Twin Cessna Down in Indiana

That is an interesting one. It would make me think that he flew into a thunderstorm with a major updraft, but I don't think there was any convective activity at the time (although the weather was bad). The 441 can't perform like that on its own.

Other option is an instrumentation error, although I'm not sure how it would fail in such a way to give a false high altitude signal.

This one is odd.

RIP
 
3 killed... Flightaware shows a 5,000 ft a minute climb for two minutes before the data stops.
 
I used to fly our of KEYE a lot when I was in training for my PPL. Really flat part of the country. Lots of fields. Impressive thunderstorms though.

I agree with Ted... this is an odd one. From 18,000 to the dirt that fast...
 
Yikes. Gotta know how to disconnect trim if that's what it was. Sad.
 
May have been trim but not related to the electric (AP) portion?
 
Airplane went down about 15nm from us. Last night one of my neighbors told me a friend of his who was flying an Embraer out of Chicago heard them on center after they got switched over from Indy approach. Said that the airplane was spinning because it sounded like an Extra 300 doing acro in the background and they were completely out of control. He suspected tailplane icing. Anyone have a archive feed of ZAU in that sector?
 
James_Dean said:
Checks in around the 21:00 mark. Reported a trim issue in IMC and troubles controlling the aircraft. Ugh...

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kind/KIND-App-Dep-Feb-23-2018-0000Z.mp3
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, he seems to have resolved it after a few minutes, and requests direct Boiler again, and goes on his way. Says he's VMC at 8000 at about 29:20. Then they climb him to 13,000 and hand him off to ZAU on 135.75. The pitch of his voice is a lot lower on the later calls, so he's calmed down quite a bit from when he was having trouble in the beginning.

Ted DuPuis said:
That is an interesting one. It would make me think that he flew into a thunderstorm with a major updraft, but I don't think there was any convective activity at the time (although the weather was bad). The 441 can't perform like that on its own.

Other option is an instrumentation error, although I'm not sure how it would fail in such a way to give a false high altitude signal.

This one is odd.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Wild speculation: No recording from ZAU but maybe he leveled off at FL180 and set the autopilot, and the trim issue (runaway?) returned, and when it overwhelmed the autopilot it pitched up strongly, resulting in the climb until it stalled/spun?

What I can't figure out is how both the altitude AND the speed went up so much in that climb at the very end. Seems to defy physics that the climb rate went to several thousand feet per minute AND the speed added 65+ knots. That would seem to indicate an external energy input like the thunderstorm scenario you suggest, but it doesn't look like there were thunderstorms in that area.

Very odd.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Hmmm. Wild speculation: No recording from ZAU but maybe he leveled off at FL180 and set the autopilot, and the trim issue (runaway?) returned, and when it overwhelmed the autopilot it pitched up strongly, resulting in the climb until it stalled/spun?

What I can't figure out is how both the altitude AND the speed went up so much in that climb at the very end. Seems to defy physics that the climb rate went to several thousand feet per minute AND the speed added 65+ knots. That would seem to indicate an external energy input like the thunderstorm scenario you suggest, but it doesn't look like there were thunderstorms in that area.

Very odd.
Click to expand...

I had the same thought about defying physics as well. Sometimes FlightAware gets weird numbers, though. The report will be interesting.
 
Typical chain of event accident. Pilot reported he was having trouble controlling the aircraft and then obtained control. Never diverted - Stupid.
 
That's a little harsh. You have no idea what happened, particularly the amount of time between the first and second LOC.

He was at 13,000' when the problem first occurred. Perhaps he thought power and configuration changes to "divert", whatever that's supposed to mean, might make it worse.

Speculation about what happened doesn't bother me, but stating the pilot was "stupid" is a bit much.
 
In a night IMC situation, is it possible to get caught in a severe updraft from a thunderstorm and misinterpret it as a trim problem?
 
3393RP said:
That's a little harsh. You have no idea what happened, particularly the amount of time between the first and second LOC.

He was at 13,000' when the problem first occurred. Perhaps he thought power and configuration changes to "divert", whatever that's supposed to mean, might make it worse.

Speculation about what happened doesn't bother me, but stating the pilot was "stupid" is a bit much.
Click to expand...

i don't think so. ANY abnormal situation with a flight control is a "land at nearest suitable airport" situation. even more so in IFR.

bob
 
From what I've read elsewhere, the pilot was inexperienced, both in total time and also in C441 time. I have no idea what actually happened (neither do any of us at this point). Assuming it was a trim runaway of some sort that was occurring that was a first time event, what I would've done would be disconnect the autopilot, pulled the breaker, and (since I believe they were headed home) completed the flight.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
From what I've read elsewhere, the pilot was inexperienced, both in total time and also in C441 time. I have no idea what actually happened (neither do any of us at this point). Assuming it was a trim runaway of some sort that was occurring that was a first time event, what I would've done would be disconnect the autopilot, pulled the breaker, and (since I believe they were headed home) completed the flight.
Click to expand...
It looks like the registration was November 2017, it could have been a new purchase. I recognized the tail number as one I have seen for sale, tragedy for sure!
 
N747JB said:
It looks like the registration was November 2017, it could have been a new purchase. I recognized the tail number as one I have seen for sale, tragedy for sure!
Click to expand...

This makes the second 441 that crashed shortly after purchase in a few years. There one I remember not long ago, also had recently bought it and lost control on approach.

The MU-2's safety record shows how beneficial type specific training is for high performance aircraft. Looking at the 441 and Cheyenne 400, which are comparable in terms of being very high performance birds, they haven't previously garnered the kind of attention that the MU-2 did. However, the MU-2 had higher numbers produced initially (750 vs. ~360 for the 441 and 43 Cheyenne 400s, still under 250 Cheyenne IIIs/400s) and was used in freight operations, plus were cheaper resulting in a higher exposure.

I doubt if the FAA will do anything about it given the low numbers of 441s and PAY4s, and their generally good safety record. But they're high performance and not for rookies.
 
I went to FlightSafety when I got mine in 1996, I had never sat in on before! At the end of the week my instructor flew with me in the airplane for a couple hours and then I flew it back to Atlanta in the middle of the Olympics with my HSI reading in reverse! :eek: I joked when I landed that if I had crashed I would have been fine, because I was about 10 minutes behind the airplane! I really like the 441 and if I needed more room, I would look at another one. They are high performance, but not overly complicated and have a pretty rock solid control feel. I think the number of 400 LS's built was less than 100, I heard they are rocket ships, I looked at one before we bought the 441, seemed very cramped and I didn't like the spar carry though in front of the cockpit.

Ted DuPuis said:
This makes the second 441 that crashed shortly after purchase in a few years. There one I remember not long ago, also had recently bought it and lost control on approach.

The MU-2's safety record shows how beneficial type specific training is for high performance aircraft. Looking at the 441 and Cheyenne 400, which are comparable in terms of being very high performance birds, they haven't previously garnered the kind of attention that the MU-2 did. However, the MU-2 had higher numbers produced initially (750 vs. ~360 for the 441 and 43 Cheyenne 400s, still under 250 Cheyenne IIIs/400s) and was used in freight operations, plus were cheaper resulting in a higher exposure.

I doubt if the FAA will do anything about it given the low numbers of 441s and PAY4s, and their generally good safety record. But they're high performance and not for rookies.
Click to expand...
 
N747JB said:
I went to FlightSafety when I got mine in 1996, I had never sat in on before! At the end of the week my instructor flew with me in the airplane for a couple hours and then I flew it back to Atlanta in the middle of the Olympics with my HSI reading in reverse! :eek: I joked when I landed that if I had crashed I would have been fine, because I was about 10 minutes behind the airplane! I really like the 441 and if I needed more room, I would look at another one. They are high performance, but not overly complicated and have a pretty rock solid control feel. I think the number of 400 LS's built was less than 100, I heard they are rocket ships, I looked at one before we bought the 441, seemed very cramped and I didn't like the spar carry though in front of the cockpit.
Click to expand...

The rule of thumb on the MU-2 forum is most people said they weren't comfortable in the MU-2 until 100 hours or so in the plane. Most owners seem to be upgrading from a piston twin of some sort without much of a background in turbines, and also I think a number of them don't fly a bunch when they make the upgrade, so they're not always starting out very proficient.

I don't see a reason why a 441 or 400 LS would be any different in that regard. Speeds and performance are all pretty high and you have to be thinking fast.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
From what I've read elsewhere, the pilot was inexperienced, both in total time and also in C441 time. I have no idea what actually happened (neither do any of us at this point). Assuming it was a trim runaway of some sort that was occurring that was a first time event, what I would've done would be disconnect the autopilot, pulled the breaker, and (since I believe they were headed home) completed the flight.
Click to expand...

According to the NTSB the PIC was a ATP.

Wonder what his physical abilities were, though you get a work out, a jacked up trim isn't the end of the world in planes larger than a 400 series Cessna

Wonder if a pressurization/o2/co issue might have factored in, I'd think a trim issue in a smaller piston twin wouldn't have been that much of a issue for a ATP.

Ether way BSBD
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
According to the NTSB the PIC was a ATP.

Wonder what his physical abilities were, though you get a work out, a jacked up trim isn't the end of the world in planes larger than a 400 series Cessna

Wonder if a pressurization/o2/co issue might have factored in, I'd think a trim issue in a smaller piston twin wouldn't have been that much of a issue for a ATP.

Ether way BSBD
Click to expand...

Having an ATP means that he has hours and can pass a checkride, but doesn't necessarily mean his experience would make him qualified for a 441.

Ratings exist for a reason, don't get me wrong, but I'm more interested in the content of the time. Plus, as you said, you wonder what the physical abilities were, or how the person dealt with failed equipment. Some people don't deal with it well.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Having an ATP means that he has hours and can pass a checkride, but doesn't necessarily mean his experience would make him qualified for a 441.

Ratings exist for a reason, don't get me wrong, but I'm more interested in the content of the time. Plus, as you said, you wonder what the physical abilities were, or how the person dealt with failed equipment. Some people don't deal with it well.
Click to expand...

True, but I wouldn't call a ATP inexperienced, not experienced in type, ok, but inexperienced no
 
James331 said:
True, but I wouldn't call a ATP inexperienced, not experienced in type, ok, but inexperienced no
Click to expand...

I'd generally agree, although I wouldn't necessarily call an ATP experienced, either.

Either way, it was what someone else who knew the pilot second hand had stated.
 
3393RP said:
That's a little harsh. You have no idea what happened, particularly the amount of time between the first and second LOC.

He was at 13,000' when the problem first occurred. Perhaps he thought power and configuration changes to "divert", whatever that's supposed to mean, might make it worse.

Speculation about what happened doesn't bother me, but stating the pilot was "stupid" is a bit much.
Click to expand...

Agree. This is the type of accident where 'speculation' can be very educational. Wrong speculation can be as valuable as right speculation. Conclusions and personal attacks are another story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top