A King Air crashed on the island of Oahu this evening. Details still coming in. First reports said 6 dead, now been updated to 9. RIP

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/6- ... y_20190622

It was a skydiving flight.

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/06/2 ... rth-shore/

Latest update, now 11 fatalities. Don't know the specifics on this aircraft but if it was used for skydiving you can count on it being an older King Air (like 40+). Newer King Airs are too much in demand for private corporate flying. Plus skydiving aircraft are used hard and put away wet, worked very hard with a lot of cycles, in most cases by low time pilots trying to build hours for a better job. Maintenance can be questionable. I'm not a sky diver (firm believer in the old adage, not going to jump out of a perfectly good airplane) but most sky diving aircraft I have been around, I wouldn't get on without a parachute either.

The King Air 65 was the beginning of the family. It is a very under preforming airplane by today's standards. Depending on the model of 65 it either had a Take Off Gross Weight of 9,000lb or 9,300lbs. If it was a true military surplus version that wasn't pressurized and stripped to a bare cargo cabin then maybe it had a few more useful pounds. Either way you have 11 people on board, only 1 probably wasn't wearing a parachute, you are pushing your luck. By comparison, the current King Air C90 GTx has a max payload of 2,113lbs on a Take Off Gross Weight of 10,485lbs.

commpilot wrote:

The King Air 65 was the beginning of the family. It is a very under preforming airplane by today's standards. Depending on the model of 65 it either had a Take Off Gross Weight of 9,000lb or 9,300lbs. If it was a true military surplus version that wasn't pressurized and stripped to a bare cargo cabin then maybe it had a few more useful pounds. Either way you have 11 people on board, only 1 probably wasn't wearing a parachute, you are pushing your luck. By comparison, the current King Air C90 GTx has a max payload of 2,113lbs on a Take Off Gross Weight of 10,485lbs.

Reported as N256TA, a 1967 King Air A90 that appears, from photos, to have been used for skydiving for at least 12 years.

There's plenty of history about this aircraft that is findable through Google searches like the 23 July 2016 incident (when the "The right horizontal stabilizer, with the elevator attached" separated from the airplane), and http://www.pmlaw.com/?p=1097 / https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2 ... csc99.html / http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/03/l ... ators.html which relate to N256TA and a sister King Air's (N17SA) crash in Canada in August 2008.

Does the FAA monitor these type of aircraft like they do a scheduled airline ? These are passangers carrying planes which should be subject to strict inspections by the FAA.

GCT64 wrote:

commpilot wrote:

The King Air 65 was the beginning of the family. It is a very under preforming airplane by today's standards. Depending on the model of 65 it either had a Take Off Gross Weight of 9,000lb or 9,300lbs. If it was a true military surplus version that wasn't pressurized and stripped to a bare cargo cabin then maybe it had a few more useful pounds. Either way you have 11 people on board, only 1 probably wasn't wearing a parachute, you are pushing your luck. By comparison, the current King Air C90 GTx has a max payload of 2,113lbs on a Take Off Gross Weight of 10,485lbs.

Reported as N256TA, a 1967 King Air A90 that appears, from photos, to have been used for skydiving for at least 12 years.

There's plenty of history about this aircraft that is findable through Google searches like the 23 July 2016 incident (when the "The right horizontal stabilizer, with the elevator attached" separated from the airplane), and http://www.pmlaw.com/?p=1097 / https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2 ... csc99.html / http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/03/l ... ators.html which relate to N256TA and a sister King Air's (N17SA) crash in Canada in August 2008.

Looks there might have been tandem jumpers on this flight.

FF630 wrote:

Does the FAA monitor these type of aircraft like they do a scheduled airline ? These are passangers carrying planes which should be subject to strict inspections by the FAA.

All aircraft require at the very least a yearly annual inspection. This one was being used in commercial service, so it likely has additional 50 and 100 our inspections.

I've only jumped out of Pilatus Turbo Porters (and a helo), in very good condition, one even brand new, bought for the skydiving operation. My concern with a light twin engine aircraft would be that they're prone to loss of control when one engine quits, if not handled correctly.

FF630 wrote:

Does the FAA monitor these type of aircraft like they do a scheduled airline ? These are passangers carrying planes which should be subject to strict inspections by the FAA.

The oversight by regional FSDOs into any for hire operation is low at best. There are plenty of passenger charter firms who push the limits and what is legal under their interpretation of the FARs. The lobbying groups have way to much power over the FAA. Doesn't help that the FAA is very under staffed to handle audits and actions against for hire companies. As long as there are terrible pilots who will do anything to get flight time, these companies will survive. The only thing that gets the FAA's attention anymore is a crash.

dfwjim1 wrote:

GCT64 wrote:

commpilot wrote:

The King Air 65 was the beginning of the family. It is a very under preforming airplane by today's standards. Depending on the model of 65 it either had a Take Off Gross Weight of 9,000lb or 9,300lbs. If it was a true military surplus version that wasn't pressurized and stripped to a bare cargo cabin then maybe it had a few more useful pounds. Either way you have 11 people on board, only 1 probably wasn't wearing a parachute, you are pushing your luck. By comparison, the current King Air C90 GTx has a max payload of 2,113lbs on a Take Off Gross Weight of 10,485lbs.

Reported as N256TA, a 1967 King Air A90 that appears, from photos, to have been used for skydiving for at least 12 years.

There's plenty of history about this aircraft that is findable through Google searches like the 23 July 2016 incident (when the "The right horizontal stabilizer, with the elevator attached" separated from the airplane), and http://www.pmlaw.com/?p=1097 / https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2 ... csc99.html / http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/03/l ... ators.html which relate to N256TA and a sister King Air's (N17SA) crash in Canada in August 2008.

Looks there might have been tandem jumpers on this flight.

Yes. One pilot, five instructors to tandem with 5 customers.

commpilot wrote:

FF630 wrote:

Does the FAA monitor these type of aircraft like they do a scheduled airline ? These are passangers carrying planes which should be subject to strict inspections by the FAA.

The oversight by regional FSDOs into any for hire operation is low at best. There are plenty of passenger charter firms who push the limits and what is legal under their interpretation of the FARs. The lobbying groups have way to much power over the FAA. Doesn't help that the FAA is very under staffed to handle audits and actions against for hire companies. As long as there are terrible pilots who will do anything to get flight time, these companies will survive. The only thing that gets the FAA's attention anymore is a crash.

These aren't "for hire operations" nor "charter firms". These are parachute operations, which operate under parts 91 and 105; no special certifications or pilot training.

MO11 wrote:

commpilot wrote:

FF630 wrote:

Does the FAA monitor these type of aircraft like they do a scheduled airline ? These are passangers carrying planes which should be subject to strict inspections by the FAA.

The oversight by regional FSDOs into any for hire operation is low at best. There are plenty of passenger charter firms who push the limits and what is legal under their interpretation of the FARs. The lobbying groups have way to much power over the FAA. Doesn't help that the FAA is very under staffed to handle audits and actions against for hire companies. As long as there are terrible pilots who will do anything to get flight time, these companies will survive. The only thing that gets the FAA's attention anymore is a crash.

These aren't "for hire operations" nor "charter firms". These are parachute operations, which operate under parts 91 and 105; no special certifications or pilot training.

Assuming those parachuting have paid to do so, the plane still needs an inspection every 100 hours (albeit not by the FAA, but by an AMT) and the pilot still has to be a commercial pilot.

ikramerica wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

GCT64 wrote:

Reported as N256TA, a 1967 King Air A90 that appears, from photos, to have been used for skydiving for at least 12 years.

There's plenty of history about this aircraft that is findable through Google searches like the 23 July 2016 incident (when the "The right horizontal stabilizer, with the elevator attached" separated from the airplane), and http://www.pmlaw.com/?p=1097 / https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2 ... csc99.html / http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/03/l ... ators.html which relate to N256TA and a sister King Air's (N17SA) crash in Canada in August 2008.

Looks there might have been tandem jumpers on this flight.

Yes. One pilot, five instructors to tandem with 5 customers.

And this is why I avoid risky activities like this.
Man, I have enough excitement in my life on terra firma.

On of my professors said “Tex, we all die, but rich people with lots of time die in so many useless and avoidable ways. He was referring to JFK Jr.

What a waste. RIP. But especially regrets to their families who will have to bear the burden.

Not meaning to make light of the tragedy which occurred and my heart goes out to the grieving families but, shouldn’t we ground all aircraft of this make and model until we can make sure all are safe. It is not different than the 737 MAX. Any loss of life is a tragedy and needs to be properly investigated before allowing any of this type back into the air. From what I have found in a brief look is there have been 161 “incidents” since this aircraft first took to the air. Shouldn’t it to be grounded until we know what happened?

Electronpusher9 wrote:

Not meaning to make light of the tragedy which occurred and my heart goes out to the grieving families but, shouldn’t we ground all aircraft of this make and model until we can make sure all are safe. It is not different than the 737 MAX. Any loss of life is a tragedy and needs to be properly investigated before allowing any of this type back into the air. From what I have found in a brief look is there have been 161 “incidents” since this aircraft first took to the air. Shouldn’t it to be grounded until we know what happened?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious. But, yes, it's very different than the 737 Max. The King Air has been in service for 55 years, it's a proven type with a good history. 161 incidents involve all types of events. The Max accidents involved two similar events, in a short period of time, with a new version of the plane, with software control changes that weren't fully understood by the crew, and that the manufacturer admits needs correcting. Not comparable at all. So, no, the King Air shouldn't be grounded.

cschleic wrote:

Electronpusher9 wrote:

Not meaning to make light of the tragedy which occurred and my heart goes out to the grieving families but, shouldn’t we ground all aircraft of this make and model until we can make sure all are safe. It is not different than the 737 MAX. Any loss of life is a tragedy and needs to be properly investigated before allowing any of this type back into the air. From what I have found in a brief look is there have been 161 “incidents” since this aircraft first took to the air. Shouldn’t it to be grounded until we know what happened?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious. But, yes, it's very different than the 737 Max. The King Air has been in service for 55 years, it's a proven type with a good history. 161 incidents involve all types of events. The Max accidents involved two similar events, in a short period of time, with a new version of the plane, with software control changes that weren't fully understood by the crew, and that the manufacturer admits needs correcting. Not comparable at all. So, no, the King Air shouldn't be grounded.

Agreed. King Air's don't need to be grounded. The operator on the other hand maybe should.

Light aircraft are often grounded until a structural or control part, or engine part, can be checked and replaced if necessary. Sometimes after one accident, when the cause is found, sometimes after several accidents (including such horrors are wings separating in flight).

This crash doesn't indicate any problem with the aircraft so far.

Being very sarcastic. I see the grounding as a way for other interested parties to punish Boeing.