10 dead in King Air crash.....any ideas what caused it?


#1

Could it be the plane was miss-fueled with 100LL?? Any other ideas?
Horrible accident! Hangar talk is that the pilot was a very experienced, great pilot with a ton of time in that exact plane…

news story
ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4082387


#2

This came up 2 weeks ago.
discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?t=6542


#3

Turbine engines will run on almost anything, unlike piston engines. So fueling with 100LL should not make the engine (s) quit. Other than that I haven’t heard anything.


#4

If it was fueled with 100LL, would the turbines not run estremely hotter that could lead to engine fires?
This accident just doesn’t sit well with me! The King Air has to be one of the safest turbo props around!
Does anyone have any other ideas that could have lead to this accident?

Very ecperienced pilot-
VFR weather-
Familiar airport and terrain-
great airplane-
???


#5

worth reading

ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&si … ments=true


#6

No, the engines won’t run at the optimum temperature and you wouldn’t want to run avgas forever but one time won’t hurt. Unless the airplane’s tanks were empty and the pilot filled it with avgas there would still be some percentage of jet fuel left anyway.
As you know filling a piston airplane with jet fuel is a disaster waiting to happen, usually when the engine fuel lines run out of avgas which seems to happen right at liftoff. Turbine engines, whether a turboprop or jet, are a lot more forgiving.
As far as this accident, you are right, it is a shame. You have to suspect some sort of mechanical failure. Have you checked the NTSB website? I have a friend who keeps sending me reports, I don’t know the address though.
I just read the article you mentioned. The author seems to forget that it sometimes take years for all the data and information about a crash to get put together into the final report. He also seems to be anti FAA, NTSB and Government in general. Hmmm, maybe he isn’t such a bad guy after all!


#7

If it was an A100 and it did have 10 people on board it might have been caused by not being able to shut the door.


#8

8 pax and 2 crew, or 9 pax and 1 crew, isn’t at all unusual for this aircraft. Most 100s have 6 or 7 seats, but 8 seat was a factory option. Wouldn’t want to be in the back for long though.


#9

I have never seen the commutor option in the 100 but I guess it could have been. As you said the normal configuration was two crew, six seats and a potty seat. Of course two or three passengers could have been small children not requiring a seat. The 100 especially the A model is a vey poor performer. With a pilot, three or four adult passengers and three hours of fuel it will struggle to reach FL190. I have no idea what the load was but if it had ten adults on board I think iy may have been grossly overloaded.
On the fuel: Not certain on the Garrett, though I think they are similar in limitations to the Pratts. Pratts allow up to 100 hours of leaded fuel between hot sections. You will notice no difference in temps or performance. I have a friend that operates a MU-2 and I will ask him about Garretts.


#10

2 crew seats, 2-place divan, 5 individual seats, plus an occupant certified lavatory seat, equals 10… a typical configuration for the 100-200 series King Airs.

While the standard A100 is underpowered (and under-winged) with 620 shp PT6A-28 engines, the accident airplane was converted with 1050 shp PT6A-60A engines and five-blade propellers.


#11

Moab UT, August = Hot & High on a level that is rarely done in the SIM.


#12

Agreed that the conditions were challenging, but with that kind of power available, and given that this was a routine mission for the pilot, I would tend to believe that there was a mechanical failure that lead to the accident.