King Air crashed into FSI Witchita

[Bandit_Driver]

What's also bad is being in the sim when the building power goes out. The 727 Sim would fall off motion and it hits hard. Aka sore back

So if the 200 is a part 23 aircraft how did they get away with publish part 25 charts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[z987k]

What's also bad is being in the sim when the building power goes out. The 727 Sim would fall off motion and it hits hard. Aka sore back

So if the 200 is a part 23 aircraft how did they get away with publish part 25 charts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They published numbers. You can test and publish any numbers you want. There's no rule that says thou shall not give any performance data that is required by part 25.
Also, you can get the 200 into part 23 commuter and a ~14,000lb take off weight with an STC that is nothing but fire bottles, emergency exit lights and charts with numbers.

 

[ppragman]

They published numbers. You can test and publish any numbers you want. There's no rule that says thou shall not give any performance data that is required by part 25.
Also, you can get the 200 into part 23 commuter and a ~14,000lb take off weight with an STC that is nothing but fire bottles, emergency exit lights and charts with numbers.

And...honestly, I don't even think the fire bottles are required for the high gross weight kit... @kiloalpha - hey man, you would probably know, can you get a King Air 250 with the upgross kid without the fire bottle?

 

[Cessnaflyer]

What's also bad is being in the sim when the building power goes out. The 727 Sim would fall off motion and it hits hard. Aka sore back

So if the 200 is a part 23 aircraft how did they get away with publish part 25 charts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The ATR sim would randomly come off motion and crash down pretty hard even during cruise segments. The worst was when it came off during a severe icing demonstration and it was tipped pretty far. The combination of it falling then whip to level was pretty painful. That one took awhile to clean the box up with charts and checklist strewn about.

 

[z987k]

And...honestly, I don't even think the fire bottles are required for the high gross weight kit... @kiloalpha - hey man, you would probably know, can you get a King Air 250 with the upgross kid without the fire bottle?

From the website - http://www.centex.aero/halo-250

• Takeoff Trim Warning
• Over-Speed Warning
• Engine Fire Extinguisher System
• Stall Warning Ice Mode
• Emergency Cabin Lighting
• Escape Path Markings

 

[deadstick]

I agree with you from a theoretical (and philosophical) standpoint, but I'd be interested in seeing just what the climb rate and gradient difference would be between 121 and 115...

115 in this scenario is that hammer you keep in the tool box until needed. If I'm single engine, and 121 (V2 ) isn't cutting it and we're not going to clear those trees, it's time to pull out that hammer.

Speaking of the that fabled toolbox, another one that (around here at least) that's rarely used in the King Air is a Flaps Approach takeoff. That really reduces you're accel-go numbers. Last year, I realized I had never done a Flaps-Appoach V1 cut in the 200. There are just a couple of steps to remember, but it's no biggie.

I actually like watching some of the other sims running and trying to guess what they're doing. I swore they were going to rip out of the floor sometimes during what had to be a crash!

If you haven't broken a sim or had it come crashing down off motion, you're not training hard enough.

 

[kiloalpha]

And...honestly, I don't even think the fire bottles are required for the high gross weight kit... @kiloalpha - hey man, you would probably know, can you get a King Air 250 with the upgross kid without the fire bottle?

Yep they are required. There's a bunch of stuff that's required but I'm not on the HALO program here.

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

You've never had some of the sim partners I have!!

Funny, you haven't flown with me have you? 8)

 

[z987k]

115 in this scenario is that hammer you keep in the tool box until needed. If I'm single engine, and 121 (V2 ) isn't cutting it and we're not going to clear those trees, it's time to pull out that hammer.

Speaking of the that fabled toolbox, another one that (around here at least) that's rarely used in the King Air is a Flaps Approach takeoff. That really reduces you're accel-go numbers. Last year, I realized I had never done a Flaps-Appoach V1 cut in the 200. There are just a couple of steps to remember, but it's no biggie.





If you haven't broken a sim or had it come crashing down off motion, you're not training hard enough.

I don't think a flaps approach does much of anything for you in a 200. Vr changes from 95 to 94.

 

[deadstick]

Takeoff Field Length (accel-go chart) is decreased. Just a quick look at ISA, 2000 ft, 12.5:
Flaps Up TOFL 7,050 ft
Flaps Appr TOFL 5,100 ft

 

[z987k]

Takeoff Field Length (accel-go chart) is decreased. Just a quick look at ISA, 2000 ft, 12.5:
Flaps Up TOFL 7,050 ft
Flaps Appr TOFL 5,100 ft

I don't have charts available anymore, but accel-go is a moot point in that airplane. All you need for takeoff distance is what gets the wheels off the ground and clears the obstacles. Shortest distance to Vr is the number that is important.

 

[deadstick]

I don't have charts available anymore, but accel-go is a moot point in that airplane. All you need for takeoff distance is what gets the wheels off the ground and clears the obstacles. Shortest distance to Vr is the number that is important.

Ok, under the same conditions, the takeoff distance for no obstacle is 2,100 ft. A pilot goes into a 3,400 ft strip because he's got room to spare for the departure even though it'll be at gross weight. No problem.

Problem is that he bangs an engine at 96 KIAS. Did he do a rolling takeoff or brakes-release? The first adds more to the takeoff distance.

When the dust settles, there's the plane sitting off the end of the runway. The accel-go distance for the Flaps Up was 7,050 ft which means the ground portion was 3,525 ft (in an otherwise perfect plane with perfect technique) and the accel-stop was 3,600 ft.

That might have been legal-ish unless they can throw 91.13 into the mix. I just think that "moot" info can save the day.

 

[z987k]

Ok, under the same conditions, the takeoff distance for no obstacle is 2,100 ft. A pilot goes into a 3,400 ft strip because he's got room to spare for the departure even though it'll be at gross weight. No problem.

Problem is that he bangs an engine at 96 KIAS. Did he do a rolling takeoff or brakes-release? The first adds more to the takeoff distance.

When the dust settles, there's the plane sitting off the end of the runway. The accel-go distance for the Flaps Up was 7,050 ft which means the ground portion was 3,525 ft (in an otherwise perfect plane with perfect technique) and the accel-stop was 3,600 ft.

That might have been legal-ish unless they can throw 91.13 into the mix. I just think that "moot" info can save the day.

Well we flew 200s off 2500ft strips every day. It's a part 23 airplane and it was understood that in the same way if you lost an engine in a single on the same strip you're going in. If you limit yourself to balanced field in the 200 you take away almost every reason to fly a 200.

 

[deadstick]

It's a part 23 airplane and it was understood that in the same way if you lost an engine in a single on the same strip you're going in.

Oh I know. The original point ("If you really want to see how a B200 can kill you quickly...") was that many who fly the plane assume that it's a great performer and will fly away after losing an engine. That complacency can kill ya if you assume everything will be alright or if your plan/mindset is to continue the takeoff no matter what. Being aware of the real limitations of an aircraft can save your bacon. I've read several posts here and elsewhere where KA drivers have said that they've never heard of a snap-back. I was just adding this to the conversation to increase awareness.

 

[z987k]

Oh I know. The original point ("If you really want to see how a B200 can kill you quickly...") was that many who fly the plane assume that it's a great performer and will fly away after losing an engine. That complacency can kill ya if you assume everything will be alright or if your plan/mindset is to continue the takeoff no matter what. Being aware of the real limitations of an aircraft can save your bacon. I've read several posts here and elsewhere where KA drivers have said that they've never heard of a snap-back. I was just adding this to the conversation to increase awareness.

The King air doesn't have a V1. If you fly it like it does, you're going to have a bad time.

 

[T/O w/FSII]

The King air doesn't have a V1. If you fly it like it does, you're going to have a bad time.

Would you mind explaining this to someone who just got there KA 350 type rating last week?

Because 2 weeks of school and sims told me otherwise.

 

[Roger Roger]

Would you mind explaining this to someone who just got there KA 350 type rating last week?

Because 2 weeks of school and sims told me otherwise.

200 is a different animal.

 

[ahw01]

This makes me wanna get an SIC for the KA, it sounds like plenty of variation between types and model numbers and installed options.

Anyone know the cost/best place to do it? I will ask Farnborough of course... In aircraft sounds like a better option though.

Alex.

 

[ppragman]

This makes me wanna get an SIC for the KA, it sounds like plenty of variation between types and model numbers and installed options.

Anyone know the cost/best place to do it? I will ask Farnborough of course... In aircraft sounds like a better option though.

Alex.

King Air is thoroughly a single pilot airplane to be honest, in almost every way hiring an SIC is overkill and the cockpit isn't really laid out for an FO unfortunately, in my opinion, Pilatus did a better job optimizing the PC12 series 10 airplanes for two crew than Beech did with the King Air...

 

[ahw01]

You make a good point on an SIC having no real practical use, I agree - the quest to keep learning and fly something different is strong though.

I am more interested in the academic value - even the move up to a C-310 for MEI exposed me to more complex systems and it sounds like it has a few of those, depending on the exact model, and configuration, while also being found in most places, both civilian and military.

Alex.