GLS fatal King Air 22 Dec

T

TwinWasp

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Messages
17
Display Name
TwinWasp
News reports saying a Mexican navy King Air crashed on approach to Galveston. Weather has been varying between 1/2 and 1/4 mile this afternoon. Runway 14 NOTAMed closed.

’

On December 22, 2025, the ’ responded to a reported plane crash near the base of the causeway. Sheriff’s Office personnel, including the , , are assisting at the scene.

The () is the primary agency leading the , with the ’ and providing support. The incident remains under investigation, and additional information will be released as it becomes available.

The public is asked to avoid the area to allow emergency responders to work safely and efficiently.
 
They are saying 4 dead 4 missing. 4 burn patients on board. It was really foggy here this morning and even into evening on the island.
 
B350 (ANX-1209) last ADS-B data point at 2101Z, just after passing over the I-45 causeway. Aircraft approached from the SE, reversed course over Moses Lake, and began some type of approach to runway 14.

SPECI KGLS 222059Z AUTO 10007KT 1/4SM FG VV002 21/21 A3021
 
I live on Galveston bay north of the crash…It was much less than 1/4 mile where I live, I would call it 0/0 at the time…I could not see my pier end that starts less than 100 ft from the back door. Ends up two survivors and six dead.
 
Can't find any ATC audio for this. Looking at the ADS-B data...ANX1209 was level at 1800' prior to final descent, suggesting either the ILS-14 or RNAV-14 approach. If I did the math right, they started the final descent about 1nm prior to SWANE intersection.

The rapid final descent might indicate they were employing a dive-and-drive tactic on the RNAV-14 approach -- which means it would have been LNAV only and would have a 460' MDA instead of a 205' DA with the LPV option. Given reported ceilings, this makes no sense, assuming a competent crew and no issues with the aircraft.

There's very little info publicly available on this accident, and the NTSB prelim will probably help.
 
For situational awareness, the data show that they were a little more than 0.2nm to the left of SWANE as they passed. They hunted a little back and forth, but never got closer to the final approach course than 0.1nm until they finally crossed it left to right in final few seconds of the flight. That could be a dot or more off throughout. There was a 4-5 knot left crosswind component at the surface at GLS.
 
The final approach overflies a lighted causeway 1-2 miles before runway 14, where they were cleared to land. Its orientation looks to be about east/west, not too far from 140 deg (SE) for runway 14. Juan Browne (Blancolirio) gives good reason to suspect that in fog and low ceiling the crew mistook the causeway lights for the runway, descended toward it, and realized the error too late to correct.


HHH

States Landed .png
 
Hunter Handsfield said:
The final approach overflies a lighted causeway 1-2 miles before runway 14, where they were cleared to land. Its orientation looks to be about east/west, not too far from 140 deg (SE) for runway 14. Juan Browne (Blancolirio) gives good reason to suspect that in fog and low ceiling the crew mistook the causeway lights for the runway, descended toward it, and realized the error too late to correct.
Click to expand...
An interesting theory, but it also sounds like they were too low throughout the approach. The causeway may have been the final link in the error chain, but how did they get so low as to be able to make that mistake in the first place?
 
There's a real dearth of public info on this one so far, perhaps because it was a foreign a/c and crew involved -- but whatever the reason, this is one where the NTSB prelim will likely shed a lot of light.

The NTSB accident identifier is WPR26FA067. When the prelim comes out the report and docket will hopefully be enlightening.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
An interesting theory, but it also sounds like they were too low throughout the approach. The causeway may have been the final link in the error chain, but how did they get so low as to be able to make that mistake in the first place?
Click to expand...
If Juan's analysis is correct, they were on an appropriate glide path after the FAF and then began a rapid descent -- too soon and too rapidly for the runway, but maybe about right if they saw the causeway lights, thought they were close to the runway, and went semi-visual instead of following the instrument approach path.

HHH
 
Hunter Handsfield said:
If Juan's analysis is correct, they were on an appropriate glide path after the FAF and then began a rapid descent -- too soon and too rapidly for the runway, but maybe about right if they saw the causeway lights, thought they were close to the runway, and went semi-visual instead of following the instrument approach path.
Click to expand...
I didn't look at it in detail, but he also said they were 1200 feet low earlier in the approach (1800 vs 3000). And I still think they'd have needed to be below glidepath, if they had a good one, to even see the causeway lights.
 
It seems ATC took them down to 1800 for the downwind, base, and turn to final -- and 1800 is the FAF altitude. Then speeds and altitude (i.e. the glide path) were nominal until a minute or so into the descent after FAF. Juan also commented on the brightness of the causeway lights; their glow if not sharp lights might have been visible through the muck.

It still seems possible they mistook those lights for the runway. Of course we won't know for sure until/unless there's a reasonably final conclusion by the NTSB. Or maybe if there's a flight data recorder and/or CVR (?).

This is my last comment until we know more.

HHH, MD
 
Last edited:
Given reported weather, the only option for the RNAV-14 that would have had a chance of working was LPV...and the diving behavior towards the end isn't consistent with that. Comms reported by the NTSB suggest the crew was not on top of things. NTSB may be trying to get info on crew training and experience, but given it's the Mexican Navy, will that be an obstacle?
 
The prelim has information that details the weather conditions. There was fog down to the deck, and the row of causeway lights in those conditions could easily have fooled the crew.

All they would have been able to see was a very straight line of lights, and no details of the causeway structure. Because of their unfamiliarity with the airport, it may have made them decide to dive as a response.

The number of corrections and repeats to the crew by ATC indicate there was likely confusion by the aircraft's crew related to English proficiency issues, which may have added to their stress levels, reduced the effectiveness of CRM, and caused an improper snap decision they were over the runway.
 
I wasn't going to mention it, but I was wondering if their avionics could do an LPV approach or if they only had LNAV. I know some military aircraft may have older equipment. I would think that would come out if the final?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top