/or strong headwinds. A FIKI system is capable of handling moderate icing in most cases, and it's not simply TKS, it's actually certified for flight into known icing conditions. So if the icing had merely been moderate rather than severe, it should not have caused a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top