South Bend Beech Crash

dell30rb

Final Approach
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
7,147
Location
Raleigh NC
Display Name
Ren
Home Airfield
KTTA, NC81
http://www.avweb.com/pdf/CEN13FA196.pdf

Prelim is out for the jet that crashed into a residential area a few weeks back.

It looks like they reported a loss of power, the plane was 'dead stick' and loss of hydrualics reported as well, airplane was barely controllable according to the pilot.

From the report

At
1618:58, the approach controller told the accident airplane to go-around because the main
landing gear was not extended. (The tower controller had informed the approach controller that
only the nose landing gear was extended) The accident airplane was then observed to climb and
enter a right traffic pattern for runway 9R. The airplane made another landing approach to
runway 9R with only the nose landing gear extended. Several witnesses observed the airplane
bounce several times on the runway before it ultimately entered a climbing right turn. The
airplane was then observed to enter a nose low descent into a nearby residential community

So it sounds like the airplane 'bounced' off the belly a few times and then crashed on the attempted go-around.
 
http://www.avweb.com/pdf/CEN13FA196.pdf

Prelim is out for the jet that crashed into a residential area a few weeks back.

It looks like they reported a loss of power, the plane was 'dead stick' and loss of hydrualics reported as well, airplane was barely controllable according to the pilot.

From the report



So it sounds like the airplane 'bounced' off the belly a few times and then crashed on the attempted go-around.

My $0.02

Primary flight controls cable operated, not hydraulic or electric.


Pitch trim is electric actuator adjusting the indidence of the horizontal stabilizer.


Flaps are electric.


Brakes, landing gear and spoilers are hydraulic.


Emergency Brakes are provided via an accumulator


No mention of emergency gear extension attempts.


Per the maintenance manual, the nose gear releases first then the mains with the emergency handle. These can take some force to operate so maybe they didn't pull the handle all the way.
 
I'm confused how the airplane flew for nine miles then went around without any engine power. There must be something missing from the report.
 
I'm confused how the airplane flew for nine miles then went around without any engine power. There must be something missing from the report.

Yeah, I think the prelim is factual. Dead stick were the pilots words. Perhaps it was partial power failure or the power came back.

The tower observed that the nose gear was down but mains were not.

I can't make sense of it, I don't know the systems of that type so I can't speculate.
 
my take is the pilot reported an (electrical power) loss.. The motors were still running..... I think...
 
NTSB Identification: CEN13FA196
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, March 17, 2013 in South Bend, IN
Aircraft: Hawker Beechcraft Corporation 390, registration: N26DK
Injuries: 2 Fatal,3 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On March 17, 2013, at 1623 eastern daylight time, a Hawker Beechcraft model 390 (Premier IA) business jet, N26DK, serial number RB-226, collided with three residential structures and terrain following an aborted landing attempt on runway 9R located at the South Bend Regional Airport (KSBN), South Bend, Indiana. The private pilot and pilot-rated-passenger occupying the cockpit seats were fatally injured. An additional two passengers and one individual on the ground sustained serious injuries. The airplane was registered to 7700 Enterprises of Montana, LLC and operated by Digicut Systems of Tulsa, Oklahoma, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 while on an instrument flight plan. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the business flight that departed Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport (KRVS), Tulsa, Oklahoma, at 1358 central daylight time.

According to preliminary air traffic control information, at 1610:31, the accident pilot established radio communications with South Bend Approach Control while at 11,000 feet mean sea level (msl). The air traffic controller cleared the flight direct to KNUTE intersection and told the pilot to expect a visual approach to runway 9R. At 1611:44, the flight was cleared to descend to 10,000 feet msl. At 1613:06, the flight was cleared to 3,000 feet msl. At 1615:00, the approach controller told the pilot to make a 5-degree left turn to align with runway 9R and asked the pilot to report when he had the airport in sight. At 1615:07, the pilot declared an emergency because of a lack of engine power, reporting that they were "dead stick" and without any power. About 23 seconds later, at 1615:30, the pilot transmitted "we've lost all power, and we have no hydraulics." When the controller asked if the airplane remained controllable, the pilot replied "ah, barely controllable." The controller advised that all runways at KSBN were available for landing and issued the current winds, which were 130-degrees at 10 knots. At 1615:22, the pilot transmitted that the airplane’s navigational systems were inoperative and requested a radar vector toward the airport. The controller replied that the airport was 9 miles directly ahead of the airplane’s current position. At 1616:12, the controller told the pilot to turn 10-degrees left to intersect runway 9R. At 1616:15, the pilot replied "26DK, turning left." No additional voice communications were received from the accident airplane. The approach controller continued to transmit radar vectors toward runway 9R without any response from the accident pilot. At 1618:58, the approach controller told the accident airplane to go-around because the main landing gear was not extended. (The tower controller had informed the approach controller that only the nose landing gear was extended) The accident airplane was then observed to climb and enter a right traffic pattern for runway 9R. The airplane made another landing approach to runway 9R with only the nose landing gear extended. Several witnesses observed the airplane bounce several times on the runway before it ultimately entered a climbing right turn. The airplane was then observed to enter a nose low descent into a nearby residential community.
 
First, I might cynically exclaim, "Wow, that is some energy management for a dead stick situation." Two approaches dead stick and an attempt at a third!

Second, I might question why a controller would advise a "go around" to a dead stick aircraft.

Third, I might wonder why a pilot would pay any attention at all to anything a controller might say in such circumstances.

Then I would shake my head that any pilot would do anything but put the bird on the nearest runway no matter what anyone on the ground says or does.

Were it I that managed to put the crippled bird on the ground and still be walking - I would climb out of the smoking wreckage, kick the crumpled fuselage to express my admiration for the manufacturer, then hold one hand up high towards the control tower that advised me to go around, and show them that they are still #1 with me.
 
The NTSB uses a similar accident with a 210 for their courses at the training center.
In that case, a plane was returning to the field with smoke in the cockpit and was told to 'go around' because the gear legs were only dangling in trail. On his second attempt to land, the fire department had fouled the intended runway with their trucks. On the third attempt, the hydraulic fluid fire burning under the cabin floor finally disabled the pilot and he crashed on airport property.
 
Third, I might wonder why a pilot would pay any attention at all to anything a controller might say in such circumstances.
It's called a PPL in over his head flying a single pilot jet.

I'd hate to be the guy's insurance company....or any CFI with my name in his logbook.
 
"we've lost all power, and we have no hydraulics."
"ah, barely controllable."
"dead stick"

While they may have lost power and regained it, there is obviously more to the story here. The facts of the transmissions are not congruent with any situation that readily comes to mind. Also noting that the report lists third attempt as still having only the nose gear extended and it bounced several times. That's a heck of a wheel barrow.

If the previous posts I have read are correct, then these sound like the utterances of a person entirely uneducated on the a/c systems. I believe that the owner/operator was the only one rated in the a/c. If that was so, the copilot/right seat pilot rated passenger, as I recall, was probably working the radios and reporting information as he saw it, which may be woefully incongruent with the actual state of affairs.

Does the a/c have backup a.s./alt/gyros? I assume so. If so, the copilot's efforts would have been better applied to looking in the POH to remedy the landing gear while the pilot took it up a few thousand feet and examined what he had left to work with.

Either way, it looks like the situation was likely beyond the experience level of the pilots, unless multiple failures occurred due to something even more drastic than what seems to be obvious.

It is very sad though and I will continue to follow this one closely as I feel there is a lot to be learned by all pilots from this accident, so all is not in vein.
 
It's called a PPL in over his head flying a single pilot jet.

I'd hate to be the guy's insurance company....or any CFI with my name in his logbook.
:yeahthat:
Or maybe it's the fact that "The airplane was registered to 7700 Enterprises of Montana, LLC." Seems like a crappy name for a company if you're going to own an airplane.
 
:yeahthat:
Or maybe it's the fact that "The airplane was registered to 7700 Enterprises of Montana, LLC." Seems like a crappy name for a company if you're going to own an airplane.


Especially if said plane ends up killing you...:eek:
 
:yeahthat:
Or maybe it's the fact that "The airplane was registered to 7700 Enterprises of Montana, LLC." Seems like a crappy name for a company if you're going to own an airplane.

The LLC is located at

7700 E 38th St
Tulsa, OK 74145

and has a dba of 'Digicut'.

Sounds like this was simply a name derived from the street address (if you get a bill from my professional corporation, you can tell what street I lived on at the time I registered it).
 
The LLC is located at

7700 E 38th St
Tulsa, OK 74145

and has a dba of 'Digicut'.

Sounds like this was simply a name derived from the street address (if you get a bill from my professional corporation, you can tell what street I lived on at the time I registered it).

Last I checked, Oklahoma isn't in Montana. The two companies have the same name.
 
Why? Aren't 90% of all accidents due to pilot error? Aren't most pilots totally clueless about systems and abnormal about emer ops? Don't thing break from time to time?



It's called a PPL in over his head flying a single pilot jet.

I'd hate to be the guy's insurance company....or any CFI with my name in his logbook.
 
Last I checked, Oklahoma isn't in Montana. The two companies have the same name.

Except that the montana company doesn't seem to exist ;) (not in MT, NV, DE, OK)

Digicut (7700 Enterprises LLC) was the owners company with a bunch of employees, a 401k etc. I doubt the name of the entity had anything to do with the 7700 meaning as a squawk code.
 
Except that the montana company doesn't seem to exist ;) (not in MT, NV, DE, OK)

Digicut (7700 Enterprises LLC) was the owners company with a bunch of employees, a 401k etc. I doubt the name of the entity had anything to do with the 7700 meaning as a squawk code.
http://www.bizapedia.com/mt/7700-ENTERPRISES-OF-MONTANA-LLC.html
^^thats all I found. Digicut is a garment printing business, unlikely to have subsidiaries or especially a jet. And no, I doubt the 7700 has anything to do with aviation, which IMO makes it even more ironic.
 
Why? Aren't 90% of all accidents due to pilot error? Aren't most pilots totally clueless about systems and abnormal about emer ops? Don't thing break from time to time?
There is unfortunately a fair amount of truth in what you say.

My point is that if you are going to go out and buy yourself a single pilot jet and fly it yourself, then you owe it to yourself, the folks you carry in the plane AND the people on the ground to be familiar with everything about that airplane.
 
It's called a PPL in over his head flying a single pilot jet.

I'd hate to be the guy's insurance company....or any CFI with my name in his logbook.

It sounds to me like the airplane was seriously crippled. Perhaps pilot error in dealing with an emergency.

I do agree that if the pilot had a good run at the runway the first time, having control issues and engine problems he should have bellied it in. But I don't necessarily see any stupid pilot tricks here. And it sounds like whatever was wrong with the plane is not anything frequently trained for, like an engine failure on takeoff
 
Digicut is a provider of films to cover cars, window-tint and the automated machines for the individual shops to cut the sheets from rolled stock.

You're right... I saw that they did vinyl on shirts and didn't do further research. Anyhow, this argument is pointless.
 
Your 170 is just barely big enough to kill you just as dead as the Baron or a Premier. What's different about the jet?



There is unfortunately a fair amount of truth in what you say.

My point is that if you are going to go out and buy yourself a single pilot jet and fly it yourself, then you owe it to yourself, the folks you carry in the plane AND the people on the ground to be familiar with everything about that airplane.
 
Your 170 is just barely big enough to kill you just as dead as the Baron or a Premier. What's different about the jet?

Don't be facetious. a Premier can kill a statistically greater percentage of these "mo money than talent" demographic AND do more collateral damage.
 
Conjecture. It's also statistically much safer airplane than a single or piston twin.

Tell us why the pilot's responsibility to know his airplane and be able to fly it is different.

Don't be facetious. a Premier can kill a statistically greater percentage of these "mo money than talent" demographic AND do more collateral damage.
 
Don't be facetious. a Premier can kill a statistically greater percentage of these "mo money than talent" demographic AND do more collateral damage.

Is that true? I thought most of the mo money deaths were in a Cirrus or Bonanza. Something that you can fly with just a BFR and a $1500 check to the insurance co. every year.

Maybe someone can shed some light on the insurance requirements for a PPL transitioning to a jet. I'm guessing there is a lot of dual involved, and recurrent training requirements as well.
 
Conjecture. It's also statistically much safer airplane than a single or piston twin.

Tell us why the pilot's responsibility to know his airplane and be able to fly it is different.

The torn down house at the crater that Premier left isn't conjecture. (1/2)*rho*V^2..... m*v....et al ad nauseam.

As to your question, I never argued the responsibility of being up to the task of PIC of your ship is any different. Jets may statistically safer, provided the crew is trained to the standard the aircraft requires. I'm just merely suggesting the greater likelihood of "mo money than talent" putting people at the helm that have no business being there, that makes these types of operation at a greater risk of crashing. I also feel that operating a Premier is of greater complexity and requires greater mental acuity. It's just my opinion and this is the internet. No statistics required.

I do feel the likelihood of non-commercial owner/operators of a Premier/PC12/Malibu/KingAir/etc being unprepared for said PIC task while buzzing through the sky is higher than the same condition for a 170 owner/operator, based on complexity of operation. There, I said it. Mo money than talent.
 
Your 170 is just barely big enough to kill you just as dead as the Baron or a Premier. What's different about the jet?
What's different??? Speed and complexity of systems = less margin for error.

Any airplane can kill you. The higher up the food chain you go simply means you have less room to screw up and a single pilot jet means you have even less backup if you are not on top of your game. Only way to mitigate that is to be serious about understanding what those systems are doing and do everything you can to be proficient.
 
Nobody except the big-buck guy who buys the jet likes this scenario. Feds, insurance companies, training centers, IP's all think it's an accident looking for a scene.

The insurance requirements are predicated on pilot time and experience. With significant PIC ME turbine time, the required training can be ~50 hours, but extended IOE can require a well-qualified SIC. Without some "big-airplane time" he's looking at flying with a baby-sitter for a long time.


Is that true? I thought most of the mo money deaths were in a Cirrus or Bonanza. Something that you can fly with just a BFR and a $1500 check to the insurance co. every year.

Maybe someone can shed some light on the insurance requirements for a PPL transitioning to a jet. I'm guessing there is a lot of dual involved, and recurrent training requirements as well.
 
From what I've read, the controller had no business telling the pilot to go around. He could have said words to the effect of the gear wasn't down, say intentions.
Still, the pilot shouldn't have listened to him/her. He should have responded if he could have that it was an emergency and he was going to land. If the runway wasn't clear, go to the taxiway or grass.
Now, it's hard to reconcile the statement that he had no power with him being able to go around, but that can all be sorted out later.
No power, no hydraulics, and system problems, going around would be the last thing on my list. I'd rather be around to answer to FAA later than be in a smoking hole (but others may feel differently (g)).

Had that happen at SIMCOM once. On short final with an engine out, I was told to go around. I hopped over an airport obstruction and landed. Instructor said she hoped I had a good attorney. I expressed confidence in him. Alternative was to climb back into low ceilings, hold on one engine with possibly scared to death passengers and questioning myself the entire time on what caused the failure and whether it could affect the other. I preferred to be on the ground with a mad controller. Why do you think commercial pilots are paid the big bucks? (ducking and running)

Best,

Dave
 
Using the old adage any landing you can walk away is a good landing. I as others are confused as why he would go around after getting a disabled plane on the ground. I will offer no apolgies to anyone if my plane fails me and I have it "safely" on the ground and all I need to do is stop its foward momentum. If they do not like that then I will be more than happy to discuss it with them while I am alive on the ground.
 
Back
Top