BUTTE, Montana Plane Crash

[aviator_06]

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.

[kea001]

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

• happened about 5:50 EDT (6:50 am Monday, local time)
  
  Apparently Msnbc has video of this but I'm blocked from seeing it.
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
  

[aviator_06]

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.

[pgarside]

very sad story.  the passengers aboard are said to be children visiting for a ski trip

[KSYR-pjr]

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. 

[Jason]

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.

[KSYR-pjr]

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?

[ChrisKJXN]

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.

[KSYR-pjr]

Here's what the FARs state with regards to seating:

Part 91.107, Use of Safety Belts reads, in part (bold emphasis mine):

(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 reads slightly different:

(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

[mhawke]

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.

[ChrisKJXN]

Here's what the FARs state with regards to seating:

Part 91.107, Use of Safety Belts reads, in part (bold emphasis mine):

(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 reads slightly different:

(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?

[mhawke]

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

[joeyb747]

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/

[KSYR-pjr]

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.

[joeyb747]

"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??

[starlook124]

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

[dska22]

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/database.cgi

[KSYR-pjr]

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. 

[Jason]

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.

[atsugi]

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.

[KSYR-pjr]

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

[pgarside]

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.

[KSYR-pjr]

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.

[KSYR-pjr]

"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.

[Biff]

According to AvWeb:

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.