Crash of plane

[Guest]

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

[Guest jrewing]

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

[Guest tallpilot]

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

[Guest Lizardo]

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?

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest jrewing]

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

[Guest]

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

[ronzie 21]

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.

[Guest Lizardo]

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