Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2014, 07:10:19 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash  (Read 25904 times)
starlook124
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2009, 09:12:32 PM »

I have a question, i haven't really been following aviation news until somewhat recently (about November). Is it common for this amount of plane crashes to occur in such a short span of time? I mean so far there's been (In no particular order) The Turkish plane crash, the smaller (Angel flight I believe?) crash in Massachusetts, the Buffalo crash, the Hudson crash, the small plane crash off of Australia, and now these two. (I'm probably missing some too)  Is this ordinary huh
Logged
dska22
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2009, 09:52:42 PM »

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/database.cgi
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2009, 10:19:36 PM »

I have a question, i haven't really been following aviation news until somewhat recently (about November). Is it common for this amount of plane crashes to occur in such a short span of time? I mean so far there's been (In no particular order) The Turkish plane crash, the smaller (Angel flight I believe?) crash in Massachusetts, the Buffalo crash, the Hudson crash, the small plane crash off of Australia, and now these two. (I'm probably missing some too)  Is this ordinary huh

The Angel Flight crash near Boston was back in August 2008, which was seven months ago and not what would be considered a short span of time, at least from what it seems you are asking.   Statistically there is no large deviation this year from any other year. 
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2009, 10:30:29 PM »

After re-reading the part 91 regulations I see that it does appear legal for a GA aircraft to be loaded with multiple people per seat belt.   We'll have to wait for the report to see if this was a part 91 or 135 flight.

Anytime children are involved the intensity of the tragedy increases.  Very sad.

It's legal under both part 91 and 135 to have lap children (under the age of 2) held by an adult in an approved seat. Like I said, 7 lap children is stretch, but certainly possible. I don't know any of the details surrounding the purpose of the flight, everything is pure speculation and questionable media reports.
Logged
atsugi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2009, 10:46:53 PM »

I live here in Montana and have not heard of any ground fatalities from the local media however they said 16 dead on the most recent post of the story.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2009, 11:23:08 PM »

After re-reading the part 91 regulations I see that it does appear legal for a GA aircraft to be loaded with multiple people per seat belt.   We'll have to wait for the report to see if this was a part 91 or 135 flight.

Anytime children are involved the intensity of the tragedy increases.  Very sad.

It's legal under both part 91 and 135 to have lap children (under the age of 2) held by an adult in an approved seat. Like I said, 7 lap children is stretch, but certainly possible. I don't know any of the details surrounding the purpose of the flight, everything is pure speculation and questionable media reports.

Right, but the quote to which you were responding was discussing the legality of multiple people per seat - I was thinking about older children two per seat under the same seat belt.  After posting the FARs for both 91 and 135 I don't think there is any question of the legality of "lap children" in either part.

edit:  ambiguity
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 11:26:25 PM by KSYR-pjr » Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
pgarside
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2009, 12:44:35 AM »



It's legal under both part 91 and 135 to have lap children (under the age of 2) held by an adult in an approved seat. Like I said, 7 lap children is stretch, but certainly possible. I don't know any of the details surrounding the purpose of the flight, everything is pure speculation and questionable media reports.

Latest news is that there were 4 adults.  Whether that include pilots or not, i dont know.  Either way, that would make at least 11 children which, as stated before, doesnt add up.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2009, 07:44:54 AM »

Overnight the fatality count was dropped to 14; seven adults and seven children with at least two being reported as preschool age, which more realistically supports Jason's point about "lap" children in an aircraft that is shown on FlightAware.com equipped with 12 seats.

This aircraft is an extremely capable aircraft so the NTSB accident details will be gripping.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2009, 07:57:03 AM »

"The aircraft had departed from Oroville, California, and the pilot had filed a flight plan showing a destination of Bozeman, about 85 miles (136 kilometers) southeast of Butte. But the pilot canceled his flight plan at some point and headed for Butte, Fergus said."

I find that interesting...possible mechanical issues perhaps??

Too early to even speculate on this, as a diversion could be for any of a number of reasons in addition to mechanical:   Fuel level concerns, passenger/pilot issue (bathroom break, nausea, etc), or even an impromptu recreational decision to stop somewhere other than the original, planned destination.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Biff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2009, 09:59:26 AM »

According to AvWeb:
Quote
The reason for the diversion has not been released but Butte would have been a closer alternative if the pilot had been experiencing problems.

I haven't looked at the charts to confirm if that's true or not.
Logged

KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2009, 10:16:21 AM »

According to AvWeb:
Quote
The reason for the diversion has not been released but Butte would have been a closer alternative if the pilot had been experiencing problems.

I haven't looked at the charts to confirm if that's true or not.

FlightAware shows the aircraft's track as coming in from the southwest.  In looking at the sectional chart the two airports are about 57 nm apart, with the accident airport on the left of this image:



It doesn't seem that great a difference between the two considering the track from the southwest - perhaps only a few minutes closer.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 11:06:23 AM by KSYR-pjr » Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
48t03c24
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2009, 10:55:29 AM »

Maybe the pilot decided to avoid a towered airport and the possibility of being reported for overloading a 12 seat plane.  So he opted for the uncontrolled field in Butte thinking they could meet car service there after landing.  Not sure how this will be confirmed unless or untill we review the communications between the pilot and tracon or the tower at the airfield in the original flight plan or some fllight following clips.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2009, 11:15:30 AM »

Maybe the pilot decided to avoid a towered airport and the possibility of being reported for overloading a 12 seat plane. 

That's wouldn't happen, as ATC does not act as an FAA cop for those types of infractions.  I would bet that 99.9 percent of all controllers interviewed would not know the useful load of a PC-12, or most aircraft for that matter.  Add to this the fact that a controller would have to monitor and estimate the weight of each passenger disembarking, know the fuel loaded and then used for the flight, and monitor and estimate the weight of the luggage, all while coordinating the arrivals and departures of other aircraft (many smaller class D airport have one controller working both tower and ground), and you can hopefully see how impossible that would be.

The only pilot infractions that ATC would report would have to do with loss of controlled ground movement or air separation due to a pilot's (in)actions.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Fourthwind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2009, 11:23:02 AM »

If you look at the flight aware track on this plane you will notice that at the end he made a pretty big lockeed turn back to Butte.  Suggests in flight issue's.  As for the seating arrangment, that plane likely had the commuter seat set up.  No bathroom, which is why the kids had to use the bathroom in oroville. You could in that configuration have 12 seats in the back without an issue.  I can't remember if that was an approved amount or not, but it could be done.   I worked on that plane and did the avionics test flight back when I worked for Pilatus.  All the eyewitness reports tells me he stalled it trying to get into Butte.  Unrecoverable in the PC-12 which is why it has a stick pusher.  still leaves a lot of questions as to the type of emergancy he was having.  I doubt it was an overweight issue.  That plane is a flying tank.  God rest their souls.
Logged
Hollis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2009, 11:34:57 AM »


Latest FAA report says souls on board were 13 pax and 1 crew. Perfectly legal in the Commuter configuration.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!