2175301
Posts: 1584
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:50 am

My research shows that the aircraft itself (PC-12) is rated for the conditions involved, and allowed to operate in icing conditions. Has anti-icing boots, heaters, etc.

As for should the pilot have flown in these conditions? That gets to their experience flying the aircraft in similar conditions. Perhaps he had no or limited experience. Perhaps he was highly experienced with this aircraft and similar weather conditions - which may be possible given where the pilot lived.

Let's wait for the investigative report before making such judgements as to if this was inappropriate or not for the pilot. The fact that there are many pilots who would not take off - does not mean that there are not some highly qualified ones who would with this aircraft and conditions and be justified in their decision.

Have a great day,
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1589
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:04 am

SoCalPilot wrote:
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.


Many airlines impose minimums that are stricter than the regulations. And what's the point of this board if we're not allowed to discuss things like this? No one has made any claims as to what exactly happened. But to tell us to ignore hundreds of crashes with similar characteristics is just well, puzzling.
 
IADCA
Posts: 1961
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:08 am

2175301 wrote:
My research shows that the aircraft itself (PC-12) is rated for the conditions involved, and allowed to operate in icing conditions. Has anti-icing boots, heaters, etc.

As for should the pilot have flown in these conditions? That gets to their experience flying the aircraft in similar conditions. Perhaps he had no or limited experience. Perhaps he was highly experienced with this aircraft and similar weather conditions - which may be possible given where the pilot lived.

Let's wait for the investigative report before making such judgements as to if this was inappropriate or not for the pilot. The fact that there are many pilots who would not take off - does not mean that there are not some highly qualified ones who would with this aircraft and conditions and be justified in their decision.

Have a great day,


A lot of speculation at this time, certainly, but another bit that might need to be thrown in is the timing: just after Thanksgiving with bad weather forecast suggests a potential get-there-itis factor too.

There's a lot to look at here. Not enough to necessary say "oh, definitely a pilot issue" but also enough for even people with basic private licenses to wonder if they'd have made similar decisions. I don't know enough about the pilot to know whether this was a good idea for him/her. He/she might be a lot better or know the plane a lot better than I do - the latter is almost certain. I do know that I'd be staying on the ground based on the facts as I know them.
 
KCaviator
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:50 am

SL1200MK2 wrote:
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!


I did mention it being an uncontrolled airport, but I wasn’t implying anything to do with airspace. I was meaning more for the fact that since it was such a small airport, it probably didn’t have adequate deicing equipment and services.

Using the phrase “uncontrolled airport” probably wasn’t the best choice of words.
 
SoCalPilot
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:37 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:51 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
SoCalPilot wrote:
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.


Many airlines impose minimums that are stricter than the regulations. And what's the point of this board if we're not allowed to discuss things like this? No one has made any claims as to what exactly happened. But to tell us to ignore hundreds of crashes with similar characteristics is just well, puzzling.
First off, where did I say to ignore hundreds of crashes? That's got to be the most atrocious display of twisting words that I've ever seen. All I stated was that it wasn't dangerous to depart with with the vis above takeoff mins and the vis below landings mins.

Second off - are we not having a discussion? Is me stating that it's not dangerous to depart within regulations is a controversial statement on this board? I'm confused by that comment.

But anyways, your comment about airlines imposing minimums that are stricter than regulations allow shows me that you don't understand how airline ops are regulated. Part 121 and 135 carriers are issued Op Specs, which are a set of rules approved by the FAA for that carrier that they must operator under. I've never worked for an airline or company where the weather mins for a standard airport and route were higher than what their Op Specs state. They may have higher minimums for certain pilots who have less time in type and requirements for operations into special airports, but every company I've worked at you're taking off at the minimum RVR listed and landing with the minimum vis required if you have to, given of course that the pilots are legal to do so and that the airplane has no MEL or discrepancy preventing it from doing so. Now that doesn't mean they won't cancel for a snowstorm or severe weather, that goes with the whole assessing the situation that I talked about and planning for efficiency. But they most certainly will operate down to the weather minimums set forth in their Op Specs if they have to - that's what they are trained to do.

So with that said, I'm curious as to what airline/company you've worked for that it's different?
 
cschleic
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:27 am

KCaviator wrote:
SL1200MK2 wrote:
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!


I did mention it being an uncontrolled airport, but I wasn’t implying anything to do with airspace. I was meaning more for the fact that since it was such a small airport, it probably didn’t have adequate deicing equipment and services.

Using the phrase “uncontrolled airport” probably wasn’t the best choice of words.


It was a good question. And the fact that it's uncontrolled could be a negative or not be a factor. Depends on the situation. I don't know that only larger controlled airports have deicing equipment. There probably are some uncontrolled fields that do based on location, weather, traffic volume and type of aircraft. And, yes, a busier airport is likely to have more infrastructure and equipment. One advantage of a controlled airport is the tower can provide directional assistance (if it has radar) and field-specific wind and weather updates that could be helpful in an emergency. Of course, the guideline of aviate, navigate, communicate applies...fly the plane first.
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:33 am

When I read 12 onboard a PC-12, I was surprised that so many (including crew) could fit. It must’ve been really cramped.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5

AA AI CO CL DE DL EA HA KL LH N7 PA PQ SK RO TW UA YR
 
ExpatVet
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:35 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:26 am

SL1200MK2 wrote:
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.


Interesting points - I am not a pilot, but in my line of work I do work with doctors. Many of them are humane, caring, and detail oriented.

Some of them are arrogant, self-righteous, and convinced that their decisions are directives from God because they know ALL the answers. (Spoiler: they don't.) In many cases I also wonder if "pride goeth before the crash."
L101, 733/4/5/8, 741/2/3 (never managed 744!), MD 80/2/3/8/90, MD11, DHC8/3/Q4, E170, E195, 757, 77W, 763/4, Travel Air 2000. A300/310, A319/320/321, A333, ATR-72, probably a few others I forget. Passenger, not pilot, alas! BUD based.
 
SL1200MK2
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:33 am

ExpatVet wrote:
SL1200MK2 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
spacecadet,



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.


Interesting points - I am not a pilot, but in my line of work I do work with doctors. Many of them are humane, caring, and detail oriented.

Some of them are arrogant, self-righteous, and convinced that their decisions are directives from God because they know ALL the answers. (Spoiler: they don't.) In many cases I also wonder if "pride goeth before the crash."


I’ve had the same experiences with people in medicine. I used the term as just that, but wasn’t intending to imply doctors as being cavalier in the cockpit. In-fact, I see more issues from tech executives than doctors.

That said, I shouldn’t use “doctor killer” if I don’t want to appear to imply that.
 
SL1200MK2
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:37 am

cschleic wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
SL1200MK2 wrote:
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!


I did mention it being an uncontrolled airport, but I wasn’t implying anything to do with airspace. I was meaning more for the fact that since it was such a small airport, it probably didn’t have adequate deicing equipment and services.

Using the phrase “uncontrolled airport” probably wasn’t the best choice of words.


It was a good question. And the fact that it's uncontrolled could be a negative or not be a factor. Depends on the situation. I don't know that only larger controlled airports have deicing equipment. There probably are some uncontrolled fields that do based on location, weather, traffic volume and type of aircraft. And, yes, a busier airport is likely to have more infrastructure and equipment. One advantage of a controlled airport is the tower can provide directional assistance (if it has radar) and field-specific wind and weather updates that could be helpful in an emergency. Of course, the guideline of aviate, navigate, communicate applies...fly the plane first.


Makes sense in that a towered airport is contextual as to what other services could be expected from the field. That including possible deicing services and the such.
 
Adipocere
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:35 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:07 pm

Some news reports mentioned that the unfortunate family was out hunting in SD. Does anybody know what kind of game? And whether they were packing their game back to ID, I mean a single buffalo could itself weigh 1000lb+.
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2443
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:43 pm

DeltaWings wrote:
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.


Flight plan:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N56 ... Z/9V9/KIDA

Info on 9V9 - Chamberlain Municipal Airport:
http://airnav.com/airport/9V9

Only available service listed is self serve fueling- no mention of FBO- I doubt there is any de-icing services available.
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:48 pm

Adipocere wrote:
Some news reports mentioned that the unfortunate family was out hunting in SD. Does anybody know what kind of game? And whether they were packing their game back to ID, I mean a single buffalo could itself weigh 1000lb+.


Pheasant and sharptails, probably. Bird hunting is a huge business and sport in SD. You’ll see all manner of bizjets there in the fall across the Plains, esp SD.

GF
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:39 pm

dampfnudel wrote:
When I read 12 onboard a PC-12, I was surprised that so many (including crew) could fit. It must’ve been really cramped.

Well, the European TCDS lists max capacity at "9 PAX excluding pilot seats"; so, does that mean up to 11 useable seats on board (2 pilot seats)?
The FAA TCDS makes a similar statement: "9 PAX and 2 pilot seats".
Pilatus lists "10 + 1 Pilot" as Max Passengers for the PC-12 NGX.

So, since there were children on board, as has been stated previously, 2 kids on a single PAX seats (as others have said appears to be allowed), 8 adults on the remaining PAX seats and 2 souls on the pilot seats = 12 souls on board. Seems to be within specs (weight is another issue)
 
filejw
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 2:58 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:59 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
When I read 12 onboard a PC-12, I was surprised that so many (including crew) could fit. It must’ve been really cramped.

Well, the European TCDS lists max capacity at "9 PAX excluding pilot seats"; so, does that mean up to 11 useable seats on board (2 pilot seats)?
The FAA TCDS makes a similar statement: "9 PAX and 2 pilot seats".
Pilatus lists "10 + 1 Pilot" as Max Passengers for the PC-12 NGX.

So, since there were children on board, as has been stated previously, 2 kids on a single PAX seats (as others have said appears to be allowed), 8 adults on the remaining PAX seats and 2 souls on the pilot seats = 12 souls on board. Seems to be within specs (weight is another issue)


If you read early in this thread someone quotes Platuis the PC-12 has an occupancy limit of 11.It was added to the certification.for some reason. 9+2
 
mysfit
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:16 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:05 pm

They were hunting pheasants. There is a picture out on some of the news articles showing the group post hunt. 4 generations. Just devastating for that family.

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2019/12/h ... sed-kyani/
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:27 pm

filejw wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
When I read 12 onboard a PC-12, I was surprised that so many (including crew) could fit. It must’ve been really cramped.

Well, the European TCDS lists max capacity at "9 PAX excluding pilot seats"; so, does that mean up to 11 useable seats on board (2 pilot seats)?
The FAA TCDS makes a similar statement: "9 PAX and 2 pilot seats".
Pilatus lists "10 + 1 Pilot" as Max Passengers for the PC-12 NGX.

So, since there were children on board, as has been stated previously, 2 kids on a single PAX seats (as others have said appears to be allowed), 8 adults on the remaining PAX seats and 2 souls on the pilot seats = 12 souls on board. Seems to be within specs (weight is another issue)


If you read early in this thread someone quotes Platuis the PC-12 has an occupancy limit of 11.It was added to the certification.for some reason. 9+2


The AFM restriction of 9+2 pilot seats, one of which must be the pilot, may be occupied is governing. 12>11, so an illegal load. Regardless of some interpretations, the FAA and Swiss FOCA approved the Pilatus AFM specifying 9+2. Full stop.

Over at PPW, there’s a PC-12 check airman who confirms the limit is 11 occupants, of which one is the pilot. Also, that 9V9 has limited services and no de-icing capability. He also spoke with a local pilot who confirmed freezing rain followed by snow. So, no de-icing beyond using a broom, icing conditions on the ground and in-flight, one more person on board than certified. Anything else for a risk analysis?

GF
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:58 pm

DeltaWings wrote:
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.

Time and time again, situations like this all come down to the pilot making a go decision, when they should have known better, letting outside pressures to “get there” override what they knew the correct decision should be. Maybe they got by with something similar before, and this time is only a little worse, so.....

I have lost two acquaintances in the last three years to similar decision making, one a very experienced pilot with thousands of hours in the plane and type, facing a time deadline, another a non-pilot passenger in an incident the PIC should have known was a no-go.

While some folks don’t like speculation on these, talking about them reinforces the importance of ADM in my own mind. In the case of the people I knew, simply waiting it out, or not going until the known issue was resolved, would have meant fewer funerals.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:03 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
filejw wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Well, the European TCDS lists max capacity at "9 PAX excluding pilot seats"; so, does that mean up to 11 useable seats on board (2 pilot seats)?
The FAA TCDS makes a similar statement: "9 PAX and 2 pilot seats".
Pilatus lists "10 + 1 Pilot" as Max Passengers for the PC-12 NGX.

So, since there were children on board, as has been stated previously, 2 kids on a single PAX seats (as others have said appears to be allowed), 8 adults on the remaining PAX seats and 2 souls on the pilot seats = 12 souls on board. Seems to be within specs (weight is another issue)


If you read early in this thread someone quotes Platuis the PC-12 has an occupancy limit of 11.It was added to the certification.for some reason. 9+2


The AFM restriction of 9+2 pilot seats, one of which must be the pilot, may be occupied is governing. 12>11, so an illegal load. Regardless of some interpretations, the FAA and Swiss FOCA approved the Pilatus AFM specifying 9+2. Full stop.

Over at PPW, there’s a PC-12 check airman who confirms the limit is 11 occupants, of which one is the pilot. Also, that 9V9 has limited services and no de-icing capability. He also spoke with a local pilot who confirmed freezing rain followed by snow. So, no de-icing beyond using a broom, icing conditions on the ground and in-flight, one more person on board than certified. Anything else for a risk analysis?

GF
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:03 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
filejw wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Well, the European TCDS lists max capacity at "9 PAX excluding pilot seats"; so, does that mean up to 11 useable seats on board (2 pilot seats)?
The FAA TCDS makes a similar statement: "9 PAX and 2 pilot seats".
Pilatus lists "10 + 1 Pilot" as Max Passengers for the PC-12 NGX.

So, since there were children on board, as has been stated previously, 2 kids on a single PAX seats (as others have said appears to be allowed), 8 adults on the remaining PAX seats and 2 souls on the pilot seats = 12 souls on board. Seems to be within specs (weight is another issue)


If you read early in this thread someone quotes Platuis the PC-12 has an occupancy limit of 11.It was added to the certification.for some reason. 9+2


The AFM restriction of 9+2 pilot seats, one of which must be the pilot, may be occupied is governing. 12>11, so an illegal load. Regardless of some interpretations, the FAA and Swiss FOCA approved the Pilatus AFM specifying 9+2. Full stop.

Over at PPW, there’s a PC-12 check airman who confirms the limit is 11 occupants, of which one is the pilot. Also, that 9V9 has limited services and no de-icing capability. He also spoke with a local pilot who confirmed freezing rain followed by snow. So, no de-icing beyond using a broom, icing conditions on the ground and in-flight, one more person on board than certified. Anything else for a risk analysis?

GF
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:57 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
filejw wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Well, the European TCDS lists max capacity at "9 PAX excluding pilot seats"; so, does that mean up to 11 useable seats on board (2 pilot seats)?
The FAA TCDS makes a similar statement: "9 PAX and 2 pilot seats".
Pilatus lists "10 + 1 Pilot" as Max Passengers for the PC-12 NGX.

So, since there were children on board, as has been stated previously, 2 kids on a single PAX seats (as others have said appears to be allowed), 8 adults on the remaining PAX seats and 2 souls on the pilot seats = 12 souls on board. Seems to be within specs (weight is another issue)


If you read early in this thread someone quotes Platuis the PC-12 has an occupancy limit of 11.It was added to the certification.for some reason. 9+2


The AFM restriction of 9+2 pilot seats, one of which must be the pilot, may be occupied is governing. 12>11, so an illegal load. Regardless of some interpretations, the FAA and Swiss FOCA approved the Pilatus AFM specifying 9+2. Full stop.

Over at PPW, there’s a PC-12 check airman who confirms the limit is 11 occupants, of which one is the pilot. Also, that 9V9 has limited services and no de-icing capability. He also spoke with a local pilot who confirmed freezing rain followed by snow. So, no de-icing beyond using a broom, icing conditions on the ground and in-flight, one more person on board than certified. Anything else for a risk analysis?

GF

OK, misread the originally quoted articles.
However, there is no mention of the age of the children, one of whom could have been under the age of two (although they are usually called "infants" or "toddlers" and not "children" at that age) and been held in someone's lap; do those then count towards the 11 occupants?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:03 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
filejw wrote:

If you read early in this thread someone quotes Platuis the PC-12 has an occupancy limit of 11.It was added to the certification.for some reason. 9+2


The AFM restriction of 9+2 pilot seats, one of which must be the pilot, may be occupied is governing. 12>11, so an illegal load. Regardless of some interpretations, the FAA and Swiss FOCA approved the Pilatus AFM specifying 9+2. Full stop.

Over at PPW, there’s a PC-12 check airman who confirms the limit is 11 occupants, of which one is the pilot. Also, that 9V9 has limited services and no de-icing capability. He also spoke with a local pilot who confirmed freezing rain followed by snow. So, no de-icing beyond using a broom, icing conditions on the ground and in-flight, one more person on board than certified. Anything else for a risk analysis?

GF

OK, misread the originally quoted articles.
However, there is no mention of the age of the children, one of whom could have been under the age of two (although they are usually called "infants" or "toddlers" and not "children" at that age) and been held in someone's lap; do those then count towards the 11 occupants?


They were hunting and the picture posted in a news article shows the group photo of 12, none infant sized.
 
KCaviator
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:10 pm

Any confirmation on if the owner was the operator (i.e. PIC?)

As a proud professional pilot myself, the apparent stupidity of this accident has my blood boiling.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:19 pm

Again, over at PPW, the owner was the PIC. I’m guessing that the number of people precluded scheduling the professional pilot that’s reported to be employed by the company. There’s several pro PC drivers over there that know the “community”.
 
mysfit
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:16 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:18 pm

The youngest on the flight was 7 years old. Articles have confirmed that the one person on the flight who was a pilot was Kirk Hansen.

The names of all aboard have been released along with the information so it's public domain. A lot of things could have gone wrong and yes there will be an investigation.

It's human nature to speculate and even if this turns out to be something very different, the speculation still brings up scenarios which can teach. Which is the point of the investigation; to learn from it to prevent other accidents.
 
KCaviator
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:06 pm

mysfit wrote:
The youngest on the flight was 7 years old. Articles have confirmed that the one person on the flight who was a pilot was Kirk Hansen.

The names of all aboard have been released along with the information so it's public domain. A lot of things could have gone wrong and yes there will be an investigation.

It's human nature to speculate and even if this turns out to be something very different, the speculation still brings up scenarios which can teach. Which is the point of the investigation; to learn from it to prevent other accidents.


Regardless of what caused the crashed, the fact that there were too many people onboard the aircraft is inexcusable, unprofessional, and simply gross negligence.
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2443
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:32 pm

K9V9 METAR around the time of the crash:

SA 30/11/2019 18:35->METAR K9V9 301835Z AUTO 02006KT 1/2SM SN OVC005 01/01 A2930 RMK AO2 T00080008=
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:34 pm

Around S/N 1270, Pilatus started installing what they termed “lightweight data recorder” which included voice recording, so the NTSB or FAA will have that to work from.

GF
 
KCaviator
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:47 pm

tjwgrr wrote:
K9V9 METAR around the time of the crash:

SA 30/11/2019 18:35->METAR K9V9 301835Z AUTO 02006KT 1/2SM SN OVC005 01/01 A2930 RMK AO2 T00080008=


Based on this information and using the FAA’s “Snowfall Intensities as a Function of Prevailing Visibility” chart, 1/2 SM visibility with a temperature of +1C during the day would equal a snowfall intensity of Heavy.

With that being said, even IF the aircraft was deiced with Type IV, which we can presume was NOT, no holdover time even exists for Heavy snow.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3487
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:51 pm

SoCalPilot wrote:
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.


No, it isn't. I genuinely do not understand why you are arguing otherwise.

In Part 91 for single engine aircraft, there are no defined takeoff minimums. That doesn't mean the FAA is telling you it's safe to take off in zero visibility. It means you have to use other criteria to judge whether takeoff is safe. And guess what? The FAA provides you with a really easy and reliable criteria for judging that! And that criteria is landing minimums. They're different for every airport, which is why there are no generic takeoff minimums. If you can take off but not land, then you shouldn't be taking off. Simple enough for a layperson to understand that.

There's what's legal and there's what's good ADM. What we're talking about here is ADM. And this was bad ADM - there is no sugar-coating it or defending it, and it's not something vague or different depending on the pilot. If the most experienced pilot in the world took off from this airport in this plane in these conditions with 11 passengers, that would be bad ADM.

I know people who have failed checkrides on this specific question. The FAA is not intending for you to use the lack of generic takeoff minimums to get yourself out of airports you shouldn't be flying out of. They're intending for you to have some other minima that you use, and they like it when you use landing minima. If you have some generic personal minima above that, that's fine too, but they do not look kindly on pilots who treat 0/0 takeoff minimums as if it's a technicality that makes their flight legal, whatever their experience level.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
cat3appr50
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:09 pm

Based on a Pilatus PC-12NG, for the 9V9 to KIDA Flight Date/Dep. Time, FL220, Est. 530 NM route, Normal CRZ TAS, normal passenger and bags loading in terms of lbs/pssgr. and lbs/bag, no extra cargo, with winds aloft for date/route, est, 2 hrs. 0 min. flight time, with closest usable alternate airport:

Calc. block fuel around 58% of max. fuel capacity, ZFW around 98% of MZFW, takeoff weight around 99% of MTOW
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:15 pm

spacecadet wrote:
SoCalPilot wrote:
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.


No, it isn't. I genuinely do not understand why you are arguing otherwise.

In Part 91 for single engine aircraft, there are no defined takeoff minimums. That doesn't mean the FAA is telling you it's safe to take off in zero visibility. It means you have to use other criteria to judge whether takeoff is safe. And guess what? The FAA provides you with a really easy and reliable criteria for judging that! And that criteria is landing minimums. They're different for every airport, which is why there are no generic takeoff minimums. If you can take off but not land, then you shouldn't be taking off. Simple enough for a layperson to understand that.

There's what's legal and there's what's good ADM. What we're talking about here is ADM. And this was bad ADM - there is no sugar-coating it or defending it, and it's not something vague or different depending on the pilot. If the most experienced pilot in the world took off from this airport in this plane in these conditions with 11 passengers, that would be bad ADM.

I know people who have failed checkrides on this specific question. The FAA is not intending for you to use the lack of generic takeoff minimums to get yourself out of airports you shouldn't be flying out of. They're intending for you to have some other minima that you use, and they like it when you use landing minima. If you have some generic personal minima above that, that's fine too, but they do not look kindly on pilots who treat 0/0 takeoff minimums as if it's a technicality that makes their flight legal, whatever their experience level.


I would consider going a step further for take off minimums. On an instrument approach, you have horizontal and vertical guidance to get you to a runway. On take off, you have similar navigation but you relying on adequate climb power to clear all obstacles and terrain. While there is a published safe altitude around an airport, if you lose power and can’t maintain altitude, it’s a real crap shoot what is below you if you can’t get back to the airport. Add in low visibility and ceiling, and you won’t have much time to react to whatever ends up below you.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:34 pm

spacecadet wrote:
SoCalPilot wrote:
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.


No, it isn't. I genuinely do not understand why you are arguing otherwise.

In Part 91 for single engine aircraft, there are no defined takeoff minimums. That doesn't mean the FAA is telling you it's safe to take off in zero visibility. It means you have to use other criteria to judge whether takeoff is safe. And guess what? The FAA provides you with a really easy and reliable criteria for judging that! And that criteria is landing minimums. They're different for every airport, which is why there are no generic takeoff minimums. If you can take off but not land, then you shouldn't be taking off. Simple enough for a layperson to understand that.

There's what's legal and there's what's good ADM. What we're talking about here is ADM. And this was bad ADM - there is no sugar-coating it or defending it, and it's not something vague or different depending on the pilot. If the most experienced pilot in the world took off from this airport in this plane in these conditions with 11 passengers, that would be bad ADM.

I know people who have failed checkrides on this specific question. The FAA is not intending for you to use the lack of generic takeoff minimums to get yourself out of airports you shouldn't be flying out of. They're intending for you to have some other minima that you use, and they like it when you use landing minima. If you have some generic personal minima above that, that's fine too, but they do not look kindly on pilots who treat 0/0 takeoff minimums as if it's a technicality that makes their flight legal, whatever their experience level.


Ever hear of a take-off alternate? That suffices when weather is below landing mins. Yes, I was a Part 91 operator and we had them in our OM. And, in Part 91, their are NO defined take-off minimums for ANY type, not just single engine.

GF
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:46 am

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


Very true.

A superior pilot is one that uses thier superior knowledge to avoid situations that would require thier superior skill.

The PC-12 is an amazing aircraft - when in the right hands.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
texdravid
Posts: 1818
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 3:21 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:14 am

While it’s somewhat macabre, I wonder if there is any correlation between income and Part 91 crashes.

I believe so. Just anecdotally, the rich and super rich die in ways your average joe would never do. Helicopters and private planes are status symbols for these people, but in reality these “toys” are complex machines that need extensive training and aptitude and sound judgement to operate them safely.

JFK Jr. comes to mind when the owner is the ill fated operator. Another is that plane full of rich dentists in Alabama who died leaving 3-4 families of small children without parents. Whilst others are businessman types who bully the pilots to take off in unsafe or overloaded conditions.

If you’re rich, man just fly first class and leave the flying to the experts on major airlines.
Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
 
DeltaWings
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:06 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:02 pm

KCaviator wrote:
Any confirmation on if the owner was the operator (i.e. PIC?)

As a proud professional pilot myself, the apparent stupidity of this accident has my blood boiling.


Yes. the owner of the aircraft was the organisation "Bishop & Conrad", an additional company owned by the Hansen brothers Jim and Kirk. According to the A/C history on Flight Radar 24, the PC-12 (N56KJ) had been active every day in the last week leading up to the crash, except on Thanksgiving. Obviously, the plane was free over Thanksgiving weekend, so they decided to use it privately. Being the business jet for B&C and used heavily indicates, that they probably must have had a professional crew assigned to the plane consisting of at least 2 hired full-time pilots.
It is being reported, that Kirk Hansen was the pilot on the particular day of the crash. I would assume, that he did not fly the PC-12 on a regular basis and was not one of the active pilots for that plane, as he was also heavily occupied with his nutrition company Kyäni (plus being the head of two or more companies doesn't leave you much time to fly your plane yourself every day - you are occupied with other things).

Being that, he obviously lacked experience in winter ops.. and should the plane have been illegal in terms of occupants/weights etc, he wasn't very strict with himself... I am just saying.

My father personally met Kirk Hansen this summer. He said he was fine, kind man. He lead an excellent company. Negligence on his side would be very hard to believe.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
 
KCaviator
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:29 pm

DeltaWings wrote:
KCaviator wrote:
Any confirmation on if the owner was the operator (i.e. PIC?)

As a proud professional pilot myself, the apparent stupidity of this accident has my blood boiling.


Yes. the owner of the aircraft was the organisation "Bishop & Conrad", an additional company owned by the Hansen brothers Jim and Kirk. According to the A/C history on Flight Radar 24, the PC-12 (N56KJ) had been active every day in the last week leading up to the crash, except on Thanksgiving. Obviously, the plane was free over Thanksgiving weekend, so they decided to use it privately. Being the business jet for B&C and used heavily indicates, that they probably must have had a professional crew assigned to the plane consisting of at least 2 hired full-time pilots.
It is being reported, that Kirk Hansen was the pilot on the particular day of the crash. I would assume, that he did not fly the PC-12 on a regular basis and was not one of the active pilots for that plane, as he was also heavily occupied with his nutrition company Kyäni (plus being the head of two or more companies doesn't leave you much time to fly your plane yourself every day - you are occupied with other things).

Being that, he obviously lacked experience in winter ops.. and should the plane have been illegal in terms of occupants/weights etc, he wasn't very strict with himself... I am just saying.

My father personally met Kirk Hansen this summer. He said he was fine, kind man. He lead an excellent company. Negligence on his side would be very hard to believe.


Based on the METAR and using the FAA’s “Snowfall Intensities as a Function of Prevailing Visibility” chart, 1/2 SM visibility with a temperature of +1C during the day would equal a snowfall intensity of Heavy.

With that being said, IF the aircraft was deiced with Type IV, which we can presume was NOT, no holdover time even exists for Heavy snow.

This is pure negligence.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:51 pm

texdravid wrote:
While it’s somewhat macabre, I wonder if there is any correlation between income and Part 91 crashes.

I believe so. Just anecdotally, the rich and super rich die in ways your average joe would never do. Helicopters and private planes are status symbols for these people, but in reality these “toys” are complex machines that need extensive training and aptitude and sound judgement to operate them safely.

JFK Jr. comes to mind when the owner is the ill fated operator. Another is that plane full of rich dentists in Alabama who died leaving 3-4 families of small children without parents. Whilst others are businessman types who bully the pilots to take off in unsafe or overloaded conditions.

If you’re rich, man just fly first class and leave the flying to the experts on major airlines.


Well, a good number of very wealthy individuals and corporations own very expensive businesses operated by professionals with exemplary safety records. I’m not talking about “mom and pop” charter operators. If you don’t like that try out NetJets or Fkexjets safety records. Private planes can operated very safely, but it takes discipline and commitment. Just sayin’ by your standards, there’d be no private jets including the Presidential Flight.

In this case, getting from Idaho Falls to Chamberlain, SD by major or minor airlines is impossible. What was needed was a formal safety program, risk analysis and willingness to go back to the house.

GF
 
KCaviator
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:24 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
texdravid wrote:
While it’s somewhat macabre, I wonder if there is any correlation between income and Part 91 crashes.

I believe so. Just anecdotally, the rich and super rich die in ways your average joe would never do. Helicopters and private planes are status symbols for these people, but in reality these “toys” are complex machines that need extensive training and aptitude and sound judgement to operate them safely.

JFK Jr. comes to mind when the owner is the ill fated operator. Another is that plane full of rich dentists in Alabama who died leaving 3-4 families of small children without parents. Whilst others are businessman types who bully the pilots to take off in unsafe or overloaded conditions.

If you’re rich, man just fly first class and leave the flying to the experts on major airlines.


Well, a good number of very wealthy individuals and corporations own very expensive businesses operated by professionals with exemplary safety records. I’m not talking about “mom and pop” charter operators. If you don’t like that try out NetJets or Fkexjets safety records. Private planes can operated very safely, but it takes discipline and commitment. Just sayin’ by your standards, there’d be no private jets including the Presidential Flight.

In this case, getting from Idaho Falls to Chamberlain, SD by major or minor airlines is impossible. What was needed was a formal safety program, risk analysis and willingness to go back to the house.

GF


Agree. Using a simple Flight Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT) would’ve highlighted the glaring risks and saved 9 lives.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:31 am

We have a very formalized process for flight risk assessment, several times it’s said, “not today, back to the hotel”. Once, icing, freezing rain, crosswinds, crew didn’t believe we were cancelling. We did, pax the following day couldn’t believe the icing at home.
 
N212R
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:18 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:05 am

DeltaWings wrote:
My father personally met Kirk Hansen this summer. He said he was fine, kind man. He lead an excellent company. Negligence on his side would be very hard to believe.


I can't believe I'm reading a statement of this inanity on Airliners. I've got news for you, even fine, kind Mormons can be negligent to the point of losing their lives and the lives of others.
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1207
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:50 am

Also, most of them are large adult males. That is not a light load.

Very sad all around.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The AFM restriction of 9+2 pilot seats, one of which must be the pilot, may be occupied is governing. 12>11, so an illegal load. Regardless of some interpretations, the FAA and Swiss FOCA approved the Pilatus AFM specifying 9+2. Full stop.

Over at PPW, there’s a PC-12 check airman who confirms the limit is 11 occupants, of which one is the pilot. Also, that 9V9 has limited services and no de-icing capability. He also spoke with a local pilot who confirmed freezing rain followed by snow. So, no de-icing beyond using a broom, icing conditions on the ground and in-flight, one more person on board than certified. Anything else for a risk analysis?

GF

OK, misread the originally quoted articles.
However, there is no mention of the age of the children, one of whom could have been under the age of two (although they are usually called "infants" or "toddlers" and not "children" at that age) and been held in someone's lap; do those then count towards the 11 occupants?


They were hunting and the picture posted in a news article shows the group photo of 12, none infant sized.
 
ricq
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:25 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:03 pm

Here is an update in the news, but really no new information is provided:

https://www.keloland.com/news/local-new ... stigation/
 
VS11
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:13 pm

I keep wondering how high the plane could have climbed if there are three survivors. Any ideas? Thanks.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:07 pm

It’s only a mile off the end of the runway, probably not more than a 100’ or 200’. There appears to be snow and ice still attached to the tailplane in the NTSB photo.

Another note, the ASOS at K9V9 at the time of the accident was +1C with ½SM visibility, by definition, that’s heavy snow and there is no holdover time for any de- or anti-icing protocol. IOW, stay on the ground until conditions improve.

GF
 
barney captain
Posts: 2260
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:19 pm

If this accident isn't directly related to aircraft weight combined with icing, I will be shocked. They apparently flew in with that same load (minus the birds taken in the hunt), but with any loss of performance due to icing, there would be very little margin left.

Beyond tragic.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
Hoot777
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:11 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:35 pm

I hate to armchair quarterback , but this accident strikes a nerve. Scheduled service in North America and Europe is about forty times safer than part91 operations and this accident points to a lot of reasons why. The PIC needs to be given authority to be safe at all cost and not fear repercussions from owners. In this case it may be lack of experience. I was told a long time ago by an old buff pilot that the only reason to compromise safety is if someone is shooting at me.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 09, 2019 3:23 pm

Depends on your terms of comparison, as Part 91 is different than Part 135 and each of them offer a wide variety of services and respective levels of safety records. Yes, an owner-operator turboprop or piston has a pretty poor record, especially if measured by the same term as an airline. The vast quantity of airline flight skew the outcomes.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: PC-12 crash in Chamberlain leaving 9 dead

Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:24 pm

cat3appr50 wrote:
Based on a Pilatus PC-12NG, for the 9V9 to KIDA Flight Date/Dep. Time, FL220, Est. 530 NM route, Normal CRZ TAS, normal passenger and bags loading in terms of lbs/pssgr. and lbs/bag, no extra cargo, with winds aloft for date/route, est, 2 hrs. 0 min. flight time, with closest usable alternate airport:

Calc. block fuel around 58% of max. fuel capacity, ZFW around 98% of MZFW, takeoff weight around 99% of MTOW


Plus accumulated snow and ice

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