BE20 forced landing Prince George

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

User avatar
Daniel Cooper
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 am
Location: Unknown

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by Daniel Cooper »

cncpc wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2026 6:35 pm If fuel exhaustion caused this crash, the tanks would have been empty sitting there on the side of the road. TSB will have checked them by now. To their credit, they have recently been divulging key information within days of accidents. Certainly, I would expect them to have said the aircraft ran out of fuel by now. How did that happen? Yes, that is for down the road. But empty tanks, there is no reason for holding that back.

Was there a Mayday when the left quit? If there was, what did the pilot say his intentions were? Surely he couldn't have said, "Landing on a road" with fuel and the right engine doing just fine.
If it's now a manslaughter case would they still release everything to the public?
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by cncpc »

Not something that I would comment on at this stage. Or possibly at any stage. Not saying your question is not fair enough, but I expect most fair minded people would want to hear what the TSB has found before going down that road.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by cncpc »

yrp wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2026 2:10 pm Here is the ADS-B track from adsbexchange.com:

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=c0 ... rackLabels

Previous track for the day shown for comparison.



GEDV - Copy.png
Just took a few minutes to look at this ADSB track. Some things stand out. The GS seems to have dropped off a fair way back up north on the accident flight. It is down to 106 kts in the last few minutes, but it is generally lower for most of the returns in this screenshot. Where exactly did the left engine fail? I see considerably higher GS on the other flight that day for the maneuvering to land phase. The flight up had to be IFR, but the return seems to be much lower, and wandering.

Anybody got winds aloft at the time?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
propfeather
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:27 pm

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by propfeather »

cncpc wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2026 6:41 pm
Just took a few minutes to look at this ADSB track. Some things stand out. The GS seems to have dropped off a fair way back up north on the accident flight. It is down to 106 kts in the last few minutes, but it is generally lower for most of the returns in this screenshot. Where exactly did the left engine fail? I see considerably higher GS on the other flight that day for the maneuvering to land phase. The flight up had to be IFR, but the return seems to be much lower, and wandering.

Anybody got winds aloft at the time?
Looking at that data, it doesn't indicate just a simple engine failure.
A king air 200 at 12500lbs should be able to maintain 15000asl on one engine, single engine TAS at 15k should be ~190kts if I remember correctly. Down at 5000 - 195ktas. Best range glide is 135kias.
They fly really well on one engine, so I don't see why you'd choose to descend and slow down, there had to be something else going on. Maybe flaps stuck down?

Radiosonde data from that day at YXS showed winds as out of the west at 10-15mph from the surface to 20000.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Dry Guy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:44 pm

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by Dry Guy »

Maybe they were gliding deadstick.
---------- ADS -----------
 
bobcaygeon
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by bobcaygeon »

cncpc wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2026 6:35 pm If fuel exhaustion caused this crash, the tanks would have been empty sitting there on the side of the road. TSB will have checked them by now. To their credit, they have recently been divulging key information within days of accidents. Certainly, I would expect them to have said the aircraft ran out of fuel by now. How did that happen? Yes, that is for down the road. But empty tanks, there is no reason for holding that back.

Was there a Mayday when the left quit? If there was, what did the pilot say his intentions were? Surely he couldn't have said, "Landing on a road" with fuel and the right engine doing just fine.
TSB is brutally slow at releasing any info. A report last year took almost 3 years to release and there were no mysteries to solve. CVR/FDC/Pilots all intact. Cause was pretty obvious.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by cncpc »

Just got a call from a friend. The King Air was out of fuel. An analysis of fuel planning has showed that even if the planning was correct, they would have had three minutes of fuel left on landing at Prince George.

Following on from what Bob said above, I asked why TSB hasn't released this yet. Answer was "Because the two years isn't up".
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7193
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by digits_ »

cncpc wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2026 12:49 pm An analysis of fuel planning has showed that even if the planning was correct, they would have had three minutes of fuel left on landing at Prince George.
How did this happen? Mathematical error on the form? Lots of diversions? Did they sign a flightplan that showed 3 minutes of fuel at destination?
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
propfeather
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:27 pm

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by propfeather »

digits_ wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2026 1:15 pm
cncpc wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2026 12:49 pm An analysis of fuel planning has showed that even if the planning was correct, they would have had three minutes of fuel left on landing at Prince George.
How did this happen? Mathematical error on the form? Lots of diversions? Did they sign a flightplan that showed 3 minutes of fuel at destination?
On an IFR flight too, wow. I don't like landing with less than an hour of fuel myself.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by cncpc »

digits_ wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2026 1:15 pm
cncpc wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2026 12:49 pm An analysis of fuel planning has showed that even if the planning was correct, they would have had three minutes of fuel left on landing at Prince George.
How did this happen? Mathematical error on the form? Lots of diversions? Did they sign a flightplan that showed 3 minutes of fuel at destination?
Most likely the OFP and W/B stated lbs of fuel on startup in PG. That that number was insufficient would be evidenced by empty tanks at the roadside. It seems that number was true as stated on the forms. Going through the 2 takeoff fuel burns and the inbound/outbound, I guess it was determined that in a best case scenario, they would have had 3 minutes of fuel left on landing at PG. So something was miscalculated from the flight planning stage. Right numbers in the form for fuel, but wrong calculation for burn rate, or non standard power setting?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
SpyPilot
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by SpyPilot »

You can't seriously be suggesting that an experienced crew messed up the fuel flow numbers? Low fuel lights would probably have been glaring well before Mackenzie.
---------- ADS -----------
 
porcsord
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by porcsord »

SpyPilot wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2026 12:50 am You can't seriously be suggesting that an experienced crew messed up the fuel flow numbers? Low fuel lights would probably have been glaring well before Mackenzie.
Low fuel lights in a King Air? There are low fuel pressure lights which are master warnings, but when those go on, you don't have much time before the engine flames out.

Here's a good read on those lights:

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... c0038.html
---------- ADS -----------
 
SpyPilot
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by SpyPilot »

No low fuel lights? No King Air time but the 441 had them and I only saw them illuminate once.
---------- ADS -----------
 
nine sixteenths
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:49 am

Re: BE20 forced landing Prince George

Post by nine sixteenths »

Capacitance probe fuel quantity indication system, doesn’t take much for that to be out of calibration
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”