Plane crash today.

Plane crash today in Chamberlain why they took off in this weather is beyond me. 9 dead 3 alive reported, it's been storming all day.

That’s horrible news sorry to hear that

Very Sad, will be interesting to hear why they decided to fly in such bad weather.

Darn, sure hope my friend Anthony wasn't on the plane

ID hunters

Very Sad Deal

I'm chicken, don't want to fly any more, been 30 years

Shouldn't even be on the highway's today.

local family here in Idaho Falls, owned gas stations, a fuel distributorship and a nutritional supplement business.this is the second plane crash in a week to take locals.

Got called out to preserve the scene tonight sitting here rocking with the wind howling.

Sad situation indeed. 9 members of a family from Idaho died in the crash. Somehow 3 members of the family survived.

Too heavy ? Ice ? Disoriented pilot ? Fuel ?

https://www.argusleader.com/story/n...-jim-kirk-hansen-idaho-falls/4347845002/

The weather didn't look too bad with the exception (a big exception) of "low level wind shear", I guessing wind shear was the problem since the crash occurred only about one mile from the airport.
The Pilatus C-12 is quite an airplane.

"Get home-itis" kills a lot of people.

One of the young fathers that died was in dental school with my son. Always feels more tragic when you know one of the victims.

I think that overweight could very well be the case.

The empty weight of the plane is 6195.

Max weight with zero fuel is 9039

9039 - 6195 = 2844 pounds

Figure 12 people & their gear =2400 pounds

You now have 444 pounds left for fuel at 6.3 pounds per gallon. That is only 70 gallons. The plane will hold 420 gallons.

That airplane burns 66 gallons per hour.

I doubt they would have only taken on one hour's fuel load to return to Idaho.


Add some icing on takeoff and I can easily see a stall . BUT this is one heck of an airplane. Certified for flight into known icing conditions with deicing equipment in the wings, empannage, propellers . ...........provided it is turned on.

The plane also includes stall prevention sort of like the 737 Max except it has two sensors instead of just one.

^^^^^^
Did you notice the weather reported "low level wind shear"? A mile from the airport, plane wouldn't have gained much elevation, hit wind shear, bad news.
I don't know a whole lot about flying, but could that plane build up a significant amount of ice in just a matter of seconds?

I was on a Mark Air commercial flight 20 some years ago out of Juneau that hit wind shear on the climb shortly after take off; terrifying. The NTSB called me as well as other passengers after the incident (pilots weren't talking). People got really religious really fast that day.

No.I doubt it would accumulate that quickly. If it was that bad he would have known prior to take off.

Wind shear absolutely, especially if he was over gross take off weight If they hit a mile off the runway, they probably weren't much over 500' when they hit the wind shear.

I just measured the Chamberlain airport runway on Google Earth, approximately 8,600 feet. Its on "top" of the river hill. If a plane was heading west or northwest it would have had only a couple miles before over the river breaks and the reservoir itself but it doesn't sound like the plane even made it that far so it would have still been over flat ground.

Law Dog- How far from the I-90 rest stop and Serenity statue did it crash...?

^^^^^^
It crashed in a flat corn field about one mile from the airport. The pictures look like it was a catastrophic crash, I don't know how anyone survived. It doesn't look at all like the pilot was attempting a "crash landing". Most likely a stall event due to some factor is my guess.

I can't comment now that I'm working the site the fact it's about a mile from the airport.

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.

No it is not less for a twin.

Three engines or more drops the minimums to one half mile GENERALLY. But specific airports still may not support the lower minimums due to things like surrounding terrain features, trees, poles and , of course, the length of the runway AND the approaches to the runway. If you can't return and land on the runway you are departing, you shouldn't be departing at all.

The key thing to remember is that landings are mandatory. Takeoffs are not. Good judgement will keep you alive

I measured the main runway (the one that is paved, I see the other one now is grass) at work with Google Earth. Don't know how I got over 8,000 feet. Just measured the paved runway in Google Map here and its about 4,300 feet which matches this published info...

http://www.airnav.com/airport/9v9

Update
https://www.keloland.com/news/local...crash-reached-peak-altitude-of-460-feet/

Thanks Prn. Still sounds like ice/frost to me. What awful conditions ! Really sad !

A tragedy for sure. I read the preliminary report, had to look up empennage.

Cockpit stall warning came on 1 second after takeoff, sounds like they had trouble from the get-go. But like what happens so many times it was probably more than one problem combined with another problem(s) that caused the ultimate crash.

I know what a "stick shaker" is, but what's a "stick pusher"?

That 7MPH wind is suspect.

Stick pusher is the automated system that is trying to push the nose down to avoid imminent stall.

Pretty clear that the plane wasn't ready to fly. But, he may not have had enough runway left to get it stopped and so chose to horse it off anyway.

My guess is that the torque from take off power and the aerodynamic stall is what cause the un-commanded roll to the left. Looks like he tried to correct it but aileron response is terrible in a stall. Almost to the point of being ineffective.

Now if there really was a wind shear these poor folks had no chance. The stall recovery response is very much the opposite from recovery in a wind shear. So if he was in a stall condition (pretty clear) and hit a shear, there was no way he was getting out.

Did you notice that temperature and dew point were identical at take off ? I don't see how he was NOT building ice at the time of takeoff

Note too that he was on runway 31 and the wind was @ 020. That's 70 degrees OFF the nose. Almost a 90 degree crosswind. If the wind was indeed 7mph he could handle that but 40 mph would be challenging

I used to suffer from "get-home-itis" when I was younger; no more.
I'm always ready to bivouac, always feel right about it when I do it.

Usually I'm out alone, or at least when others are present I'm more or less in charge. That makes it easy when it's necessary to make the decision to stay put. When you're with a group of people (usually greenhorns) it's often difficult for some people to stand firm on the right decision.

Sad situation, so many needless deaths.

I sat out there that night the truck was rocking from the wind that’s a pretty big difference for just a few hours.

As the saying goes

Theres old pilots
theres Bold pilots
but theres no old bold pilots/

Every once and a while I fly with one of the few "old bold pilots". Only by necessity though.
He's crashed a couple of times, don't really know how he's survived so long.
Another one would be the late Bob Harte, cancer got him, not his plane.

Another opinion on this crash.

https://www.keloland.com/keloland-c...-plane-crash-report-concerned-about-ice/

4,277 Lbs is what it said he had left for fuel, people and gear. I would guess he was about maxed out weight wise, add a little ice and she won't fly. He just put on 150 gallons of fuel on top of what was left. 12 people and gear add up pretty fast.