Posted on 03/22/2009 4:13:39 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
BUTTE, Mont. (AP) - A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman says 17 people are dead in a plane crash in Montana. Spokesman Mike Fergus says the single engine turboprop plane departed from Orville, Calif., and that the pilot had filed a flight plan showing a final destination of Bozeman.
Fergus says the pilot canceled his flight plan at some point and headed for Butte. The plane crashed about 500 feet from the airport while attempting to land and caught fire.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
"Spokesman Mike Fergus says the single engine turboprop plane departed from Orville, Calif. ..."
That can carry over 15 people?
Did you hear about this?
According to the specs, 12, including crew. There may have been kids sitting on laps.
Ya and thanks ... trying to follow up on it ... not enough info .... media all over the place .. waiting for FAA and NTSB to announce ....
Ice and running out of fuel are ruled out.
Witnesses said the plane did some radical turns with a low attitude before diving towards the ground.
I’m thinking general engine failure.
Maybe he was hot-dogging, showing off to the kids ...
I’ve always wondered too, why are so many cemetery’s located near GA airports ... hmmmm
If so, the guy went down below while the others went to the clouds.
Very stupid and irresponsible to do that with children on board, especially when heavy.
Me, too.
I read (in the foreign press!) that most of the passengers were children on some kind of ski outing.
Not sure why he was doing steep turns, maybe a circling approach to the airport (if the weather wasn't good). Or maybe just a close-in visual pattern to land.
But, stall speed increases rapidly as bank angle steepens. If he was already slow, you get a stall on one wing, while the other wing is still generating lift. The result is a spin. Recovery takes 1500-2000 feet under the best of circumstances. If you aren't higher than that above the ground, it's over.
Stall-spin accidents happen most often on the turn from base to final (90 degree turn), because you are already low (500 feet AGL) and slowing to landing speed.
If he was making a visual approach, that would explain why he was making the turns: a standard pattern entry and landing downwind leg, base leg, and final approach (two 90 degree turns). If he makes a crosswind entry to the pattern, that adds one more 90 degree turn.
My first guess, on limited information, is a stall-spin while turning to final approach. See my posting:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2212276/posts?page=53#53
So can you explain why he would have 17 people on a plane with a capacity of 9? If there were children he may not have been over the weight limit but there’s still not enough seats.
No clue about that. There is apparently a configuration with 9 passengers and 2 pilots. Maybe there were a small children being held on laps.
Or he was trying to bleed off airspeed and altitude. That would put him ripe for a stall.
saves time ?
My company operates 5 Pilatus PC-12s. They are excellent aircraft, powered by the most reliable engine in operation - the Pratt & Whitney PT6. The plane is not capable of holding 17 pax. There are some commuter configs operating in Canada but still don’t hold that many people. FWIW, I don’t believe there has ever been a single engine turbine powered airplane fatality due to engine failure.
My company operates 5 Pilatus PC-12s. They are excellent aircraft, powered by the most reliable engine in operation - the Pratt & Whitney PT6. The plane is not capable of holding 17 pax. There are some commuter configs operating in Canada but still don’t hold that many people. FWIW, I don’t believe there has ever been a single engine turbine powered airplane fatality due to engine failure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.