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.

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,

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!

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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

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

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.

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=

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.

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.

TTailedTiger wrote:

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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