Wow - that is eerily similiar

Whew. With 10 people on board they would have been heavy.
Even at gross weight the aircraft should be able to maintain altitude on 1 engine.
So many factors. Weight. Temperature. Density altitude.
Sometimes even in a turbine you are better off retarding the power on the operating engine, and landing straight ahead.
A good lesson to practice is go to 4000’. Pull the power back on 1 engine. And slowly pull back. Try keep the a/c straight with rudder.
Eventually you’ll run out of rudder and the aircraft will roll and yaw.
You can recover by either lowering the nose and gain airspeed. Or reduce the power on the operating engine. Either way your going to lose altitude.

I feel bad for the people on this flight. Loss of an engine right after takeoff is every pilots worst nightmare. Looks like he didn’t have many options.

I took a quick look at the initial NTSB report and refreshed my memory of the airport. It looks like the tanks were topped off before flight and luggage was loaded into the aft compartment, so the plane was probably close to full weight. Minimum takeoff distance at standard conditions (which are way better than summer in Dallas, density altitude that day was about 2225ft) is about 3,300 feet, so it probably lifted off just past the underground tunnel (at best), for those of you that are familiar with that facility. That puts it about 1,500 feet from where it went down, or less. A couple details from the report:

"One witness stated that as the airplane went down the runway, it seemed more quiet than normal and sounded like it did not have sufficient power to takeoff. After the airplane lifted off, witnesses observed the airplane drift to the left, and then roll to the left before colliding with the hangar. Several security cameras captured the drift to the left immediately after takeoff and then a roll to the left."

The initial review of the cockpit voice recorder information indicated: "Crew comment consistent with confusion occurred about 12 seconds before the end of the recording. Crew comment regarding a problem with the left engine occurred about eight seconds before the end of the recording."

That tells me that they probably knew they had a problem right before, or right at liftoff.

Possibly even prior to rotation (Vr) but just after the "commit" speed (V1) was reached.

Gear up only after positive rate of climb confirmed.
Typically it's: V1 (go/no go) > Vr (rotate) > positive rate > gear up.
Positive rate is established via cross-checking the altimeter with the VSI or radar alt.
However there can be a couple seconds of lag time after the gauges come alive.
Yep, potentially an engine failure just after V1 (basically the worst possible time/phase of flight to have an issue/failure).
If that video was in real-time, it looks like there was about 10 seconds total, between Vr and impact.

Also, if the 350 is the same as previous evolutions, the left engine is the critical engine. If you are going to have an engine fail, you'd want it to be the right one if you had a choice (p-factor).

Another potential contributing factor may have been the prop auto-feather system.
If it wasn't armed or not working properly and didn't feather the prop immediately as it should have, it would have induced a ton of drag on the left side.

All that said, if flown by the numbers with no other issues, it should have been plenty capable of a (critical) engine-out take off. They likely found themselves committed (past V1), but couldn't get it to V2 (engine-out climb speed).
That is where things like weight/balance issues, density-altitude, etc. reduce your (already narrow) margin for error.


Side note:

I've been in a twin Beech that had an engine out at altitude, just above Vmc while slowing to idle power (skydiving jump-run).
The roll/yaw was pretty immediate. We all got the eff out of the plane, and the pilot brought it back to an uneventful landing.
That was at 12K+ ft. though, with plenty of time/altitude to deal with it...

Definitely a VMC rollover..

Usually what happens in these types of accidents are:
Pilot complacency (everything is going to be just fine attitude), lack of proficiency ( timeline and quality of last sim event) , and lack of correctable action taken (took too long to act, or did not do something required or did something to make it worse).

That being said, even if you do everything right, sometimes you just cant overcome a mechanical failure no matter what you do.

:(

I keep wondering if the age of the pilot had anything to do with the accident. Reports have him at 69 or 70. I'm a few years behind him but my reaction time certainly is not what it was in past.

Sorry for the loss of your friend. I have lost friends and a few family to air crashes and I understand the desire to review and "what-if" the causes leading to the crash. It's probably not all that useful but it is what we do. The King Air is a personal favorite aircraft.

My quick observations:
The plane was heavy and the air was thin. The worst possible time to lose an engine on takeoff. They quickly developed unrecoverable yaw followed by a VMC roll and nobody walks away from this one. The pilot ran out of options vey quickly. Tragic.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1563479377.JPG

Looks like there was some runway left.

Did the final rolling over of the plane result from loss of lift or the torque of the engine?

Doesn't a twin need to stay on the ground or just off it until the blue line is reached?

I just saw a B-25 Mitchell video where they rotate at 100mph and then stay just above the runway until they reach blue-line at 140mph climbing out. wow!

Do you have a link to a copy of that video?

Runway Cam

I'm pretty sure the 300's are cert'd under Part 23 (Commuter), with a type rating required.

Yes, and I think this was a 350.

A twin gets a fair amount of lift from the propwash off of the engines. If you have significantly less thrust on one side, you’re going to have assymmetrical lift which will tend to roll the plane towards the dead engine and it will also yaw to that side, as well. There are a lot of other factors, but that’s the gist of it.

This plane was pretty heavily loaded, the density altitude was pretty high that day and the CG was probably pretty far aft. These guys had one chance and that was to put it right back on the ground. I think the problem was present no later than when they lifted off of the ground; it may have started before that and only became apparent to them once they were in the air.

https://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/turboprops/beech-king-air-350-just-load-it-and-go/

The takeoff performance of the 350 is even more impressive when you consider that it is certified in the commuter category of FAR Part 23. That means pilots must have a type rating to fly it and must observe minimum runway requirements that assure a margin of safety if an engine fails during takeoff, just as the rules do in jets.

The 350 has automatic propeller feathering and rudder boost to immediately feather the prop if an engine fails on takeoff and to step on the proper rudder to overcome the asymmetric thrust. An engine failure in the 350 is virtually identical to the loss of an engine in a jet because the autofeather immediately eliminates the drag of the windmilling propeller on the failed engine. As you can imagine, autofeather and rudder boost are required items, and that means they need to be tested once each day.

The V1 decision speed was 97 knots, with rotation at 104 knots, and V2 engine-out climb speed at 111 knots. Those speeds are for a flaps-up takeoff. As in most airplanes, using flaps reduces takeoff speeds a few knots and shortens runway roll in the 350, but also reduces engine-out climb performance, so it's a trade-off. With plenty of runway and climb reserve, I like the flaps-up takeoff better. I think it makes for a smoother rotation and initial climb, but the choice is up to each pilot.