King Air crash in US

[jakeandelwood]

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/articl ... RvSf2ZlAlQ

[porcsord]

In the Wichita crash, the NTSB concluded that the pilot had likely identified the wrong engine as having failed and applied the wrong rudder, which greatly worsened the roll, resulting in the crash into the occupied FlightSafety building.

And applied the wrong rudder... think about that for a minute. The aircraft yaws and and starts banking the left, amd buddy applies left rudder?

This is why I hate flying on most international carriers. As it turns out, lack of experience or airmanship kills people.

[iflyforpie]

Maybe they need to make the “brick” bigger on the PFD?

But seriously, you’ve also got rudder boost pushing the rudder in the correct direction. And surely when a wing feels like it’s going to drop you pick it up with rudder, right?

[co-joe]

Step on the bug?

[C.W.E.]

How do you control or prevent yaw?

[Illya Kuryakin]

In the Wichita crash, the NTSB concluded that the pilot had likely identified the wrong engine as having failed and applied the wrong rudder, which greatly worsened the roll, resulting in the crash into the occupied FlightSafety building.

And applied the wrong rudder... think about that for a minute. The aircraft yaws and and starts banking the left, amd buddy applies left rudder?

This is why I hate flying on most international carriers. As it turns out, lack of experience or airmanship kills people.

One only needs to look back to the Air France Swim Team. A "qualified" crew on a Flag Carrier couldn't even recognize a stall.
Cheers
Illya

[Outlaw58]

Such little respect for those who wrote and keep writing the books with their blood....


Whenever we talk about a pilot who has been killed in a flying accident, we should all keep one thing in mind. He called upon the sum of all his knowledge and made a judgment. He believed in it so strongly that he knowingly bet his life on it. That his judgment was faulty is a tragedy, not stupidity. Every instructor, supervisor, and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment, so a little bit of all of us goes with every pilot we lose.

— author unknown, help please!

58

[rookiepilot]

Such little respect for those who wrote and keep writing the books with their blood....

Whenever we talk about a pilot who has been killed in a flying accident, we should all keep one thing in mind. He called upon the sum of all his knowledge and made a judgment. He believed in it so strongly that he knowingly bet his life on it. That his judgment was faulty is a tragedy, not stupidity. Every instructor, supervisor, and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment, so a little bit of all of us goes with every pilot we lose.

Endorse.

[cncpc]

Such little respect for those who wrote and keep writing the books with their blood....

This is bullshit.

The book is written in the blood of passengers.

[pelmet]

Such little respect for those who wrote and keep writing the books with their blood....

This is bullshit.

The book is written in the blood of passengers.

Well ain’t that the truth. And something that many of us are determined to change, despite any resistance from those more interested in protecting reputation.

[jakeandelwood]

Such little respect for those who wrote and keep writing the books with their blood....

This is bullshit.

The book is written in the blood of passengers.

Yes, the passengers, and that 1st officer who speaks up when something isn't right but the captain is too arrogant and stubborn to listen and God forbid that captain lower himself and maybe take the 1st officers advice.

[C.W.E.]

Outlaw58 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:43 am
Such little respect for those who wrote and keep writing the books with their blood....

This is bullshit.

It is worse than bullshit.

Judging by the comments by the NTSB it is a comment made by someone who does not have a very good understanding of flying period.

Or just didn't bother reading the whole story about it.

[rookiepilot]

Every instructor, supervisor, and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment,

Not true .?

Your feelings on the current state of flight instruction have changed?

[oldtimer]

I have many hours in both the Beech King Air 200, the B200 and the 350, both as a pilot, training pilot, check pilot and groundschool instructor and I have seen this scene so often it really makes me wonder. There is a major misconception about the rudder boost system installed in the Beech King Air. I have heard the expression so often "feet flat on the floor because rudder boost will control adverse yaw in case of an engine failure."
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
Rudder boost is there because the force required to control adverse Yaw exceeds 75 pounds of force, the maximum allowed during certification.
During certification,the airplane has to demonstrate it can be directionally controllable with rudder alone with the full power on the operating engine, the failed engine propeller in full fine and the airplane is loaded to the maximum allowable aft c of g.
I have seen so many pilots using the rudder pedals simply as a foot rest. I have had pilots react to a simulated power failure (engine chop) by allowing adverse yaw roll the airplane and the pilot reacts by rolling in aileron and leaning so far over that they almost push me out of my seat as they try to pick up the low wing with aileron control and little or no rudder input. I had a King Air 350 down to 500 fpm climb with severe cross controls and the ball at full scale deflection. Bring the airplane back to coordinated flight and the rate of climb settled in to a 1500 fpm rate. And all this was with a reasonable high time pilot sitting in the captains chair.

[Illya Kuryakin]

I have many hours in both the Beech King Air 200, the B200 and the 350, both as a pilot, training pilot, check pilot and groundschool instructor and I have seen this scene so often it really makes me wonder. There is a major misconception about the rudder boost system installed in the Beech King Air. I have heard the expression so often "feet flat on the floor because rudder boost will control adverse yaw in case of an engine failure."
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
Rudder boost is there because the force required to control adverse Yaw exceeds 75 pounds of force, the maximum allowed during certification.
During certification,the airplane has to demonstrate it can be directionally controllable with rudder alone with the full power on the operating engine, the failed engine propeller in full fine and the airplane is loaded to the maximum allowable aft c of g.
I have seen so many pilots using the rudder pedals simply as a foot rest. I have had pilots react to a simulated power failure (engine chop) by allowing adverse yaw roll the airplane and the pilot reacts by rolling in aileron and leaning so far over that they almost push me out of my seat as they try to pick up the low wing with aileron control and little or no rudder input. I had a King Air 350 down to 500 fpm climb with severe cross controls and the ball at full scale deflection. Bring the airplane back to coordinated flight and the rate of climb settled in to a 1500 fpm rate. And all this was with a reasonable high time pilot sitting in the captains chair.

Required reading.
Illya

[Old fella]

I have many hours in both the Beech King Air 200, the B200 and the 350, both as a pilot, training pilot, check pilot and groundschool instructor and I have seen this scene so often it really makes me wonder. There is a major misconception about the rudder boost system installed in the Beech King Air. I have heard the expression so often "feet flat on the floor because rudder boost will control adverse yaw in case of an engine failure."
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
Rudder boost is there because the force required to control adverse Yaw exceeds 75 pounds of force, the maximum allowed during certification.
During certification,the airplane has to demonstrate it can be directionally controllable with rudder alone with the full power on the operating engine, the failed engine propeller in full fine and the airplane is loaded to the maximum allowable aft c of g.
I have seen so many pilots using the rudder pedals simply as a foot rest. I have had pilots react to a simulated power failure (engine chop) by allowing adverse yaw roll the airplane and the pilot reacts by rolling in aileron and leaning so far over that they almost push me out of my seat as they try to pick up the low wing with aileron control and little or no rudder input. I had a King Air 350 down to 500 fpm climb with severe cross controls and the ball at full scale deflection. Bring the airplane back to coordinated flight and the rate of climb settled in to a 1500 fpm rate. And all this was with a reasonable high time pilot sitting in the captains chair.

Indeed. Have similar background sans the 350, many years back Flight Safety sim training Toledo Ohio rudder boost/auto feather was just to give you a hint what side quit, healthy rudder input and coordinated flight is essential to get a decent rate on the beast. That was demonstrated to me several times and towards the end I caught on.

[C.W.E.]

Your feelings on the current state of flight instruction have changed?

My feelings on the current state of flight instruction has not changed.

This accident from what we know baring a sudden medical crisis the pilot flying that airplane was not capable of basic airplane handling skills flying a certified aircraft.

If basic flying skills are that lacking it stands to logic that the training and certification of the pilot was substandard at best.

[rookiepilot]

Your feelings on the current state of flight instruction have changed?

My feelings on the current state of flight instruction has not changed.

This accident from what we know baring a sudden medical crisis the pilot flying that airplane was not capable of basic airplane handling skills flying a certified aircraft.

If basic flying skills are that lacking it stands to logic that the training and certification of the pilot was substandard at best.

Why aren't the school that trained this pilot, and the authority that signed off, held directly responsible for this accident then?

[Donald]

Your feelings on the current state of flight instruction have changed?

My feelings on the current state of flight instruction has not changed.

This accident from what we know baring a sudden medical crisis the pilot flying that airplane was not capable of basic airplane handling skills flying a certified aircraft.

If basic flying skills are that lacking it stands to logic that the training and certification of the pilot was substandard at best.

Why aren't the school that trained this pilot, and the authority that signed off, held directly responsible for this accident then?

Is that what happens when a recent graduate of Young Driver's crashes a car and kills someone?

[iflyforpie]

I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again.

People get weird ideas in aviation that weren’t covered in their training.

People do things in airplanes that make absolutely no sense.

This isn’t anything new, and in fact, it’s happening at a rate far less than it did in the past with far fewer “my way or the highway” captains and longer and more comprehensive training.

It may be, but unlikely, that this guy thought he was better than his instructor and didn’t care about inputting the correct rudder.

It may be, more likely, that in the heat of the moment he applied the wrong rudder.

How is this the school’s fault? You can try to blame parents for a crappy upbringing, but in the end it’s your own choices that dictate where you wind up. Pull the syllabus, training records, and logbooks and more than likely you’ll see everything is as it should be, and the likelihood of an instructor not teaching rudder application or calling out deviations during training approaches nil.

Also... the fact that we are using accidents from ten years ago as Illya mentioned to slag the skills of modern pilots practically defines irony.

[pelmet]

Your feelings on the current state of flight instruction have changed?

My feelings on the current state of flight instruction has not changed.

This accident from what we know baring a sudden medical crisis the pilot flying that airplane was not capable of basic airplane handling skills flying a certified aircraft.

If basic flying skills are that lacking it stands to logic that the training and certification of the pilot was substandard at best.

Why aren't the school that trained this pilot, and the authority that signed off, held directly responsible for this accident then?

How do you know that he didn’t perform satisfactorily on the day he was signed off. Is that irrelevant for as long as the trainee is flying?

[rookiepilot]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/1 ... s_say.html

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/1 ... _risk.html

Well it's . who's talked about puppy mill pilot training.

While it gets redundant, sometimes I think he has a point.

People here talk about the unsafe operators in the bush. Them, and never a school?

Truckers too. Everyone is out for a profit, safety loses.

FTU's and regulators are not above this.

It seems daring to criticize training and millennial instructors surfing their IPhones during lessons gets everyone upset. Bias, anyone?

[daedalusx]

How about that school in YHU that sent their chinese student who could barely speak english on a solo even though he had obviously poor understanding of ATC clearances and seemed like he need more stick time under supervision. That student ended up blowing a tower departure altitude clearance and mid-aired another chinese student in a full blown VMC day. Doesn't seem like anyone is holding them responsible ...

Quote from TSB

Prior to the occurrence flight, the student pilot of C-FGOI had been authorized for, and had flown, 8 solo flights. Of those, 5 had been devoted to flying circuits, and 3 to practising specific exercises in the training area. The TSB obtained radar and audio data for the latter 3 flights.

Analysis of the historical data showed that on 2 occasions, while returning from the training area, ATC had given the student pilot an altitude restriction of “not below.” On both occasions, the student pilot had incorrectly read back the altitude restrictions as “not above”

...

The historical flight data showed generally that, even when the limitations of the displayed radar altitude were taken into consideration, the student pilot had difficulty levelling off and maintaining a consistent altitude.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Also... the fact that we are using accidents from ten years ago as Illya mentioned to slag the skills of modern pilots practically defines irony.

Let's see if I have this right? You think the Air France Swim Team accident was too long ago to be relevant in today's world? It's now okay, that a crew of a "modern" airliner (it wasn't a Connie, or a DC6) to not recognize a stall through about 30,000 feet to sea level? Because today's pilots are better trained? I seem to read about an accident a week here. Kind of like the blind adherence to the SOPs that put a Boeing into the Potomic. But......that is, again irrelevant?
Sure.
Illya

[PilotDAR]

With the posting of this Youtube elsewhere:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3dedIi ... e=youtu.be

I see a relationship of the last moments of that flight, to a special condition on certain King Airs, which I have previously encountered. I am by no means an experienced King Air pilot, though it was my task to explore the characteristics associated with this special condition for a survey tail boom I approved.

The special condition #23-47-CE-5, dated: October 15, 1973 includes the following letter from the FAA:

"Oct 15, 1973

ACE-216

Beech Model 200 angle of skid; Beech Aircraft Corporation
letter 908-189 dated August 23, 1973

Mr. C. A. Rembleake, Manager
Aircraft Production Engineering Division
Beech Aircraft Corporation
P. O. Box 85
Wichita, Kansas 67201

Beech has requested certification guidance for their model 200 relative to the term "appropriate to type" in FAR 23.177(a)(1). A joint Beech-FAA flight test was made August 17, 1973 to establish a basis for this guidance.

A qualitative investigation of the lateral-directional static stability shows the characteristics to be conventional. Skid angles of 20-25 degrees are obtained at 1.3Vs1 speeds and higher. For skid angles of 20-25 degrees, the rudder force and position stability gradients indicate positive stability at 1.2Vs1 speeds and higher.The destabilizing effects of the nose landing gear, the forward mounted nacelles, MC thrust and extreme aft C of G location, however, combine at 1.2Vs to permit skid angles in the 35-38 degrees range. The following observations are noted:

1. These large skid angles can be obtained with any flap deflection, but only in a narrow range of airspeeds of around 1.2Vs1. The skid angles reduce to the 20-25 degree range without pilot input if the airspeed varies as much as +5 knots with full rudder control.

2. The thrust dependence of the 35-40 degree skid angle is shown by immediate angle reduction (without overshoot) when the critical engine is suddenly failed.

3. Essentially, full up elevator is required to hold the airspeed at 1.2Vs1 in the maximum skid. If this deflection input is not precisely timed, the maximum skid will not develop.

4. Rudder position stability remains positive throughout the full rudder deflection range. Rudder force stability is positive at all points as rudder deflection is increased. Plots provided by Beech show that rudder force stability can be very weak as right rudder deflection is reduced through the 16 -21 degree range during airplane skids between 16 and 22 degrees. In practice, this was seen only as a showing of rudder free recoveries initiated at or above these combined values.

In assessing compliance with FAR 23.177, it is recognized that skid angles greater than +-20 degrees can be obtained. These are seen only in one carefully controlled test condition, and under such circumstances that are not likely to be duplicated in service without prior knowledge of both the characteristic, and the entry technique. Recovery by standard control inputs is prompt and straightforward, and there is no unsafe feature associated with either the extreme skid angles or the recovery.

Despite this, the +-20 degree skid angle is more correctly representative of the airplane's response to the flight conditions throughout its flight envelope. You may therefore consider a maximum skid angle of +-20 degrees as "appropriate to type" for the model 200 in interpreting FAR 23.177(a)(1) and amended by 23-1 through 23-9.

William J. Thievon, Chief
Engineering and Manufacturing Branch"