Great Dismal Swamp Crash

[Twin_Flyer]

They found the plane that went missing Thursday on approach to KPVG. My condolences go out to the families.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/brea...ismal-swamp-underway-20131010,0,7503519.story

 

[VA Aviator]

Sad.

Seems like more pilots are "afraid" of the bay but don't pay a lot of attention to the swamp. It's a very desolate area that kind of gets forgotten about due to it's proximity to a highly populated area.

IMO, I'd rather go down in the bay if for no other reason than the sheer volume of boat traffic.

 

[Fearless Tower]

This hits close to home since I just returned to Norfolk the day after the crash. Didn't hear about it until after I got home. Weather on Friday was better, but still LIFR. I heard it was miserable on Thursday.

Still trying to figure out why they were so bent on getting a 340 into PVG with a 4000 x 70' runway and no precision approach in those conditions when ORF and CPK were so close. There is a reason I got a hangar at ORF for the Baron instead of keeping it at PVG.

Reading that article, the pilot had only owned the airplane about 3 weeks.

 

[weilke]

Seems like more pilots are "afraid" of the bay but don't pay a lot of attention to the swamp. It's a very desolate area that kind of gets forgotten about due to it's proximity to a highly populated area.

He was on a missed approach in IMC. Not much pilot influence as to where you go.

 

[Fearless Tower]

He was on a missed approach in IMC. Not much pilot influence as to where you go.

True. What I want to know is why he was trying to stuff that airplane into that field under those conditions with so little time in the plane.

 

[Kelvin]

From other strings on AOPA, fuel may have been a factor as well.

I do know this, the Dismal Swamp is one huge black hole at night...I have been out of several airports in the area and it sticks out like a sore thumb...

 

[Fearless Tower]

From other strings on AOPA, fuel may have been a factor as well.

Suppose it is possible. Losing an engine on the missed due to fuel exhaustion would be a possible explanation for loss of control while flying the missed.

Looks like the ORF wx at the time was 500' with winds 020 at 17G20 and a lot of rain in the area at the time.

 

[frfly172]

Always sad to hear of a loss.prayers to the family's.

 

[Kelvin]

Suppose it is possible. Losing an engine on the missed due to fuel exhaustion would be a possible explanation for loss of control while flying the missed.

Looks like the ORF wx at the time was 500' with winds 020 at 17G20 and a lot of rain in the area at the time.

The rationale was that the 340 had left the Ft Lauderdale area and according to FlightAware was at or near the end of time in tanks...

FA shows the approach...then the climb towards the MAP...

I personally have zero knowledge of a 340 other that they move one to get my Matrix out of the hanger from time to time...

 

[moonshine]

Sad to hear that

 

[weilke]

True. What I want to know is why he was trying to stuff that airplane into that field under those conditions with so little time in the plane.

Good question. Sure sounds like an ILS either at Chesapeake regional or ORF would have increased the odds of a successful landing on the first try.

He was in the air for 4:20, depending on the power settings, that is well within the endurance of a 340. Unless he either short-loaded on fuel or flew balls to the walls for the entire trip, I dont think fuel exhaustion is high on the list.

Also, him owning the plane for 3 weeks doesn't mean much in isolation. For all we know he has thousands of hours in a 414.

Wouldn't it be neat to have a independent federal agency tasked with investigating aviation accidents so we can all learn from the mistakes of others rather than having to speculate .

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Where is the fun in that?

Do we have a tail number to check flight aware?

Good question. Sure sounds like an ILS either at Chesapeake regional or ORF would have increased the odds of a successful landing on the first try.

He was in the air for 4:20, depending on the power settings, that is well within the endurance of a 340. Unless he either short-loaded on fuel or flew balls to the walls for the entire trip, I dont think fuel exhaustion is high on the list.

Also, him owning the plane for 3 weeks doesn't mean much in isolation. For all we know he has thousands of hours in a 414.

Wouldn't it be neat to have a independent federal agency tasked with investigating aviation accidents so we can all learn from the mistakes of others rather than having to speculate .

 

[Norman]

4TK was listed on Flight Aware.

 

[N747JB]

Depending on the fuel tanks installed, I think most 340's have 183 gallons/40 GPH = 4.5 hours. That assumes he ran the aux tanks dry before switching back to the mains. It's real easy to leave 5+ gallons in each aux tank, especially if the pilot is new to the twin Cessna fuel system.
Of course, fuel may not have been the issue? But 4 1/2 hours is pretty close to max endurance using a high power setting, a RAM VII will burn 38-40 at 70-75%. Again speculation, but whatever happened there wasn't a lot of fuel to clean up.

 

[RV10flyer]

Here is a list of avionics for those of you interested...note 203 gallons of fuel.

1979 Cessna 340A Ram IV
(The nicest & best equipped anywhere) ( Just spent over $175,000 on it) N4TK Ser.# 340A0777
lll
Total Time S/New : 4,038 Hrs.
Total S/ Fresh Ram: 15 Hrs. Annual Inspection : Done May 2012
New Avionics:
Garmin GTN-750 Touchscreen All in one (GPS/Nav/Comm w/ LPV Glidepath any apt. Garmin GNS-430 Waas
Garmin GTX-33
Garmin GA-35
Garmin GA-37
Garmin GTS-800
Garmin GA-58
PMA-8000B Audio Panel
CI-105, SSD-120 & New Altimeter
XM Weather
Other Avionics :
Altitude Alerter & WX-11 Storm Scope JPI EDM 760 w/ Fuel Flow Option Radar Altimeter
King KFC-200 Auto-Pilot,HSI & F/D
Options :
Known De-icing Package, new boots 98' Keith Freon Air Conditioning
American Aviation Intercoolers
Many others, too much to list
Both Wing Locker Tanks (203 Galls.)
Exterior: Overall White,W/Red & Blk.
Interior : Bone White Leathers/Dk. W/Dk. Blue Carpeting & Blue Panels High Gloss Woodwork Throughout Paint & Interior are simply stunning All Logs & Records S/New & NDH

 

[weilke]

203 Gallons is 1218lbs (and about $1200 to fill up ).

Useful loads I could find for 340s are between 1650 and 1800. If they took off with 4 170lb adults and 60lbs of luggage, they were either a wee bit over gross on takeoff (is there a way to increase useful load with VGs ?), or they left some fuel behind.

Does anyone have a way to look up historical upper winds ? He was travelling at 180kts ground-speed. If operated at 65%, the fuel burn shouldn't be 40gph, more like 32.

We'll see I guess. Maybe the NTSB gets back to work sometime this week.

 

[RV10flyer]

203 Gallons is 1218lbs (and about $1200 to fill up ).

Useful loads I could find for 340s are between 1650 and 1800. If they took off with 4 170lb adults and 60lbs of luggage, they were either a wee bit over gross on takeoff (is there a way to increase useful load with VGs ?), or they left some fuel behind.

Does anyone have a way to look up historical upper winds ? He was travelling at 180kts ground-speed. If operated at 65%, the fuel burn shouldn't be 40gph, more like 32.

We'll see I guess. Maybe the NTSB gets back to work sometime this week.

I flew Thur and always take pics of wx data with my ipad to review during or after the flight. After looking at saved pics, it appears he had 10-20 kts pretty much directly off his left side all the way up.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I flew Thur and always take pics of wx data with my ipad to review during or after the flight. After looking at saved pics, it appears he had 10-20 kts pretty much directly off his left side all the way up.

From liveATC, ORF at the time was reporting 0500 OVC and winds 020 at 17G20. Pretty much a direct x-wind for PVG. The freq that the accident flight was on wasn't covered by the feed, but the airlines going into ORF were reporting breaking out at 3-400. MDA on the RNAV for PVG is 500' AGL I believe.

 

[RV10flyer]

From liveATC, ORF at the time was reporting 0500 OVC and winds 020 at 17G20. Pretty much a direct x-wind for PVG. The freq that the accident flight was on wasn't covered by the feed, but the airlines going into ORF were reporting breaking out at 3-400. MDA on the RNAV for PVG is 500' AGL I believe.

The winds I mentioned that were out of WNW were at 15,000'.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

What a sad loss.

New plane (not as familiar as one would like to fly into tight airports on IMC), New engined (infant mortality), new electronics and systems (how familiar can he be with 3 week old new systems?), IMC, tight airport runway length.

He was really confident.

I do not really suspect fuel exhaustion but there were enough other "tempt fiats" to supply and answer. Given the choices he probably took off a bit over GW but full fuel rather than risk a short stop. I thought 65% power was more like 26 gph 13 per side....

It looks like he filed 180 knots planning to go 55=-65% however his track was more like 201 knots so maybe got anxious and pushed it up a bit. Could have had a tail wind for 20 knots.

What a nice plane... looks like he fixed it up to be his last airplane...

203 Gallons is 1218lbs (and about $1200 to fill up ).

Useful loads I could find for 340s are between 1650 and 1800. If they took off with 4 170lb adults and 60lbs of luggage, they were either a wee bit over gross on takeoff (is there a way to increase useful load with VGs ?), or they left some fuel behind.

Does anyone have a way to look up historical upper winds ? He was travelling at 180kts ground-speed. If operated at 65%, the fuel burn shouldn't be 40gph, more like 32.

We'll see I guess. Maybe the NTSB gets back to work sometime this week.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

What a nice plane... looks like he fixed it up to be his last airplane...

Sounds like it was.

 

[N747JB]

Nobody buys a 340 to go slow! And with Ram upgraded engines, either 325 or 335 HP, they burn the same as a 414a with the same engines, they just go faster on the same power settings.
The description looks like a copy of an ad, most likely before he bought it.
I just put the 750 in and I don't think I'd have wanted to shoot an approach to mins the first few flights. Lots of differences from anything else I've flown, not bad, just different.
I agree with lots of possible glitches with the airplane and or the pilot, sad situation all around. Actually, not to many pluses, with a lot of minuses in the possible accident chain.

What a sad loss.

New plane (not as familiar as one would like to fly into tight airports on IMC), New engined (infant mortality), new electronics and systems (how familiar can he be with 3 week old new systems?), IMC, tight airport runway length.

He was really confident.

I do not really suspect fuel exhaustion but there were enough other "tempt fiats" to supply and answer. Given the choices he probably took off a bit over GW but full fuel rather than risk a short stop. I thought 65% power was more like 26 gph 13 per side....

It looks like he filed 180 knots planning to go 55=-65% however his track was more like 201 knots so maybe got anxious and pushed it up a bit. Could have had a tail wind for 20 knots.

What a nice plane... looks like he fixed it up to be his last airplane...

 

[JimG.]

I do not really suspect fuel exhaustion but there were enough other "tempt fiats" to supply and answer. Given the choices he probably took off a bit over GW but full fuel rather than risk a short stop. I thought 65% power was more like 26 gph 13 per side....

I'm not trying to speculate… just adding a perspective

You can't figure block fuel burn based on optimistic theoretical “should”

You really have to figure a block fuel burn of about 40 gallons per hour (at least I did) and it just worked out that way.

Take off and climb to altitude will scare you if you look at the fuel flow.

That 26 gallons per hour is about what you are burning on the way down

Like John said… there's no fun in flying slow in a 340.

Especially new one to you

 

[Geico266]

Depending on the fuel tanks installed, I think most 340's have 183 gallons/40 GPH = 4.5 hours. That assumes he ran the aux tanks dry before switching back to the mains. It's real easy to leave 5+ gallons in each aux tank, especially if the pilot is new to the twin Cessna fuel system.
Of course, fuel may not have been the issue? But 4 1/2 hours is pretty close to max endurance using a high power setting, a RAM VII will burn 38-40 at 70-75%. Again speculation, but whatever happened there wasn't a lot of fuel to clean up.

Plus one engine was new, and should have been run rich until broke in.... eating even more fuel.

 

[weilke]

What a nice plane... looks like he fixed it up to be his last airplane...

I believe he bought it all tricked out.

Thankfully, there are plenty of owners out there who make it their hobby to buy a 340A, dump 175k worth of avionics and engine work on it to then turn around to sell it for a 421. Two years later, they sell the 421 for a Bonanza, and the cycle starts anew.

 

[WakeNCAgent]

I just made acquaintances with a former 340 ('79) owner and he said he would typically burn 42 gal/hr. That was a big reason for selling it, even though he spent a small fortune recently refurbishing it and replacing one of the engines. It was a beautiful plane. Much bigger than I expected for a privately used twin. Looked like something used in charter work.

 

[Jim Burns]

I worked pretty hard to buy 4TK. 3 owners since new until the current purchaser bought it last month. I talked to the original owner, the 2nd owner, and the last seller and his broker several times over the course of several weeks. Nearly scheduled a pre-buy as the seller was considering taking my Aztec in trade. Things went south and another twin cessna pilot I know proceeded through a pre-buy and initial test flight. For unknown reasons, his deal fell through late last month also.

The airplane had both engines replaced in 2010 with Ram IV conversions (325hp) by the second owner, who was a co owner of the FBO that did the work. He sold the airplane to the seller after the engine install. The seller also had avionics work such as the 750 installed at that time, but only flew the airplane about 20 hours after the new engines were installed.

4TK did not have the Hoskins or Shadin fuel flow installed, but did have the fuel flow option on the JPI 760. I never knew if it was interfaced with the Garmin 750 to provide endurance info.

Rule of thumb is to figure 50 gph for the first hour and 40 per hour after that. Those numbers will keep you alive. Ram Charts for 69% power show 34 gph in cruise above 10k.

All fuel from the fuel rail return lines of the engines returns to the main (tip) tanks. If the main tanks are full and you run on the aux or turn on the nacelle tank pumps, the main tanks will overflow the return fuel overboard.

Fuel from the aux tanks is unavailable to cross feed to the opposite side engine in the event of an engine failure.

Fuel from the nacelle tanks only pumps into the mains. The engines do not run directly off the nacelle tanks.

SOP is to always TO/Land on the mains. TO, burn 60 minutes out of the mains, then switch to the aux tanks and run them nearly dry, then switch to the mains and turn on the nacelle pumps. All return fuel flows to the mains.

The 203 gallon version of the 340 is not a 5 hour airplane. I think it is as simple as that.

I bought a 340 just 2 serial numbers newer than 4TK.

 

[JimG.]

I worked pretty hard to buy 4TK. 3 owners since new until the current purchaser bought it last month. I talked to the original owner, the 2nd owner, and the last seller and his broker several times over the course of several weeks. Nearly scheduled a pre-buy as the seller was considering taking my Aztec in trade. Things went south and another twin cessna pilot I know proceeded through a pre-buy and initial test flight. For unknown reasons, his deal fell through late last month also.

The airplane had both engines replaced in 2010 with Ram IV conversions (325hp) by the second owner, who was a co owner of the FBO that did the work. He sold the airplane to the seller after the engine install. The seller also had avionics work such as the 750 installed at that time, but only flew the airplane about 20 hours after the new engines were installed.

4TK did not have the Hoskins or Shadin fuel flow installed, but did have the fuel flow option on the JPI 760. I never knew if it was interfaced with the Garmin 750 to provide endurance info.

Rule of thumb is to figure 50 gph for the first hour and 40 per hour after that. Those numbers will keep you alive. Ram Charts for 69% power show 34 gph in cruise above 10k.

All fuel from the fuel rail return lines of the engines returns to the main (tip) tanks. If the main tanks are full and you run on the aux or turn on the nacelle tank pumps, the main tanks will overflow the return fuel overboard.

Fuel from the aux tanks is unavailable to cross feed to the opposite side engine in the event of an engine failure.

Fuel from the nacelle tanks only pumps into the mains. The engines do not run directly off the nacelle tanks.

SOP is to always TO/Land on the mains. TO, burn 60 minutes out of the mains, then switch to the aux tanks and run them nearly dry, then switch to the mains and turn on the nacelle pumps. All return fuel flows to the mains.

The 203 gallon version of the 340 is not a 5 hour airplane. I think it is as simple as that.

I bought a 340 just 2 serial numbers newer than 4TK.

I had Ram VI's (335hp)

The fuel gauges on my 340 were the most accurate I've ever seen in an airplane.

I could literally pump the auxiliary tanks dry without as much as a sputter of an engine.

A lot of people think the twin Cessna fuel system is too complicated.

I always maintained that if that was too complicated for you… you shouldn't be flying a twin Cessna

Kind of like flying retracts…

 

[weilke]

A lot of people think the twin Cessna fuel system is too complicated.

I always maintained that if that was too complicated for you… you shouldn't be flying a twin Cessna

Kind of like flying retracts…

I fly an A36 with tip-tanks. The requirements to manage the fuel system are not much different, the only item you have to be aware of is that the aux tanks return the injection pump excess into the mains and act accordingly.

 

[JimG.]

I fly an A36 with tip-tanks. The requirements to manage the fuel system are not much different, the only item you have to be aware of is that the aux tanks return the injection pump excess into the mains and act accordingly.

Never knew much about bolted on tips…

Do they act just as “holding” tanks that feedback into the mains, or is it the excess above what you are running goes in there like the auxiliary tanks do?

 

[weilke]

Never knew much about bolted on tips…

Do they act just as “holding” tanks that feedback into the mains, or is it the excess above what you are running goes in there like the auxiliary tanks do?

They come in different flavors from two manufacturers (Osborne and BDS).

Ours have a 5 position fuel selector and the engine draws from the tips and returns into the mains. Takeoff and landing are on mains only.

The other option has two transfer pumps in the wheel-wells and a 3 position fuel selector. No provision to draw from the tips.

Depending on which one you have, they either act like the aux tanks on the 340 (which your draw down while filling the mains with the injection pump return) or like the wing-lockers (where you burn both mains down by 15/20 gallons and then dump all of the tip content into the respective mains using the transfer pump).

Not sure which one is better. You just have to know which one you have and the strategy on how to operate it.

The Pipers with Lycoming engines are certainly simpler, some even allow you to take off on the aux tanks.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

You should not take off or land on aux as when you bank you could find your engine starving of fuel.

But you can take off easy enough level flight but if you forget and do some maneuvering.....not a good idea.

Only the mains are designed to have fuel up to 30 degrees bank down to the last drop (useable fuel that is).

They come in different flavors from two manufacturers (Osborne and BDS).

Ours have a 5 position fuel selector and the engine draws from the tips and returns into the mains. Takeoff and landing are on mains only.

The other option has two transfer pumps in the wheel-wells and a 3 position fuel selector. No provision to draw from the tips.

Depending on which one you have, they either act like the aux tanks on the 340 (which your draw down while filling the mains with the injection pump return) or like the wing-lockers (where you burn both mains down by 15/20 gallons and then dump all of the tip content into the respective mains using the transfer pump).

Not sure which one is better. You just have to know which one you have and the strategy on how to operate it.

The Pipers with Lycoming engines are certainly simpler, some even allow you to take off on the aux tanks.

 

[FireFighter]

The Pilot involved in the crash of N4TK had a lot of hours in two other 340s.
A very careful and experienced pilot. I will be shocked if NTSB does not find either a medical emergency caused this or something did go wrong with the aircraft.
But, because the Fed Govt was shut down for the first few days of and during the initial recovery and investigation and may not have been handled by the same people who would normally do so. I will not be surprised if pilot error is final cause. I am wondering how much of the original crash scene and evidence was 'contaminated' due to normal investigators and protocols eing unavailable.
The pilot was also experienced with adverse weather conditions, being based in South Florida.
He called missed approach at primary airport and was preceding to alternate.
Full fuel was on board according to FBO personnel at departure.
Made no emergency calls as he would always 'Fly the Plane' first.
Being a longtime firefighter, he would not panic under stressful situation.

 

[FireFighter]

another note: I was told initial investigation determined that both engines were "running normally at impact". No one else on board had flight experience.

 

[Henning]

Not making any judgement here, but just because someone is a very experienced and safe pilot does not preclude them from making fatal errors. The first pilot funeral I attended was that of Win Kinner JR who flew into the side of a mountain, and he was an extremely experienced pilot.

 

[weilke]

This wouldn't be the first experienced pilot who 'loses it' on a missed approach.

According to first responders, the airplane came to rest on a northeast heading. The wreckage debris field was approximately 150 feet long. At the end of the debris field there was an impact crater 8 feet wide and 30 feet long. The crater was approximately 4 feet deep and all flight control surfaces were located at the wreckage site.


Looks like he had a lot of forward momentum when he went into the trees, pulling out of a spiral maybe ?

 

[FireFighter]

As usual, we're still guessing... I think it's obvious from flightaware track data that there was loss of control. I'm still leaning toward a passenger being forced to take controls during a medical emergency.

 

[FireFighter]

If spun, he would have reduced throttles, no doubt of that in my mind.

 

[ChiefPilot]

Weather was definitely down. I landed at KCPK in my RV-6A later that same day. 250' ceilings, 3/4 mile visibility. Airport manager came out to greet us on the ramp and mentioned that the weather looked like it was lifting a bit(!). Anyway, I heard about the crash shortly after I landed and laid awake several hours that night wondering why I made it and they didn't.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Weather was definitely down. I landed at KCPK in my RV-6A later that same day. 250' ceilings, 3/4 mile visibility. Airport manager came out to greet us on the ramp and mentioned that the weather looked like it was lifting a bit(!). Anyway, I heard about the crash shortly after I landed and laid awake several hours that night wondering why I made it and they didn't.

Perhaps because you were flying into an airport with a precision approach AND runway much better aligned with the significant winds that day.

There is a reason I keep my Baron at ORF.