It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Plane crash over Montana kills 17, terrorist suicide mission?

page: 2
1
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:41 PM

Find something that says he wasn't. You're speculating just as much as I am, which is why I said "I'll ALMOST guarantee that".
The accident is less than 12 hours old, and you've already got the pilot dead at the controls causing the crash.

[edit on 3/22/2009 by Zaphod58]

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:01 AM

Originally posted by lawbringer
My source says that 12 of the 17 people on board were children. If the children's weight is half the adults then the wieght would be equal to 11 total adults. So unless the kids were close to equaling the adults wieght, it could be the passengers that atributed to the plane being over weight. Good point about the bags, I didn't think about that.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by lawbringer]

The Max Take-Off Weight of the PC-12NG (which it hasn't been confirmed as being yet) is 10,450 pounds. With full fuel, there is 2866 pounds of useful weight available to us. Now going with your source, let's say the AVERAGE weight of the kids was 65 pounds. That's 780 pounds for the kids. Then say the average weight of the adults is 200 pounds, with the average for the bags being 50 pounds. If each passenger ONLY took one bag with them, that's 850 pounds. So total weight for passengers and baggage is 2630 pounds, rough estimate. That's going with younger kids. If you're talking teenagers, or "tweens" then the kids weight will be higher. A 12 year old that stands 5'8 should be around 110 pounds. So if we're talking 10-12 you're looking at an average weight of 90 pounds. That puts us up to 1080 pounds for the kids.

That changes our overall weight to 2930 pounds. That would be 64 pounds overweight. That doesn't sound like much, but if that 64 pounds is in the front of the plane, or the back of the plane, it throws your center of gravity off, and makes it harder to fly.

Of course this is all speculation as there are no confirmed facts as of yet. If we're talking about a PC-12, not a PC-12NG then the specifications are different as well. We'll know more when actual facts come out.

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:17 AM

Now here we go. Lets say there were 12 adults that weigh 200 average including the pilot and co-pilot thats 2400 lb plus bags would be 3000 lb
If that is correct you'd be less overweight in the actual event, than with 12 adults. (I personally don't think a bag of kids ski equipment weighs more than 20 lb, or it would be too heavy for kids ages 6-10 to carry)

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:34 AM

Snow gear, snow boots, skis and poles would be in the 20 pound area. Now take into account regular everyday clothes, coats and shoes.

The pilatus doesn't have a cargo hold in the belly. It is stuck in the back of the plane or since this plane was over loaded with passengers, where ever they could find room.

As far as the nose dive. It could have been malfunctioning flaps along with loss of power that would send it into a nose dive.

edit to add- Most people getting on a private jet generally don't carry their own bags to or from the plane. That is part of an airport Linemens job.

A pilatus is a private jet, it was most likely chartered by a bunch of friends for a skiing trip. A terroist getting on board is very unlikely.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by jd140]

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:38 AM

That would be why bags come with wheels on them. And airports have carts to carry bags around on.

You're looking at between 70 pounds and 90 pounds for 6-10 year olds. So we'll call it 80 pound average.

That puts us at 960 pounds. So we have 1960 pounds for passengers. We'll take you're weight, and say 25 pounds per bag, 16 bags total since the pilot probably didn't have a bag. That's another 400 pounds. So we have a pax/bag weight of 2360 pounds. That also assumes they didn't have any other cargo on board, or any extra equipment on board. That also assumes that it's a PC-12NG and not a PC-12.

Regardless, if there was windshear, or a mechanical problem weight wouldn't be a concern. However, you STILL can't put 17 people on a plane designed for 12, even if they're kids, and expect it to respond like you have 12 people on board.

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:40 AM

Originally posted by jd140
edit to add- Most people getting on a private jet generally don't carry their own bags to or from the plane. That is part of an airport Linemens job.

A pilatus is a private jet, it was most likely chartered by a bunch of friends for a skiing trip. A terroist getting on board is very unlikely.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by jd140]

The Pilatus PC-12 is a single engine prop aircraft, not a jet.

PC-12NG:

PC-12:

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:48 AM

[edit on 23-3-2009 by jd140]

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:59 AM

Going by the specifications sheets from the manufacturer, this aircraft was hugely over capacity. All of the spec sheets say that they carry a maximum of NINE passengers, not 12. That means that they were 8 over on capacity.

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:05 AM

www.jaars.org...

I'm assuming this is the aircraft in question. If we are talking about the NG then let me know and I will see what I can find.

When I worked as linemen we considered any plane that took jet fuel as a Jet. Prop or not.

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 02:25 AM
coulda been a heart attack or some such thing

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 07:29 AM

It's a PC-12/45.

Final count is 14 on board.

[edit on 3/23/2009 by Zaphod58]

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:19 AM

The Pilatus PC-12's capacity is 12 adults. It was not known whether the extra people aboard was a factor in the crash, since seven of the victims were children.

Do you have another source on this on this one, or is it an almost guarantee like last time. New info, the source comfirmed 7 kid fatalities
in the crash.

NTSB investigator Kristi Dunks would not say if there had been a distress call from the pilot. It was partly cloudy, visibility was 10 miles and wind was blowing from the northwest around 10 mph at the time of the crash, according to the National Weather Service.

Wind shear? Maybe I'm wrong but, wind speeds of 10 mph is not much wind and it was just partly clouldy, there were no thunderstorms.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by lawbringer]

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:50 AM

Originally posted by lawbringer

The Pilatus PC-12's capacity is 12 adults. It was not known whether the extra people aboard was a factor in the crash, since seven of the victims were children.

Do you have another source on this on this one, or is it an almost guarantee like last time. New info, the plane comfirmed 7 kid fatalities in the crash.

The manufacturer states a capacity of 9. Every description of the plane says 9. Do a simple Google search and see for yourself.

NTSB investigator Kristi Dunks would not say if there had been a distress call from the pilot. It was partly cloudy, visibility was 10 miles and wind was blowing from the northwest around 10 mph at the time of the crash, according to the National Weather Service.

Wind shear? Maybe I'm wrong but, wind speeds of 10 mph is not much wind and it was just partly clouldy, there were no thunderstorms.

10 mph in a microburst is a lot different than a headwind of 10 mph.

So exactly how much aviation experience do you have to be making all these sweeping generalizations and to be able to say so certainly the things that you have? None?

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:11 AM

It is commonly observed near microbursts and downbursts caused by thunderstorms, weather fronts, areas of locally higher low level winds referred to as low level jets, near mountains,

So the only way that there could have been a microburst was if there had been a front, because they were not too close to the mountains because the runway has to be on flat ground, and like I said, no storms.

"He jerked the plane to the left too quickly and lost control of it, but that's just my guess," said Gulick. "And all of a sudden it went into a nosedive. I noticed the pilot trying to pull up but he was extremely low to the ground and he didn't pull up in time."

So I guess we were both right, you were right about the pilot being fine, and I was right in saying it was the pilots lack of expirence or a mistake on his part.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by lawbringer]

[edit on 23-3-2009 by lawbringer]

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:29 AM

Originally posted by lawbringer

It is commonly observed near microbursts and downbursts caused by thunderstorms, weather fronts, areas of locally higher low level winds referred to as low level jets, near mountains,

So the only way that there could have been a microburst was if there had been a front, because they were not too close to the mountains because the runway has to be on flat ground, and like I said, no storms.

These are very weak, high based showers without thunder, but with microbursts. Studies have shown that they predominantly occur in the High Plains and western U.S.: particularly in unstable, very dry low level environments with surface temperature-dew point spreads of 30 to 50 degrees and an area of mid-level moisture as a source for the weak showers.

The cloud on the left is developing, whereas the fuzzy anvil on the right has matured and is producing a trail of virga. Microbursts would be most likely to occur beneath the virga, when the downdraft reaches the ground. Several of these virga showers did produce microbursts in the Lubbock, Texas area.

The same day, near the Lubbock Airport, we see several of the small microbursts which emanated from the virga patch in the upper right corner of the photograph. Wind shifts of 35 to 40 MPH were noted shortly after this time, with a rapid onset and cessation of the wind gusts.

Microbursts

A microburst can occur anywhere. Delta 191 in 1985 was landing in Dallas Texas on the way to Los Angeles, and was hit by a microburst on final approach. It slammed into the ground killing 135 people, including one on the ground. This particular microburst occurred during a thunderstorm.

Figure 6 depicts a typical dry-microburst-producing storm that has a high base and is producing little (

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:51 AM

I don't think there were any "high cumulus clouds" it was only partly cloudy, no storms or anything. When I say "storms" I mean dry storms too. You can have storms without rain and in this case there were none.
According to the NOAA there weren't any great shifts in the wind.

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by lawbringer

I don't think there were any "high cumulus clouds" it was only partly cloudy, no storms or anything. When I say "storms" I mean dry storms too. You can have storms without rain and in this case there were none.
According to the NOAA there weren't any great shifts in the wind.

There probably weren't, but at that altitude ANY kind of disruption to the airflow can cause a huge problem. He very well could have stalled it due to being overloaded, and that caused it to drop off like they described.

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by lawbringer

The Pilatus PC-12's capacity is 12 adults. It was not known whether the extra people aboard was a factor in the crash, since seven of the victims were children.

Do you have another source on this on this one, or is it an almost guarantee like last time. New info, the source comfirmed 7 kid fatalities
in the crash.

According to CNN it was configured for 11 people. There were 14 on board, which means that they were overweight. They're also reporting that 9 were of the same family.

They're also reporting flight control problems.

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:49 PM
IMHO, the idea that it may be related to terrorism is a huge stretch.

But what I am curious about is all of the plane crashes in general lately. Soooo many in the last six months.

My question for all of ATS's resident aviation types is: Is it possible that changes in the Earth's magnetic field could cause problems with the instruments?

Sorry if the question is just oh so naive.

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:03 PM

It's not at all, I've seen it several times lately. One of the reasons that you are seeing so many more crashes are the sheer numbers of planes in the air now. From 1954 to 1980 the number of revenue flights went from 3 million or so, to 5.2 million a year. From 1981 to 2007 it went from 5.2 million a year, to over 11 million a year. Those are only revenue flights, I don't think there are any numbers for general aviation, but the safety record for GA has always been worse than commercial. Commercial aviation in the US just came off of two straight years with 0 fatalities. The Colgan Air crash in Buffalo was the first fatality in the US since early 2006.

top topics

1