Airplane down at Addison (KADS)

Addison is a 7200 foot runway. That seems like that gives a lot of extra margin for a King Air, even a fully loaded one on a warm day. Granted, I did not look at the performance charts. So, if someone has data to the contrary, please share.
 
I heard (2nd hand) that it went near vertical into the hangar, not horizontally. Meaning it was well airborne before it rolled over left.
 
If the vertical stab/rudder are allowed to stall (too slow getting the nose down), the roll and nose drop happen very rapidly. A few hundred feet is plenty enough altitude to become near vertical. The video of the recent Beech Duke accident at Fullerton is a good example, as is the infamous Beech Queen Air accident in the Philippines.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I heard (2nd hand) that it went near vertical into the hangar, not horizontally. Meaning it was well airborne before it rolled over left.
Click to expand...
That makes three Beeches, then, that even I can remember recently: The Tuscon King Air, the Van Nuys(?) Duke and now this KA. Wondering if seat and seat tracks are common parts...
 
My pull it out of my ass guess is that the plane was climbing below Vmc, left engine went kaput, and that was that.
 
Groundpounder said:
This is not the first 200/300/350 LOC incident after liftoff. The most recent that comes to mind is the 300 in Tuscon in 2017.



It was not a wheels up aircraft, and not sure what the point is that you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

No point, just an observation. What point are you making linking this accident to other King Air crashes?
 
I have been told the KA autofeather system is deactivated if a throttle is pulled back to idle. Claim made was that the POH says to leave the throttles forward and let the automation sort it out.

Anyone know if this is accurate?
 
3393RP said:
I have been told the KA autofeather system is deactivated if a throttle is pulled back to idle. Claim made was that the POH says to leave the throttles forward and let the automation sort it out.

Anyone know if this is accurate?
Click to expand...

I know that is true for the B200 (if auto-feather is installed). No reason to think it isn't true for the 350.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
My pull it out of my ass guess is that the plane was climbing below Vmc, left engine went kaput, and that was that.
Click to expand...

I have no turbine experience, single or twin, but I would think it would be unusual to climb a twin at or below Vmc. Normally one wants at or above blue line (best single engine rate of climb speed). Even on one engine I would expect a King Air 350 should be able to accelerate in a shallow climb?
 
GRG55 said:
I have no turbine experience, single or twin, but I would think it would be unusual to climb a twin at or below Vmc.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty certain Vmc is well below Vr for this aircraft. In the B200 POH I have, Vmc is 86 KIAS, and Vr (with approach flaps) is 94. Assuming a similar spread on the 350, if they were climbing below Vmc, then they allowed their airspeed to decay from when they left the ground.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
I have no turbine experience, single or twin, but I would think it would be unusual to climb a twin at or below Vmc. Normally one wants at or above blue line (best single engine rate of climb speed). Even on one engine I would expect a King Air 350 should be able to accelerate in a shallow climb?
Click to expand...

Correct. But we have people that prop strike an aircraft and shouldn't. Land gear up and shouldn't. And who knows what was going on at Addison. For it to roll over like that, I just can't help but think it wasn't being operated as it should have been. Then again, maybe it was, and sometimes **** just happens.
 
Bobanna said:
Heavy plane, engine failure in first couple of hundred feet: requires proper briefing and execution of those decisions if anything deviates from that script. I am suggesting that some part of that did not happen: looks to me from the description that this is a Vmc roll following engine failure. That's all. Speculative, sure. What evidence excludes this hypothesis? Sure, it would be great to wait for a final report (you'll be long-gone), but if it looks like a duck.... If it was briefed (properly), it wasn't flown in accoerdance with that briefing; this airplane could perform an accelerate-go in competent hands.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of the type of briefing you would have given, had you been at the helm of the accident airplane?
 
Bobanna said:
I presume that the "go" decision was made near or after V1 (or red-line plus some margin). In any case, the pilot's responsibility is to pitch to blue-line or above. I don't know what was briefed or not; I am suggesting that the takeoff was not performed in accordance with a rigorous briefing. I suspect that the pilot pitched to a normal (two-engine, take-off thrust) attitude: which will always lead to a Vmc loss of control in the event of an engine failure; the pilot must maintain blue-line or V2 to establish a climb (under control). I offered a speculative hypothesis based on the limited information available, and I appreciate your comment, but I enthusiastically invite any alternative hypothesis along with requisite evidence which will sway may thinking and (temporary) conclusions. Thanks for your engagement.
Click to expand...

You can brief all day and Sunday too, but if you fail to fly the airplane like you briefed, or something completely out of left field happens, you may have a bad day. There are also a lot of "gotchas" with the higher powered king air family members with engine failures after rotation, and the accident record shows that. The TUS and ICT crashes come to mind immediately.

A normal pitch attitude will be above blue line or V2. Anything slower than that would be abnormal.
 
Bobanna said:
Heavy plane, engine failure in first couple of hundred feet: requires proper briefing and execution of those decisions if anything deviates from that script. I am suggesting that some part of that did not happen: looks to me from the description that this is a Vmc roll following engine failure. That's all. Speculative, sure. What evidence excludes this hypothesis? Sure, it would be great to wait for a final report (you'll be long-gone), but if it looks like a duck.... If it was briefed (properly), it wasn't flown in accoerdance with that briefing; this airplane could perform an accelerate-go in competent hands.
Click to expand...
You seem to be under the impression that a proper and thorough briefing is going to guarantee that the pilot/crew will be able to carry out their plan as discussed and disaster will be totally avoided.

Unfortunately, in real life, it doesn’t always work that way. Talking about one thing, doesn’t guarantee that you’ll be able to execute the plan when the unexpected actually happens. It’s nice to think you can, but real life emergencies aren’t always dealt with as efficiently as they are in the simulator or in the classroom. Time to stop making this speculation, because in no-way, shape or form do you have any evidence that the crew failed to brief their takeoff procedures properly.
 
Bobanna said:
I have absolutely no evidence that the takeoff wasn't briefed. If someone is rated in the aircraft and responsible for his or her passengers they are reasonably expected to be able to deal with any emergency. My posited thesis is not excluding the performance of "their takeoff briefing", but that the take-off was not executed according to procedure (based solely on witness testimony of the accident sequence). No speculation: a properly-flown King Air "should" have been able to effect the take-off and return without difficulty; but to flip it over and dive it into a hangar tells me someone was behind the airplane. That's all.
Click to expand...
Assuming they were dealing with an engine failure. At this point we have enough direct knowledge about this event to say two things with confidence: the plane crashed & they died.

Anything else you have to say is based on some level of speculation.
 
dtuuri said:
That makes three Beeches, then, that even I can remember recently: The Tuscon King Air, the Van Nuys(?) Duke and now this KA. Wondering if seat and seat tracks are common parts...
Click to expand...
The Tuscon one, the pilot made the main character from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas seem like a patron saint. Not sure I'd include that one.
 
mryan75 said:
The Tuscon one, the pilot made the main character from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas seem like a patron saint. Not sure I'd include that one.
Click to expand...
You think he was doped up and thought to try a barrel roll on liftoff? It's my experience that after every crash those with an agenda seize the moment to push it.
 
Bobanna said:
Looks like a textbook Vmc roll following engine failure at rotation or immediately after. Flown properly, this airplane can hack it. What are you saying or arguing?
Click to expand...
I am skeptical of the single engine failure/Vmc roll theory. With auto feather and rudder boost, and the length of the runway, it seems unlikely to me it is that simple. I guess I should add the caveat that a sun gear failure won’t activate the rudder boost, so I suppose that’s a possibility. But other than that, I suspect there is more to the story.
 
Seems to be a fair amount of mention of the ‘friction lock’ on the throttles. There have been cases where the throttle(s) came back when one was reaching for the gear? If one came back would it be enough to activate an ‘auto-feather’?

Just something I’ve seen mentioned by some ‘seemingly’ familiar.
 
sourdough44 said:
Seems to be a fair amount of mention of the ‘friction lock’ on the throttles. There have been cases where the throttle(s) came back when one was reaching for the gear? If one came back would it be enough to activate an ‘auto-feather’?

Just something I’ve seen mentioned by some ‘seemingly’ familiar.
Click to expand...

If the throttle is pulled back, the autofeather will not activate, according to numerous sources.

There has been friction lock speculation in just about every similar King Air crash, but just one has been cited as the cause IIRC.
 
Bobanna said:
What doesn't explain a roll-over followed by a lawn-dart maneuver into a hangar adjacent to the left side of the runway? Auto-feather via NTS may decrease the drag of a windmilling prop, but the "good" engine (the one that's going to kill you) is generating enormous asymmetrical thrust -- rudder boost will not substitute for skilled airmanship at the controls. You are correct about sufficient runway to totally abort the take-off. So why the hand-waving? This flurry of distractions (but, I'll allow for the possibility of a sun-gear failure) doesn't get us any closer to a probable cause. Occam's razor demands the simplest explanation of the facts, and thus far, I don't have any evidence to construct the "more to the story." Thanks for your comment.
Click to expand...

The fact that at Vr, the plane is well above Vmca. So, loss of an engine wouldn’t cause a loss of control. That’s particularly true after positive rate of climb, as is evident from the reported facts. A single engine failure doesn’t explain it to me. You seem to be confusing the performance of a twin trainer with this very capable twin turboprop.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
The fact that at Vr, the plane is well above Vmca. So, loss of an engine wouldn’t cause a loss of control. That’s particularly true after positive rate of climb, as is evident from the reported facts. A single engine failure doesn’t explain it to me. You seem to confusing the performance of a twin trainer with this very capable twin turboprop.
Click to expand...

A logical theory by a very experienced King Air operator is that both power levers can let go, resulting in an asymmetric reduction of power on both motors. Left side usually drops way off, right side not so much, but still reduced power. And with the throttles off the stops auto feather is inop.

When that happens, the left wing stalls and it’s all she wrote.

Some in that community have seen this failure in the sim multiple times and report it’s unrecoverable pretty much right away.
 
3393RP said:
...There has been friction lock speculation in just about every similar King Air crash, but just one has been cited as the cause IIRC.
Click to expand...

My recollection is the throttle friction lock was attributed as the primary cause of the Dec 24, 2000 King Air 200 crash at Blackbushe airport in Hampshire, UK. This one got some attention on this side of the pond because the right seat passenger and his two kids that were killed in the crash were personal friends of Flying mag columnist Dick Karl. If I recall correctly the plane came out of maintenance, took off in foggy conditions (they weren't able to see the far end of the runway), one throttle started to creep thus retarding the engine on one side during the initial IMC climb. It hit the ground about 200 yards from the end of the runway.
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
It’s not. Just making an observation
Click to expand...
Bobanna said:
What doesn't explain a roll-over followed by a lawn-dart maneuver into a hangar adjacent to the left side of the runway? Auto-feather via NTS may decrease the drag of a windmilling prop, but the "good" engine (the one that's going to kill you) is generating enormous asymmetrical thrust -- rudder boost will not substitute for skilled airmanship at the controls. You are correct about sufficient runway to totally abort the take-off. So why the hand-waving? This flurry of distractions (but, I'll allow for the possibility of a sun-gear failure) doesn't get us any closer to a probable cause. Occam's razor demands the simplest explanation of the facts, and thus far, I don't have any evidence to construct the "more to the story." Thanks for your comment.
Click to expand...
as far as I know NTS is only a thing on garret engines.
 
sourdough44 said:
Seems to be a fair amount of mention of the ‘friction lock’ on the throttles. There have been cases where the throttle(s) came back when one was reaching for the gear? If one came back would it be enough to activate an ‘auto-feather’?
Click to expand...

Dual crew. No need to take the hand off the power levers right after liftoff.

The friction lock issue is that if the power lever backs off, the autofeather doesn't activate in response to the loss of thrust.
 
dtuuri said:
You think he was doped up and thought to try a barrel roll on liftoff? It's my experience that after every crash those with an agenda seize the moment to push it.
Click to expand...
No. It's pretty clear from the report that he was doped up to a degree hitherto unknown to manned flight and stalled on takeoff.

"Toxicology testing revealed the pilot's use of multiple psychoactive substances including marijuana, venlafaxine, amphetamine, pseudoephedrine, clonazepam, and pheniramine. The wide variety of psychoactive effects of these medications precludes predicting the specific effects of their use in combination."

I don't think you need an agenda to determine the cause of the accident.
 
This morning's San Francisco Chronicle has an article stating that the plane was sold earlier this year by Planemasters based in Chicago to an Addison company, EE Operations. The tail number was changed to N511EF in April, but on the fatal flight the crew was using the previous tail number for communications and for filing the flight plan to St. Petersburg, FL.

Something smells fishy.
 
mryan75 said:
No. It's pretty clear from the report that he was doped up to a degree hitherto unknown to manned flight and stalled on takeoff.

"Toxicology testing revealed the pilot's use of multiple psychoactive substances including marijuana, venlafaxine, amphetamine, pseudoephedrine, clonazepam, and pheniramine. The wide variety of psychoactive effects of these medications precludes predicting the specific effects of their use in combination."

I don't think you need an agenda to determine the cause of the accident.
Click to expand...
That is only evidence that blood testing is sensitive to those substances not that enough of them were in the blood to impair the pilot. Now, I'm not saying there wasn't enough, just that the quote from the report isn't enough to conclude that caused or contributed to the accident. But it affords an opportunity to lecture pilots on the use of drugs while flying. I'd say it's more likely that the cavalier attitude the pilot had toward drugs he also had toward good operating practices, the lack of one which probably killed him. For all we know the seat slid back on rotation.
 
WFAA report says that the CVR synopsis released so far by the NTSB, shows left engine problem about 8-12 seconds prior to impact.
 
Stan Cooper said:
This morning's San Francisco Chronicle has an article stating that the plane was sold earlier this year by Planemasters based in Chicago to an Addison company, EE Operations. The tail number was changed to N511EF in April, but on the fatal flight the crew was using the previous tail number for communications and for filing the flight plan to St. Petersburg, FL.

Something smells fishy.
Click to expand...

Seems like someone did a crappy job registering the airplane.

Airworthiness certificate, transponders, re-paint, instrument panel placard, ELT ident, and any life raft ELTs really need all updated as soon as the FAA forms are complete when changing registration numbers.
 
The previous registration number (before the April change to N511EF) was N534FF. The FAA Registry says N534FF is not assigned/reserved, but that is the tail number listed in the AIN report of the June 30 accident on the FAA website.

IDENTIFICATION
Date: 30-JUN-19
Time: 14:59:00Z
Regis#: N534FF
Aircraft Make: BEECH
Aircraft Model: B350
Event Type: ACCIDENT
Highest Injury: FATAL
Aircraft Missing: No
Damage: DESTROYED

LOCATION
City: ADDISON
State: TEXAS
Country: UNITED STATES

DESCRIPTION
Description: AIRCRAFT CRASHED INTO HANGAR SHORTLY AFTER TAKEOFF

INJURY DATA
Total Fatal: 10
 
Last edited:
Stan Cooper said:
This morning's San Francisco Chronicle has an article stating that the plane was sold earlier this year by Planemasters based in Chicago to an Addison company, EE Operations. The tail number was changed to N511EF in April, but on the fatal flight the crew was using the previous tail number for communications and for filing the flight plan to St. Petersburg, FL.

Something smells fishy.
Click to expand...

I doubt if there was anything fishy but rather just a mild case of incompetence or procrastination on the part of the new owner to put the new registration number on the plane and on the panel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top