Well, I wasn’t going to jump in on this until the inevitable correction as to the number of fatalities was made…but… it still hasn’t happened! Even the NTSB is stating 17.
As a visual aid, this is the actual accident aircraft:
Now try to visualize 17 humans (I don’t care what size) in this cabin. I can’t seem to do it. It doesn’t make sense.
they revised the number down to 16:
mtstandard.com/articles/2009 … hjigee.txt
I think somebody broke some capacity regulations…
I’m not even talking about the regs… I mean PHYSICALLY, how the F do you fit 16 people and associated cargo in a tube that size?! Try to imagine 16 people and their baggage in the room you’re in right now. Now shrink the room down to the size of the cabin in that picture. WTF!?
the only way I can think of fitting that many people in that tube would be if the children were under the age of two and they were sitting in an adults lap! Under 121 and the 135 I know that is allowed, but fitting two kids to a seat is just sad. I want to know how they found out there were 16 on the plane. If they filed an IFR flight plan you have to state the number of people aboard. Will be interesting to see what comes of this!
Latest reports are now saying “14 to 17” on board.
News reports are quoting the FBO operator from the aircraft’s last stop: “In California, Tom Hagler said he saw a group of about a dozen children and four adults Sunday morning at the Oroville Municipal Airport, about 70 miles north of Sacramento. Hagler, owner of Table Mountain Aviation, described the children as ranging from about 6- to 10 year olds. He let the children into his building to use the restroom.”
You can pack a lot of 6 year olds in a PC12!
(Hey Phantom! How about posting a smaller pic so the page doesn’t get quite so distorted? TIA.)
OK, that’s what I was expecting… probably the media basing their reports on “eyewitness” accounts, etc… I was hoping the true # was more realistic.
Not to make light of the situation but I wouldn’t want to have anything to with “packing” a bunch of 6 year olds in a confined space for any length of time! Oy vey! 
Yeah, sorry about the pic size- my bad! My laptop’s set at 1920x1200 so it looked tiny to me.
is it legal to pack more kids in a plane than it has seats for? Just curious! I know under 121 (airlines) and 135 (on demand charter) over the age of 2 and they need their own seats, no if’s and’s or but’s!
1 pilot and 1 adult in the cockpit still means there were 15 in the back in those 9 seats.
How many FAR part 91 accidents have to happen before a pilot can show the owners its not legal or right.
Part 91 the kids can sit on a lap and share a seatbelt.
Reports this morning are still conflicted between 14 and 17 SOB, 5 of them members of a single family.
isn’t there an age limit on the kids that can sit on a lap? and if you think about it, would you really want to strap a child into the same seat belt that an adult is using? if and when you come to an sudden stop, the kid will be cut in half!!!
Part 91.107 states the child has to be under the age of two etc etc
Mel, no offense intended, but do you really think that any of the adults involved in this scenario were thinking clearly?
A gaggle of pre-teens off for perhaps their first ski trip AND small plane ride, who would want to be the one to tell any of them they couldn’t board because of weight or seating restrictions?
Have we heard conclusively yet that this thing was owner flown?
FAR Part 91.107 paragraph 3
(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:
(i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device;
(ii) Use the floor of the aircraft as a seat, provided that the person is on board for the purpose of engaging in sport parachuting; or
even if it was part 135 they would have to abide by this rule! Unless the operator has a more strict rule.
Some people are asking how the F can you pack 16-17 people in one of those? Let me tell you, that flying part 91 owners is nothing like flying 121 or 135. You will have people show up to the aircraft with so much junk and it all has to go! It’s your decision at that point. Do I want a job or do I want to take a risk? I can tell you that if there was space available they would stuff people and junk into every nook and cranny and didn’t give a crap about fuel or CG. They figure if the plane has room let’s take it. Like it is a truck or something.I don’t want to speculate, but if I had to I would say the thing was overloaded and the cg moved aft after burning what fuel they could carry and the guy got it slow and stalled it on final.Then you have to ask yourself who would do this? I don’t want to knock on the pilot because I have been there. Not with 17 people in a 10 seat a/c , but close. The guy may have been afraid he would lose his job or he could have been a low time guy 300+ hour that the company hired because he wouldn’t say no. I have never flown this a/c but from all accounts it is a piece of cake to fly. I guess what really matters is when you get it out of the spaghetti chart and now you are a test pilot and then this happens.
RIP to all killed in the crash and prayers to the famlies. This reminds me of an accident that happened at IAD back in I believe '94-'95ish where a Lear that was over gross crashed short of rwy 01R in foggy conditions.
FYI. Updated to 14 dead. 7 adult’s and 7 children.
What about this report?
[quote=“JHEM”]
Latest reports are now saying “14 to 17” on board.
News reports are quoting the FBO operator from the aircraft’s last stop: "In California, Tom Hagler said he saw a group of about a dozen children and four adults Sunday morning at the Oroville Municipal Airport, about 70 miles north of Sacramento. Hagler, owner of Table Mountain Aviation, described the children as ranging from about 6- to 10 year olds. He let the children into his building to use the restroom."quote][/quote]
The “Napa Valley Register” has reported on the identities of some of the victims:
"The victims included a St.Helena family: Dr. Erin Jacobson, his wife Amy, and their three children Taylor, 4, Ava, 3, and Jude, 2"
No word on the identities of the other victims however Amy Jacobson is the Daughter of the owner of this aircraft - a Dentist (and Motocross racetrack owner) from Redland CA where this flight originated.
Oh boy. Was the “Dr.” the PIC??
According to FAA records the owner (Dentist) is a registered pilot - as is his son (a medical Dr). I am not mentioning their names until official confirmation.
I hate to say it , but this accident is very cliche.