Meister808 From United States, joined Jan 2000, 964 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10640 times:
Flightaware shows an arrival time of 0942 CDT, 1442z, so there was TS activity in the area, but it looks like it was likely out of the area for at least 45 minutes prior to 1442. Radar shows a band of rainshowers maxing at about 40dbZ moving through the area around that time, which would agree with moderate rain, but nothing that I would look at as dangerous weather. The closest 'thunderstorm' at the time would be east near Rochester or a small cell to the southwest of Mankato. Again, not weather that I would find dangerous for a landing at Owatonna, based on my experience flying in and around thunderstorms. Who knows though, nothing about convective weather is ever 100% predictable.
KOWA 311515Z AUTO 22012KT 10SM VCTSRA SCT021 BKN037 BKN050 18/17 A2986 RMK AO2 P0002 LTG DSNT E THRU SW
KOWA 311455Z AUTO 17006KT 10SM RA SCT018 SCT029 BKN037 19/17 A2983 RMK AO2 P0009 LTG DSNT E THRU S KOWA 311435Z AUTO 18003KT 10SM -VCTSRA SCT038 SCT049 BKN100 18/16 A2985 RMK AO2 P0005 LTG DSNT ALQDS
KOWA 311415Z AUTO 32008KT 10SM TSRA SCT037 BKN045 OVC050 18/16 A2988 RMK AO2 P0003 LTG DSNT ALQDS
KOWA 311355Z AUTO 32031G42KT TSRA 18/16 A2982 RMK AO2 P0002 LTG DSNT ALQDS
KOWA 311335Z AUTO 30036G55KT 2SM +TSRA SCT002 SCT014 BKN022 19/17 A2984 RMK AO2 VIS 1V5 P0022 LTG DSNT ALQDS
KOWA 311315Z AUTO 00000KT 5SM VCTSBR SCT022 22/20 A2975 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT W AND NW
Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
I wouldn't doubt it seeing that OWA is untowered. If they did break out at 3,800ft and had 10+ vis, it likely did not phase them to hold off cancelling until on the ground. Conditions according to the METAR are clear into VFR, but you can never trust those. Hell, just today we had a "sky clear below 1-2 thousand" when it reality it was OVC035...
The Hawker is one of the more substantial all metal corporate jets...with a terrific safety record....once again ...flying through known thunderstorm activity is as bad as an ice storm...when will aviators learn?
Rscaife1682 From United States, joined Feb 2008, 225 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 9102 times:
Quoting Jpax (Reply 13): I wouldn't doubt it seeing that OWA is untowered. If they did break out at 3,800ft and had 10+ vis, it likely did not phase them to hold off cancelling until on the ground. Conditions according to the METAR are clear into VFR, but you can never trust those. Hell, just today we had a "sky clear below 1-2 thousand" when it reality it was OVC035...
I understand the procedures and the frequency this done but the info in my first quote was a response to incorrect info.
F9Animal From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3399 posts, RR: 35 Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 9102 times:
Wow, this is indeed very sad news. I agree, this plane is a good plane in terms of safety. If it was weather related, it must have been a heck of a storm. The pics alone kind of make me think of DL 191 in DFW. It looks like it might have hit a microburst. The elevators look like they folded downwards. Also, it does not look like it skidded much across that field. Very sad ending. Hope the survivor pulls through!
In the 3rd paragraph (a single sentence), it is mentioned that there are indeed no survivors of this crash. However, the person "unaccounted for" was not on the flight at all. What a lucky person...
This is the deadliest plane crash in the great state of Minnesota since the plane carrying former Senator Paul Wellstone crashed near Eveleth, Minnesota nearly 6 years ago. There was a lot of silence and rememberance at the airport in Minneapolis that I work at today. It is almost coincidental considering the timing of this tragedy; one year ago tomorrow, Minnesota and the rest of the nation mourns and remembers those lost in the I-35W Bridge collapse. A sad day tomorrow...
Regards, and thoughts for those who's lives were tragically taken today,
HangarRat From United States, joined Jul 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8240 times:
A report from the Philadelphia Inquirer says the passengers were executives of a construction company building the new casino in Atlantic City. [edit] On closer reading, the story is ambiguous. The headline says eight killed, but further down it says one unaccounted for, which is bogus.
The two pilots were local Bethlehem, Pa. guys. Very sad.
JewPilot From United States, joined Sep 2006, 110 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8108 times:
Quoting HangarRat (Reply 22): The headline says eight killed, but further down it says one unaccounted for, which is bogus.
No, HangarRat, the article you found is just relatively old. The plane was supposed to have another passenger on top of the two crew and 6 passengers already killed. For some reason (family emergency, sick, not needed for trip, etc...?), the ninth "unaccounted for" person has been indeed verified as alive back east. Check the article I posted in reply 18 of this thread, specifically the second paragraph.
Tb727 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 675 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7996 times:
Here is the audio from ATC prior to the crash...sounds like they canceled IFR. I assume RST approach is handling them and the LLWS alert on 31 was also at RST.
26 TupolevTu154: Hopefully this case will be laid to rest soon. R.I.P
27 KaiGywer: Wow, that hits really close. Just a few miles south of where I'm a police reserve, and using the same dispatch center as we are. A friend in Mankato h
28 Typhaerion: I dont know where the ATC audio came from, but there is one discrepancy that I thought prudent to point out. Maybe someone can clear this up for me. Y
29 Tb727: That was RST approach vectoring them onto the approach that's why they mentioned the LLWS for 31, which there is a 31 at Rochester. As far as a 5500
30 Typhaerion: Thanks for the info. That helps a lot. I didn't mean to imply that it would have been a problem, but under wet? (possibly) conditions, it certainly d
31 Tb727: Yeah, for what I fly we add 15% onto the dry landing numbers if it is wet. Even then, we can change the numbers depending on the flight crews experien
32 Falcon flyer: Well that seems like a fair statement, because, after all, you were in the cockpit with those guys, right ? Oh yeah, you weren't. If I seem a bit sar
33 Falzone: Sorry for responding so late. I heard it from people talking at the ATC facility I work at, although I see now that they did cancel after hearing it
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jul 2003, 2401 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
