Lifeguard Fatal Five in Nevada Feb 24, 2023

1/2 a mile from the impact site isn't that far. That's not a breakup at altitude. That's something coming off on its way down.
NTSB said 1/2 to 3/4.

You may be right, but the aircraft crashed very close horizontally from where it appears the problem started. Maybe 1,000' feet or less

1677464457329.png
 
Last edited:
“How do we know if the airplane broke up in flight? We found parts of the airplane one-half to three-quarters of a mile away” from the crash scene, NTSB Vice Chair Bruce Landsberg said at a news briefing in Carson City.

I definitely didn't expect that. I've been in the PC12 in extremely rough weather and had no problems nor have I heard of any inflight breakups in it except for the one that tried to fly through a thunderstorm... that's shocking to me. That thing is built hella stout.

Edit:

Ah, makes sense if it came apart on the way down...
 
Based on your recent guessing and my recent guessing, I'd be wise to stay the course.

Um... ok?

I definitely didn't expect that. I've been in the PC12 in extremely rough weather and had no problems nor have I heard of any inflight breakups in it except for the one that tried to fly through a thunderstorm... that's shocking to me. That thing is built hella stout.

Edit:

Ah, makes sense if it came apart on the way down...

Yeah, the one that broke up was 100+kts above redline in a dive and yanked back on the yoke.

This one might not be similar.

IF the speeds are correct, he was still below redline.
 
Um... ok?



Yeah, the one that broke up was 100+kts above redline in a dive and yanked back on the yoke.

This one might not be similar.

IF the speeds are correct, he was still below redline.
yeah, I did some "back of the envelope math" and come up with only 2gs at the start of the spiral dive, and maybe up to 3.5g just in terms of centrepetal acceleration towards the end... but yeah, he stays below barberpoll the whole flight. 236KIAS or .48M in the PC12 if memory serves
 
Really hits home when you see the wife and little girls.

Might have been my point;
Were all people up there, and often we lose sight of it when someone goes down. Seeking answers is important, but that can wait imho; especially to the pros. Its who they left waiting at the airport that should matter now…
 
Might have been my point;
Were all people up there, and often we lose sight of it when someone goes down. Seeking answers is important, but that can wait imho; especially to the pros. Its who they left waiting at the airport that should matter now…

while true, seeking answers does have a concurrent importance (which the pros are doing), in accidents where potential exists for a possible fleetwide issue that may need an immediate address. Such as the Blackhawk spiraling down to earth, and then I look at my own flightline and see that I jflew the #5 UH-60 Blackhawk ever built…..a hard-ridden 1977 model…..just the other day.
 
while true, seeking answers does have a concurrent importance (which the pros are doing), in accidents where potential exists for a possible fleetwide issue that may need an immediate address. Such as the Blackhawk spiraling down to earth, and then I look at my own flightline and see that I jflew the #5 UH-60 Blackhawk ever built…..a hard-ridden 1977 model…..just the other day.

you are indeed a pro though…fleet-wide issues aren't exactly something id expect to be anecdotal or speculative knowledge, though the ATR crash a bit back does ring a bell. Id imagine the people in the “know” would have already been contacted.
 
you are indeed a pro though…fleet-wide issues aren't exactly something id expect to be anecdotal or speculative knowledge, though the ATR crash a bit back does ring a bell. Id imagine the people in the “know” would have already been contacted.

Fully agree. All good points made here.
 
yeah, I did some "back of the envelope math" and come up with only 2gs at the start of the spiral dive, and maybe up to 3.5g just in terms of centrepetal acceleration towards the end... but yeah, he stays below barberpoll the whole flight. 236KIAS or .48M in the PC12 if memory serves

I think you are correct.
Damn shame
 
yeah, I did some "back of the envelope math" and come up with only 2gs at the start of the spiral dive, and maybe up to 3.5g just in terms of centrepetal acceleration towards the end... but yeah, he stays below barberpoll the whole flight. 236KIAS or .48M in the PC12 if memory serves

The G loadings on the airframe will be magnified if non-symmetrical vs symmetrical application, which in a spiral will definitely have some of the former.
 
Wouldn't be the first in-flight breakup of a PC-12...

Hope some answers are gained.

PC-12 are built like a brick poop house. I used to fly a privately owned one. It changed hands and wound up in Florida. It broke up in mid air but the part 91 owner operator flew it directly into a massive thunderstorm. Which I think would probably happen to most airplanes if you flew them right into a thunderstorm. The last part of the N number was PA. I can’t remember the whole N number though.

What other examples are there of a PC-12 breaking up in-flight?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
PC-12 are built like a brick poop house. I used to fly a privately owned one. It changed hands and wound up in Florida. It broke up in mid air but the part 91 owner operator flew it directly into a massive thunderstorm. Which I think would probably happen to most airplanes if you flew them right into a thunderstorm. The last part of the N number was PA. I can’t remember the whole N number though.

What other examples are there of a PC-12 breaking up in-flight?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t think there are any - there are a couple examples of trying to fly the things through thunderstorms, but no wing failure accidents out of the blue that I’m aware of.
 
The G loadings on the airframe will be magnified if non-symmetrical vs symmetrical application, which in a spiral will definitely have some of the former.
@inigo88 - you did structural work, are the g-liftings magnified or are airplanes just not designed for twisting loads (a la rolling g) - I guess I mean to say is it the case that the “asymmetrical applications magnify loading” or do the design load limits drop with asymmetrical applications?

Not that it really matters - the end result is the same the plane breaks up earlier - but I wonder if the actual forces increase?

@MikeD - solid point point this is “rolling g” no? Now I’m curious about the actual physics thanks!
 
Back
Top