PC-12 midair breakup?

800 hours over 20 years, clearly a poor understanding of radar, ice, etc. Very little experience in the plane.

Too much money, not enough brains.

Still, very sad.
 
Similar to the Buckalew NJ crash, a sad deal when a pilot charges into something he doesn't understand and kills his family.

In that instance and this one there was no verification either pilot reviewed enroute weather.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I had to reread the thread and match mentally the speculation to what I understood from the report and one thing is clear to me.

I don't have a F'n clue to Whats the report is telling me what happened and there is no probable cause to give it to me. Maybe my brain is too tired from turkey and I need to re-read it in the morning.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Okay, I had to reread the thread and match mentally the speculation to what I understood from the report and one thing is clear to me.

I don't have a F'n clue to Whats the report is telling me what happened and there is no probable cause to give it to me. Maybe my brain is too tired from turkey and I need to re-read it in the morning.
Click to expand...

A shorter summary and the probable cause are here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/AviationQuery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120607X54234&key=1

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

The failure of the pilot to maintain control of the airplane while climbing to cruise altitude in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) following disconnect of the autopilot. The reason for the autopilot disconnect could not be determined during postaccident testing. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's lack of experience in high-performance, turbo-propeller airplanes and in IMC."
 
What happened was the autopilot disengaged for whatever reason, which I've had happen before on the PC12, the pilot went on to troubleshoot the autopilot instead of flying the plane.

He let the plane wrap past VNE, went into a 75 degree bank and abruptly tried to pull out, overloaded the plane, ripped one wing off which opened the cabin up, one kid was ejected out by the blow.


Here's the best description I've read of it.
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/06/pilatus-pc-1247-n960ka-6-killed-in.html

bilde.jpg


When automation goes caca, FIRST fly the plane, then worry about fixing the automation.
 
Last edited:
They said the ribbon connector for the autopilot was attached offset one pin from what it should have been, and when they test that configuration on another example it didn't function. Yet they talk about it working. I must have missed something.
 
LDJones said:
They said the ribbon connector for the autopilot was attached offset one pin from what it should have been, and when they test that configuration on another example it didn't function. Yet they talk about it working. I must have missed something.
Click to expand...


Haven't followed the thread closely but having been the field engineer and later the product support tier 4 trainer and go-between between engineering and the field for a lot of products with ribbon cables... I never would have let a ribbon cable connector'd product past a Change Control Board review with an unkeyed connector.

"Burn a pin and put a square piece of plastic on one of the unused holes or we aren't shipping it without a formal override by the VP of Engineering. He can put it in writing that he screwed the field with that level of stupidity when one of the FEs blows a bus replacing a component and Customer Support will back-charge engineering for the replacement components and travel/labor expenses to fix it. Because it WILL happen."

Of course, we knew he wouldn't sign it. He's probably take the heads off the engineers that did it and tell them to fix the BOM for manufacturing immediately and to issue a re-work order for any early-build or beta test unshipped product.

Product reviews were always fun. Especially ones designed by noob engineers.
 
Uhh I don't think the autopilot was the problem here....
 
James331 said:
Uhh I don't think the autopilot was the problem here....
Click to expand...

Duh.

Surprising he'd invest a few million in an airplane and not buy a pilot to fly it with him the first few hundred hours. It would have been a token amount in the big scheme of things.
 
LDJones said:
Duh.

Surprising he'd invest a few million in an airplane and not buy a pilot to fly it with him the first few hundred hours. It would have been a token amount in the big scheme of things.
Click to expand...

:dunno:

In my experience the PC12 is really a very honest forgiving plane, even with the autopilot checking out he still could have just followed the flight director if he needed a crutch.

But blowing through VNE, he had lights and buzzers and all sorts of "wake up dude" stuff going off in front if him.

Sad

RIP
 
The benefit of the extra pilot wouldn't be in the plane so much as in the bits like weather, ice, etc. Basically what he was flying in and clearly didn't know how to deal with. I agree, he should have been paying a more experienced pilot to fly with him.

It's not just the turboprop singles that are susceptible, of course. I see people in the piston twin world who I view as NTSB reports waiting to happen. Too much plane, not enough background, and not paying someone to fly with them until they catch up to the plane's requirements.
 
The bit about the SIMCOM training session in the NTSB report is interesting. As I read it, the retired airline pilot who alternated as copilot with the accident pilot at SIMCOM was apparently forced to testify under subpoena, and stated that in his opinion the accident pilot was "behind the airplane", although clearly not wanting to say it outright.
At the same time, the airline pilot was full of praise for their SIMCOM training instructor, despite effectively implying that that instructor released the accident pilot into the wild prematurely, dooming him and his passengers. I can see why that instructor may have felt pressured to do it: the pilot wasn't obligated to take the training (except perhaps by his insurer), and was technically legal to fly that plane solo at any time, with or without that extra training or "sign-off". So the instructor was painted into a corner, and was probably hoping the pilot would improve with experience. :sad:
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that all of these instruction facilities have pressure to pass people. If they fail too many students, the business goes elsewhere. As an instructor, it becomes your responsibility to require someone to get more in-sim training. Of course, too many complaints and you lose your job. SimCom isn't the only one with this problem.

I'm a stubborn fellow and I'd rather maintain my integrity than sign someone off who wasn't ready, so if I think someone's not ready, I tell them. But, many instructors aren't that way.
 
Well let's see. Private pilot with a whopping 800 hours spread over approximately 18 years and approximately 30 hours of actual spread over 15 years. What could possibly go wrong? I suspect he would have been unsafe in a 182 in instrument conditions. Unfortunately many who qualify for Darwin awards take the innocent with them. Yes, it is sad.
 
This is not rocket science. Too much emphasis is put on the turbine angle. He got overloaded in IMC, simple as that. Could have been a 152 or a PC12. Plane doesn't matter. A PC 12 is almost easier to manage than any piston. Yes, on high performance planes you can get behind when you're new to them, but it takes less than a few hours to catch up.

The turbine angle is a red herring.
 
I found this information in the NTSB report to be interesting:

"The individual who attended the training with the accident pilot was also asked to explain operational aspects about the accident pilot observed during the training and he recalled that during one takeoff, he failed to retract the landing gear, flew through the clearance of 1,500 feet, and noticed the airspeed bleed off or was decreasing. The individual also reported that with respect to approaches, he did not detect any improvement during the course of the training. He was also asked if he sensed any frustration of the accident pilot during the training in the FTD, and he reported he did feel there was some frustration, and when asked if he thought based on his experience that the accident pilot was behind the airplane, he said he would have to say yes"......"and the individual told the accident pilot that although he had 21,000 flight hours, he planned to get more dual instruction before flying the airplane solo. He also suggested he get a pilot to fly with him to the Bahamas, and that he may want to get more comfortable in the airplane before making the trip."

"Before departure the pilot spoke in person with an individual at the departure airport who flies a Pilatus PC-12/45, and informed him that that it takes him a long time for him to accomplish a task in the Pilatus because he does the checklist twice. The accident pilot relayed to him the individual that he had 35 hours in the airplane, and asked him about the inertial separator, to which he informed the accident pilot of his usage of it. He also relayed to the accident pilot that he had encountered moderate to severe icing while inbound to FPR; however, they did not discuss any other weather conditions associated with what would be the accident flight."

Hmmm. Looks like a pilot intent on solving a problem and letting the airplane get even further ahead of him. Only took seconds.....Quoting my late CFII father: "fly the plane, then fly the plane, and when you've got control, then fly the plane some more- now let's see what's wrong...But Fly The Plane!"
 
Yep, Stratobee I agree. Very little difference in a 152 and a pressurized turbine. I suspect as you suggest flying a turbine at 25,000 feet in IFR conditions would require a similar skill set as a 152. That is probably why the insurance companies require the same training, oh wait, my bad, they don't require the same training:rolleyes2:
 
I agree the turbine part is more of a red herring, but I think you get people in turbines who think "This plane can handle anything" moreso than pistons.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I agree the turbine part is more of a red herring, but I think you get people in turbines who think "This plane can handle anything" moreso than pistons.
Click to expand...


Agreed....

All those bells and whistles will save you..... Right up until they kill you...:sad:

Ps... I am still amazed at the pic of the wreckage a few posts up... It held up REAL well for falling from 4 miles up...:yes:
 
stratobee said:
This is not rocket science. Too much emphasis is put on the turbine angle. He got overloaded in IMC, simple as that. Could have been a 152 or a PC12. Plane doesn't matter. A PC 12 is almost easier to manage than any piston. Yes, on high performance planes you can get behind when you're new to them, but it takes less than a few hours to catch up.

The turbine angle is a red herring.
Click to expand...

I agree, this one sounds like a basic lack of hand flying in IMC skills. It would likely have happened in a Bonanza as well if he was autopilot dependent in IMC. BTW, this isn't a rare thing for me to see, pilots who select AP from 200'-200'.
 
ronnieh said:
Yep, Stratobee I agree. Very little difference in a 152 and a pressurized turbine. I suspect as you suggest flying a turbine at 25,000 feet in IFR conditions would require a similar skill set as a 152. That is probably why the insurance companies require the same training, oh wait, my bad, they don't require the same training:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

If you think you can't lose control of a 152 in IMC with crappy slow skills because you are in a crappy slow plane, you are mistaken. If you are autopilot dependent in IMC and lose the autopilot, you are in bad shape regardless the plane you are in. AF447 is a similar accident based in failure of basic required skills.
 
N801BH said:
Agreed....

All those bells and whistles will save you..... Right up until they kill you...:sad:

Ps... I am still amazed at the pic of the wreckage a few posts up... It held up REAL well for falling from 4 miles up...:yes:
Click to expand...

Exactly. Bells and whistles won't save you if you can't fly.

I, too, was amazed at the way the plane held up. The plane is NOT to blame here.
 
Ya guys, I don't know what is wrong with me. I certainly defer to y'all with multiple thousands of hours with many, many hundreds of hours in turbine aircraft, slugging along in the 20's and the associated weather.

Obviously any plane can be crashed. I guess things happen almost as fast in a 152 as a turbine aircraft:dunno:. I know the turbine may have a couple more systems to understand but, as one said no more than a few hours to master all that stuff and be able to stay ahead of the plane.

If your point is does not matter what the power plant is well that could be discussed. However, the power plant comes with the plane attached. I happen to think the "class" of aircraft does make a difference. This class is powered by kerosene.

Some seem to think the use of an auto pilot is the problem. Maybe the FAA needs to look into this. The requirement of an auto pilot in single pilot 135 ops may need to be looked at. Perhaps ban auto pilots in sophisticated aircraft.

Does it take more training, experience, and a higher skill set to operate the kerosene burners, I think so. The people who make their living by assessing risk seem to think so too. Maybe, it was the plane's fault. Maybe a private pilot averaging 45 hours a year for 18 years is just as acceptable for turbine aircraft as for a Bonanza. Of course one might argue that would not be acceptable in any aircraft.

Is the "turbine" a red fish? I guess I thought we were discussing turbine aircraft and pilot experience, training and skill.
 
Ronnie, the turbine itself isn't the cause. I think this is the same Bonanza effect that started with the V-tail. It progressed to Malibus, and now turboprop singles.

What's next? Probably single engine jets.
 
Exactly people lose control in all level of airplanes in IMC because the instrument interpretation skills, and those remain the same regardless the class plane. The factor that can make a big difference for those that aren't hot on these skills to begin with and/or aren't constantly working with/on those skills is SVT. It is a real game changer in IMC giving you an eVMC 3D display to see your situation rather than multiple abstract pieces of data to interpret your situation from.
 
I will take one more shot at this. Granted, in this particular case it appears the PT6 did not CAUSE the accident. But, with few exceptions it takes a turbine engine to get a single engine plane into these operating conditions.

This is why the insurance companies have a line of demarcation at kerosene. Call them what you like but it IS the turbine aircraft that we were discussing.
To suggest this pilot would have been just as likely to die in a 172 as a turbine, given his training, experience and skill set, IMHO, is just nuts.

Again, call it a red fish or whatever. The pressurized turbine aircraft again, IMO, requires a higher level of experience, training, and skill to operate safely in the environment and speed they routinely operate. Insurance companies seem to agree.

But, I absolutely support and defend your right to state your opinion even if it is wrong. :rolleyes: ( is this the correct symbol for "that is a joke?")
 
Henning said:
If you think you can't lose control of a 152 in IMC with crappy slow skills because you are in a crappy slow plane, you are mistaken. If you are autopilot dependent in IMC and lose the autopilot, you are in bad shape regardless the plane you are in. AF447 is a similar accident based in failure of basic required skills.
Click to expand...


You have a tough time getting a 152 up to speed that could cause structural failure, it could be done, but it definitely have a larger margin error
 
ronnieh said:
This is why the insurance companies have a line of demarcation at kerosene. Call them what you like but it IS the turbine aircraft that we were discussing.
To suggest this pilot would have been just as likely to die in a 172 as a turbine, given his training, experience and skill set, IMHO, is just nuts.
Click to expand...

Autopilot packs it in, pilot starts troubleshooting autopilot instead of *flying the plane*, exceeds 45 degree bank in a dive, busts VNE, then rolls and pulls at the same time.

Classic graveyard spiral, except like the v-tails the plane turned into thousands of pieces slightly before it hit the ground instead of after.
 
Henning said:
Exactly people lose control in all level of airplanes in IMC because the instrument interpretation skills, and those remain the same regardless the class plane.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. There were a great deal many very similar accidents involving a graveyard spiral, in-flight breakup due to pilots pulling too hard, etc. in aircraft that did not involve turbine engine.
And I disagree that insurance companies have a line of demarcation at kerosene. John Collins from FLYING who spent his career analyzing GA accidents pointed out a few such demarcation lines but the one that applies here is pressurization.
 
This crash makes me think of Robert Kennedy going into the sea in his complex Piper.

My Piper Warrior is incredibly hard to stall, as you get to the more complex airplanes I think that you can get into trouble much easier.

Granted, many folks have lost their lives in non complex airplanes but I think you can get in trouble if you aren't trained for the complex.
 
Warrior said:
This crash makes me think of Robert Kennedy going into the sea in his complex Piper.

My Piper Warrior is incredibly hard to stall, as you get to the more complex airplanes I think that you can get into trouble much easier.

Granted, many folks have lost their lives in non complex airplanes but I think you can get in trouble if you aren't trained for the complex.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call Kennedy's Piper complex...:nonod:...
 
Personally, I think IMC is the real nemesis of the hobby pilot. Chutes, autopilots; all these things mask the true root cause of the peril instead of recognizing that flight attitude cross-check in IMC is a drag, due to its constantly laborious and rapidly perishing nature. It's just plain work in an environment where people are otherwise pursuing the whole thing for recreation. Just like landing airplanes in reverse, there's no bonus for doing it well and all sorts of lethal consequences for having just one bad minute in an otherwise lifetime of flying.

Intuitive flight attitude presentation would do more for the hobby pilot than chutes, excess power and autopilots. I get my instrument cross-check currency for free from work, but even I admit it would be a much safer and enjoyable pursuit (negotiating IMC while exercising PP privileges) if I had an SVT presentation. I think we owe it to ourselves in the 21st century, considering the state of electronics. I rather see a cost effective proliferation of this application/technology rather than the banning of IMC while exercising PP privileges. Alas, the FAA remains an obstacle towards our safety as a community, by their overt obstruction of the part 23 re-write implementation et al.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I rather see a cost effective proliferation of this application/technology .
Click to expand...
It is already available - Aspen avionics.
It is also available very cheaply on hand-held devices but I wouldn't put it on the same level as panel mounted certified avionics.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Personally, I think IMC is the real nemesis of the hobby pilot. Chutes, autopilots; all these things mask the true root cause of the peril instead of recognizing that flight attitude cross-check in IMC is a drag, due to its constantly laborious and rapidly perishing nature. It's just plain work in an environment where people are otherwise pursuing the whole thing for recreation. Just like landing airplanes in reverse, there's no bonus for doing it well and all sorts of lethal consequences for having just one bad minute in an otherwise lifetime of flying.

Intuitive flight attitude presentation would do more for the hobby pilot than chutes, excess power and autopilots. I get my instrument cross-check currency for free from work, but even I admit it would be a much safer and enjoyable pursuit (negotiating IMC while exercising PP privileges) if I had an SVT presentation. I think we owe it to ourselves in the 21st century, considering the state of electronics. I rather see a cost effective proliferation of this application/technology rather than the banning of IMC while exercising PP privileges. Alas, the FAA remains an obstacle towards our safety as a community, by their overt obstruction of the part 23 re-write implementation et al.
Click to expand...


No no, that money in your pocket is much more valuable, especially when one doesn't use the plane that much, just a dozen or so business trips and some short trips to the beach house. It just isn't worth spending that kind of money with so little use.
 
Henning said:
No no, that money in your pocket is much more valuable, especially when one doesn't use the plane that much, just a dozen or so business trips and some short trips to the beach house. It just isn't worth spending that kind of money with so little use.
Click to expand...


Yeah,, but.... Those are the trips that kill most rookie pilots.....

Like this one...:sad:
 
Henning said:
You will be overspeed in a spiral quickly in a 152 as well.
Click to expand...


The Vne for 152 is 149, it's Vno is 111
PC-12 Vne is 236, it's Vno is 265,
The pilatus will get to Vne in a New York minute, because cruises closer to it's max speed and it's far more aerodynamic as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top