User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 10274
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:26 am

Chamberlain plane crash: Children among nine dead after flight goes down take-off

Nine people are dead - including two children - after a plane crashed just after take off.

A flight from Chamberlain in South Dakota crashed in rural Brule County near the city.

Twelve people were said to be on board the plane - which was said to be on the way to Idaho.

KSFY reporter Ricardo Lewis tweeted: "Nine people are dead including the pilot and two children after a plane crash in rural Brule County near Chamberlain according to the Brule County State’s Attorney Theresa Maule. 1

"12 were on board the plane."


Link
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
canyonblue17
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:22 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:06 pm

Several websites show the PC-12 as a 6-9 seat aircraft. Even if you don't include two upfront - it sounds like this plane might have been overpacked - especially when taking off in sketchy conditions?? Either way - tragic and RIP.
negative ghostrider the pattern is full
 
Biscayne738
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:30 pm

We put nine pax, single pilot on our PC-12. It’s not comfortable but easily done with the aircraft in the right seating configuration.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1589
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:50 pm

Yeah I was shocked when I saw there were 12 people on that plane.
 
mysfit
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:16 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:54 pm

Returning from a hunting trip. Founders of Kyani and family. Very tragic.......

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2019/11/k ... rk-hansen/
 
KCaviator
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:02 pm

You can put two and two together. Icing conditions and a very heavy (possibly overweight) single-engine aircraft. Departing a small airport, makes you wonder if proper deicing services were even available. Probably won’t take too long to determine the cause, unfortunately.
Last edited by KCaviator on Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Biscayne738
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:05 pm

Almost anything goes flying Part 91. I tend to stay away from Part 91 owner pilot types. I’d rather airline home.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1589
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:06 pm

KCaviator wrote:
You can put two and two together. Icing conditions and a very heavy (possibly overweight) single-engine aircraft. Probably won’t take too long to determine the cause, unfortunately.


Agreed. Unless every one of those passengers were extremely malnourished, that plane didn't have a chance. I can't believe we are still making such dumb decisions. There's no excuse for it and it makes me angry.
 
KCaviator
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:10 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
You can put two and two together. Icing conditions and a very heavy (possibly overweight) single-engine aircraft. Probably won’t take too long to determine the cause, unfortunately.


Agreed. Unless every one of those passengers were extremely malnourished, that plane didn't have a chance. I can't believe we are still making such dumb decisions. There's no excuse for it and it makes me angry.


Absolutely. It wouldn’t be the first, and won’t be the last, Part 91 accident caused by such gross negligence, if that’s indeed the case.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12012
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:38 pm

Well it did have a chance which is why it was attempted, the pilot had probably flown before with the same weight, but in better conditions.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:44 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
You can put two and two together. Icing conditions and a very heavy (possibly overweight) single-engine aircraft. Probably won’t take too long to determine the cause, unfortunately.


Agreed. Unless every one of those passengers were extremely malnourished, that plane didn't have a chance. I can't believe we are still making such dumb decisions. There's no excuse for it and it makes me angry.


Children are legal to be 2 to a seat in 91 operations
From my cold, dead hands
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:53 pm

Not to mention they also probably had more weight coming back if they were on a hunting trip. I will never understand why that pilot thought flying in those conditions were okay. Apparently the NTSB had difficulty reaching the crash site because of weather.

Is it possible the children were infants? Otherwise, that plane was likely overloaded.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
User avatar
SuseJ772
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:13 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:55 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
You can put two and two together. Icing conditions and a very heavy (possibly overweight) single-engine aircraft. Probably won’t take too long to determine the cause, unfortunately.


Agreed. Unless every one of those passengers were extremely malnourished, that plane didn't have a chance. I can't believe we are still making such dumb decisions. There's no excuse for it and it makes me angry.


Children are legal to be 2 to a seat in 91 operations


Never knew that. I fly a Cirrus and have two small boys and it would be tempting to put three adults and the two boys in the plane (only if underweight and within CG of course). Not doubting you but where is the FAR that says that? What’s the age limit that defines a “child.”

I have been cautious about even putting the under 2 year old in someone’s lap. I don’t know why I don’t have a problem with it on an airline, but always put them in a seat when flying myself.

Also, I have been in (not as a pilot) a King Air with 9 + 2 pilots and that was uncomfortable. Can’t imagine a Pilatus with 12.
Last edited by SuseJ772 on Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1589
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:58 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
You can put two and two together. Icing conditions and a very heavy (possibly overweight) single-engine aircraft. Probably won’t take too long to determine the cause, unfortunately.


Agreed. Unless every one of those passengers were extremely malnourished, that plane didn't have a chance. I can't believe we are still making such dumb decisions. There's no excuse for it and it makes me angry.


Children are legal to be 2 to a seat in 91 operations


That doesn't make me think any better of this pilot. This was a roll of the dice and they all lost. You may think I am being harsh but these types of accidents have occurred for decades and we have been taught to avoid these situations. Flying an aircraft at the razors edge of its capabilities isn't smart.
 
User avatar
SuseJ772
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:13 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:04 pm

F9Animal wrote:
Not to mention they also probably had more weight coming back if they were on a hunting trip. I will never understand why that pilot thought flying in those conditions were okay. Apparently the NTSB had difficulty reaching the crash site because of weather.

Is it possible the children were infants? Otherwise, that plane was likely overloaded.

I remember when I first learned to fly I took a Cirrus with a friend of mine and a different pilot that wasn’t my full-time instructor. My friend showed up with his guns (which we were expecting) but also some boxes of printed materials (we weren’t expecting) for his friend we were meeting in Thomasville. We had 4 full grown adults, suitcases, guns and then the boxes of printed materials. The PIC just said, weather is good, no turbulence, we’ll be fine, just handle the controls carefully at takeoff and don’t tell [your instructor].

At the time I didn’t think too much of it other than I wouldn’t do it personally (but also got in the plane). Looking back on it, I would NEVER have agreed to go on that flight knowing what I know now.
Last edited by SuseJ772 on Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
 
MO11
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:04 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
Children are legal to be 2 to a seat in 91 operations


You're making that up:

§91.107 Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child restraint systems.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator—

(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing......Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:

(i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device;
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:06 pm

MO11 wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
Children are legal to be 2 to a seat in 91 operations


You're making that up:

§91.107 Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child restraint systems.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator—

(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing......Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:

(i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device;


No I'm not, here's a legal overview of it. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... e-of-three

And an NTSB recommendation on the aforementioned 14 passenger PC12 crash, and shared seatbelts. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs ... 21-123.pdf
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
SuseJ772
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:13 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:21 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
MO11 wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
Children are legal to be 2 to a seat in 91 operations


You're making that up:

§91.107 Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child restraint systems.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator—

(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing......Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:

(i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device;


No I'm not, here's a legal overview of it. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... e-of-three

And an NTSB recommendation on the aforementioned 14 passenger PC12 crash, and shared seatbelts. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs ... 21-123.pdf


Interesting. It appears that MO11 read that FAR as I always have which assumed one person per seat/seatbelt. But by the FAA’s own clarification they are only saying you must fit in a seat and use a seatbelt. So if two people (or more?!?) can fit in a seat and be under 170 pounds it’s legal.

As long as approved safety belts are carried aboard the aircraft for all occupants, and the structural strength requirements for the seats are not exceeded, the seating of two persons whose combined weights does not exceed 170 pounds under one safety belt where the belt can be properly secured around both persons would not be a violation of the regulations for an operation under Part 91.


In January 2010 correspondence to the NTSB, the FAA stated that, according to Section 91.107, multiple (two or more) occupants are allowed to share one seat and one restraint system as long as “the seat usage conformed with the limitations contained in the approved portion of the Airplane Flight Manual [AFM]” and “the belt was approved and rated for such use.”
Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:51 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
You can put two and two together. Icing conditions and a very heavy (possibly overweight) single-engine aircraft. Probably won’t take too long to determine the cause, unfortunately.


Agreed. Unless every one of those passengers were extremely malnourished, that plane didn't have a chance. I can't believe we are still making such dumb decisions. There's no excuse for it and it makes me angry.


Children are legal to be 2 to a seat in 91 operations


Where’s that in Part 91? Part 91.107 requires each passenger to have a seat with the required restraint except for lap infants under 2 years old. Same as every other operation. The TCDS lists a maximum of 9 passengers plus 2 pilot seats, hard to see 12 being legal. AirNav doesn’t list de-icing capability for the airport. Over at PPW, someone familiar with the operator does say they have a professional pilot but the owner of the company is a Private Pilot with IR. Who was actually flying it and making the decisions.

See from the linked NTSB Safety Recommendations and specifics about PC-12,

In June 1996, the Federal Office of Civil Aviation of Switzerland issued the original type certificate for the PC-12/45,5 and the FAA validated the certification in July 1996. The FAA’s type certificate data sheet for the PC-12 showed that the airplane’s certification basis included the requirements of 14 CFR Part 23, “Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes.”6 In accordance with Section 23.1583, “Operating Limitations,” paragraph (j), “Maximum Passenger Seating Configuration,” the Pilatus PC-12 AFM included a limitation on the number of seats aboard the airplane. However, the AFM also included a limitation on the number of occupants that could be transported by the PC-12, which is not an operating limitation required under Section 23.1583. Specifically, the AFM stated that, for a corporate commuter configuration, “a maximum of 9 seats may be installed in the cabin in addition to the 2 crew seats” and the “maximum number of occupants is 9 passengers plus pilot(s).”

Pilatus stated that it included the additional, and more restrictive, occupant limitation because of the certification requirements in 14 CFR 23.562, “Emergency Landing Dynamic Conditions.”7 According to paragraph (a)(1) of the regulation, each seat and restraint system for use in the airplane must be designed to protect each occupant during an emergency landing when “proper use is made of seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses provided for in the design.” Section 23.562 also addresses dynamic testing with an anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) and requires, among other things, that the shoulder harness remain on the ATD’s shoulder and the safety belt remain on the ATD’s pelvis during the impact. However, neither of these conditions could be met with multiple occupants sharing a single seat and restraint system, as allowed by 14 CFR 91.107.




GF
Last edited by GalaxyFlyer on Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
2175301
Posts: 1584
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:59 pm

First: My condolences to the families.

An interesting question, if I may. Why is it the assumption on this thread that this is "pilot error" when on some other threads many people on this forum claim that "pilot error" is actually very rare - and could not realistically be a cause of a crash (despite in one case documentation that the pilot apparently was not even properly qualified).

Why could this crash not have been caused by some form of aircraft failure or pilot workload overload scenario?

Why do we jump to such conclusions?

I do understand that it is unlikely that this PC-12 had data recorders installed which would allow us to know a lot more about the accident.

Have a great day,
 
canyonblue17
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:22 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:07 pm

I never assumed it was pilot error. I simply posted a question about the possibility that the flight may have been overloaded - and people responded with their opinions. The actual reason for the crash will be determined by the NTSB.
negative ghostrider the pattern is full
 
KCaviator
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:19 pm

2175301 wrote:
First: My condolences to the families.

An interesting question, if I may. Why is it the assumption on this thread that this is "pilot error" when on some other threads many people on this forum claim that "pilot error" is actually very rare - and could not realistically be a cause of a crash (despite in one case documentation that the pilot apparently was not even properly qualified).

Why could this crash not have been caused by some form of aircraft failure or pilot workload overload scenario?

Why do we jump to such conclusions?

I do understand that it is unlikely that this PC-12 had data recorders installed which would allow us to know a lot more about the accident.

Have a great day,


I think the quick conclusions in reference to this accident stem from the multiple factors at play that should have led to a no-go decision:

1) Overweight (probably) aircraft,
2) Winter Storm Warning at a small, uncontrolled airport, and
3) Aircraft crashes almost immediately after takeoff.

When you consider all of these facts, it can be concluded with good confidence as to what happened: an overweight aircraft departed into icing conditions without/improperly being deiced, leading to an aerodynamic stall after takeoff.

Obviously we don’t know if this is what indeed happened, but it’s not hard to see why many of us have concluded this to be the cause.
Last edited by KCaviator on Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
VS11
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:20 pm

2175301 wrote:
First: My condolences to the families.

An interesting question, if I may. Why is it the assumption on this thread that this is "pilot error" when on some other threads many people on this forum claim that "pilot error" is actually very rare - and could not realistically be a cause of a crash (despite in one case documentation that the pilot apparently was not even properly qualified).

Why could this crash not have been caused by some form of aircraft failure or pilot workload overload scenario?

Why do we jump to such conclusions?

I do understand that it is unlikely that this PC-12 had data recorders installed which would allow us to know a lot more about the accident.

Have a great day,


The short answer is that performing any flight is an exercise of decision making by the pilot. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of decisions being made - explicitly and implicitly - during each planned, attempted or performed flight. Even if there is some system failure, there are typically steps to mitigate and handle - again involving a decision making by the PIC.
 
IADCA
Posts: 1961
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:31 pm

2175301 wrote:
First: My condolences to the families.

An interesting question, if I may. Why is it the assumption on this thread that this is "pilot error" when on some other threads many people on this forum claim that "pilot error" is actually very rare - and could not realistically be a cause of a crash (despite in one case documentation that the pilot apparently was not even properly qualified).


Well, two responses. First is that your statement about pilot error being very rare and not being able to cause a crash is a bit hyperbolic. I think the point a lot of people make is that pilot error alone rarely causes crashes. Pilots are human beings. They make mistakes every day, both major and minor. It's just that, at least within the major airline environment, those don't usually cause crashes. Pilot error-induced crashes are much more common in GA.

Second is that poor pilot decision making is a pretty obvious inference to draw when you have 12 casualties on a 9-seat plane and the weather was bad enough to make ground-based rescue operations difficult.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:32 pm

Knowing how bad the weather was yesterday in the region, when I read the news I was surprised anyone was even flying in those conditions. Obviously let's wait until the facts come out, but it certainly has the makings of unwise decisions.

I've driven right by that airport many times. I'm going to be thinking about them next time I go by.
 
mysfit
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:16 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:44 pm

The pilot was part of the family.

From what everyone is saying, it sounds like the plane was overloaded. I've read elsewhere there is no deicing equipment there.

They flew in fine under better weather. Normalization of deviance. Got away with it at least once. Given the weather, it seems like a bad judgement call which would fall under pilot error.

Let's not use this tragedy to bludgeon each other over an ongoing argument about pilot qualification and error.
 
DeltaWings
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:06 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:59 pm

It sounds like several layers of the Swiss Cheese Model lined up here.

1. On the border/or out of the CG range
2. A/C not de-iced
3. Heavy wind gusts

Plus the fact, that the pilot probably has gotten away with such operation in the past would make it another significant contributing factor to the accident.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
 
cschleic
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:35 pm

There were three survivors so perhaps they'll be able to provide additional information about what happened prior to takeoff and in the plane.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:51 pm

DeltaWings wrote:
1. On the border/or out of the CG range


Has not been established - just rumor spread by armchair pilots.

DeltaWings wrote:
2. A/C not de-iced


Has not been established - just rumor spread by armchair pilots.

DeltaWings wrote:
3. Heavy wind gusts


Has not been established - just rumor spread by armchair pilots.

Although I like a good what-if conversation, this is all here-say and rumor until the NTSB releases information. Until then, let us beware of what is rumor and what is fact at this point.
 
Biscayne738
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:52 pm

With that many passengers you have no space for baggage on the PC12 unless your stuffing the aisle with items, blind eye...

Was the aircraft in question placed in one of two hangers at Chamberlian? If not what kind of de-ice took place assuming the airplane was contaminated. Weather wasn’t awesome when they departed.

One article says they crashed 30 miles from the airport? Just curious if the crash site is confirmed. That could give a few clues. NTSB and time will tell.

Condolences to the family! Tough time of the year to lose loved ones:-/
 
Iluvtofly
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:22 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:52 pm

I had a friend die in his own A/C after picking up contaminated fuel in at a small airport facility. Engine out right after takeoff ..... dont jump to conclusions people.
Flown - B707 727 737 747 757 767 777 787 A300 310 319 320 321 330 340 Concorde BAC111 TU154 VC10 F27 F28 F100 DC3 DC8 DC9 DC10 L1011 L188 DHC6 DHC7 DHC8 E135 E145 HS748 MD11 ST27 CV580 S340 ATR42 J31
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3487
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:43 pm

Iluvtofly wrote:
I had a friend die in his own A/C after picking up contaminated fuel in at a small airport facility. Engine out right after takeoff ..... dont jump to conclusions people.


Of course it could be anything at this point. But some of us are actual pilots. Whether or not pilot error actually played a role in this accident, I don't know too many other pilots who would say taking off in those conditions was a decision they would have made, and I certainly wouldn't have. On every flight, the pilot in command is required to make a go/no go decision. Taking off under a winter storm warning with falling snow in a small, single engine plane at an uncontrolled airport would be a hard "no go" for me.

The point being, whether or not it actually played a role in this accident, I don't see how you can convincingly defend that decision. Or even why you would try.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:47 pm

Here’s the METARs for KICR, about 35 SW of the airport.

KICR 301908Z AUTO 34022KT 1/2SM FG VV007 00/M02 A2930 RMK AO2 PK WND 35029/1857 T00001022 PWINO FZRANO

KICR 301853Z AUTO 35020G28KT 1/2SM FG VV006 00/M02 A2929 RMK AO2 PK WND 34028/1851 SLP936 P0002 I1001 T00001017 PWINO FZRANO

KICR 301850Z AUTO 34019KT 1/2SM FG VV007 00/M02 A2929 RMK AO2 PK WND 35026/1842 P0002 I1001 PWINO FZRANO

KICR 301753Z AUTO 35016KT 1/4SM FG VV006 00/M02 A2929 RMK AO2 SNEMMB41SNEMM SLP935 P0002 60024 T00001017 10000 20000 57004 PWINO FZRANO

KICR 301748Z AUTO 35015G23KT 1/4SM +SN FG VV006 00/M02 A2929 RMK AO2 SNEMMB41 P0002 $
KICR 301653Z AUTO 36015KT 3/4SM -SN BR VV008 00/M02 A2930 RMK AO2 SNEMMB18 SLP938 P0008 T00001017


So, pretty poor visibility in snow, pretty strong but not outrageous winds. Temps on the surface at freezing, so I’d expect icing on the ground and in-flight. Considering the fact fueling is self-service thru Automated Fueling, likely de-icing would not be available or self-service in moderate to heavy snow. No thanks.
Last edited by GalaxyFlyer on Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
mysfit
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:16 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:51 pm

What the plane was designed to carry and the number it was carrying legitimately raises the question of load, arm chair pilot or not.
 
mysfit
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:16 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:01 pm

The weather is bad enough to delay the investigators.

Now, I'm not saying it DID happen but incoming worsening weather might have factored into the decision to go when they did. Trying to beat the worst of it rather than delaying.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1828
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:02 pm

Aesma wrote:
Well it did have a chance which is why it was attempted, the pilot had probably flown before with the same weight, but in better conditions.


He had probably taken off overweight before but thought it could push it just that little bit more this time. The visibility was also bad. It is possible that as soon as he hit some clouds he lost control.
 
DeltaWings
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:06 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:08 pm

smithbs wrote:
DeltaWings wrote:
1. On the border/or out of the CG range


Has not been established - just rumor spread by armchair pilots.

DeltaWings wrote:
2. A/C not de-iced


Has not been established - just rumor spread by armchair pilots.

DeltaWings wrote:
3. Heavy wind gusts


Has not been established - just rumor spread by armchair pilots.

Although I like a good what-if conversation, this is all here-say and rumor until the NTSB releases information. Until then, let us beware of what is rumor and what is fact at this point.


While you are technically correct, there are several pilots on this site (me included), and certain conditions just ring alarm bells. History has shown through analysis of many accidents that these circumstances have lead to many accidents.

It is important to note, that an accident is usually not the cause of one single error/event. It is a perfect line-up of several factors, which have gone unnoticed and/or have been willingly violated. This is called the REASON model, a.k.a. Swiss Cheese.
Last edited by DeltaWings on Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
 
mysfit
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:16 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:13 pm

 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:23 pm

Read this, unrelated crash report, on how decision-making is critical and risk management is often overlooked by personal pilots. I’d say risk management and decision making are important skills largely untrained to new pilots in the US.

https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2008/20080201-1_C525_N102PT.pdf
 
kellmark
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 12:05 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:53 pm

A very tragic accident and a lot of speculation. There are lots of things that could have happened. I wouldn’t focus on just a few things just yet.

Here are my thoughts as a flight instructor. These are not all inclusive. Just a start.

1. Pilot issues. Training, recency, experience, qualifications, history, human factors, such as fatigue, medical issues, illness, etc. This also includes decision making, pressure to complete the mission, get-home-itis, resource management, etc. Any family or personal issues that could cause stress. One factor could be that this was a single pilot operation and workload could have been an issue.

2. Aircraft issues. Was it operated within specifications of weight, and center of gravity? An aircraft can have more payload, but perhaps less fuel and be within limits as long as it does not exceed maximum takeoff weight and maximum zero fuel weight, individual seat requirements, and CG. That could very well be an issue here. De-icing on the ground, ice protection during flight operation. Was the aircraft deiced?

The aircraft could have had a system failure, ie engine, avionics, electrical, flight control failure, etc.

3. Maintenance. Was the aircraft within the requirements of the required program?

4. Weather. The weather was IFR in winter conditions. A Part 91 aircraft can legally takeoff in 0 visibility and 0 ceiling, not that I would ever recommend it. This also goes to decision making. Also turbulence, etc.

5. ATC factors. Did ATC provide proper instructions, guidance, warnings and assistance? Were appropriate procedures followed? What were the communications, if any?

6. Airport issues. Runway surface conditions, facilities,etc.

7. Other environmental issues, such as terrain.

One final comment I have is that of pilot disorientation, where in instrument conditions a pilot becomes disoriented and loses what is happening and the aircraft could depart controlled flight.
I have seen this happen. There have been a number of accidents where this has happened, even to experienced pilots.

I am sure that there are lots of others. One has to go layers and layers deep to find all possible factors. One could look at the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System as a place to start.

Hope this helps.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3487
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:58 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I’d say risk management and decision making are important skills largely untrained to new pilots in the US.


Well, I can tell you from experience that that is definitely not accurate. Risk management was literally the first ground lesson I ever had. ADM has been hammered constantly in all stages of my training ever since (I am an instrument-rated private pilot, now in commercial training).

Pilots of all training and experience levels can be prone to "get-there-itis"; it's got nothing to do with how new a pilot is. It can actually be more prevalent with more experience, because of complacency (another hazard that's drilled over and over in training).

I don't really know anything about the pilot of this accident; what certifications he had or how experienced he was. I'm assuming he was instrument rated because otherwise he wouldn't have been able to legally take off. But he clearly was doing something that we are taught from the beginning not to do, which is obey the letter of the law without actually thinking about the consequences. Again, whether it had anything to do with the crash, I can say already that he took off in conditions that he could not legally return to the airport in. In part 91 in a single engine plane, your takeoff minimums under IFR are 0/0. But your *landing* minimums are whatever's on the approach plate, and there is no approach to that airport that would have let him land with anything but 1SM of visibility. (He had 1/2.) That alone is a dealbreaker.

Just to be clear about what that means, if he took off, had some kind of problem short of an emergency and wanted to return to the airport (for example, low oil pressure, or a broken electrical fuel pump), he could not legally do it. That would vastly increase the chances of whatever that situation was of *becoming* an emergency, and by that point he'd be who knows where. And even if he'd decided in advance to just declare an emergency for any little problem and turn around, those approach plates are designed how they are for a reason. Whether there are obstacles, sight obstructions, or something about the geography of the airport, you are taking a big, big risk thinking you're going to land in instrument conditions below minimums even in an emergency. Essentially, he decided at that point, knowing he was taking off below landing minimums for that airport, that he was fine with accepting that risk with 11 passengers on board. And that is just bad decision making.

(Technically speaking, you *can* try to shoot an approach below minimums and land if you then see the weather has improved to minimums or above, or if flight visibility is better than reported ground visibility. But again, it is a big, big risk. And risk management and decision making are the issues we're talking about.)
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
PhilMcCrackin
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:54 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:11 pm

canyonblue17 wrote:
Several websites show the PC-12 as a 6-9 seat aircraft. Even if you don't include two upfront - it sounds like this plane might have been overpacked - especially when taking off in sketchy conditions?? Either way - tragic and RIP.


You can fit 9 pax seats in a PC12NG along with two upfront. If two of the kids were sharing a seat, which is possible, they would have been legal.

TTailedTiger wrote:
Agreed. Unless every one of those passengers were extremely malnourished, that plane didn't have a chance. I can't believe we are still making such dumb decisions. There's no excuse for it and it makes me angry.


Nonsense. Usable payload on a PC12NG is 3600ish lbs and it was a relatively short flight for a PC12NG's capabilities. Even if they had 1200 lbs of fuel onboard, they would have had 2400 lbs of payload left over for 12 people and any luggage they might have had, or 200 lbs/person. Three of the pax were kids and one was an 81 year old man, so I doubt they anywhere near maxing that out.
 
SoCalPilot
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:37 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:17 pm

spacecadet wrote:

I don't really know anything about the pilot of this accident; what certifications he had or how experienced he was. I'm assuming he was instrument rated because otherwise he wouldn't have been able to legally take off. But he clearly was doing something that we are taught from the beginning not to do, which is obey the letter of the law without actually thinking about the consequences. Again, whether it had anything to do with the crash, I can say already that he took off in conditions that he could not legally return to the airport in. In part 91 in a single engine plane, your takeoff minimums under IFR are 0/0. But your *landing* minimums are whatever's on the approach plate, and there is no approach to that airport that would have let him land with anything but 1SM of visibility. (He had 1/2.) That alone is a dealbreaker.

Just to be clear about what that means, if he took off, had some kind of problem short of an emergency and wanted to return to the airport (for example, low oil pressure, or a broken electrical fuel pump), he could not legally do it. That would vastly increase the chances of whatever that situation was of *becoming* an emergency, and by that point he'd be who knows where. And even if he'd decided in advance to just declare an emergency for any little problem and turn around, those approach plates are designed how they are for a reason. Whether there are obstacles, sight obstructions, or something about the geography of the airport, you are taking a big, big risk thinking you're going to land in instrument conditions below minimums even in an emergency. Essentially, he decided at that point, knowing he was taking off below landing minimums for that airport, that he was fine with accepting that risk with 11 passengers on board. And that is just bad decision making.
Departing in weather that is above takeoff minimums but below landing minimums happens all the time and is perfectly safe and a legal. For Part 121/135 operators the FAA requires a takeoff alternate, which is an airport within 1 hour that meets alternate airport requirements. For part 91 there is no requirement.

And for part 91, unlike 121/135, there is no weather requirement to shoot the approach, just to descend from DH/MDA. You can shoot an approach all day long in 0/0 conditions, you just have to have the prescribed flight visibility to descend to the runway. Keyword there is flight visibility - the airport could be reporting 1/4 mile vis but if you see 1 mile then you're good. And even then, if you have an emergency situation, the FAR's go out the window.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:25 pm

spacecadet,

[quote][Well, I can tell you from experience that that is definitely not accurate. Risk management was literally the first ground lesson I ever had. ADM has been hammered constantly in all stages of my training ever since (I am an instrument-rated private pilot, now in commercial training)./quote]

The Part 91 GA, especially owner-flown high performance planes, accident history says otherwise. You could look at dozens of VLJ, PC-12, TBM, Piper Malibu records for starts. Congrats on great instruction.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1589
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:59 pm

PhilMcCrackin wrote:
canyonblue17 wrote:
Several websites show the PC-12 as a 6-9 seat aircraft. Even if you don't include two upfront - it sounds like this plane might have been overpacked - especially when taking off in sketchy conditions?? Either way - tragic and RIP.


You can fit 9 pax seats in a PC12NG along with two upfront. If two of the kids were sharing a seat, which is possible, they would have been legal.

TTailedTiger wrote:
Agreed. Unless every one of those passengers were extremely malnourished, that plane didn't have a chance. I can't believe we are still making such dumb decisions. There's no excuse for it and it makes me angry.


Nonsense. Usable payload on a PC12NG is 3600ish lbs and it was a relatively short flight for a PC12NG's capabilities. Even if they had 1200 lbs of fuel onboard, they would have had 2400 lbs of payload left over for 12 people and any luggage they might have had, or 200 lbs/person. Three of the pax were kids and one was an 81 year old man, so I doubt they anywhere near maxing that out.


Mhmm, no one would ever be sharing a seat on a flight where I'm the PIC. And I definitely would not have taken off in those conditions. Good luck to you. I've never been one to play with fire.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1589
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:03 am

SoCalPilot wrote:
spacecadet wrote:

I don't really know anything about the pilot of this accident; what certifications he had or how experienced he was. I'm assuming he was instrument rated because otherwise he wouldn't have been able to legally take off. But he clearly was doing something that we are taught from the beginning not to do, which is obey the letter of the law without actually thinking about the consequences. Again, whether it had anything to do with the crash, I can say already that he took off in conditions that he could not legally return to the airport in. In part 91 in a single engine plane, your takeoff minimums under IFR are 0/0. But your *landing* minimums are whatever's on the approach plate, and there is no approach to that airport that would have let him land with anything but 1SM of visibility. (He had 1/2.) That alone is a dealbreaker.

Just to be clear about what that means, if he took off, had some kind of problem short of an emergency and wanted to return to the airport (for example, low oil pressure, or a broken electrical fuel pump), he could not legally do it. That would vastly increase the chances of whatever that situation was of *becoming* an emergency, and by that point he'd be who knows where. And even if he'd decided in advance to just declare an emergency for any little problem and turn around, those approach plates are designed how they are for a reason. Whether there are obstacles, sight obstructions, or something about the geography of the airport, you are taking a big, big risk thinking you're going to land in instrument conditions below minimums even in an emergency. Essentially, he decided at that point, knowing he was taking off below landing minimums for that airport, that he was fine with accepting that risk with 11 passengers on board. And that is just bad decision making.
Departing in weather that is above takeoff minimums but below landing minimums happens all the time and is perfectly safe and a legal. For Part 121/135 operators the FAA requires a takeoff alternate, which is an airport within 1 hour that meets alternate airport requirements. For part 91 there is no requirement.

And for part 91, unlike 121/135, there is no weather requirement to shoot the approach, just to descend from DH/MDA. You can shoot an approach all day long in 0/0 conditions, you just have to have the prescribed flight visibility to descend to the runway. Keyword there is flight visibility - the airport could be reporting 1/4 mile vis but if you see 1 mile then you're good. And even then, if you have an emergency situation, the FAR's go out the window.


A good pilot will have personal minimums that are tighter than what the regulations allow.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:09 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
SoCalPilot wrote:
spacecadet wrote:

I don't really know anything about the pilot of this accident; what certifications he had or how experienced he was. I'm assuming he was instrument rated because otherwise he wouldn't have been able to legally take off. But he clearly was doing something that we are taught from the beginning not to do, which is obey the letter of the law without actually thinking about the consequences. Again, whether it had anything to do with the crash, I can say already that he took off in conditions that he could not legally return to the airport in. In part 91 in a single engine plane, your takeoff minimums under IFR are 0/0. But your *landing* minimums are whatever's on the approach plate, and there is no approach to that airport that would have let him land with anything but 1SM of visibility. (He had 1/2.) That alone is a dealbreaker.

Just to be clear about what that means, if he took off, had some kind of problem short of an emergency and wanted to return to the airport (for example, low oil pressure, or a broken electrical fuel pump), he could not legally do it. That would vastly increase the chances of whatever that situation was of *becoming* an emergency, and by that point he'd be who knows where. And even if he'd decided in advance to just declare an emergency for any little problem and turn around, those approach plates are designed how they are for a reason. Whether there are obstacles, sight obstructions, or something about the geography of the airport, you are taking a big, big risk thinking you're going to land in instrument conditions below minimums even in an emergency. Essentially, he decided at that point, knowing he was taking off below landing minimums for that airport, that he was fine with accepting that risk with 11 passengers on board. And that is just bad decision making.
Departing in weather that is above takeoff minimums but below landing minimums happens all the time and is perfectly safe and a legal. For Part 121/135 operators the FAA requires a takeoff alternate, which is an airport within 1 hour that meets alternate airport requirements. For part 91 there is no requirement.

And for part 91, unlike 121/135, there is no weather requirement to shoot the approach, just to descend from DH/MDA. You can shoot an approach all day long in 0/0 conditions, you just have to have the prescribed flight visibility to descend to the runway. Keyword there is flight visibility - the airport could be reporting 1/4 mile vis but if you see 1 mile then you're good. And even then, if you have an emergency situation, the FAR's go out the window.


A good pilot will have personal minimums that are tighter than what the regulations allow.


True and not true, depends on the pilot, the machine, the environment and lots of other factors. First flight of the day, approach to mins might not be a problem to an airline pilot in a A320. A low-time PC-12 Pilot might have trouble in cloud at 10,000’

GF
 
SL1200MK2
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:12 am

Hello Everyone,

Might someone clue me in on something please? I’ve noticed a few folks mentioning that one of the risk factors was that this in an uncontrolled airport.

How does this add to the risk in this particular situation? Is it because of lack of services should something go wrong?

While I understand how an uncontrolled field has added risks perhaps on a busy day, I’m going to guess not many others were in the patten or on approach.

Pardon my lack of understanding here. I’m just interested and would like to learn more.

Thanks!
 
SL1200MK2
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:25 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
spacecadet,

[Well, I can tell you from experience that that is definitely not accurate. Risk management was literally the first ground lesson I ever had. ADM has been hammered constantly in all stages of my training ever since (I am an instrument-rated private pilot, now in commercial training)./quote]

The Part 91 GA, especially owner-flown high performance planes, accident history says otherwise. You could look at dozens of VLJ, PC-12, TBM, Piper Malibu records for starts. Congrats on great instruction.


Howdy,

Your comment got me thinking. By what you say, it seems like this may be the “doctor killer” effect, where someone gets their license and can afford a big step up to a far faster and more complex aircraft. I mention this because of the types you mention - TBM, CE-510, etc - are not necessarily affordable to most people. Not that a Piper Warrior is either, but I think this makes sense.

Perhaps those without such funding step up more slowly or have to fly professionally, as doing it as a hobby or personal transport is too expensive. As a result, maybe they have less crashes related to hubris, for lack of a better term.

While it’s somewhat macabre, I wonder if there is any correlation between income and Part 91 crashes.
 
SoCalPilot
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:37 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:38 am

TTailedTiger wrote:

A good pilot will have personal minimums that are tighter than what the regulations allow.

Yes, the instrument rated pilot who never uses his skills and flies his personal or rented airplane a few times a year should have much stricter minimums.

But the ATP rated pilot who takes a checkride every six months in the airplane and is trained to fly in a variety of weather conditions and has experience doing so is going to be expected to be able to fly down to minimums unless they have a good reason not to; such as fatigue, aircraft performance issues, or other weather considerations such as this snow storm.

I'm not saying his decision to take off in the snow storm that was moving through was correct - I wouldn't have. But to put out a blanket statement that it's dangerous to depart when the weather is above takeoff mins but below landing mins is silly.

Good pilots asses the situation and go from there. Theres been plenty of times where I've turned down a flight at 3AM to an unfamiliar airport in mountainous terrain with poor weather conditions, but accepted a flight with the same weather conditions during the day to an airport I'm familiar with and also more awake.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos