First off, a terrible tragedy. Pray for that family. Talked a friend who flies PC12 for a living, mostly between Fbks and North Slope. He said some PC12s can add small folding seats bringing total up to 14. White brings up excellent point regarding fuel and potential gross weight. Add in low level wind shear and a potentially contaminated lifting or control services. The PC12 has excellent performance and weather capability, much less so if overloaded. Furthermore, the universal wind shear recovery procedure is counterintuitive, and should be practiced periodically. Unless the pilot flew professionally under FAR Part 121 or 135, or military, he/she may not have been trained or proficient in the recovery procedure. Our company is considering a PC12 purchase, and will closely watch the investigation unfold.

Sent with prayer.

Here's the most recent thing I have seen.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/wint...n-deadly-south-dakota-plane-crash/639822

was visiting with a friend of mine about the crash... he observed the props still intact and attached to hub ,, possibly feathered... he thinks engine out... he said heard they took on 150 gallons fuel... im sure the investigators will find out especially if it was power failure... bad deal for sure... lots of eyes on this one as its a heck of a airplane built with power and equip for flying into known ice...

I don't think I'd buy that. Just looking at the picture in the link above you can only see three blades. There are 5 on that prop. I would say they hit the ground with power on

I bet there was a bulge in the floor board from the throttle being pushed on so hard (kidding). If they are anything like me they take way way to much "stuff" on a hunting trip. My uneducated guess is a combo of heavy load and ice on the wings.

White, that was a heck of a load calc or performance planning post you made. Again I am impressed!

LOL . It may not be anywhere near correct either. But if that second article is correct that there was possibly ice, frost and snow on the aircraft.....it wouldn't much matter how much weight he had on board. It wasn't going to fly like that. Especially if they encountered a wind shear

I would like to know......and maybe Hydropillar can find out...........was the engine found on a continuous path in the direction of takeoff ?

In other words, if they were taking of to the north was the engine located north of the fuselage when it all stopped moving ?

im just your average vfr pilot my friend is a life long amp ... he said the other crashes he was invloved in props were thrown to the 4 winds..... so im not trying to overstep my bounds of wisdom... stands to merit prop blade we can see in pic is feathered..... whats the instructions for engine out??
He dont think it was spinning.. 4 sure inspctors will tell the tail......

I am far from an expert but in wreckage I have seen, if the engine was still under power the propeller tips will be bent in the direction of engine rotation and/or the engine under power will seperate from the wing. White, you are a pilot, I am not.

There ya go. Not saying it isn't possible. I think I listed fuel as a suspect originally. We know he had enough to get off the ground. Were the selectors set correctly ? Was there ice in a fuel line ? The air intake on that bird is heated so that probably wasn't an issue.

Talk about having the deck stacked against you !!
I just can't imagine a pilot, qualified to fly that plane , trying to take off with a load of frost or ice. I mean that is such a basic lesson no one would likely make that mistake.


I had a friend take off in a Cessna Caravan one frosty morning in Barrow. Fairly similar engine/prop setup. He had all his fuel in the left tank and fuel selectors not open all the way. The fuel made that left wing heavy and he couldn't correct the attitude. He was also building ice as soon as he broke ground..............then the engine ran out of fuel.

He plunged into the ocean with a plane load of people

Ugly deal for sure !! im just being couch potato coach...... i can see a pilot bushing snow off wings... taking off 8000 ft runway over weight wind sheer,ice ,he shoulda augered right through it with that plane ... im voteing for fuel contamination

Yes I can see him figuring the prop wash would clear the wings of snow but certainly not frost. I just can't accept that this guy would make that mistake.

Lots of variables and it was probably a combination of ingredients.

I am not sure what to think but fuel starvation shouldn’t have been an issue. I am leant towards gross overload and IMC conditions.

X2 ...too much bad combination... kinda like eatin chinese gets ya a belly ache....

I noticed the NTSB guy said visibility was one half mile. The minimum viz for IFR take off, in single engine, is one statute mile

EDIT: I just looked at that airport. Two runways; one is 4300 feet and the other is 3400. I'll bet he used all most all of whichever one he was using.

Thanksgiving pheasant hunting trip was an annual tradition with that extended Mormon family. A picture showed them gathered around a picnic table that had pheasants piled 2 or 3 or 4 high. I would guess average weight of passengers was well under 200lbs. May they rest in peace.

Reported age of 3 male survivors was17, 27, and 28.

Under the rules that I fly, (part 135), the minimum IFR departure visibility is 1 statue for 9V9, (the Chamberlain SD airport code). 9V9 has AWOS, which is basically a weather robot continually reporting the weather observation over an on-site radio transmitter as well as internet. 1 mile visibility is also the lowest possible VFR departure minimum visibility. If the visibility at takeoff was 1/2 mile, any pilot would have a tough time accomplishing a survivable "dead stick landing" under those conditions.

you right on runway lengths... not sure where i got that 8000 ft i quoted... definitely wrong
i didnt know that about 1 statue mile for ifr... is it less for a twin??

Our IFR Requirements are 1 statute mile visibility, or lowest suitable approach minimum visibility at the departure field, whichever is lower. The lowest approach minimum at 9V9 are 1sm for the RNAV/LPV approaches. I fly multi-engine under FAR Part 135. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with single engine Part 91, which are the rules I believe the Pilatus would likely fly under. Part 91 is often less restrictive, but I can't help but think that 1 sm visibility is a hard limit for everyone at that airport.