Tuesday, October 18, 2022

Beechcraft E90 King Air, N515GK: Fatal accident occurred October 18, 2022 in Marietta, Washington County, Ohio

National Transportation Safety Board - Accident Number: ERA23FA024

Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Charleston, West Virginia

Aircraft crashed into car dealership under unknown circumstances.  

Avintel Management LLC


Date: 18-OCT-22
Time: 09:01:00Z
Regis#: N515GK
Aircraft Make: BEECH
Aircraft Model: E-90
Event Type: ACCIDENT
Highest Injury: FATAL
Total Fatal: 2
Flight Crew: 1 Fatal
Pax: 1 Fatal 
Aircraft Missing: No
Damage: SUBSTANTIAL
Activity: PERSONAL
Flight Phase: APPROACH (APR)
Operation: 91
City: PARKERSBURG
State: WEST VIRGINIA

Those who may have information that might be relevant to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation may contact them by email witness@ntsb.gov, and any friends and family who want to contact investigators about the accident should email assistance@ntsb.gov. You can also call the NTSB Response Operations Center at 844-373-9922 or 202-314-6290.


Eric Scott Seevers 



By Phillip Hickman

I lost one of the brightest stars in my universe Tuesday morning.  Even though we were often at odds due to our inherited stubborn natures, I never stopped loving and supporting him, even from a distance at times.  I was so very proud of him and his accomplishments.  My world has forever changed.

Eric Scott Seevers departed this earth on October 18, 2022.  He was born February 13, 1977, the youngest son of Lewis D. and Kathy S. Seevers of Parkersburg, WV.

He attended Emerson Elementary, Van Devender Jr. High School, and Parkersburg High School, where he excelled at skipping class and getting into trouble.  His love of learning came later.  It was in Jr. High he discovered a love of playing music after attending a Kiss concert with his sister Christie and her friend Brenda and decided to learn to play guitar.  It turned out he was a natural at it and went on to form and play in several local heavy metal bands, Loaded, Liecus, and Social 66, for example.  He later played bass in an 80′s cover band and guitar in a Kiss tribute band (complete with stage make-up and costumes).  He kicked butt doing it.

Despite being a multi-talented songwriter ex/musician, he would go on to become a financial advisor for Mass Mutual.  It was during his time at Mass Mutual that he discovered another passion; becoming a pilot.  He worked hard and studied even harder to pass all the requirements to become a Citation CE500 Captain.  He even bought a plane and started a flying school, giving lessons out of Wood County Airport to share his love of flying.

He told his kids they could do anything they put their minds to, and he was living proof of it.  Eric was a true rockstar to the people that knew and loved him.  He gave his all to everything he did, whether it was being a rocker, a financial advisor, a pilot, a father/son/brother/husband, or a friend.

He will be eternally missed by his wife Francella Quesada Castro; his son Tucker Stephens (Selena); his two daughters Cadence A. (Trenton) and Kambria L. Seevers, all of Parkersburg; his paternal grandmother Thelma J. Seevers of Vienna; his sister Christie Seevers of Parkersburg; his brother Kyle Seevers (Loretta) of Valdosta, GA; his niece Alex Seevers of Valdosta, GA; his nephew Michael Seevers (Jasmin) of Fort Stewart, Hinesville, GA; four great-nephews in Georgia; and grandson Michael Dowler of Parkersburg.

There will be no funeral service, but a celebration of life for friends and family will be held at a later date.  Leavitt Funeral Home, Parkersburg, is assisting the family with cremation arrangements.



Tim Gifford

Firefighter Tim Gifford and Monica Durban during a ceremony in August 2016. Gifford saved Durban after she was involved in a vehicle crash in 2008.

Tim Gifford


 Eric Seevers

“[He was everything] from an accomplished musician, to a pilot, to a devoted father, but most importantly a good friend,” said Ronnie McCoy, a friend of two decades.
~


MARIETTA, Ohio — The Ohio State Highway Patrol has released the names of the two men who were killed when a private plane crashed at a car dealership parking lot in Marietta Tuesday morning. 

The occupants were identified as 49-year-old Timothy F. Gifford of Orient, Ohio and 45-year-old Eric S. Seevers of Parkersburg, West Virginia.

Gifford was a firefighter with the Columbus Division of Fire and retired in May, according to Battalion Chief Jeffrey Geitter.

The crash happened at approximately 7:15 a.m. at the Pioneer Buick GMC dealership on Pike Street. The plane involved was a Beechcraft E90 King Air. 

Marietta police told 10TV that the plane took off from John Glenn Columbus International Airport at 6:40 a.m.

Officers with the Marietta Police Department arrived at the scene and saw heavy fire and smoke in the area. Other emergency crews responded and the fire was put out. 

No one who was on the ground was reportedly injured. OSHP said multiple vehicles and buildings at the dealership were damaged from the crash. 

The crash remains under investigation.







MARIETTA, Ohio (WCMH) — Surveillance video from a nearby business shows the moment a plane crashed into the parking lot of a Marietta, Ohio car dealership Tuesday morning, killing two people.

The video shows the plane, which flew out of John Glenn International in Columbus, falling straight down out of the sky before exploding into a fireball, killing 49-year-old Timothy F. Gifford, of Orient, and Eric S. Seevers, 45, of West Virginia.

The Federal Aviation Administration confirmed the plane was a Beechcraft E90 King Air. A spokesperson with John Glenn International Airport said the plane took off from its runways at 6:39 a.m.  The plane was heading for the Mid-Ohio Valley Regional Airport in Parkersburg, West Virginia, before crashing around 30 minutes later.

Dr. Shawn Pruchnicki, a former plane accident investigator who is now a professor at Ohio State University’s Center for Aviation Studies, points out the glow on the plane as it comes down and the smoke trail shows the plane was on fire in the air. He also said the angle of the plane means it was not in control.

“There’s several reasons why an airplane might do something like this and all of those will have to be examined, right?” Pruchnicki said. “Aircraft malfunction, pilot incapacitation. The fact the aircraft is on fire prior to impact can also lead down a certain path on why the airplane might have eventually become out of control.”

The Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board are investigating the crash. As of Tuesday evening, no cause for the crash has been released.





144 comments:

  1. FlightAware Last speed was 87 mph at 1227 Ft . Plane never made it to airport . I have many hours in 1973 E90 , E90 I flew did not have auto feather. If plane was on IFR approach maybe lost engine did not feather bad engine or just got distracted and let speed get too slow .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That KA is not flying at 75 knots (87 mph) and they can fly on one engine !
      Flown em all from the straight 90 to the 350 many thousands of hours in fifty years !

      Delete
    2. Does not account for witness account aircraft was on fire before impact.

      Delete
    3. I can't see where it is on fire. You see the landing and nav lights and some low light and motion blur artifacts common of surveillance cameras.

      Delete
    4. Agreed, if there was fire it would have been behind the a/c, not in front of it as it appears.

      Delete
    5. If you remember the PT6 will feather by itself (counter weights & feathering springs) without oil pressure - so - one of my brothers in aviation died in a crash for reasons we don’t know yet ! Shame ! Pray for the pilot & pax !

      Delete
    6. I agree…no fire in that video. Just landing/taxi lights and position/nav lights

      Delete
    7. I agree…no fire in that video. Just landing/taxi lights and position/nav lights

      Delete
    8. Might have been doing 87mph over the ground …. Vertically it was a bit faster.

      Delete
    9. …but the Doctor said it was on fire!

      Delete
    10. You can see how quickly rumors spread, it was the landing lights and the hot exhaust coming out of running engines, not on fire!.

      Delete
    11. you are all arguing like children while 2 people lost their lives. Pathetic.

      Delete
    12. Nothing to argue about. There is no fire visible in the video. Lights mostly. As for witness accounts, those are very often unreliable, non aviators often do not know what they are seeing and hearing in these situations.

      Meanwhile the experienced accident analysts online are pointing out that the aircraft was operating in icing conditions and the accident signature is consistent with a stall and spin that would result if the airplane was iced up and the crew had not (a) used the deicing system and/or (b) did not allow for extra airspeed on the approach to compensate for the higher stall speed that could result from icing.

      Delete
    13. Is that smoke trailing behind?

      Delete
  2. Flight aware is just too unreliable IMO. They interpolate data that is never actually received from ADSB data. https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a674a2&lat=39.449&lon=-81.393&zoom=14.3&showTrace=2022-10-18&trackLabels&timestamp=1666091265

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks . I have adsbexchange app but it seems harder to use than flight aware . I need to learn how to use it. .

      Delete
  3. There is audio from TWR/GND and there is no indication or call there were any problems. Last call from E90 was cleared for landing read back. 40 seconds later someone on freq. asks "Tower did that plane just go down?" and some comments from tower about seeing a flash.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Security video shows it coming down vertically nose first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have a link to the security video?

      Delete
    2. https://www.nbc4i.com/video/new-video-sheds-light-on-marietta-ohio-plane-crash/8084824/

      Delete
  5. Per radio call when contacting tower initially he stated he was on RNAV/GPS 21 approach

    Overcast at 1,400

    KPKB 181053Z 26003KT 10SM OVC014 03/01 A2980 RMK AO2 SLP094 T00330006

    ReplyDelete
  6. Was this a Part 135 Charter, Part 91 “grey” charter or regular Part 91 flight ?

    Hotel owner said plane was on way to pick him up to fly him to Florida and he had flown on the plane may times before with same pilots .

    Plane is registered to a management company .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what is commonly called a "134.5" operation. Should be 135 by all rights, but company is cheaping out and cutting corners to avoid 135 regs and this is the result.

      Delete
    2. "We don’t have a crystal ball but it doesn’t take magic to recognize the warning signs to operators conducting illegal charter flights. For those who aren’t familiar, Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) governs flights operated for the benefit of the owner or lessee of an aircraft, where the occupants (which may or may not include the pilot) have operational control over the flight. Part 135 governs what are commonly known as charter flights, where the operator makes flights available for members of the public, and the company providing the airplane (not the occupants) has operational control over the flight.

      For obvious reasons, Part 135 operations are required to comply with more rigorous maintenance, training, supervision, and accountability standards. Part 135 flights are more expensive due to the costs that have to be absorbed into the hourly rental costs, but Part 135 flights are also subject to Federal excise taxes, whereas most Part 91 flights don’t trigger these taxes. For the operator competing for business in the tight charter market, the motivations to skirt the regulations are plain to see. Frequently, sophisticated passengers have unreasonable pricing expectations and may pressure operators to risk FAA enforcement to provide cheaper flights. Mix in the pressures placed on the charter market from the web, with all sorts of apps and brokers offering discount charter flights, and the temptation to provide a Part 135 flight at Part 91 prices (sometimes known as a Part 134.5 flight) can become overwhelming."

      https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/attention-all-134-5-operators-your-faa-45384/

      Delete
    3. Yeah but … what they saved by being 134.5 instead of a full 135 operator saved them enough money to keep the 48 yo plane in perfect condition.

      /s

      Delete
    4. What does the failure to deice in flight with the rubber boots have to do with the condition of the plane?

      Delete
    5. so nice to know how knowledgeable you are on the FAR's. how about some ideas on what really caused this particular accident and save demonstration of your impressive knowledge for your students?

      Delete
    6. Good point but speculation. I have actually seen the same thing where the passenger is called a "student pilot" and the PIC is the "flight instructor" and it is all a sham. Part 135 is an expensive pain in the ass but for good reason.

      Delete
    7. The maintenance requirements on a multi engine turbine under part 91 are the same as 135. The pilot requirements for a ATP are the same as a type rating or a 135 check ride. 40 years owner operator 91, 135, 125. Most 135 maintenance I have witnessed depending on the airplane are no different than 91 if you comply with SB's.

      Delete
    8. This was not a 134.5 fight, my buddy, the PIC, was working for a 135 company.

      Delete
  7. Trailing a plume of smoke if you enlarge the picture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That video screenshot at the top of this page is misleading it is way zoomed in. Watch the video someone else posted at https://www.nbc4i.com/video/new-video-sheds-light-on-marietta-ohio-plane-crash/8084824/ which is also cropped and edited to remove foreground building. And finally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf7tx9w804w at .25 speed shows the sky better. Im still going to say there was no fire, just my opinion.

      Delete
    2. I agree, no fire on the way down. The first version of this clip looked like it could have been on fire but it was so distorted that the appearance of fire and smoke could have been from the distortion. The clearer versions released since then do not look like it was on fire. The glow is the landing light glaring against the dark background.

      Delete
    3. Like said above … looks light lights to me. What looks like smoke … video distortion? Condensation from disturbed near dew point air?

      Delete
    4. I agree there was no fire prior to impact. You see landing/taxi lights, nav lights and heat signature from the running engines, most likely at high power setting. PIREP reported rime ice, I am going with icing and stall spin on final approach.

      Delete
    5. If you are going to analyze aviation accident videos, you need to have as much knowledge about video compression algorithms and artifacts as you do about aviation. What to a novice looks like a trail of smoke is actually a very common and well known video compression artifact.

      Delete
    6. Correct.....no fire. REports are in it iced up, tail stall. The bright light you see is the ICE LIGHTS fellas.

      Delete
  8. I haven't seen anyone mention the speed changes in the last 3-4 minutes, 180 to 150 to 180 to 130 to 144. Is this not unusual? And wouldn't the close temperature/dew point spread with dp at 1C point to possible icing? I usually keep my speculation to myself with these things but this one was a little close to home. Trying to make sense of it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think it's icing instead of fire. Shows weather 38F on ground at 7AM local, due point of 33 and overcast of 1400. Maybe they accumulated enough ice during the approach that stalled the plane well above normal stall speed when they tried to slow down on final phase of the approach. OR (assuming they accumulated ice) extending gear or flaps just changed the dynamics and a tailplane stall? Recovery from wing or tail stall is opposite so maybe that made it worse? just my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No fire, those bright light areas are artifacting from all the different night landing lights and very poor video quality.

      Delete
    2. Agree most likely tail stall from tail plane icing happens very fast

      Delete

  10. I’m Current (13 hours last 3 days) and 2000 hrs single pilot in an almost identical E90

    It’s a E90 with 4 blade conversion. Dirty gear and approach flaps it will put the brakes on pretty fast. I have almost the identical airplane. The airspeed decays rapidly and the airplane pitches down especially in low idle

    I usually leave the props back at 1850 instead of 1900 for approach and landing because of this. When the props flatten out during the flare with the prop controls full forward it is fairly sudden that the airplane wants to pitch down just as your entering the flare and some elevator authority is lost.

    Depending on rigging the props could be rigged very flat to keep the idle RPM above 1100.
    Drag onset is sudden. It would be easy to get too slow especially if on autopilot and not feeling what is going on with control pressures.

    This accident has a lot of similarities to the accident last November with an E90 N290KA in upper Michigan

    https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N290KA Same sawtooth speed pattern and similar profile and weather. I was making an approach not far from N290KA and listened to his last calls. Controller asked me after I took off on the next flight if we were the same company (we were not) due to similar N numbers and they had not heard from him after being cleared for the approach. I flew over to listen for an ELT but did not hear one.

    The E90 I fly and others have reported the same has a strange tendency.

    On a stabilized approach when the gear is lowered it will yaw one ball width or more out to the right
    In calm conditions it feels like a crosswind all the way into the landing flare requiring noticeable rudder pressure to maintain coordination

    Autopilot and yaw damper on or off it is the same.

    I have had multiple shops attempt to find a rigging problem for this over the last 10 years but everything is right on. I’ve looked also a the rigging
    and could not find a problem

    With Torques and turbine and prop RPM matched perfectly the yaw follows gear extension every time.

    The only fix is to reduce the right engine power lever about a knob width below the left or fly the approach with constant rudder pressure.

    If accidentally stalled in this configuration it will drop a wing

    No idea if this is exclusive to this combination of 4 blade propeller and E90 airframe or if the 3 blade C90 has the same traits.

    I have flown several 200 and B200s with 3 and 4 blade propellers and they did not do this.
    The sims do not replicate this condition. My airplane has full main gear doors which may make it a bit worse.

    Oddly I flew a B80 Queenair for several years and it did not have this problem with an almost identical airframe other than engines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A few of things come to mind regarding your right yaw situation. 1. The nose gear might not be centered or perhaps not holding a centered position when extended. On jacks, without wind forces, it will be centered every time. 2. One of the main tires (landing gear), probably the right side, might not be centered.

      Delete
    2. I flew part 91 E90 part time and part 135 several 200s full time . I never had any yaw problems on E90. Wonder if copilot was low time building time of experienced high time pilot . Many King Air copilots are time builders seat warmers

      Delete
    3. The copilot is extremely experienced in that airplane and has more than 1000 hours or so in the e90’s. Last count I had he was somewhere in the 3000-5000 hour range (Last time I knew exact hours was 2500 or so a little over 2 years ago). All of that gained in the last 6-8 years. He flies pretty much daily, and very often flies that e90. He recently renewed schooling/currency for the e90 specifically. He is a friend, and one of the best pilots I know ….. He is one of the few, I didn’t think an airplane could kill! He has been in engine failure situations before with oil covered windscreen 13 miles from airport and still safely put the plane down …as well as several other emergency situations. I don’t mean to rant, but this was NOT A TIME BUILDER …nor a NEW e90 Pilot. He has been flying the wings off that airplane for several years!

      Delete
    4. I just saw where Eric posted on social media when he was at recurrent training in September, is that who you are talking about? He was the PIC or SIC?

      Delete
    5. Most interested in u r comments (since u r current in E90s). I fly Citations. But some King Airs (I forget which ones. E90's perhaps??) do not have a "trim wheel" by the pilot's right knee (why they don't? no one ever told me). Is the E90 so equipped (i.e., it doesn't have one)? and I ask because if the situation was "runaway trim" (down) it would have very, very quickly pointed his nose down. Even if he indeed had a trim wheel, at that low altitude he may not have caught it quick enough, or been fast enough, to pull the circuit breaker. It seems logical to me as a possibility, in that its a "step-down" GPS approach and he had just passed MIDCO (the FAF) and was now cleared to go down 1,000', "step-down" from 2800' by 1,000 ft in just 2.9 miles down to MARRII at 1,860. If he thumbs the trim "down" on trim rocker switch on the yoke to make that descent, AND the trim solenoid locks runaway "down", then the E90 going vertical, nose down within a second or two (a pilot's worst runaway down trim nightmare). Even if he was flying a coupled LNAV your trim is still actively engaged by A/P and could still runway as it adjusts downward further for that last fix in just 2.9 miles to MARII (he crashed in that 2.9 miles between MIDCO and MARII and was almost to MARII. You can counter and say your have the a/p disconnect on the yoke, but a runaway trim may have already pointed that nose too far downward in the second or two it takes you to hit it (or even if it works in a runaway situation). You're an E90 driver. Thoughts?

      Delete
    6. irrelevant comments seem to be the rule on this accident today. on an on an on about your flying career which would be fine if it had anything even remotely related to this event. the c90 i fly does the same thing, i just trim it out and fly the approach and land. far more likely he set his altitude preselect on the step down to FAF and due to distraction or whatever failed to bring the power back in when the autopilot leveled the aircraft while intercepting the glide slope and lowering the gear props forward etc. a very busy time even with no unexpected distractions. throw in some ice accumulation and it doesn't have to get very slow to lose control.

      Delete
    7. " . . . far more likely he set his altitude preselect on the step down to FAF and due to distraction or whatever failed to bring the power back in when the autopilot leveled the aircraft" . . I'll throw in and say I like this commenters theory. More probably than the runaway trim theory I have, but given the right set of 'chain-of-mistakes' this theory seems plausible. My only problem with it is: there is both a PIC and SIC and both of them have to "not notice" these mistakes. But I guess to your point "due to a distraction" would make that plausible. But your set of events I think works.

      Delete
  11. My initial thought was that this plane was on fire but when you take the video's frame by frame you can clearly see no smoke trail. As both a pilot for a few years and a firefighter for over 30 years something we learned in the fire department was that smoke does not dissipate quickly, however steam and condensation will. The light is refracting and reflecting with distortion from the low ceilings in the area and close dew point. Here is my take which is worthless from such a low time pilot as I am but here goes. I think the speed variations 3-4 minutes before coupled with a hard nearly 90 degree turn towards the airport and the need to report his positions coupled with an IMC approach equaled a task saturated pilot, with light rime icing that was not detected and a decaying airspeed coupled with the above mentioned typical performance resulting in high task saturation led to a serious decay in airspeed and loss of situational awareness resulting in a combined stall spin at an extremely low altitude which was unrecoverable. My condolences to the families of this pilot as this pilot has some close connections to our area and to a friend of mine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It appears there is a smoke/heat trail if u look close enough.

      Delete
  12. This might be a simple case of IMC gone wrong. The "smoke" in the video is very tenuous at best and be CCD induced on the camera and the huge light might be a reflection of lights on the ground against the shiny paint. Hopefully the investigation will get to the bottom of it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm betting on some kind of midair.

    ReplyDelete
  14. No fire but camera flare due to landing lights. One can observe the same effect from wingtip and tail lights. Stall/spin for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  15. NTSB spokesman said light rime ice reported at time of crash. Ceiling was about 1400 ft . Not sure of visibility . Vertical descent in videos suggests stall/spin. Maybe got too slow with ice on wings . I flew 1973 E90 with no auto feather . Had to feather prop quickly . Pilots reportedly very experienced and current . Hard to understand .

    ReplyDelete
  16. Last 2 reports from Flight Aware shows ground Speed dropped off dramatically from 120 to 87 and rate of descent increased to 1200 ft per min with last altitude of 1800 ft , if ceiling was 1400 ft plane may have been IFR when losing control spiraling in vertical descent . That does not sound like stabilized approach . Either lost engine got too slow or iced up with reported rime or spatial disorientation even with 2 pilots . No one has said if 135 charter or 91 flight . Even 135 can fly 91 on reposition flight with no passengers .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. perhaps diving for the glide slope after getting behind and a bit high?

      Delete
  17. I'll be very interested to see what the report concludes, if they can reach a definite conclusion. A number of factors stood out to me that many have already commented on; large speed changes leading up to the crash, IMC, possible icing, tail stall. Other things that stood out to me were the fact that it appears to have happened almost exactly at the final approach fix for the RNAV 21, and that it was 8hrs 3mins from landing the previous night to T/O the next morning. I also agree that the video is misleading in terms of being on fire before impact; I definitely agree the 'smoke' is more than likely just compression artifacts and since it's in
    night mode, it's blowing up the landing lights brightness a ton. That being said, I did see an interview with a ground witness who said they heard a 'boom' before the impact but I don't know how far I trust that. All that being said, I could easily see a few possibilities:

    1: Fatigue and/or complacency along with task saturation led the crew to either not notice ice build up, or not properly utilize anti/de-icing leading to loss of control more than likely at the final approach while configuring to land. That, or they recognized icing and had all the proper equipment turned on, but configured for a full-flap landing with ice on the plane resulting in loss of control (it's been several years since I flew BE350's, I don't remember if that was a restriction anymore but in PC-12's it very much is).

    2: Again, fatigue and/or complacency along with task saturation caused loss of SA on their airspeed and they configured full flaps at the final approach fix well above the full flap airspeed limit leading to structural failure of one or both flaps and an unrecoverable aircraft (The last airspeed flightradar24 had them at was 162 and increasing; multiple sources I could find said the full flap limit was 140kts).

    3: Engine failure, always a possibility, could have happened at the worst time; fatigued crew, night, IMC, low to the ground, configured, and in possible icing. All those factors added up might have meant the crew was simply unable to correctly respond to the engine out and in the process either lost control or got spatially disoriented.

    All in all, it's still tragic. I hope the NTSB findings will shed light and hopefully we can all learn something from what happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was this a 91 flight with no duty time rest requirements from flight the previous night ?

      Delete
    2. I don’t know as I didn’t look into that aspect. I can definitely say though that I would 100% be comprised with an 8hr turn from land to T/O, late night into rather early morning especially when you factor in post-flight, transit to/from hotel, meals, preflight planning, etc.

      Delete
    3. have never and would never apply full flaps at FAF in the c90 i fly or in any aircraft i have ever flown IFR especially in icing conditions. seems like an absurd guess to me. copilots experience was discussed, what about PIC?

      Delete
  18. No way to descend vertical without LOC . No way to lose control unless speed was too slow .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plenty of ways to lose control. I just posted several above.

      Delete
    2. An aircraft can be stalled at any airspeed provided the critical angle of attack is exceeded.

      Delete
    3. extremely irrelevant comment. we are not in a class sir and not in need of recognition of your vast aviation knowledge.

      Delete
  19. Used to be saying in car accidents that Speed Kills . In plane accidents Slow Speed Kills . DMMS will keep pilots alive .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Perhaps an inverter failure? I had a couple of those in a C90A that I used to fly and fortunately they were in cruise; my worst fear was that one would fail on approach in IMC. I fly a PC12 now and I’m thankful every flight to not have to worry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hard to understand how 2 pilots making airline part 121 Crew Resource Management call outs and approach briefings could allow airspeed to get too slow and cause stall spin . Seems like something major like engine failed with no auto feather caused speed to decrease fast causing stall spin . Often with power piled back in descent it’s hard to tell which engine failed . I had check ride instructor pull engine on KA 200 as we entered downwind with power pulled back . The speed started slowing fast as I was distracted by traffic pattern . Instructor yelled , “you are going to roll, you are going to roll” . I did not realize instructor had simulated engine failure since no yaw or rudder pressure needed . When I looked at airspeed , I was surprised at how fast speed had decreased near Vmc . If E90 pilots lost engine with power at near idle , they could easily have let speed get too low , then added power at Vmc and rolled into spin by good engine .

    ReplyDelete
  22. Damage to Props should show if both engines producing power when plane hit ground. Billionaire Chris Cline and passengers killed in helicopter crash in Bahamas when his 2 experienced pilots got Spatial Disorientation taking off from lighted helipad into total darkness with no moon . For some reason the E90 made vertical descent . Low speed seems only logical reason for LOC .

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wonder if Dan Gryder will ask if pilots added tape to airspeed indicator glass to indicate DMMS ? Hard to spin if above DMMS .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pls don't encourage that one-man clown show.

      Delete
    2. His ego is all the encouragement he needs.

      Delete
    3. He'll have a video out before you know it, speculating and blasting the NTSB.

      Delete
    4. DG's history provides some context.
      Link to posted comment/links on Catch a Cardinal & DC3 incident:

      http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/02/beechcraft-58-baron-n58lf-fatal.html?showComment=1645996329892#c4278025726162779462

      Partner lawsuit:
      https://cases.justia.com/georgia/court-of-appeals/2019-a19a1285.pdf?ts=1572534531

      Delete
  24. The approach was conducted at the coldest point in the morning with temperatures just above freezing. "https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/oh/marietta/KPKB/date/2022-10-18" Adding a wind chill factor to this will certainly drive those temperatures on the aircraft below freezing. They had also come from an altitude of around 11000 feet and it was cloudy. The first item of interest for the NTSB I would guess is the configuration of the de-icing system switch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wind chill has no effect on a/f ice. Only applies to human body.

      Delete
    2. there are 7 deicing "switches" in the king air. hot 5 plus props and windshield. any not used can cause issues. oh and 2 more the engine anti ice for each engine which would make 9! see there i forgot for a moment just sitting here in my quarterback chair!

      Delete
  25. I'm surprised that Dr. Shawn Pruchnicki thinks there was a fire given his credentials. He should correct his statement to the press. Here is JB's take and I think he presents good information as always https://yewtu.be/watch?v=cNc8bhD-yFI

    ReplyDelete
  26. Engine failure does not make an airplane fall out of the sky or stall. Would have to be a control surface failure.

    While it is possible they got too slow on approach, or too low and pulled up beyond critical angle of attack; with 2 CFI/Commercial rated pilots on board, I hope that is the least likely cause.

    What ever the cause was it transpired in less than 40 seconds from issue start to crash with no mayday call to ATC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only conclusion I can come to after looking at the weather is possible ICING. While this airplane was capable of dealing with icing, it requires action from the pilots.

      Delete
    2. ridiculous comment plz stop with the control and engine failure comments which make it obvious you are not qualified to comment on this incident. move back over to the VFR single engine cessna comments where you might have enough experience to comment without being disregarded instantly for being absurd.

      Delete
  27. Unless a wing falls off, airplanes still fly and don't nosedive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you're not a pilot...

      Delete
    2. ^^ Don’t worry. He won’t be for long.

      Delete
    3. could have been runaway trim, broken linkage in the elevator, spatial disorientation etc. The the NTSB decide on this one. Planes do nosedive look at the Otter that crashed several weeks ago in the NW.

      Delete
  28. Always remember this crash, although not exactly the same model, similar circumstances (speed) and shows how quickly an airplane can get into an unrecoverable stall/spin situation, icing could have played a role in 5GK's sad ending.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Forgot the link .... https://yewtu.be/watch?v=vTQwkKameLg

    ReplyDelete
  30. I just mentioned this on another forum but:

    URL to the approach plate for the RNAV rwy 21 into KPKB:
    https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2210/00646R21.PDF

    The Lat/Lon coordinates for MARII waypoint:
    https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/locid_html/chap1_section_6_paragraph_PM.html

    Google Maps for the MARII waypoint:
    https://goo.gl/maps/N4HEx7LXGe1XJNUK7

    39°24'02.2"N 81°24'38.6"W
    39.400603, -81.410731

    They fell out of the sky at MARII, which sits directly over the auto dealership. I wonder if this was an autopilot issue? Was the autopilot in a mode the crew wasn't aware of or was it malfunctioning?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My point (in a way) exactly. A runaway trim would account for it and this RNAV GPS step-down approach. If he's leveling off just before MARII at 1,860 (before his continued step-down) and it runs-away "up" for the level off (then it stalls and goes straight down, if he can over power it, even though some may say you're supposed to be able to). Or if he hits the down trim to continue the step-down and it runs-away down (nose vertical dive) and he can't over power it. Either way it's the same result. Right?

      Delete
    2. Yes, something caused a loss of airspeed over that waypoint. An iced up pitot-static system will indicate a faster airspeed in a descent, which if not noticed, would be remedied by the pilot or autopilot by pitching up.

      Delete
    3. Hmmm. Auto-dealership..Auto-pilot...I see your point!

      Delete
  31. Replies
    1. Something irrelevant to this accident.

      Delete
    2. Defined Minimum Maneuvering Speed ~ 1.4 times Vs

      Delete
  32. the genesis of this horrible event waslikely almost instantaneous , and beyondthe abilities of these two highly skilled, high-time pilots to respond. God bless them and their families,

    ReplyDelete
  33. Most interested in E90 drivers comments, if available. I fly Citations. But some King Airs (I forget which. E90's perhaps??) don't have a "trim wheel" by the pilot's right knee (why they don't? no one has ever told me). Is the E90 so equipped (i.e., w/o one)? and I ask because if it was "runaway trim" (down) it would have very, very quickly pointed his nose down. Even if he had a trim wheel, at that low altitude he may not have caught it quick enough, or been fast enough, to "hold it" and pull the circuit breaker. It seems logical to me as a possibility, in that it's a "step-down" GPS approach and he had just passed MIDCO (the FAF) and was now cleared go down 1,000', i.e., to "step-down" from 2800' in 2.9 miles to MARRII at 1,860. If he thumbs the trim "down" on trim rocker switch on the yoke to make that step descent, AND the trim solenoid locks runaway down, then he's going vertical, nose down within a second or two (a pilot's worst runaway trim nightmare). Even if he was flying a coupled LNAV your trim is still going to be actively engaged by A/P and could still runway as it adjust downward further for that next fix to MARII. You can counter and say you have the a/p disconnect switch on the yoke, but a runaway trim may have already pointed that nose too far downward in the second or two it takes you to hit the disconnect switch (or even if it works in a runaway situation). E90 driver thoughts please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. E 90 have trim wheel. B100 had no trim tabs , but a stabilator that used only electric trim

      Delete
  34. Also for E90 drivers, I just read in KingAir Magazine (Oct 3, 2016) "Ask The Expert", Tom Clements) where he writes about Trim Tab actuator issues and variances, but at the very bottom he has an additional called-out "NOTE" about the prop Overspeed Governor test solenoid having a "disconcerting" tendency to "get stuck". He doesn't mention the conditions in which this tendency exhibits itself, but just after passing the FAF, if advancing props to full (which I'm assuming the E90 procedure calls for), then a malfunctioning Overspeed Governor on one side could certainly (I would assume) be a handful (causing you to invert and go nose down, I would think). Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or slowing, reducing power and have a failure of the low pitch stop on a prop. Just no way to know.

      Delete
  35. Sounds like couple of tired fatigued pilots if they were same crew that had last ADS-B time stamp the previous night only 8 hours before first ADS-B time stamp the next morning before accident flight . That 8 hours does not include taco time , time to drive home that night then drive back to airport the morning of a bidet flight. Does anyone know if same crew flew plane the previous night ?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Lastl, IMHO I doubt the reported "light rime" ice would've played a factor in this one. If indeed he was getting ready to pop out of that rather high ceiling, and likely wasn't in any "light rime" for very long (and no one had reported anything more serious than that), amd even if he wasn't "full de-ice" (which in fact he was full "de-ice"), he still likely wouldn't have had much of an issue with light rime or even mild-to-moderate rime. I seriously doubt ice played any factor in this -- and light rime at that. IMHO. My guess is quick runaway trim or prop over speed or something equally fast and horrific. RIP and prayers to their family.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Own and fly an E90 (1980 model) It has a trim wheel just like your Citation.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ridiculously absurd comment sir. ATP means nothing by the way, just a piece of paper. i helped an aquaintance get hired to fly fedx caravans once who was an ATP rated pilot. he couldn't even fly a caravan, he washed out in the second or third flight and they sent him back home to do some more "ATP" flying in his mooney!





      Delete
    2. I thought it was a good question. I'm not sure why you felt the need to attack ATPs. Are you insecure?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 1:44:00 PM EDT What is wrong with William's question? There is no need for a personal attack, if ATP is just a piece of paper then you reckon a PPL can fly as commander on an airliner? Yes there are wannabes who faked an ATP certificate or lied their way into a job and they didn't end well. What is your qualification? Why have you hidden behind anonymous?

      Delete
    4. Fake fedx story. Seeing a lot of similar "annoyed at comment" posts.

      Delete
    5. Helped his acquaintance get a FedEx job? Maybe gave him a ride to the interview.

      Delete
  39. Pilot would have to lift throttles up and over flight idle stop to get props into Beta. Doubt any pilot would do that in flight .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This happened to a Colgan Airlines B1900 in the Cape off Boston. The captain was new, the weather was low, and the captain unbeknownst to even himself was pulling up on the levers from being tense. Pulling back the power levers, the props went into beta and it plopped onto the runway hard enough to collapse the gear. Everyone got out okay. It was ferry flight with all company people on board. So.. it can happen. There is no lockout and it is not difficult to lift the power levers up to get past the idle stop.

      Delete
  40. Here are photos of the aircraft when it was for sale in 2014 as N37HC before the new owner requested a N# change to N515GK

    https://www.meisneraircraft.com/inventory/1974-king-air-e90

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why on earth would anybody need to see pictures of the airplane from 2014 or any other time which has NOTHNG to do with this crash? reading the comments on this site are almost as annoying as flying around on any nice weekend and listening to the absurd radio chatter on various unicom frequencies. stop wasting all of our time!

      Delete
    2. People on these threads very often turn to what kind of avionics set-up the pilot had (not saying it's relevant in this case), but someone may start commenting on it and the previous sale photos usually show the set up. I'm thinking that's what he was trying to do. My guess

      Delete
    3. Wow that glass panel looked impressive! Someone spent a lot of money to modernize the avionics.

      Delete
  41. Comments above seem helpful to understand what happened before 2 years of similar accidents before NTSB issues final report . Comments were called hangar flying in old days before internet . We used to joke that hangar flying should be logged because pilots learned so much sitting in chairs discussing flying

    ReplyDelete
  42. Insurance companies should offer discounts on Planes with no cockpit recorders nor data recorders if they have cameras in cockpit with recorder drive in fireproof box in tail . No privacy anymore with NSA and cell phone tracking so cockpit privacy should not be an issue . Trying to stop GA plane crashes by guessing at cause is not good .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very few GA crashes are a mystery with the majority clearly being pilot error. Don't matter if these guys stalled out the airplane or accumulated too much ice, both are pilot error. All we can do is check control surface continuity to see if it was mechanical or pilot.

      Not saying I am against cameras, I wish we had more. I have a GoPro rolling every time I fly. But a GoPro wont survive a catastrophic crash. The price of these FAA approved crash resistant recorders start at about $2,500; not including installation. Would have to be quite a large discount to make it worth while, and unlikely insurance companies would make enough money to justify the discounts.

      Delete
    2. The vast, vast pilot and pilot/owner majority (read: 99.99%) would never ever install recorders and/or cameras, even if discounts offered allowed them to be installed for "free". No pilot or pilot owner would ever do it for the very reason you cite: most crashes are pilot error (so who in their right mind would ever install recording devices, even if they're flipp'n "free", when the devices will easily (make that: "always") be used against the pilot and his/her estate in paying out claims. Get real. Those aircraft that have them are not installing them because of altruistic pilots seeking a higher-cause and truth for the general aviation community. Not by a long-shot.

      Delete
  43. The wild fluctuations in airspeed are an indication of possible pitot ice or pitot system failure. That is one of many failure modes that should be covered in training but probably often missed. The E90 has considerably more power that the straight 90's or C90 models. The four blade props are simply not an issue after a couple of training flights. Whether or not autofeather is installed should not be an issue. Standard protocol for non precision or precision approach is 120 knots and approach flaps prior to final approach fix and gear down at or slightly before final approach fix. VERY minimal power change to fly a glide slope. Flaps remain at approach setting until runway in sight on instrument approach. Ice on tail is not a problem with the E90 unless moderate or heavy.
    Trim disable switch is just above the pilots right knee and a properly trained pilot should be able to locate it without looking. The protocol for a pitot static issue is to set the power at an adequate setting and pitch attitude for level flight in the configuration and then sort things out. Use GPS groundspeed plus a suitable additive for the approach.


    standard glide slope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pitot icing wouldn’t be responsible for the “wild fluctuations” in ground speed. The autopilot trimming the aircraft nose up to maintain altitude due to a tail stall after flap extension is way more likely given it occurred on final approach in known icing conditions.

      Delete
  44. A Picture is worth a thousand words . There has to be a way to put fire resistant cameras in cockpits .

    ReplyDelete
  45. If you are flying on autopilot and forget to add power at a step down level off or MDA the autopilot will do what it can but disconnect and hand you the airplane at the worst possible time when recovery may very well be impossible. We practice this every sim session and even if you know it's coming it's difficult to recover from. If it catches you unsuspecting this accident happens.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Atlantic Coast Airlines (United Express) flight 6291. Autopilot ILS with thrust levers at idle (high and fast approach) when the autopilot captured the glide slope, neither pilot put the power back up. It stalled, crashed, and killed my dads girlfriend, flight attendant Manuela Walker, along with the pilots and others.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I am confused. I thought the King Air crashed into a Automotive Dealership but pictures show a fire damaged wing out it in a cornfield. So did one of the aircraft wings fall off?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cornfield is directly behind the Pioneer Buick GMC dealership the aircraft crashed into, so that's why you see it in the background of most photos. https://g.page/pioneerbuickgmc?share

      Delete
  48. Listen folks, there is no "smoke trail" on the video. What you are seeing is ghosting caused by a well known video compression artifact that is technically known as "Motion Compensation Block Boundary Artifacts"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact#Motion_compensation_block_boundary_artifacts

    Almost all video these days is heavily compressed. Each video frame is not a full resolution perfect image from that point in time but instead each frame is an approximate reconstruction based on the differences from the previous frame, which leads to ghosting artifacts like this.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hard to believe 2 pilots were not making airspeed call outs like Part 121 requires and allowing airspeed to get too slow. But if this was a Part 91 flight maybe pilots were not required to follow Cockpit Resource Management type Call Outs . May as well have just one pilot if non flying pilot is not monitoring instruments and making call outs. Piaggio crash in Costa Rica on Friday had only one pilot . No excuse for 2 pilot crew to let airspeed get too slow .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They were probably above Vref; however, if they picked up any ice the stall speed would be increased. They were flying through an airmet zulu.

      Delete
  50. Replies
    1. Except for N3RB, when he said Murder-Suicide. No second person was aboard and the final report has come out, 8 minute spiral descent with no pilot control as indicated by phugoid response seen in the flight data. N3RB's pilot didn't deserve the murder portrayal for clicks, a cruel way to treat surviving family.

      Updated KR N3RB report:
      http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/01/cessna-560-citation-v-fatal-accident.html

      Delete
  51. "Dr. Shawn Pruchnicki, a former plane accident investigator who is now a professor at Ohio State University’s Center for Aviation Studies, points out the glow on the plane as it comes down and the smoke trail shows the plane was on fire in the air"

    This is THE most irresponsible comment that I have ever come across from an accompished and intelligent person

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't help it, he's not a videologist.

      Delete
    2. I mentioned this way up the conversation. But then I have seen sweeping statements (gibberish) made over and over to the media by "experts" in the industry and not only aviation.

      Delete
    3. Is he the same guy who said "nobody is at fault" when the passenger walked into the propeller? I bet you if you ask him about the airmets or weather at the time he won't know anything about it...

      Delete
    4. Where did you hear that he's accomplished and intelligent?

      Delete
    5. No Accident Investigator Employment in his public LinkedIn:
      https://www.linkedin.com/in/shawn-pruchnicki-95895111

      And definitely not a videologist.

      Delete
  52. some of the most accomplished individuals are dumb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not always dumb, typically just unqualified in a subject area they chose to opine about. For example, a Supreme Court judge botched the elementary distinction between de jure (in law) and de facto (in fact) in this week's proceedings.

      If the circumstances of recent experience teaches us anything, the lesson is that many "accomplished individuals" are giving out uninformed opinion not based on expertise.

      Delete
  53. No fire. If so, he surely would have told ATC. My guess is that he got fully configured after carrying some ice and just got too slow. I’ve landed King Airs loaded with ice. Just carry some extra speed and they’ll fly fine while landing with just approach flaps. One commenter mentioned keeping the props back to eliminate the blade tips going so flat with the power at or close to flight idle, and that’s a good idea until short final when going full forward on the props is below governing range. Just saying. Fly safe everyone and hopefully we can all learn to be safer airman from unfortunate tragedies such as this one.

    ReplyDelete