Plane that killed five was overloaded

[#juan]

CBC News - Edmonton - Plane in fatal Alberta crash was overloaded: TSB

This Aircraft shouldn't have made it into the air. For a man with a commercial licence and years of experience, you wouldn't expect this kind of dumb error. The fuel tanks were filled and there were five people on board. With full fuel on board there was only enough carrying capacity for one man and a modest sized bag.

 

[AnnaG]

Sad.
Perhaps it'd be handy if airports had scales. One could include a list of the carrying capacity of various planes and the readout could tell some attendant if any particular plane was overloaded. Plane owners should look after their planes or be fined heavily.

 

[Liberalman]

CBC News - Edmonton - Plane in fatal Alberta crash was overloaded: TSB

This Aircraft shouldn't have made it into the air. For a man with a commercial licence and years of experience, you wouldn't expect this kind of dumb error. The fuel tanks were filled and there were five people on board. With full fuel on board there was only enough carrying capacity for one man and a modest sized bag.

Thats the Cesna 150 that you are talking about this was a Cesna 172 has room for 4 people including the pilot.

 

[#juan]

Thats the Cesna 150 that you are talking about this was a Cesna 172 has room for 4 people including the pilot.

No, the plane was a Piper PA-46 as it said in the article. It had all the seats but with full fuel you can't fill all the seats or you are overloaded. The pilot with all his experience should have known this.

 

[Liberalman]

No, the plane was a Piper PA-46 as it said in the article. It had all the seats but with full fuel you can't fill all the seats or you are overloaded. The pilot with all his experience should have known this.

Your right If you look at the article it mentions another crash involving a Cesna 172 right at the end of it. I can't believe I missed it.

Thanks juan

 

[#juan]

Your right If you look at the article it mentions another crash involving a Cesna 172 right at the end of it. I can't believe I missed it.

Thanks juan

Used to be one of the biggest causes of death in general aviation that aircraft operators think they can fill the tanks and fill all the seats and still fly. There is a safety margin to be sure, and these aircraft do get into the air but any other problem like inclement weather or equipment failure usually ends in disaster.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Catastrophic accidents like this one rarely have a single cause. The fact that the Piper Malibou made it from Edmonton to near Wainright indicates that overloading, though possibly contributing, wasn't the main cause. Accidents primarily due to overloading usually occur either on take off, landing, or a balked approach or landing. An aircraft improperly loaded, primarily with a centre of gravity too far aft, are most likely to cause control problems, even if the aircraft is under its max takeoff weight.

Without the actual accident report its hard to tell the actual cause of this one. The media focuses on things the general public can understand, such as overloading. What the general public doesn't understand is what happens when instruments start to fail. Even a senior official in the Ontario government years ago complained that pilots wouldn't fly Twin Otters under contract to them that had instrument problems. After complaining that "experienced" pilots should be able to handle these deficiencies a test was done on experienced pilots in a simulator. After given instrument failures all experienced total loss of control in anywhere from 45 seconds to 2 minutes.

The fact that they say the pilot hadn't practiced "partial panel" flying in some time is a bit of a misnomer. It is rarely practiced anyway in modern aircraft, and almost never in the airline world, unless it is because of an electrical fault, and then only until systems are restored, which only takes a couple of minutes.

This situation would have been a handful for an experienced full time commercial pilot, this guy was company president first, and pilot second. Usually not a good match when things go for a sh*t.

 

[AnnaG]

Catastrophic accidents like this one rarely have a single cause. The fact that the Piper Malibou made it from Edmonton to near Wainright indicates that overloading, though possibly contributing, wasn't the main cause. Accidents primarily due to overloading usually occur either on take off, landing, or a balked approach or landing. An aircraft improperly loaded, primarily with a centre of gravity too far aft, are most likely to cause control problems, even if the aircraft is under its max takeoff weight.

Without the actual accident report its hard to tell the actual cause of this one. The media focuses on things the general public can understand, such as overloading. What the general public doesn't understand is what happens when instruments start to fail. Even a senior official in the Ontario government years ago complained that pilots wouldn't fly Twin Otters under contract to them that had instrument problems. After complaining that "experienced" pilots should be able to handle these deficiencies a test was done on experienced pilots in a simulator. After given instrument failures all experienced total loss of control in anywhere from 45 seconds to 2 minutes.

The fact that they say the pilot hadn't practiced "partial panel" flying in some time is a bit of a misnomer. It is rarely practiced anyway in modern aircraft, and almost never in the airline world, unless it is because of an electrical fault, and then only until systems are restored, which only takes a couple of minutes.

This situation would have been a handful for an experienced full time commercial pilot, this guy was company president first, and pilot second. Usually not a good match when things go for a sh*t.

Bob, the article did explain that overloading by itself is not a big deal. Losing a gyroscope by itself is not a big deal. But it did say the combination of the two is very difficult to deal with after autopilot kicks off.
I'm not a flyer but I thought the article was clear enough to understand what happened without going into a shipload of detail.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Bob, the article did explain that overloading by itself is not a big deal. Losing a gyroscope by itself is not a big deal. But it did say the combination of the two is very difficult to deal with after autopilot kicks off.
I'm not a flyer but I thought the article was clear enough to understand what happened without going into a shipload of detail.

Well, the article explains some of the nuts and bolts, losing the autopilot isn't a big deal but losing a gyroscope, depending on which one, is a big deal. The attitude indicator is so important that large aircraft employ three of them, all powered by different sources.

 

[AnnaG]

Well, the article explains some of the nuts and bolts, losing the autopilot isn't a big deal but losing a gyroscope, depending on which one, is a big deal. The attitude indicator is so important that large aircraft employ three of them, all powered by different sources.

The article says it was the primary gyro that was a bit screwy.

 

[#juan]

This aircraft was flying a lot overweight. I don't know what the weight distribution looked like but they did get the aircraft into the air. It should have been obvious that the best thing to do was get the aircraft back on the ground as soon as possible. I don't know the Malibou or if it has the capability of dumping fuel or not. The aircraft must have handled like an absolute pig.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

This aircraft was flying a lot overweight. I don't know what the weight distribution looked like but they did get the aircraft into the air. It should have been obvious that the best thing to do was get the aircraft back on the ground as soon as possible. I don't know the Malibou or if it has the capability of dumping fuel or not. The aircraft must have handled like an absolute pig.

I don't know the Malibu either, or which model this one was, it could have had a 310 or 350 hp engine. And without seeing the actual report it's hard to know how they determined that it was overweight or by how much other than speaking to someone who fueled him up. They seemed, by the article, to calculate the weight based on full tanks which may not have been the case. The 310 hp Malibu boasts a max weight of 4100lbs, their calculations would have put it at least 800lbs, or 20% over. That's quite a bit, but it did get airborne, and flew quite a distance, but again, I don't know the model of this one. The fact that the wings broke off in flight suggests loss of control and over stressing the aircraft. I've seen other wrecks like this one and it has the classic hallmarks of someone getting disoriented in cloud. Since it would be certified to handle at least 2 to 3g's, the extra weight may only have made a difference of seconds in the eventual outcome. But if he was careless enough to overload it by that much, he may have misloaded it as well, which surely would have added to his problems.

I doubt it had fuel dumping as an option, it's expensive and is normally only used on aircraft that have a substantially lower landing weight than take off weight. It's actually used so operators can increase their take off weight, landing weights are pretty much engraved in stone.

 

[Risus]

Here are the specs from wikipedia:General characteristicsCrew: one, pilotCapacity: five passengersLength: 28 ft 4¾ in (8.66 m)Wingspan: 43 ft 0 in (13.11 m)Height: 11 ft 3½ in (3.44 m)Wing area: 175.0 ft² (16.26 m²)Empty weight: 2,354 lb (1,068 kg)Max takeoff weight: 4,100 lb (1,860 kg)I couldn't find anything about fuel tank capacity.

 

[#juan]

I don't know the Malibu either, or which model this one was, it could have had a 310 or 350 hp engine. And without seeing the actual report it's hard to know how they determined that it was overweight or by how much other than speaking to someone who fueled him up. They seemed, by the article, to calculate the weight based on full tanks which may not have been the case. The 310 hp Malibu boasts a max weight of 4100lbs, their calculations would have put it at least 800lbs, or 20% over. That's quite a bit, but it did get airborne, and flew quite a distance, but again, I don't know the model of this one. The fact that the wings broke off in flight suggests loss of control and over stressing the aircraft. I've seen other wrecks like this one and it has the classic hallmarks of someone getting disoriented in cloud. Since it would be certified to handle at least 2 to 3g's, the extra weight may only have made a difference of seconds in the eventual outcome. But if he was careless enough to overload it by that much, he may have misloaded it as well, which surely would have added to his problems.

I doubt it had fuel dumping as an option, it's expensive and is normally only used on aircraft that have a substantially lower landing weight than take off weight. It's actually used so operators can increase their take off weight, landing weights are pretty much engraved in stone.

Agreed . Often when an aircraft breaks out of cloud with less altitude than expected, this will be the time when the wings are overstressed. I would give a lot to know what the takeoff roll was like....How long etc....How much trim they used etc. From my easychair my twenty twenty hindsight is very good

 

[bobnoorduyn]

The article says it was the primary gyro that was a bit screwy.

Which would lead one to assume that it was the attitude indicator that failed. That is a primary recipe for disaster, why they listed it as "also a factor" rather than a major one is left to conjecture. It could also be a media thing, they seem to have their own agenda when it comes to airplanes and firearms, things they seem to have ingrained prejudices toward.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Here are the specs from wikipedia:General characteristicsCrew: one, pilotCapacity: five passengersLength: 28 ft 4¾ in (8.66 m)Wingspan: 43 ft 0 in (13.11 m)Height: 11 ft 3½ in (3.44 m)Wing area: 175.0 ft² (16.26 m²)Empty weight: 2,354 lb (1,068 kg)Max takeoff weight: 4,100 lb (1,860 kg)I couldn't find anything about fuel tank capacity.

Yeah, and there are so many modifications available with engine upgrades increasing max take off weight it's hard to know which model this one was.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Agreed . Often when an aircraft breaks out of cloud with less altitude than expected, this will be the time when the wings are overstressed. I would give a lot to know what the takeoff roll was like....How long etc....How much trim they used etc. From my easychair my twenty twenty hindsight is very good

Its hard to say, certification for max take off weight is based on a lot of things, more than I ever knew, and I'm still finding out more. The performance would have been degraded for sure, but probably not to the point of being scary. Although in a different class, the Twin Otter has a certified take off weight of 12,500 lbs for transport purposes, the Ontario government operated them for water bombing at a max weight of 14,500lbs. Weight and balance charts in the manual allow for weights up to 17,500lbs, (although there is a note that the warranty is void beyond a certain weight), for ferrying and deliveries, obviously trans oceanic. It seems max weights for take off can be a bit flexible and still meet performance requirements.

 

[lone wolf]

Were there icing conditions?

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Were there icing conditions?

The news article didn't go on to say, I'm sure there will be more info published in an upcoming edition of Transport Canada's Aviation Safety Letter.

 

[#juan]

Were there icing conditions?

About the last thing that aircraft needed was a load of ice.

An ironic thing was that they made it as far as Wainright which must be a hundred and twenty miles or so. Another hundred and twenty miles and most of their weight problems would have been solved.