N10TM King Air B-90 engines fail 1/2 mile from airport

Aviation Aviation News
21

1 of 4 survivors of Chattanooga plane crash recalls incident
9/24/2007, 7:52 p.m. CDT
The Associated Press

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) One of the four people aboard a corporate plane that crashed in a shopping center parking lot said a lack of fuel caused the aircraft to plummet.

Daren Turner, 40, the president of Lexington, Ky.-based electrical contracting company Amteck of Kentucky, was on the plane with his father and the company’s owner, 64-year-old Ron Turner, brother-in-law Louis Mullins, 58, and the pilot, 47-year-old Gregory Jones, when it crashed last Wednesday.

“I never … thought that we would live,” Turner told the Chattanooga Times Free Press before his release from Erlanger Medical Center on Monday.

The plane was flying from Birmingham, Ala., and was trying to land at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. Some witnesses told police the plane was approaching the nearby runway at an unusually low altitude when it clipped a utility pole and slammed into at least two unoccupied cars.

As the plane made its approach, Turner recalled the aircraft’s control lights turning on and off, then the engine sputtering before going silent.

Investigators were looking into whether the plane ran out of fuel as it approached to land, but Turner said he knows the answer to that question.

He said the plane had not been refueled before its return flight to Georgetown, Ky., from Birmingham, and that Jones tried to assure him the plane had “plenty of gas,” but that the gauges were “messed up.”

Turner believed otherwise.

“I kind of knew it was more urgent than what he had said,” Turner said. “I knew it wasn’t the gauges, that he realized we didn’t have gas. … I know the (Federal Aviation Administration) is checking into it, but I can tell you now we know for sure what happened.”

Fortunately, all four men are expected to make a full recovery.

Daren Turner suffered two broken vertebrae. Ron Turner underwent shoulder surgery Monday and is expected to be hospitalized for up to seven days. Mullins was released with bruising and a thumb fracture, and Jones returned home to Tallahassee, Fla., with ankle and back fractures.

Despite the fuel situation, Jones is still being hailed a hero by his passengers and their families.

“I know mentally he’s probably hurting more than anybody here, because he was flying, so he probably feels responsible, which he shouldn’t,” Daren Turner said. “He was able to save all of us, obviously.”

His mother, Linda Turner, agreed: “Even if it was human error, there will never be any hard feelings toward him.”

22

(Daren Turner) said the plane had not been refueled before its return flight to Georgetown, Ky., from Birmingham, and that Jones tried to assure him the plane had “plenty of gas,” but that the gauges were “messed up.”

Turner believed otherwise.

“I kind of knew it was more urgent than what he had said,” Turner said. “I knew it wasn’t the gauges, that he realized we didn’t have gas. … I know the (Federal Aviation Administration) is checking into it, but I can tell you now we know for sure what happened.”

If this was me, I think I’d have double and triple thoughts about getting on the plane for the return trip. If what Turner says is true then what we have here is a incompetent pilot.

23

His mother, Linda Turner, agreed: “Even if it was human error, there will never be any hard feelings toward him.”

You should. He was about an inch from killing all of you.

I bet there’s a low suit in the future. I could see and believe there is emotional trauma that will take a while to surface.

24

Ya’ll are VERY quick to blame the pilot on this. there can be SEVERAL factors in WHY this happened. to call someone an incompetent pilot is STUPID. If he just forgot to put fuel in then yes I’ll go along with that.
But truth be told it could’ve been several things that contributed to this happening.
don’t be so quick to judge.

25

Other than a fuel leak that STARTED in flight, under what circumstances would it have NOT been the pilot’s fault? …just name one :confused:
See the quote in DAMI’S POST above

26

RE-READ what I said. I said "If what Turner says is true **then **what we have here is a incompetent pilot.

27

1.Fuel contamination
2. The Fueler didn’t put the amount of fuel in that the pilot asked for.
3. My buddy crashed a B1900 in the 70’s cause a mec left a rag in the fuel crossover.
4. Fuel totalizer INOP and pilot didn’t know.

Maybe the guy was a moron and fucked up but you really have no clue.

There is ALWAYS a cascade of events that lead to an accident. It’s just AWESOME that no one was killed.

(ARMCHAIR PILOT)

Do you even fly?

28

Pilot’s fault - should’ve been detected in preflight

Pilot’s fault - should’ve been detected in preflight

Maintenance issue - not pilot’s fault

Maintenance issue - not pilot’s fault

IF that makes a difference, then the answer is “yes”.

29

He said the plane had not been refueled before its return flight to Georgetown, Ky., from Birmingham, and that Jones tried to assure him the plane had “plenty of gas,” but that the gauges were “messed up.”

Look at the part I emphasized. That kind of messes up your point 2 and possibly point 1, doesn’t it?

30

Not quite so sure I agree with this.

Pilot should have known if it’s a gauge to be used in analyzing a problem in fuel flow. Generally, it’s an all or nothing gadget from what I understand about them.

I don’t have one in my plane, but are they not electronic in nature? It’s either lights on or lights off so to speak, nothing in between???

And even if it wasn’t a on or off thing, some type of anomaly may or should have been noticed??? Reading too high or too low???

While it probably wouldn’t have changed the outcome as it is really an “informational” type gauge and to be regarded as such and probably not part of the MEL of that particular plane it may have alerted the pilot that bigger issues were pending should the gauge been available and maybe was working…

Allen

31

An MEL is GOM specific.

The dude prob fucked up- BUT you none of Ya’ll were even there. SO how can ya’ll make all these assumptions?

32

If we’re taking water, sumping of Jet-A cannot detect water contamination since this fuel is a distillate that absorbs water and contaminating water does not separate from Jet-A. So if it’s water then maybe. If it’s “gunk” then I’m blaming the pilot.

So, not double checking fuel receipts, or gauges is someone else’s responsibility?

Maintenance issue - not pilot’s fault

Pilots fault. Most likely the MEL would say to top off the tanks. Unless he missed it on a preflight (which is pilot fault)

Yes, lots and lots

Do you fly? Do you know this guy? Maybe, you just liking being devils’ advocate, as much as we like being judge and jury :wink:

33

As history time and time over repeats itself, unless you have something specific to the contrary, then we are reasonable to assume that history will continue to repeat itself.

I take it you weren’t there either, so what you say carries no more weight then what I say unless you provide PROOF to the contrary.

Equipment failure is extremely rare as compared to pilot error.

You can roll the dice on equipment failure and you may get lucky on the guess of the probable cause or you can go the safe bet and assume that the assumptions being made here are correct and that pilot error prevails.

Unless you have something contrary and specific to the case to disprove something said in this thread, you really have no more credibility then a news reporter with no aviation background

Your posting history is very limited, so we don’t know what credibility you have. Why should we believe you any more then a poster that has been here years?

Allen

34

Not as much of an issue with flow as it is with totalization…

Not making judgments here…yet… for now just providing an explanation to how the Fuel Gauging system on a C90 works.

The C90 has 5 interconnected fuel cells on each side. The quantity indicating system is a capacitance type with left and right gauges that read in pounds. Each cell has a quantity probe that is a variable capacitor comprised of two concentric tubes. The tubes serve as fixed electrodes and the fuel in the tank in the space between the tubes acts as the dielectric of the fuel quantity probe. The capacitance of the fuel quantity probe varies with respect to the change in the dielectric that results from the ratio of fuel-to-air in the fuel cell. This variation is the volume of fuel contained in the fuel cell which produces a capacitance variation that is a linear function of that volume. This function is converted to linear current that actuates the fuel quantity indicator. An electronic circuit in the system processes the signals from the probes in the various fuel cells for an accurate readout by the indicators.

Now, when one or more of these probes goes Tango Uniform…it can cause inaccurate quantity readings, but not necessarily something noticable right away. They don’t fail very often…but as this was an early B90, who knows…Still something an astute King Air pilot should notice if he/she is paying attention to how much fuel is enplaned vs. used.

35

Don’t know if it’s been brought up here before. Here’s the site with all of the MEL’s: opspecs.com/sitemap.htm

36

If the water is absorbed into the entire mix, then wouldn’t such contamination result in continuously rough-running engines (noticeably poor engine performance) rather than sudden loss of power?

37

These are not MEL’s.

MEL’s are tail number specific as designated in the POH and any 337 field approved modifications on that particular bird.

What you posted are MMEL’s which are significantly different.

Excerpt taken from opspecs.com/AFSData/MMELs/FI … 31_r14.txt to better explain what I am saying is below my name.

Allen

The MMEL is the basis for development of individual operator MELs which take into consideration the operator’s particular aircraft equipment configuration and operational conditions. Operator MELs, for administrative control, may include items not contained in the MMEL;

38

So lets see, both engines stopped running on a turbine powered airplane and there was no post crash fire, and no large amounts of fuel found at the scene. Hmmmmmm, perhaps the fuel genie stole the fuel mid flight.

Its the PIC’s responsibility to make sure the aircraft has the fuel on board that he needs before he takes off. If for some reason there is some sort of piece of hardware that is not working that is needed to determine how much fuel is on board, then the pilot should not fly. EVERYTHING rests on the PIC’s shoulders when it comes to safety of flight.

And yes, I am a pilot.

39

Note to dandulava:

More SARCASM. mboette knows there is no such thing as a fuel genie…

40

Now thats funny right there I don’t care who you are…