Sign in to follow this  
Guest Lizardo

Crash of plane

Recommended Posts

I just heard, US Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife and daughter along with pilot and other passagers were killed in crash of a King Air. My condolenses to his family for their loss.Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Can anyone confirm the ICAO identifier of the airport they were landing at? I wanna see what kind of approaches are availiable there...

Share this post


Link to post

What about all these senators dying in small plane crashes. This one is second in the last 2 years ...Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post

It's being reported as Eveleth, Minnesota. KEVM

Share this post


Link to post

With the elections right around the corner, it makes you wonder if this was really an accident.

Share this post


Link to post

>With the elections right around the corner, it makes you >wonder if this was really an accident. Well, lets hear your conspiracy theories...

Share this post


Link to post

If its conspiracy theories you want go to : http://english.pravda.ru/main/ then click on fourms/politics. I like to read diffent internet sites from around the world. The Pravda fourms are quite anti-American and quite anti-Israel. Amazing since the Russians are " our friends". Matt

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have any theories, I just think stuff like this seems pretty suspicious with the mid-terms right around the corner. Alot of dirty things happen in the world of politics...

Share this post


Link to post

Yes a lot of a dirty things can happen, but killing off a politician is not one them. Nothing is gained by it, even if it is an election cycle. If that was the case politicians would be dropping like flies, so to speak (and with all due respect to his family). And, plus it would be extremely difficult to hide an assasination. Regards

Share this post


Link to post

Well, no conspiracy theory with the crash of Senator Wellstone, it probably due to ice buildup on the plane, causing more dragg. NTSB is investigating this matter. Not everthing is due to a conspiracy. Charles

Share this post


Link to post

I heard there is no IAP's for the airport they were flying into. Can anyone confirm this? If so, then it probably wasn't ice, but just plane old stupidity! They had 500' ceilings the news was reporting.

Share this post


Link to post

I also doubt that ice was the cause. The approach to Runway 27 at KEVM is a non-precision, VOR DME type, according to Jeppeson's. The final approach seems pretty steep and I'm guessing that the terrain is hilly. The minimum descent altitude is 1900 MSL/531 AGL, and I've heard reports that ceilings were as low as 400. Seems like a probable case of controlled flight into terrain.

Share this post


Link to post

There was freezing rain and light snow reported with reduced visibility.The airport they chose to go into had a VOR/GPS approach and a runway that was less than 5000ft long (4694ft)13 miles away (a 15 minute drive?) was Hibbing (KHIB)airport that has a full ILS and a runway that is 6758ft long.Ed Weber a.k.a tallpilot

Share this post


Link to post

Good point Ed, an ILS on a morning like that would've been a lot less nerve wracking.Yep, it was a nasty wx morning here in KMSP...low clouds, drizzle (not freezing type), and some fog. I've never been to Eveleth, so I plugged it into FS2K2 and flew an approach to RWY 27 (don't have an approach plate, so I took off on RWY 09 flew out five miles, did a course reversal, then flew back in to RWY 27)..here are some shots:http://images.andale.com/f2/109/127/632235...1743_Image7.jpg"CAVOK" on a apx 2 nm final at apx 400'agl.http://images.andale.com/f2/109/127/632235...2298_Image6.jpgCockpit view.http://images.andale.com/f2/109/127/632235...1096_Image8.jpgSame position with clouds at 500' and vis 1 nm.http://images.andale.com/f2/109/127/632235...0518_Image9.jpgCockpit view.http://images.andale.com/f2/109/127/632235...369_Image11.jpgJust inside of a mile out, and starting to see the runway.Don't really know what any of this shows, I was just curious as to what the crew was in for.later,BBall---------------------Capt. William "BBall" BallBoeing 757, Northwest AirlinesSenior Editorwww.frugalsworld.com

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Bill,What is shows is that an ILS and a longer runway (especially with the possibility of a slippery runway) would have been a better choice.I just wonder how much pressure the customer put on the charter company/pilot to go into that airport. In the same situation as PILOT IN COMMAND, I would have (and have)told the customer that I would not go into a particular airport or situation.Take care,Ed Weber a.k.a tallpilot

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah Ed, I guess that's kind of a given for you and me. I remember working for a turboprop (Metroliners) outfit that threatened to fire me several times when I refused to fly unsafe aircraft, etc.... I remember one time being HUGELY berated by a lady that wanted me to take-off and fly her to Memphis (though some BIG thunderstorms...her yelling didn't help)...I calmly told her the airplane was outside parked on the ramp, the "keys were in the ignition", just follow the checklists....and we'd all show up to pick up the pieces of twisted metal and body parts in a few hours. I turned and walked away from a rather silent crowd. :)Sometimes the "protection" of ALPA is forgotten.....take care,BBall-----------------Capt. William "BBall" BallBoeing 757, Northwest AirlinesSenior Editorwww.frugalsworld.com

Share this post


Link to post

KEVM has a field elevation of 1378' and four published instrument approach procedures:GPS RWY 27 - straight-in MDA 1740', circling 1920' VOR/DME RNAV RWY 27 - 1900', 1920'VOR RWY 27 - 1840', 1920'; DME straight-in 1840', 1920'VOR/DME or GPS A - circling MDA 2120'All the straight-in approaches would appear to get you to between 362' and 522'AGL at the missed approach point. The circling approaches will get you to between 542' and 742'AGL. However, what determines whether or not you can land is the visibility when you reach the MDA, not the reported ceilings.I did read that the NTSB said aircraft was not aligned with any runway at EVM. Perhaps they were attempting a circling approach and icing became an issue? We'll have to wait to see what the NTSB determines ...John

Share this post


Link to post

But the fact that we did exercise good judgement even with the threat of termination (and without the protection of a union) is why we're both still in one piece today. What's that Clint said? " A man (pilot)just has to know his limitations".Later,Ed

Share this post


Link to post

I have a question for pilots familiar with icing. A couple of years ago northern Indiana had several wrecks from iced up turbo-props, and maybe this is another. It seems odd that a pilot getting anywhere near such an event wouldn't have all his de-icing on all the time, needed or not. Am I mistaken, or is there a reason it wouldn't be "on" as a matter of procedure when there was the slightest risk?

Share this post


Link to post

Keep in mind that even the best of de-icing or anti-icing equipment will not work in some conditions.Some equipment requires a certain level of ice to be on the sirface in order to be used (i.e. boots). A King Air 100 would have leading edge boots, electrical boots or alcohol on the props, pitot heat, and maybe a hot windshield.Based on what I've heard I'm assuming CFIT. I'd think if they were accumulating ice they would have radioed that to approach. The lack of a radio call tells me it is CFIT.

Share this post


Link to post

If the reports are true that the aircraft made a 90 degree turn off the final approach course, a CFIT would be highly unlikely. Such a turn would more than likely indicate a problem having to do with loos of control and that would point toward icing. Also, given the weather was freezing drizzle/snow, an icing incident would seem the more likely. But, speculation is only that, let us wait until the NSTB does its job and makes a determination.

Share this post


Link to post

Anti-icing or de-icing equipment does not make an aircraft immune to the effects of icing, which include higher stall speed and degradation of climb performance. Even with de-icing/anti-icing equipment, an aircraft cannot remain in significant icing conditions for long without encountering problems. Again, it's premature to say whether or not icing was involved in this particular crash. Have to wait for the NTSB report ...John

Share this post


Link to post

Lizardo,I'm guessing you're referring to the ATR-72, and ATR-42 crashes that happened a few years ago. Here's a good website for the facts about what happened, and what's been done to remedy the problem.http://www.eetronics.com/icing_air_crashs.htmAnd you're right about using the anti-icing equipment on the aircraft (the "hot" props, the windshield heat, the pitot heat, etc), but on most turboprops, the wings use de-icing equipment (rubber inflatable boots). Once an appreciable amount of ice builds up on the leading edge, the boots are inflated and the ice is removed (some have an option to cycle the boots at regular intervals). If the ice is building up at a pace that the boots can't handle (freezing drizzle and freezing rain are very, very serious in this respect), then the boots become worthless.I can't think of many things that would be as dangerous as a wing stalling at 500' agl.As said before, the NTSB will expertly pick this apart and find the answers.later,BBall--------------------Capt. William "BBall" BallBoeing 757, Northwest AirlinesSenior Editorwww.frugalsworld.com

Share this post


Link to post

The GPS-A approach comes in from the Southwest which might be closer to the crash site. It does require entering a DW entry pattern or circling to get back to 27 alignment.Another theory a coworker (also a PP) put forth was that a missed approach to 27 requires a climbing left turn, and reentry to back to 27 might take you over the crash site. The person commenting on this has flown in that area.As far as hills, he claims nothing that high exists in the area.He also wonders if perhaps with all aboard, enough fuel might not have been burned off and the tail might have been heavy with stall factors made worse by any ice build-up.Local news stated that the ceiling was around 700 at the time.

Share this post


Link to post

(yes, those were the ones. Very good discussion here.)

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this