FlyingAccountant
Well-Known Member
N950KA was the one in Florida. That one was pretty much the epitome of the rich guy who bought way more airplane than he could handle and ended up killing his entire family with it.
Lifeguard Fatal Five in Nevada Feb 24, 2023
- Thread starter fholbert
- Start date
N950KA was the one in Florida. That one was pretty much the epitome of the rich guy who bought way more airplane than he could handle and ended up killing his entire family with it.
🦈💜
All dragon~
My understanding is that lift generated by the down aileron is added to the span's absolute lift.
That is to say, if the wing is producing +4.4G overall, and you apply full control deflection to roll the aircraft, the increase in effective AoA for the aileron's span creates additional aerodynamic load on that section of the airfoil.
The same applies negative, respectively.
yes. Rolling G, or asymmetrical G loading, is bad for airframes. It’s why the max G for fighter jets I’ve flown is less if asymmetrical; and why for things like nose down unusual attitudes, you try to roll wings level before recovering the pitch to level flight…..trying to keep the G’s symmetrical as well as get to the horizon in the shortest time.
touch-n-go
Well-Known Member
NTSB video of crash site...
roundout
VNAV monitor
I feel like this isn’t normal. Been in aviation for like 24 years or something (wow) and I don’t think I’ve ever seen an NTSB crash site video 3 days post accident.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
I wasn't kidding the other day when I said that there is a new cadre of investigators at the NTSB that are trying to do things very differently than before.
///AMG
Well-Known Member
For @ppragman 's reference, the nominal load limit of the F/A-18 is 7.5G in symmetric maneuvering at a typical A/A combat configuration/GW. IIRC a rolling pull maneuver will trip the over stress mx code at somewhere around 5G if aggressive enough. I might be misremembering that number, but it is significantly less than the regular limit. And the G limiter won't fully protect you, much as it won't if you "snatch on" the G really quickly while lightly loaded. I don't know if any of this has any bearing on the discussion of flying through thunderstorms......since you have what, 2ish G available in transport cat airplanes? (maybe the ultimate load limit is slightly more than that?).
GypsyPilot
Mohawk Town
That’s interesting. In what way are they doing that? More transparency/early communication?
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Recording interviews is what I was talking about before. Calling something "b roll" footage, like investigating a crash is a TV show is kind of where I was going with this post though.
Public transparency early on in an investigation doesn't benefit anybody other than people that need answers and gratification right the hell away.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
PC12 you get a whopping 3.3, which isn’t much, they would have been close to that at the start of the spiral if I did the arithmetic right.
Ultimate load limits would be at least 1.5x higher…
For the rolling g stuff, I am curious though if the load experienced by the frame is higher, or if the torsional stresses make the limit lower?
I guess that doesn’t matter to the pilot, but just curious from an engineering standpoint. 7.5… that sounds terrible.
Wardogg
Meat Popsicle
Two things stand out to me.
That airplane looks pancaked. Very flat impact. And no post impact fire. The fuel tanks remained intact? Low energy impact?
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
I thought it was 950PA. Pedro was the guy who owned it when I flew it. Anyway it was a really nice -47 with the 430/530 radios and all the nice parts of an NG but without the super complicated instruments. You could just fire it up and go. Picked it up after the delivery in SDL. Was sad to see it sold. I heard they found kids flung pretty far from the wreckage and it was deduced that they got yoinked from the airplane when it broke up.
Anyway not surprised at all that there haven't been any other PC-12s that have broken up midair just the one that some idiot flew into a thunderstorm. I don't understand why people just make things up from thin air. Probably overcompensating.
the first bit of odd NTSB behavior began with the Kobe Bryant accident, with this during a press conference:
“I’m really saddened by this crash, and we use the term crash rather than accident, and I think it’s important to understand the distinction. An accident is something that’s unforeseen, unpredictable, if you will. Unfortunately, this wasn’t,” NTSB Vice Chairman Bruce Landsberg said.”
Very different from what has historically been a very neutral “just the facts” approach to accidents, with no emotions displayed. And the “crash” vs “accident”, makes zero sense, as accident is already defined in 49 CFR 830. Unless the pilot was deliberately committing suicide/homicide, then it indeed is an accident, as even with all his errors in judgement and in actions, he wasn’t intending to crash the helicopter.
The comments/opinion by the Vice Chair, were extremely inappropriate in my opinion; the first of a weird turn by the NTSB that I’ve seen.
The excessive public transparency is bothersome too, and can have detrimental unintended effects. This was directly seen 44 years ago with the NTSB during the 1979 AA191 crash at ORD. It was a colossal screw-up when NTSB vice chair Elwood Driver gave a press briefing where he held up a broken engine pylon mount bolt that had been found on the runway where the engine had separated, thus implying that there was a structural deficiency of the DC-10 aircraft itself, rather than preserving that evidence integrity and following the evidentiary trail to where the true cause was found: a maintenance error in both operation as well as maintenance policy. Driver's extremely irresponsible action in front of the media with a singular piece of unanalyzed and uncorroborated evidence that was entirely inconclusive in and of itself as a stand-alone item, a seemingly minor action, had major implications to the DC-10 aircraft which were wholly unwarranted, and which severely damaged the reputation of that aircraft to such a degree from which it never was able to recover.
So yes, I have my own concerns with things I see the NTSB do. Things that the premier accident investigative body, Britain’s AAIB, or Air Accident Investigation Board, would never do.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
The NTSB may be slow, but they have consistently done amazing work. There are very few accident investigating boards our there that are comparable. Modernization (like use of drones and LIDAR) is great, but no need to change core philosophies when it has been working so well.
roundout
VNAV monitor
Exactly.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
I would have to think that this, like so many things in government, comes down to funding. For some reason they've connected a new strategy (such as being more visible) to that - hopefully not at the expense of the thoroughness and detail in their work.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
I just remembered 950PA was the 208 he owned that I flew and he got 950KA with his wife's initials.
FlyingAccountant
Well-Known Member
To your point about brick poop houses, the NTSB docket has pictures of 950KA after the accident and for having hit the ground at god knows what speed, it's surprisingly intact. Witness statements seem to suggest it fell in a flat spin instead of diving in, but it's still impressive, IMO.
Similar threads
