LiveATC Discussion Forums

Air Traffic Monitoring => Listener Forum => Topic started by: aviator_06 on March 22, 2009, 07:23:44 PM

Title: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: aviator_06 on March 22, 2009, 07:23:44 PM
Anyone have any info on the plane crash or any audio clips. They said it was a single engine turboprop, and it there were at least 17 people on board. Any guesses on the type aircraft?

News Report from AP:

BUTTE, Mont. - A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman says 17 people are dead after a plane crashed while approaching the airport in Butte.

Spokesman Mike Fergus says the single engine turboprop plane departed from Orville, Calif., at about 11 a.m. Pacific time. The pilot had filed a flight plan showing a final destination of Bozeman.

Fergus says the pilot canceled his flight plan at some point and headed for Butte. The plane crashed about 500 feet from the airport while attempting to land and caught fire.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: kea001 on March 22, 2009, 07:26:22 PM
CNN just put up breaking news flash...

 
(CNN) -- A single-engine airplane crashed near Butte, Montana, on Sunday, killing at least 17 people, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said.

The Pilatus PC 12 left Orville, California, and was headed to Bozeman, Montana, but rerouted to Butte instead, FAA spokesman Mike Fergus said. The plane crashed 500 feet short of the runway at Bert Mooney Airport.

Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board were at the crash site Sunday afternoon, Fergus

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/22/montana.plane.crash/index.html


N128CM - Flightaware
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N128CM/history/20090322/1840Z/KOVE/KBTM



                                                           ###

Narita Airport Fedex 80 Crash

Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: aviator_06 on March 22, 2009, 07:34:22 PM
Yea I just caught where it was a PC-12. That's the first aircraft I thought when they said a single engine turbo prop but didn't think a PC-12 held 17 people.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: pgarside on March 22, 2009, 07:36:12 PM
very sad story.  the passengers aboard are said to be children visiting for a ski trip
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 22, 2009, 08:09:47 PM
A Pilatus PC-12 is designed to carry between 9 and 12 people, including the two  crew seats up front.  This leaves one of three possibilities:  The aircraft type is incorrect, people on the ground were killed, or someone stuffed more passengers into this aircraft than was legally allowed. 
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Jason on March 22, 2009, 08:17:05 PM
A Pilatus PC-12 is designed to carry between 9 and 12 people, including the two  crew seats up front.  This leaves one of three possibilities:  The aircraft type is incorrect, people on the ground were killed, or someone stuffed more passengers into this aircraft than was legally allowed. 

17 souls is not uncommon for a PC-12. 2 crew, 8 pax, and 7 lap children (though 7 lap children may be a stretch, 1 or 2 is more common).  My thoughts and prayers with the families and friends of the victims in this tragedy.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 22, 2009, 08:28:37 PM
17 souls is not uncommon for a PC-12. 2 crew, 8 pax, and 7 lap children (though 7 lap children may be a stretch, 1 or 2 is more common).  My thoughts and prayers with the families and friends of the victims in this tragedy.

By your own admission 17 is not common ("7 lap children may be a stretch").  Possible?  I suppose given your scenario.  But I  cannot believe that any PIC would allow seven people to sit on the laps of others in an aircraft the size of a PC-12.   Pilatus' website seems to be getting hit hard at the moment - do you know the useful load of a PC-12?
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: ChrisKJXN on March 22, 2009, 08:36:28 PM
17 souls is not uncommon for a PC-12. 2 crew, 8 pax, and 7 lap children (though 7 lap children may be a stretch, 1 or 2 is more common).  My thoughts and prayers with the families and friends of the victims in this tragedy.

By your own admission 17 is not common ("7 lap children may be a stretch").  Possible?  I suppose given your scenario.  But I  cannot believe that any PIC would allow seven people to sit on the laps of others in an aircraft the size of a PC-12.   Pilatus' website seems to be getting hit hard at the moment - do you know the useful load of a PC-12?

I read on another forum useful load for a PC-12 is around 4500 pounds.  Didn't mention which year though, and improvements have been made to this aircraft throughout the years that have increased its useful load.  As far as empty weight and fuel capacity I'm not sure.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 22, 2009, 08:41:27 PM
Here's what the FARs state with regards to seating:

Part 91.107, Use of Safety Belts (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=13b2ce72d8e38d2c181ed6039b5988d1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.4&idno=14) reads, in part (bold emphasis mine):

Quote
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator—

(1) No pilot may take off a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person's safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness.

(2) No pilot may cause to be moved on the surface, take off, or land a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board has been notified to fasten his or her safety belt and, if installed, his or her shoulder harness.

(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:

(i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device;

Part 135.128   Use of safety belts and child restraint systems (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=13b2ce72d8e38d2c181ed6039b5988d1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:3.0.1.1.7.2.3.42&idno=14) reads slightly different:

Quote
(a) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board an aircraft operated under this part shall occupy an approved seat or berth with a separate safety belt properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. A safety belt provided for the occupant of a seat may not be used by more than one person who has reached his or her second birthday. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements, a child may:

(1) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided the child has not reached his or her second birthday and the child does not occupy or use any restraining device; or

Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: mhawke on March 22, 2009, 08:42:43 PM
My prayers to the families....

The plane was suppose to be flying to Bozeman, about 85 miles away.  BZN also has ILS.  Although Butte (Bert Mooney) has ILS, its minimum effectivly make it a VFR landing only.  It's pretty tightly packed between mountains and with some high hills (out east we call them mountains) in the approach to the runways.

May be interesting to hear why the diverted to Butte.  Better skiing is close to Bozeman (right by Big Sky, Moonlight Basin, and a couple others).  Lots of money in the area also.  Not that it is related to this.

It just hits home for me because I travel to Butte about 4-5 times year on business.  An irronically I live in buffalo where the last commercial airliner incident happened.  Too bad I have a trip to Malaysia coming up.  Hope the luck doesn't follow me.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: ChrisKJXN on March 22, 2009, 08:44:47 PM
Here's what the FARs state with regards to seating:

Part 91.107, Use of Safety Belts (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=13b2ce72d8e38d2c181ed6039b5988d1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.4&idno=14) reads, in part (bold emphasis mine):

Quote
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator—

(1) No pilot may take off a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person's safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness.

(2) No pilot may cause to be moved on the surface, take off, or land a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board has been notified to fasten his or her safety belt and, if installed, his or her shoulder harness.

(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:

(i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device;

Part 135.128   Use of safety belts and child restraint systems (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=13b2ce72d8e38d2c181ed6039b5988d1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:3.0.1.1.7.2.3.42&idno=14) reads slightly different:

Quote
(a) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board an aircraft operated under this part shall occupy an approved seat or berth with a separate safety belt properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. A safety belt provided for the occupant of a seat may not be used by more than one person who has reached his or her second birthday. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements, a child may:

(1) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided the child has not reached his or her second birthday and the child does not occupy or use any restraining device; or



Something's not coming together here.  Rumor is the children were on their way to a ski vacation, at less than two years old?
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: mhawke on March 22, 2009, 08:47:53 PM
Not that wikipedia is the best source, but it works at times.  According to it, the PC-12 is offered with a combi version that offers 7 corporate style seats, along with a 3 seat bench in the back.

That plus crew equals potential seating for 12 (obviously I don't know the takeoff weights).

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-12)
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 22, 2009, 08:51:19 PM
Below is the opening line to a story I found on MSNBC. It also contains a video:

BUTTE, Mont. - A small plane crashed Sunday as it approached an airport in Montana, killing 17 people, including several children, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said.


"Several" leaves it pretty vague...but I just thought I'd add this link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29828359/
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 22, 2009, 09:03:59 PM
Something's not coming together here.  Rumor is the children were on their way to a ski vacation, at less than two years old?

After re-reading the part 91 regulations I see that it does appear legal for a GA aircraft to be loaded with multiple people per seat belt.   We'll have to wait for the report to see if this was a part 91 or 135 flight.

Anytime children are involved the intensity of the tragedy increases.  Very sad.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 22, 2009, 09:08:31 PM
"The aircraft had departed from Oroville, California, and the pilot had filed a flight plan showing a destination of Bozeman, about 85 miles (136 kilometers) southeast of Butte. But the pilot canceled his flight plan at some point and headed for Butte, Fergus said."

I find that interesting...possible mechanical issues perhaps??
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: starlook124 on March 22, 2009, 09:12:32 PM
I have a question, i haven't really been following aviation news until somewhat recently (about November). Is it common for this amount of plane crashes to occur in such a short span of time? I mean so far there's been (In no particular order) The Turkish plane crash, the smaller (Angel flight I believe?) crash in Massachusetts, the Buffalo crash, the Hudson crash, the small plane crash off of Australia, and now these two. (I'm probably missing some too)  Is this ordinary :?
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: dska22 on March 22, 2009, 09:52:42 PM
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/database.cgi
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 22, 2009, 10:19:36 PM
I have a question, i haven't really been following aviation news until somewhat recently (about November). Is it common for this amount of plane crashes to occur in such a short span of time? I mean so far there's been (In no particular order) The Turkish plane crash, the smaller (Angel flight I believe?) crash in Massachusetts, the Buffalo crash, the Hudson crash, the small plane crash off of Australia, and now these two. (I'm probably missing some too)  Is this ordinary :?

The Angel Flight crash near Boston was back in August 2008, which was seven months ago and not what would be considered a short span of time, at least from what it seems you are asking.   Statistically there is no large deviation this year from any other year. 
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Jason on March 22, 2009, 10:30:29 PM
After re-reading the part 91 regulations I see that it does appear legal for a GA aircraft to be loaded with multiple people per seat belt.   We'll have to wait for the report to see if this was a part 91 or 135 flight.

Anytime children are involved the intensity of the tragedy increases.  Very sad.

It's legal under both part 91 and 135 to have lap children (under the age of 2) held by an adult in an approved seat. Like I said, 7 lap children is stretch, but certainly possible. I don't know any of the details surrounding the purpose of the flight, everything is pure speculation and questionable media reports.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: atsugi on March 22, 2009, 10:46:53 PM
I live here in Montana and have not heard of any ground fatalities from the local media however they said 16 dead on the most recent post of the story.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 22, 2009, 11:23:08 PM
After re-reading the part 91 regulations I see that it does appear legal for a GA aircraft to be loaded with multiple people per seat belt.   We'll have to wait for the report to see if this was a part 91 or 135 flight.

Anytime children are involved the intensity of the tragedy increases.  Very sad.

It's legal under both part 91 and 135 to have lap children (under the age of 2) held by an adult in an approved seat. Like I said, 7 lap children is stretch, but certainly possible. I don't know any of the details surrounding the purpose of the flight, everything is pure speculation and questionable media reports.

Right, but the quote to which you were responding was discussing the legality of multiple people per seat - I was thinking about older children two per seat under the same seat belt.  After posting the FARs for both 91 and 135 I don't think there is any question of the legality of "lap children" in either part.

edit:  ambiguity
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: pgarside on March 23, 2009, 12:44:35 AM


It's legal under both part 91 and 135 to have lap children (under the age of 2) held by an adult in an approved seat. Like I said, 7 lap children is stretch, but certainly possible. I don't know any of the details surrounding the purpose of the flight, everything is pure speculation and questionable media reports.

Latest news is that there were 4 adults.  Whether that include pilots or not, i dont know.  Either way, that would make at least 11 children which, as stated before, doesnt add up.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 23, 2009, 07:44:54 AM
Overnight the fatality count was dropped to 14; seven adults and seven children with at least two being reported as preschool age, which more realistically supports Jason's point about "lap" children in an aircraft that is shown on FlightAware.com equipped with 12 seats.

This aircraft is an extremely capable aircraft so the NTSB accident details will be gripping.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 23, 2009, 07:57:03 AM
"The aircraft had departed from Oroville, California, and the pilot had filed a flight plan showing a destination of Bozeman, about 85 miles (136 kilometers) southeast of Butte. But the pilot canceled his flight plan at some point and headed for Butte, Fergus said."

I find that interesting...possible mechanical issues perhaps??

Too early to even speculate on this, as a diversion could be for any of a number of reasons in addition to mechanical:   Fuel level concerns, passenger/pilot issue (bathroom break, nausea, etc), or even an impromptu recreational decision to stop somewhere other than the original, planned destination.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Biff on March 23, 2009, 09:59:26 AM
According to AvWeb:
Quote
The reason for the diversion has not been released but Butte would have been a closer alternative if the pilot had been experiencing problems.

I haven't looked at the charts to confirm if that's true or not.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 23, 2009, 10:16:21 AM
According to AvWeb:
Quote
The reason for the diversion has not been released but Butte would have been a closer alternative if the pilot had been experiencing problems.

I haven't looked at the charts to confirm if that's true or not.

FlightAware shows the aircraft's track as coming in from the southwest.  In looking at the sectional chart the two airports are about 57 nm apart, with the accident airport on the left of this image:

(http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/786/snag0061.jpg)

It doesn't seem that great a difference between the two considering the track from the southwest - perhaps only a few minutes closer.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: 48t03c24 on March 23, 2009, 10:55:29 AM
Maybe the pilot decided to avoid a towered airport and the possibility of being reported for overloading a 12 seat plane.  So he opted for the uncontrolled field in Butte thinking they could meet car service there after landing.  Not sure how this will be confirmed unless or untill we review the communications between the pilot and tracon or the tower at the airfield in the original flight plan or some fllight following clips.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 23, 2009, 11:15:30 AM
Maybe the pilot decided to avoid a towered airport and the possibility of being reported for overloading a 12 seat plane. 

That's wouldn't happen, as ATC does not act as an FAA cop for those types of infractions.  I would bet that 99.9 percent of all controllers interviewed would not know the useful load of a PC-12, or most aircraft for that matter.  Add to this the fact that a controller would have to monitor and estimate the weight of each passenger disembarking, know the fuel loaded and then used for the flight, and monitor and estimate the weight of the luggage, all while coordinating the arrivals and departures of other aircraft (many smaller class D airport have one controller working both tower and ground), and you can hopefully see how impossible that would be.

The only pilot infractions that ATC would report would have to do with loss of controlled ground movement or air separation due to a pilot's (in)actions.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Fourthwind on March 23, 2009, 11:23:02 AM
If you look at the flight aware track on this plane you will notice that at the end he made a pretty big lockeed turn back to Butte.  Suggests in flight issue's.  As for the seating arrangment, that plane likely had the commuter seat set up.  No bathroom, which is why the kids had to use the bathroom in oroville. You could in that configuration have 12 seats in the back without an issue.  I can't remember if that was an approved amount or not, but it could be done.   I worked on that plane and did the avionics test flight back when I worked for Pilatus.  All the eyewitness reports tells me he stalled it trying to get into Butte.  Unrecoverable in the PC-12 which is why it has a stick pusher.  still leaves a lot of questions as to the type of emergancy he was having.  I doubt it was an overweight issue.  That plane is a flying tank.  God rest their souls.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Hollis on March 23, 2009, 11:34:57 AM

Latest FAA report says souls on board were 13 pax and 1 crew. Perfectly legal in the Commuter configuration.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 23, 2009, 11:37:43 AM
If you look at the flight aware track on this plane you will notice that at the end he made a pretty big lockeed turn back to Butte.

With regard to the diversion's alteration from the original plan, I would respectfully disagree.  Here is the track on FlightAware with an annotation where it seems the diversion occurred:

(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5325/snag0062.jpg)

Again, in noting the time and fuel use difference between the two airports, the two appear minimal.  Also worth noting is that in looking at the track there were actually at least three uncontrolled public airports right over the aircraft's path or much closer at the point of the diversion than the accident airport.

Now, I am not stating that it wasn't an emergency diversion since it really is too early to know anything but rather that this diversion isn't an obvious indication of a mechanical issue to me given the above facts.


edit:  At a ground speed of 264 kts (reported by FlightAware), the difference in time between the two airports would have been 7 minutes.    KDLN (Dillon), an IFR uncontrolled airport, was actually seven minutes closer to the aircraft than the accident airport.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: mhawke on March 23, 2009, 12:05:32 PM
Maybe the pilot decided to avoid a towered airport and the possibility of being reported for overloading a 12 seat plane.  So he opted for the uncontrolled field in Butte thinking they could meet car service there after landing.  Not sure how this will be confirmed unless or untill we review the communications between the pilot and tracon or the tower at the airfield in the original flight plan or some fllight following clips.

Butte is a towered and controlled field from dawn to dusk.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 23, 2009, 12:11:25 PM
Butte is a towered and controlled field from dawn to dusk.

According to AirNav.com, the field doesn't have a control tower:  http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBTM (http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBTM)
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: mhawke on March 23, 2009, 12:17:51 PM


According to AirNav.com, the field doesn't have a control tower:  http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBTM (http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBTM)

I stand corrected..... Some days I can't read as well as others.. :oops:
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Fourthwind on March 23, 2009, 12:41:14 PM
If you look at the flight aware track on this plane you will notice that at the end he made a pretty big lockeed turn back to Butte.

With regard to the diversion's alteration from the original plan, I would respectfully disagree.  Here is the track on FlightAware with an annotation where it seems the diversion occurred:

(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5325/snag0062.jpg)

Again, in noting the time and fuel use difference between the two airports, the two appear minimal.  Also worth noting is that in looking at the track there were actually at least three uncontrolled public airports right over the aircraft's path or much closer at the point of the diversion than the accident airport.

Now, I am not stating that it wasn't an emergency diversion since it really is too early to know anything but rather that this diversion isn't an obvious indication of a mechanical issue to me given the above facts.


edit:  At a ground speed of 264 kts (reported by FlightAware), the difference in time between the two airports would have been 7 minutes.    KDLN (Dillon), an IFR uncontrolled airport, was actually seven minutes closer to the aircraft than the accident airport.

The lockeed turn I was refering to was at the Butte end of the flight.  Not a track change.  It was a wide sweeping turn which looks like someone doing energy managment.  He may have also made a judgment based on the capabilites of the airport.  We will likely never know.  The last Pilatus that made a nose down crash like this is still an unknown cause.  There were some pilots that were pulling the breaker on the stick shaker computer because they didn't like the shaker going off at touchdown.  If he did this then there would have been no stall warning. 
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 23, 2009, 12:48:32 PM
The lockeed turn I was refering to was at the Butte end of the flight.  Not a track change. 

Okay, but in your first post you stated, "If you look at the flight aware track on this plane you will notice that at the end he made a pretty big lockeed turn back to Butte."

Interesting information about the pilots pulling the breaker, however.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 23, 2009, 12:58:23 PM
The lockeed turn I was refering to was at the Butte end of the flight.  Not a track change.  It was a wide sweeping turn which looks like someone doing energy managment. 

Are you, by chance, referring to this here?

(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/7904/snag0063.jpg)

This was the track out of the departing airport.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 23, 2009, 02:30:32 PM
USA Today, has an updated article that includes some more information about the accident.

Article is here:  Pilot gave no warning of trouble before Mont. crash (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-23-montana-crash_N.htm?csp=34) 

Oh, and to offer another theory about the diversion:  Given that Bozeman had an ILS to 200ft minimums whereas Butte had an ILS to 1100 ft minimums, it is very prudent (and even regulatory) for pilots to file to a less-than-desired landing airport with a lower approach given early weather forecasts, and then divert to the "desired" airport with higher minimums once landing weather conditions are known en route.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Fourthwind on March 23, 2009, 04:43:16 PM
You are correct.  My mistake..  I didn't look at the identifiers when I browsed through flightaware.  I had it backwards.  My initial check in of the sight was to see if I had worked on that bird.  should have studied it further. 

I agree with the flight plan diversion theory.  We used to do the same thing going into Trukee. 

Still wondering about the stick shaker stall system.  The plane basically flies like a P-210 except the roll is heavier.  Heavily loaded the stall speed would have been about 5 to 10 knots faster than standard approach of 80 knots over the fence, and faster still if he had been in icing conditions. SOP for that series says you should only use 15% flaps after flying in ice.  Makes you wonder..  we will likely never know with the amount of damage to the plane.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: mhawke on March 23, 2009, 05:19:31 PM
Latest info on MSNBC has family names and ages.  They were headed to the West Yellowstone club.  A bankrupt (but still operating) private ski resort and housing complex for the really rich.  Bill Gates just purchased a home there last year.

Anyways, my point is that the 'ideal' airport to go to, would be Bozeman to get to West Yellowstone club.  Doesn't mean they weren't planning on going to Butte for some reason, but then they would be making a longer drive.  Many of the people who live at West Yellowstone club actually have a rented garage at Bozeman airport for their car.  (There are multiple 2 car, heated garages, in the parking area of the airport).
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: SJ30 on March 23, 2009, 05:56:38 PM
The very first thing I should do is extend my prayers for the families of those who survive [were left behind at home] this tragedy, for they are the one's who need the prayer the most.

Not a pilot yet, but doing lots of pre-study before I begin my training.  I do have designs on owning and flying a high-performance light business jet, which happens to be the highest performing and most capable in its class [if it even has a class].  I also plan to make aerobatic flying a integral part of my future personal flying career as well.  So, I want to make sure that I am as safe and proficient a pilot as I can be.

To that degree, I've been doing some study and came upon the topic of High Density Altitude.

I have not yet heard anyone string together the logic of where this pilot lived and operated his PC [Southern California] and compared that to where his ultimate destination was in Montana.  Granted, his destination airport was not KFTG at over 5,500 ft pressure altitude, but it was well over 4,000 ft pressure altitude.  I also realize that this is March and not middle July.  But, the probability is growing [the more we learn] that this aircraft might have been at the very least, carrying more passengers [under the rules] than it should have been - children included.  Children ranged from the middle teens down through two (2) years old.

Question:  Since I'm still learning the ropes, could this be an accident that couples an aircraft being operated too close to its OEM load limits in HDA conditions? 

This aircraft made more than one stop at low pressure altitude airports before initiating its final leg to its destination and entering the airspace of an airport sitting at nearly 4,500 ft pressure in Montana.  We don't know whether or not he picked up passengers and thus more weight [including baggage] along the way en route to Montana.

I've heard that density altitude is something to really pay close attention to at all time but especially under two limit conditions:  1) When the aircraft is being operated at or near its MTOW, and 2) When the aircraft is being operated at an HDA airport.

So, I would guess that the third logical extension of that would be when you combine BOTH of those limit conditions at the same time.  Again, there were no high temperatures involved, but it is my understanding that heat is one of the biggest HDA factors, not the only one.

I'm trying to learn here and make no judgments about the pilot.  I plan to fly with my family as well some day and I would like to be as safe a pilot as I can, so I can related to this accident in a big way regardless of the fact that I don't fly at this particular time with my family.   
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 23, 2009, 07:25:31 PM
How mountainous is the terrain around Butte? I'm recalling something about horizontal vorticies coming off mountains causing flight upsets. I believe that was in the Colorado Springs area. Any possibility that could have been a factor? I am not familiar with the Butte area.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 23, 2009, 07:42:39 PM
Here is some information I found on the phenomenon called "rotors", or horizontal air disturbances associated with mountains. Montana is in the "Danger Zone" as having a higher chance of the event occurring.

Not putting too much into this, but it was just an idea...and some pretty interesting stuff.

Rotors gained attention after the crash of a United B737 at Colorado Springs a few years back, but they have been studied for years, all the way back to the 1950's. In this report, it notes a B747 suffering engine separation from this phenomenon while taking off from Anchorage.

http://www.etl.noaa.gov/about/eo/science/AC00571.pdf
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 23, 2009, 08:07:48 PM
Question:  Since I'm still learning the ropes, could this be an accident that couples an aircraft being operated too close to its OEM load limits in HDA conditions? 

The airport has an elevation of 5,550 feet above sea level.  Considering the temperature (6c), dew point (-1c), and baro pressure (29.56) taken around the approximate time of the accident the density altitude calculates to 6,302 feet.    Wiki  reports (Pilatus site still unreachable for me) a service ceiling for the PC-12 of 30,000 feet.   

While operating over gross certainly affects the performance of an aircraft, it seems to me that this particular calculated density altitude would not have been a sizable performance detriment to this particular aircraft model. 

However, anything still goes at this point.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 23, 2009, 09:29:37 PM
I was looking at the Google Maps image of the Butte airport and noticed that the cemetery in which this accident occurred is actually to the side of the runways.  From the various news reports I was expecting the cemetery to be under the approach path of one of the runways.  This seems to indicate that the aircraft was maneuvering, or circling to land and not, as I assumed, approaching straight in:

(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3384/snag0064.jpg)
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Hollis on March 23, 2009, 09:38:48 PM
Prime suspect is now icing. Sound familiar?
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 24, 2009, 06:53:28 AM
Prime suspect is now icing. Sound familiar?

I was looking at the images from flightaware, and noticed weather all along the route. Icing flashed into my mind, but I wasn't sure about it. Who is reporting icing? Just curious.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: mhawke on March 24, 2009, 09:38:56 AM
How mountainous is the terrain around Butte? I'm recalling something about horizontal vorticies coming off mountains causing flight upsets. I believe that was in the Colorado Springs area. Any possibility that could have been a factor? I am not familiar with the Butte area.

Just a few miles east of the airport is the continental divide, peaks there in the 8-10K ft range.  Same thing to south of airport.  To west is a large rise.

It is essentially in a valley and surronded by mountains on three sides, and large hill to the west.  I think that is way it is essentially a visual approach.  It has ILS, but from what I know, is flown uncoupled, and the minimums make it essentially a visual approach and landing because the mountains are so close there is no room for error.

It can be interesting to watch the planes fly in, coming over the hills to the north of the airport to land.

I have personaly only flown into Butte once.  I travel there fur business, but fly to Bozeman and drive over.  It seemed for a stretch that everytime I had tickets to Butte, I ended up landing in Helena or Bozeman anyway because the airport was closed.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 24, 2009, 09:52:44 AM
I have personaly only flown into Butte once.  I travel there fur business, but fly to Bozeman and drive over.  It seemed for a stretch that everytime I had tickets to Butte, I ended up landing in Helena or Bozeman anyway because the airport was closed.

AvWeb just put out an article that supported your question about the diversion being farther from the resort:  PC-12 Crash Probed, 14 Dead (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/PC12CrashProbed_14Dead_200009-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS)

The article seems to discount icing as a factor, since the PC-12 is certified for known ice and that the temperature a few thousand feet above ground was above freezing.    It also ponders the idea that this could be nothing more than a classic got-too-slow-while-maneuvering-and-stall/spun-it-in, which seems far fetched given the ex-Air Force, 2,000 hour-in-type pilot flying the aircraft.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: SJ30 on March 24, 2009, 04:43:26 PM
The airport has an elevation of 5,550 feet above sea level.  Considering the temperature (6c), dew point (-1c), and baro pressure (29.56) taken around the approximate time of the accident the density altitude calculates to 6,302 feet.    Wiki  reports (Pilatus site still unreachable for me) a service ceiling for the PC-12 of 30,000 feet.   

While operating over gross certainly affects the performance of an aircraft, it seems to me that this particular calculated density altitude would not have been a sizable performance detriment to this particular aircraft model. 

However, anything still goes at this point.

Thanks, this is what I was looking for.

Ok, I missed the part about the cancellation from the filed destination over to Butte, which according to Airnav.com, sits at 5,550 msl. 

I called ATIS [Bozeman] yesterday and got information enough to derive the density altitude and it was even lower than what you just listed for Bert Mooney Airport.  So, with a service ceiling of FL300, I guess this should have been no problem for this particular PC.

I hope this is NOT going to be another icing situation......again.  Every PC-12 that I've seen has de-icing boots on the leading edges of both wings and the horizontal.  Though, I've seen none with the boot on the leading edge of the vertical.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: SJ30 on March 24, 2009, 05:03:45 PM
...which seems far fetched given the ex-Air Force, 2,000 hour-in-type pilot flying the aircraft.

Not so sure about that.

A former Navy F-18 Hornet driver once flew an L-39 straight into the ground and smoked it.  One would think that an almost 4,000 hour tactical combat pilot would have no problems handling what had to have been considered a fairly tame jet trainer like the L-39.

During my L-39 research last year, I talked to a current jet warbird type rating check pilot and former Navy combat pilot with about 225 combat missions in Vietnam.  I asked him how it was possible for a Hornet driver to dig a new hole with something like an L-39.  The old fighter pilot said that sometimes, it is possible for the higher performance military jet pilot to forget that he does not have the same amount of raw thrust available to him in a lower performance aircraft and can sometimes forget to not allow the aircraft into the region of reverse command so easily - causing a situation where falling behind the power-curve becomes all too easy for the highly experienced military jet pilot.

Once he put it that way, it made all the sense in the world.  F-18: in general, anywhere from 22,000 to 34,000 lbs of thrust total and greater than 0.9 thrust to weight.   L-39: 3,800 lbs of thrust at 0.37 thrust to weight.  Fall a little bit behind the F-18 and power out of trouble.  Fall a little bit behind the L-39 and there's not enough thrust to bail you out.

I asked him again, how could such a pilot with all that military training make the mistake of forgetting what he was flying?  He said:

"It can happen to the most experienced pilot regardless of what they've flown in the past if they don't pay continuous attention to the new flight environment that their lower performance aircraft places them..."
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 24, 2009, 05:39:55 PM
...which seems far fetched given the ex-Air Force, 2,000 hour-in-type pilot flying the aircraft.
Not so sure about that.

I was actually more impressed with the pilot's time in type - at 2,000 hours of experience in a particular aircraft one would believe that a pilot knows the aircraft pretty well.  As far as being ex-military, that implies to me a discipline not easily matched in the non-professional flying world.

Your point is well taken, though.  As you know the US aviation community just lost Sparky Imeson, the incredibly well-respected mountain flying guru who was killed in an Cessna 180 while, you guessed it, mountain flying.   Really mind boggling that we have lost a few highly experienced pilots as of late.

edit: thesaurus
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: SJ30 on March 24, 2009, 05:58:08 PM
I did not know about Sparky.  I just read about him over at AOPA.  Sad, really sad and also really bizarre when very experienced people, thought of as being the preeminent expert in a particular area, gets into trouble in their own area of expertise.

I'm not a fearful person - I don't live my life in constant fear of anything.  But, I'm also human and I have to admit that this stuff makes me uneasy at times.  I'm right on the edge of starting my new personal flying career and I have plans to own and operate some pretty high-performance machines.  This stuff just bothers me - sorry, but it just bothers me.

At least, my favorite, Bob Hoover is still around!  The things that he used to be able to do with his Commander are legendary.  The man poured a glass of ice tea [you've got to be kidding] while rolling his commander - and he poured it, back-handed at that!

If I could get Bob as my instructor from Private through my Jet Type, I'd take'em in a heart beat - I don't care how old he might be.  Bob, might be 140 years old, I'd take'em!
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 24, 2009, 06:43:52 PM
How mountainous is the terrain around Butte? I'm recalling something about horizontal vorticies coming off mountains causing flight upsets. I believe that was in the Colorado Springs area. Any possibility that could have been a factor? I am not familiar with the Butte area.

Just a few miles east of the airport is the continental divide, peaks there in the 8-10K ft range.  Same thing to south of airport.  To west is a large rise.

It is essentially in a valley and surronded by mountains on three sides, and large hill to the west.  I think that is way it is essentially a visual approach.  It has ILS, but from what I know, is flown uncoupled, and the minimums make it essentially a visual approach and landing because the mountains are so close there is no room for error.

It can be interesting to watch the planes fly in, coming over the hills to the north of the airport to land.

I have personaly only flown into Butte once.  I travel there fur business, but fly to Bozeman and drive over.  It seemed for a stretch that everytime I had tickets to Butte, I ended up landing in Helena or Bozeman anyway because the airport was closed.

Thanks mhawke. I'm not sure how much stock I'd put into my rotor theory...but the mountainous terrine would support it.

But it's just that, a theory. It floated into my mind, so I thought I'd put it out there.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: kea001 on March 24, 2009, 09:56:59 PM
This is one big tragedy.

ENTERPRISE - The president of an Oregon corporation that owned the single-engine turboprop airplane that crashed Sunday in Butte, Mont., killing all 14 people aboard, remained in seclusion Tuesday.

"He is grieving with his family," said Enterprise attorney D. Rahn Hostetter , who represents Irving M. "Bud" Feldkamp, 3rd .

Feldkamp is co-owner of the sprawling Lostine River Ranch on the edge of the Eagle Cap Wilderness near the town of Lostine. He also is president of Eagle Cap Leasing Inc. , of Enterprise, registered owner of the Pilatus PC 12 aircraft that went down.

Feldkamp lost two of his daughters, two sons-in-law and five grandchildren in the crash. The family had planned to spend a week skiing at the exclusive Yellowstone Club , a millionaires-only resort south of Bozeman.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/lostine_ranch_coowner_in_seclu.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/lostine_ranch_coowner_in_seclu.html)
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: danwaudi on March 25, 2009, 06:56:59 AM
I have heard that the pilot had a heart attack, and one of the pax was trying to fly/land the aircraft.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Switch Monkey on March 25, 2009, 07:22:14 AM

[/quote]

The lockeed turn I was refering to was at the Butte end of the flight.  Not a track change.  It was a wide sweeping turn which looks like someone doing energy managment.  He may have also made a judgment based on the capabilites of the airport.  We will likely never know.  The last Pilatus that made a nose down crash like this is still an unknown cause.  There were some pilots that were pulling the breaker on the stick shaker computer because they didn't like the shaker going off at touchdown.  If he did this then there would have been no stall warning. 
[/quote]

What's a "lockeed turn?"
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 25, 2009, 12:12:11 PM
I have heard that the pilot had a heart attack, and one of the pax was trying to fly/land the aircraft.

Wow! Thats tragic. I hadn't heard that. Do you possibly have a link to the story that reported that?
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Hollis on March 25, 2009, 02:19:39 PM
I'd classify that report as pure nonsense. How would anyone know?
However, that aspect is being looked into. The latest :

BUTTE, Mont. -Authorities investigating a plane crash that killed 14 say an autopsy on the pilot's body could reveal whether a medical emergency was at fault.
However, Butte-Silver Bow County Coroner Lee LeBreche cautioned that a complete autopsy may be impossible because of the violent nature of the crash. The autopsy was under way Wednesday.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 25, 2009, 02:35:37 PM
I'd classify that report as pure nonsense. How would anyone know?

That was my first reaction as well but there is one way - Had someone (the right-seater, most likely) on the aircraft made a transmission over the CTAF relating that information.  However, if that actually occurred the news would have been made public by now so I, too, am also very skeptical of any reports of pilot incapacitation.

Without the facts in front of me at the moment but recalling reading them at one point, pilot incapacitation leading to a fatal crash makes up a very low percentage of accident types.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: SJ30 on March 26, 2009, 12:58:54 PM
I'd classify that report as pure nonsense. How would anyone know?

Autopsy.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 26, 2009, 07:10:54 PM
I'd classify that report as pure nonsense. How would anyone know?
However, that aspect is being looked into. The latest :

BUTTE, Mont. -Authorities investigating a plane crash that killed 14 say an autopsy on the pilot's body could reveal whether a medical emergency was at fault.
However, Butte-Silver Bow County Coroner Lee LeBreche cautioned that a complete autopsy may be impossible because of the violent nature of the crash. The autopsy was under way Wednesday.

No offense SJ30, but read the last line of the post I quoted, from "however" on.
I'm not sure we will ever know what happened.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: kea001 on March 26, 2009, 07:22:32 PM
Associated Press reported that the pilot crashed 'short' of the runway. Considering the orientation of the cemetery, it looks like he overshot it.


from KRON4 (San Francisco t.v. station)

"According to National Transportation Safety Board Keith Holloway, there were seven adults and seven children aboard the single-engine prop plane that crashed in Holy Cross Cemetery in Butte about one-quarter to one-half-mile short of Runway 33."

                                                                   ###

Note: The cemetery is halfway down the runway. You can't land in the cemetery and land short, unless you ty to land perpendicular.

                                                                   ###              
from Montana Standard


http://www.helenair.com/articles/2009/03/24/state/55st_090324_buttefolo.txt (http://www.helenair.com/articles/2009/03/24/state/55st_090324_buttefolo.txt)

                                                                   ###

Note: So considering where the plane landed and the witness statement, it looks like he missed his approach. Then he crashed.

Google map - Butte, Montana
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.95112,-112.498283&spn=0.01016,0.022745&t=h&z=16 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.95112,-112.498283&spn=0.01016,0.022745&t=h&z=16)
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 26, 2009, 08:30:58 PM
From kea001s' post:
"The witness said he saw the plane bank to the left, fly further west, roll, pitch down and descend out of view."

So if I am reading this correct, the witness saw the airplane "ROLL", and "PITCH DOWN", like the airplane was inverted, and pitched towards the ground?? Do we know for sure the attitude of the airplane just before the crash?


Landed short?? That makes no sense at all. I concur with the missed approach theory. Possibly tried to make to sharp of a turn for the load on the airplane, destabilized the airframe, and lost control.

Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: kea001 on March 26, 2009, 08:34:38 PM
From kea001s' post:
Do we know for sure the attitude of the airplane just before the crash?

"Initial reports indicate the plane was flying at 300 feet."

Partial timeline of Montana plane crash
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11978587 (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11978587)

Possibly tried to make to sharp of a turn for the load on the airplane, destabilized the airframe, and lost control.

I wouldn't think he would have made a sharp turn BECAUSE of the weight. Considering his experience, one would think he would have gone straight on through and made a wide turn after the runway.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 26, 2009, 09:37:44 PM
From kea001s' post:
Do we know for sure the attitude of the airplane just before the crash?

"Initial reports indicate the plane was flying at 300 feet."

Partial timeline of Montana plane crash
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11978587 (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11978587)

Possibly tried to make to sharp of a turn for the load on the airplane, destabilized the airframe, and lost control.

I wouldn't think he would have made a sharp turn BECAUSE of the weight. Considering his experience, one would think he would have gone straight on through and made a wide turn after the runway.


I was actually referring to the attitude of the airplane, wether the airplane was inverted or not.

I would hope that he would not have made a sharp turn strictly based on the weight of the load...but this seems like a stabilization upset. The crash site was adjacent to the runway, about half way down, like he missed the approach, and attempted to turn back to the left (west) for another approach, and misjudged the turn.
Maybe I'm off base here...I am not totally failure with the performance envelope of the Pilatus.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: kea001 on March 26, 2009, 09:59:59 PM
Sorry. Should have sprung for the bifocals.

Something else I just thought about. I found this on flightaware.

Remarks
DEER IN VICINITY OF AIRPORT.
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KBTM

                                                         ###

Plane kills deer on Bert Mooney runway
The Montana Standard - 11/18/2005

"A SkyWest airplane ran over and killed a deer on the runway at the Bert Mooney Airport after landing around 11 p.m. Wednesday.

“It is a serious event,” said Rick Griffith, the airport’s manager. “We try to avoid that, and we take steps to avoid it. But our fence is 7-feet high, and deer can jump the fence.” Griffith is unsure how the deer got onto airport property. In some areas, it has been replaced with 8-foot high fence, but the airport cannot afford to replace five miles of the airport’s fence line.

Deer are especially hard to keep off airport property, but all kinds of animals can be a nuisance, Griffith said. The last time an airplane hit a deer at Bert Mooney was about 15 years ago.

http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2005/11/18/newsbutte/hjjeiiibjbjbfe.txt (http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2005/11/18/newsbutte/hjjeiiibjbjbfe.txt)


Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 26, 2009, 10:05:41 PM
Sorry. Should have sprung for the bifocals.

 :-D I'm getting there too!  :-D
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: KSYR-pjr on March 27, 2009, 11:37:45 AM
Avweb is reporting today that there is still no working theory at this point about this crash and that the investigators are focusing in the reason for the diversion as a starting point in the investigation:

NTSB: "No Working Theories" In PC-12 Crash Investigation  (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB_NoWorkingTheoriesInPC12CrashInvestigation_200024-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS)

The article states that there was no stress in the pilot's voice when he requested the diversion nor was an emergency declared, which again implies that the reason for the diversion was not mechanical in nature.

Here is an idle, probably regrettable thought I had today about this accident given the facts, most notably the location of the accident in relation to the runway and the pilot's military background.  What about the idea that this was an overhead break maneuver gone awry?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons for overflying an airport before entering the pattern to land and the military uses the overhead break as a way to combine inspecting the runway with ensuring the aircraft can reach the runway at all times while on a visual approach.   This airport has an AWOS so unless it was unavailable it seems unlikely the pilot would have overflown the airport for wind direction assistance alone.
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Ion the Sky on March 28, 2009, 08:39:37 AM
I have a question, i haven't really been following aviation news until somewhat recently (about November). Is it common for this amount of plane crashes to occur in such a short span of time? I mean so far there's been (In no particular order) The Turkish plane crash, the smaller (Angel flight I believe?) crash in Massachusetts, the Buffalo crash, the Hudson crash, the small plane crash off of Australia, and now these two. (I'm probably missing some too)  Is this ordinary :?
Also try FAA.gov under Data and Research
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: Ion the Sky on March 28, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
Pretty guttsy move to do an overhead in a PC12 with a load of pax (if that were the case). Anyone ever see the video of a B52 doing an overhead maneuver at Fairchild AFB, stalling the wing and nosing it in?
Title: Re: BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 31, 2009, 07:52:21 PM
Pretty guttsy move to do an overhead in a PC12 with a load of pax (if that were the case). Anyone ever see the video of a B52 doing an overhead maneuver at Fairchild AFB, stalling the wing and nosing it in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E21byPXR1ek

Was this the vid you were referring to? Pretty shocking.