Guessing no easy way to remove the pilot to the back? The landing itself was impressive. What challenge would this be for an experienced single engine only pilot? I know this guy was minimum hours and some time prior.

quote:

Guessing no easy way to remove the pilot to the back?

I wondered about that too. Came to the conclusion that the guy stabilized the aircraft and was working through each task methodically. Trying to move the deceased pilot had a good chance of making the situation go FUBAR. I thought he made good calls including cinching down the deceased's seat belt.

Moving a disabled pilot out of the seat can be a problem; there's not a lot of room. Sometimes it's safest to place both arms under the shoulder harness, to contain them, tighten the shoulder harness if possible and keep the pilot in place. There's always the risk of doing damage or disconnecting something at a time when aircraft control may already be compromised.

Control issues for a low time private pilot are flying an airplane which is larger and more complex than what's familiar. Speeds are higher. The pilot may not have used a controllable pitch propeller, or retractable landing gear. Avionics (instruments, radios, etc) are more complex and will be unfamiliar. There is a lot more in the cockpit in terms of switches, indications, controls, warnings, etc, and the systems for the aircraft are more complex.

With system complexity come more procedures and more actions required; incorrect actions will have consequences: as noted just now, incorrect placement of a fuel selector might result in fuel starvation to one or both engines. In a light single engine airplane, fuel selection is limited to on or off, or in some cases right or left tanks, or a both position. In more complex airplanes, selecting multiple fuel tanks also requires maintaining a fuel balance, fuel feed, and because the engines are fed more fuel than they can consume, bypass fuel goes somewhere...which changes depending on which tank is selected. That, in turn, can compromise fuel balance, control, availability, fuel temperature, and other factors.

The private pilot won't have an understanding of turbine engines or operations, and while a turbine generally simplifies things to an extent, it can also vastly complicate matters in certain areas. The airplane has a lot more power, and uneven power application adds additional flight control issues, and new airspeeds that the private pilot may not know, such as minimum control speed. Additional features like yaw dampers, pressurization, complex electrical systems, and a plethora of emergency procedures, many of which include memory items that one doesn't have time to do from a checklist, may be needed.

Most of that won't necessarily be a problem for the pilot in getting it down, but it can seem overwhelming to have a much larger airplane . It's got more inertia, feels (and is) heavier, and is certainly more complex.

Fortunately, the King Air 200 is one of the most user-friendly aircraft on the market, and is a well-behaved airplane with few bad habits.

Yeah, trying to move near 200 lbs of limp person from front to back while trying to keep from upset from a CG shift, since the aircraft was in pretty solid climb trim, would be a most difficult task. It would be hard enough, parked on the tarmac.

He did the correct thing. And trying to instruct someone else, about systems management, that you are barely familiar with, that knows nothing about the systems, would be another bad use of time and attention.

The guy had his wits, and a plan, and worked the problem and flew the plane.

Yeah, I am sure his knees were knocking when he came to a stop, but he stayed focused and stayed calm, and used the knowledge he had, and trusted those who could help him.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Not required for a King Air 200.

I'm pretty sure that the 350 is the only King Air that requires two pilots.

350 is a single pilot aircraft as well. Op specs for some of the 135 charters may require 2 pilots, but part 91, a 350 is a single pilot airplane. In a take off engine failure it's a big handful. Rumor is the 350 is the toughest type rating at SIMCOM.

This is a really old incident. You can find other videos / interviews with the pilot. Great to listen to the stories. The pilot did a great job.

I have about 20 hrs riding right seat in a KA90 and about the same in a KA350. I'm a current instrument rated pilot in an A36 and I"m not confident I could get a king air on the ground safely.

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:
In a take off engine failure it's a big handful. Rumor is the 350 is the toughest type rating at SIMCOM.

Not really. Between autofeather and yaw dampening, it's not that bad. It's a heavier airplane by a bit, and doesn't have turbojet single engine performance, so it's a slightly more powerful light twin.

Simcom largely caters to smaller and more simple aircraft, so it's a sliding scale, and a lot of those moving to a King Air are coming from something smaller, and it maybe their first type rating...so may seem a lot more of a challenge.

If its got turbines in the scheme of things loosing an engine is not in the hunt for bad things in twins...

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
...
The guy had his wits, and a plan, and worked the problem and flew the plane.
...

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:
In a take off engine failure it's a big handful. Rumor is the 350 is the toughest type rating at SIMCOM.

Not really. Between autofeather and yaw dampening, it's not that bad. It's a heavier airplane by a bit, and doesn't have turbojet single engine performance, so it's a slightly more powerful light twin.

Simcom largely caters to smaller and more simple aircraft, so it's a sliding scale, and a lot of those moving to a King Air are coming from something smaller, and it maybe their first type rating...so may seem a lot more of a challenge.

You’re the only person I’ve heard say that the 350 isn’t a big deal on takeoff. Are you typed? Yaw damper shouldn’t be on during takeoff. From what I’ve been told- by typed pilots- if the pilot flying gets behind the airplane on departure (I.e. doesn’t react to an engine failure quickly) it’s almost unrecoverable.

350 crash in Addison last summer shows what a highly experienced pilot does with an engine failure. 10 dead.

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

Not required for a King Air 200.

I'm pretty sure that the 350 is the only King Air that requires two pilots.

350 is a single pilot aircraft as well. Op specs for some of the 135 charters may require 2 pilots, but part 91, a 350 is a single pilot airplane.

I had a senior moment. You are correct, of course.

What I should have said, is the 350 requires a type rating; other members of the King Air family do not.

There are type ratings given for certain of the C-12 family, with higher gross weights than civil equivalent models. These are generally had by military pilots.

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:


You’re the only person I’ve heard say that the 350 isn’t a big deal on takeoff. Are you typed? Yaw damper shouldn’t be on during takeoff. From what I’ve been told- by typed pilots- if the pilot flying gets behind the airplane on departure (I.e. doesn’t react to an engine failure quickly) it’s almost unrecoverable.

350 crash in Addison last summer shows what a highly experienced pilot does with an engine failure. 10 dead.

I've flown King Air's on the line, and done instruction, sim instruction, and classroom instruction in them, maintained them, and was a Director of Maintenance for a King Air operation. I also wrote training program material and designed and made presentations for King Air training programs, and worked closely with and taught with the most experienced King Air pilot and instructor in the country. So a little, yes.

I knew a very experienced King Air instructor who ran my initial course, who was of the opinion that the 350 was the most useless of the entire line, and overpriced for what it offered.

In my opinion, the best deal going is the BE20. Ratheon made their hay in the King Air 350 by selling them for the military's Liberty program. Otherwise, they don't really offer that much for the cost, and doesn't justify going past the Super King Air 200.

Most King Air's have autofeather installed, which does the single most important thing on the takeoff when an engine failure occurs. To suggest that the Beech 350 is difficult to control is ridiculous; the King Air line is among the most benign and easiest of twin turboprops to fly, often best referred to as gentleman's airplanes, because they are.

If someone has never been type rated in anything, and the King Air is the most complex thing they've flown, it may feel like "drinking from a firehose" for their first real training...but every type rating is like that, and the King Air is not the most complicated aircraft, nor is it particularly powerful or difficult to control.

The PT6A-60 engine isn't the largest or most powerful turboprop. It's easy to manage, and in a twin featuring autofeather, easy to manage in an emergency, too. There are more partial power events with the King Airs than engine failures, and much of the time that's a pilot not ensuring that levers are forward, or situations involving power rollbacks. There's really nothing different about an engine failure on takeoff in a King Air than any other turbine twin. Fly the airplane, power up, cleanup.

The King Air, in addition to autofeather, also features rudder boost, which applies rudder in the direction of the good engine, in the event of an engine failure, further simplifying control and providing a rapid correction to an asymmetric thrust situation.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
I've flown King Air's on the line, and done instruction, sim instruction, and classroom instruction in them, maintained them, and was a Director of Maintenance for a King Air operation. I also wrote training program material and designed and made presentations for King Air training programs, and worked closely with and taught with the most experienced King Air pilot and instructor in the country. So a little, yes.

sns3guppy-

I get that you’re experienced in king airs, but I’m assuming you’re not typed the the airplane. It sounds like you’re parroting an opinion of the 350 from someone else as fact. Repeating experience of others is perfectly valid, but you’re presenting yourself as an authority on the 350. You might say you heard differently, but it doesn’t sound like you’re speaking from personal experience.

From what I’ve been told my multiple people, The 350 is a different animal than the smaller king air line. 90s and 200s are a piece of cake for single engine operations. Great that you heard differently, but are you saying what I’ve heard is wrong or did your buddy/instructor say that the 350 is a piece of cake.

You also mentioned that most king airs have auto feather. On a 350 it’s more than most- it’s required equipment. Same with rudder boost. 350 engines sit a little further outboard on the wing compared to a king air 90. Asymmetric thrust is a greater risk given the engine placement. The 350 is a king air, but it’s a different animal. I also wouldn’t call a 350 (or any king air) a light twin.

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:
From what I’ve been told my multiple people, The 350 is a different animal than the smaller king air line. 90s and 200s are a piece of cake for single engine operations. Great that you heard differently, but are you saying what I’ve heard is wrong or did your buddy/instructor say that the 350 is a piece of cake.

Sounds like you have no king air experience, but are parroting the experience of others you've heard.

Yes, what you're saying is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by ECSquirrel:


From what I’ve been told my multiple people, The 350 is a different animal than the smaller king air line. 90s and 200s are a piece of cake for single engine operations. Great that you heard differently, but are you saying what I’ve heard is wrong or did your buddy/instructor say that the 350 is a piece of cake.

You also mentioned that most king airs have auto feather. On a 350 it’s more than most- it’s required equipment. Same with rudder boost. 350 engines sit a little further outboard on the wing compared to a king air 90. Asymmetric thrust is a greater risk given the engine placement. The 350 is a king air, but it’s a different animal. I also wouldn’t call a 350 (or any king air) a light twin.

Yes, they're light twins. Sounds like you don't have experience flying anything bigger.

Most of the King Air line are certified under Part 23, with the same lack of guaranteed single-engine climb performance as any other light twin. If you'd ever dealt with an engine out, especially at high density altitude airfields, you'd understand that.

The 200, 300, and 350 do have that performance, though the 200 not under all conditions. It's still a light twin.

Some years ago, I took a checkride in Reno in a King Air 90. The check airman, a chief pilot with a lot more dumb ass in him than skill, told me he'd be expecting a single engine missed approach. I told him that wouldn't happen, and if he pulled an engine below 400', he wouldn't get it back and it would be treated as an engine failure.

Dumbass pulled the engine after I landed from a 2-engine ILS. He called for me to go, and I powered up. AS the airplane came off the ground, with a wry grin, he retarded one throttle and said "this will count as your single-engine missed approach. As we had almost no climb gradient at that point, he asked how I intended to get back to the airport. Reno sits in a bowl, with rising terrain on all sides. I told him we weren't going back to the airport, but would continue ahead, and I'd put the airplane in a field. He noted that it had powerlines, and I told him we'd be going under the powerlines, gear up. He had a fit.

He demanded I put the power back up. I asked which part of "not getting the engine back" it was that he didn't understand. He had assured me, in front of the general manager and lead medic, that he would go around on one engine with a full crew, patient, at gross weight, on a hot day. Clearly that wouldn't have worked out, and now confronted with his stupidity, he had a melt down.

He demanded, begged, and finally broke down in tears, and pleaded for me to push the power up. I told him no, but I'd let him restore the power (I kept it at zero thrust, rather than feather it, because I knew what the outcome would be). AS we climbed out, he was very quiet, having inspected the powerlines up close. He asked if he could fly it home. I gave him the airplane, we flew back and landed, and he signed me off, and left.

He was fired not long after, for more dumb-assery in the airplane, after two incidents in the same day, in which both patients and medical crew got off the airplane and refused to fly with him. He went to another operator and was fired there, and now works for the FAA. No surprise there.

Yes, the King Air is a light twin. What Beech did with the 350 was make a much more expensive airplane, a heavier airplane, with a marginal increase in power. The airplane nearly handles itself with an engine-out on takeoff, between autofeather and rudder boost. It is neither highly complicated insofar as systems, nor in handling, and is known as one of the more friendly, easier to fly twins.

If you've been listening to single engine buddies upgrading to their first type and first training in an airplane with any real performance, perhaps they see it as dangerous or complicated or difficult.

I'll say this: if a pilot finds an airplane difficult to fly, he has no business being in the airplane, and it says a lot more about the pilot than the airplane.

Epilogue. Doug White's speech starts at about 27:30.