RE: Montana Pilatus crash kills 17

Flightglobal:

A US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) "go team" is on its way to the state of Montana to investigate the crash of a Pilatus PC-12/45 that reportedly killed 17 people, many of them children. The NTSB says in a statement that the PC-12, registered as N128CM, crashed at around 15:...

Date: 23 March 2009

Read the full article

I've got a copy of Flight's '2008 Pocket Guide to Business Aircraft'  by Alan Peaford here with me and it states that a PC-12 in airliner configuration can seat nine plus two crew?

Batfink:

I've got a copy of Flight's '2008 Pocket Guide to Business Aircraft'  by Alan Peaford here with me and it states that a PC-12 in airliner configuration can seat nine plus two crew?

I fly a PC12 for a charter company, and ours has 10 seats (8 pax, 2 crew) in the exec configuration. I've heard of the airline configured seating but never seen it. From what I've read it sounds like a stall/spin accident; it's possible the cg could have been too far aft. If there were 14 aboard with seating for 11 that's criminally negligent. 

 

I read last night the aircraft owner said the plane had 8 pax seating. The PC12 is available with 9 pax airline-type seating though, which explains the 11 seat limit on the TC. Most of them I've seen have the 6 pax executive seating layout. We add/remove the two back seats by the cargo door based on need.

14 aboard with seating for 10 is criminally negligent IMO. This should never have happened.  

 

Upon a little investigating on the Pilatus website its clear to me that he was running out of gas and thats why he diverted to Butte…only 80 miles from Bozeman

Here’s why. If you go to the Pilatus website you can see all the performance data for the PC12. It is for the NG (new generation) version but I don’t think the older versions will be that much different.

First, the distance from Oroville, CA to Butte MT is about 596 miles (shorttest distance). If he took on full fuel when he left…he was over weight…and not by a little. After full fuel you are only allowed 1096 pounds. 14 people died but the pilot is counted in the emty weight. So 7 childrenX55 lbs=385lbs. 6 adults X175 lbs=1050lbs. Total=1435lbs…already over weight and I haven’t even accounted for any luggage and perhaps skis…but needless to say it was probably >500lbs overweight. But that isnt where the real problem lies.

If you look on the Pilatus website for the range of this aircraft…something very interesting jumps out. With no payload (other than fuel) and at 30,000 feet…the PC12 NG has a range of approx. 1500 miles with reserves. Bump the payload up to max and the range drops to 600 plus IFR reserves. Hence, weight plays a big deal in the range on this aircraft. So if he had full fuel he would have been more than 500lbs overweight and probably less than 600 miles of range. Any less fuel would have made the situation worse as would flying at lower than 30,000. His flight plan stated 25,000

Now there was fire at the crash site but there is going to be 5-7 gallons of unusable fuel in the tank and in all likelyhood there was probably more…as banking and turning for final could prevent fuel from flowing continuously to the engine.

So they can speculate on ice and/or being overweight, but I think this is just going to be a case of fuel starvation from high fuel consumption from a heavy/overweight airplane. 

Perhaps some PC12 guys on here could shed some real life situations, i.e. fuel burn and such. 

 

JMHO

There have been all sorts of speculation as to the cause of this accident. Among them have been mechanical failure, overloading, icing conditions and contaminated fuel. We do not know what the FAA will conclude after they have completed their investigation. However, from what we do know now it appears that there were mistakes made from the beginning of this flight.Whoever made the decision to transport all members of these three families on one airplane did not show good judgment. Although air travel is generally safe, there is always a risk. The risk of losing your entire family would be much less had the trip been divided up into at least two aircraft. An alternative would have been that the one aircraft would make two trips. Hindsight is 20-20 but the reduction in risk would have justified the time delay.With regards to aircraft loading, the payload and the fuel load could have been within the aircraft limits. I think considering the experience of this pilot it probably was. Unfortunately there was insufficient seating in this aircraft for the number of passengers on board. That is a pilot error and should not have occurred.At least one person that was near the site of the crash reported that he smelled something like diesel fuel. That would bring up the question of fuel contamination. This aircraft has two fuel tanks, one in each wing. During operation the single engine would normally receive fuel from both tanks simultaneously to maintain balance stability throughout the flight. If one tank was contaminated with diesel fuel it would have been immediately apparent to the pilot in the early portion of the flight. There is no indication of this problem occurring. There probably is a manual override, however if the fuel balance override was active it would have been quickly noticed by the pilot and immediately corrected.The aircraft was on a GPS guided course between Orville municipal Airport and Bozeman Gallatin Field Airport. According to FlightAware log, at 1:04 PM the aircraft was at North 44.5°, West -113.77° traveling at 264 kn and at 25,000 feet. At this time it was 135 nautical miles from Bozeman airport. The aircraft abruptly changed course towards Butte Mooney Airport and started to lose altitude. At that point Moody airport was 102 nautical miles from the aircraft's position. If there had been a complete engine failure the aircraft would not have been capable of gliding to the Mooney Airport. If the pilot detected a problem at that time it must not have been very serious because he could have continued on course and landed at Dillion, Montana that was only 69 nautical miles from his location. Dillion airport has sufficient facilities and runway length to accommodate this aircraft.The last reported position of the FlightAware log was at 1:29 PM and the aircraft was at North 45.88°, West -112.63° traveling at 194 kn and at 10,800 feet. At this point the aircraft was just south of Mooney Airport and the pilot would have had the airport in sight. Mooney Airport is at 5550 feet so the aircraft was about 5250 feet above ground. The altitude appears to be normal, the speed appears to be normal, everything appears to be normal when the aircraft was at this position. If there had been a total engine failure at this point the pilot could have glided with a right-hand approach to runway 15 and made a safe landing.It is not apparent, and we may never know, why the pilot made an abrupt change in destination. If there was a mechanical malfunction of the aircraft that caused a crash there is a strong indication it happened very near the time of the final approach to the Mooney airport. However a last-minute mechanical malfunction does not explain why the pilot decided to land at the alternative airport. There is only 27 nautical miles different between the two destinations. If there had been a medical emergency for example that amount of time would have been insignificant and landing at Dillon would have cut the time in half. This was a very experienced pilot. He would have known about the Dillon alternative.Here is a possible explanation. Something happened to the pilot, like for example a heart attack such that he could no longer control the aircraft. The person in the copilot seat may have had some flying experience but did not know about the Dillon alternative and chose to go to the Mooney Airport because it was a little closer. He was probably not aware that the approach to Mooney is slightly more difficult than the approach to Bozeman. He most probably would not have been aware of the difference in the flight characteristics of this aircraft when it was heavily loaded. On approach he chose an approach speed and a flap setting that would be normal for a lightly loaded aircraft. The aircraft stalled on approach and he was unable to regain control.At this point, this is the only explanation that makes any sense to me. We will have to wait for the expert conclusion of the FAA officials to explain this very tragic accident. 

 

It's actually legal for two passengers who's combined weight is less than 170 pounds to share a seat for a part 91 flight.  Check it out on the AOPA web site under traveling with family.  Sorry, I don't have the specific link.  From what I've read about this pilot, I just don't see him being "criminally negligent".  We might disagree as to whether or not it was prudent to carry all of these folks in that plane,  unless the number of pax is specifically limited in the POH, I think he was legal since the small children could have easily shared a seat.