N43KM pilot reported to an air traffic controller that the autopilot controls of the Beechcraft King Air had failed and that he was having trouble controlling the aircraft. The air traffic controller noticed the plane deviating from the flight plan the pilot filed, however radio contact was lost.
The aircraft registered to Western Wings Corporation of Roseburg, crashed about 30 miles west of Rocksprings, Texas. The NTSB has taken charge of the investigation.
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 43KM Make/Model: BE9L Description: 90, A90 to E90 King Air (T-44, VC-6)
Date: 12/14/2008 Time: 2058
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Destroyed
LOCATION
City: ROCKSPRINGS State: TX Country: US
DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONE PERSON ON BOARD WAS
FATALLY INJURED, 20 MILES FROM ROCKSPRINGS, TX
I don’t pretend to know anything about what happened during the last fight. Anything or multiple things could have happened. The aircraft could have even experienced a one in a billion flight regime that has never been seen before. And who knows what condition or conditions the autopilot was fighting.
But, I can tell you that the aircraft was not delivered to the paint shop with autopilot “problems.”
Then why make a statement that there was no problems with the auto pilot system per highlighted above?
Taking my car into a paint shop doesn’t ensure that the brake lights were working properly driving into the shop. In otherwords, one doesn’t have a thing to do with the other.
FlyNYC is right, you don’t have firsthand knowledge and posting a blanket statement warrants questioning your credibility…
The aircraft was delivered to the paint shop without any KNOWN autopilot problems, maybe. I’ll make the assumption that you either work for the paint shop or you delivered the aircraft yourself. Otherwise, you’re talking out your a##. Things break, people break things, avionics get wacky sometimes. Who knows what happened to that flight. But as Allen said, why make a blanket statement that opens you up to scrutiny and doubt?
Which is it??? What sources do you have to support the original statement you said???
Your original statement adding information as you call it was a blanket statement ruling out the autopilot which implies you have first hand knowledge. Do you?.
Might as well quit while you’re nearly ahead. Some people on this forum are really mean when it comes to the “you are wrong, wrong, wrong, and I am right, right, right.” In other words, if you voice an opinion or something that is an opinion but do not specifically state in big bold letters that it is your opinion then they will come down on you like flies on bovine excrement.
Someone comes aboard and makes a statement of knowledge with no substantiation, and then makes statements in contradiction. My comment wasn’t ill intended, just rebuttal.
The direct question is…what does this mean?, and how does Someone know?
So, I guess you’re telling me some of the people who flew the aircraft lied to me.
The owner of the aircraft is a first class individual and keeps all of his aircraft in the best of care. He would never dispatch a broken or unsafe aircraft for anyone, and especially his close friend.
Our pilot would have flown this aircraft home, had the pilot that did…did not.
It’s a very direct statement. So it begs the question…How do you know this to be fact?
EWKing’s comments are meaningless heresay. And if you’re basing your comments on what “others told you” or on the character of the owner, then none of it is relevent to the actual events of the tragedy. That’s all.
The investigation will reveal the cause based on actual events and circumstance. At this juncture, the rest is meaningless.
