Fatalities Reported After Jet Crashes into Homes in Indiana Neighborhood

reply to post by WeRpeons


In some cases. In others not so much. It depends on so many conditions, such as the experience of the pilot, as well as the area around the airport, and the altitude he started from. A plane like this though, at low altitude, he's probably not going to glide very well, or very far from low altitude.

They've confirmed two survivors from the plane. There was apparently enough fuel on board to cause them to evacuate homes from the neighborhood, but that's not saying much considering jet fuel is considered toxic (which means I'm screwed considering how much of that crap I breathed in ). All the fuel apparently leaked into the basement of one home though, which means it probably wasn't much.

One witness said the plane was on its back spiraling down.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by F4guy

 

It wouldn't be the first time I've seen an experienced pilot misjudge fuel required for a flight. Or an experienced pilot assume there was enough, and that the other pilot checked, while the other pilot assumed the first pilot checked. Yes, it has a range of 1400 miles, but that doesn't mean that it departed Tulsa full of fuel, or that they planned to depart Tulsa full. We just don't have enough details to tell yet. But the few times I've seen no fire of any kind after an impact the cause of the crash was usually fuel starvation.

And yes, it was a Beech 390, also known as the Premier 1. It's not a VLJ, but one of the sources I used listed it as one, which is why I said it was. My mistake.

edit on 3/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Actually, VLJ is a nebulous and vague term, and is not used much in the industry any longer. It does fall within the small aircraft" (MGTOW< 12,500 lb) under 14 CFR Part 25. And as for fuel starvation as the cause, the fire chief evacuated the neighborhood because he said there was too much spilled jet fuel. And when the pilot declared the emergency, he did so reporting an "electrical problem" and not a fuel situation.

reply to post by F4guy


The only reports that I've seen said "problem with the mechanical" whatever that means. Regardless, it's rather interesting that there was a fuel spill, and no fire. Even with an electrical problem on board, there should have still been sparks, and sparks from the house, etc. More than enough to cause a fire. Especially if there was fuel spilled into the basement. As fast as Jet-A1 turns into vapor, and the time it took to get the utilities turned off, should have been enough to cause a fire of some kind.

I might be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but the only times I've seen a crash without a fire on board, there was a fuel problem, as I said.

Reply to post by jude11

There was another post a few months back where the initial report was a plane crash but it turned out to be a gas explosion in the house, which somebody caught charges for.

I wonder how close the two are?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Zaphod58


well zap, you breathing in jet fuel for a long time explains alot of things....just kidding...i don't know how the plane was damaged during the intital hit....but, if the fuel was in the wings, and the wings and engines seperated on impact, maybe there wasn't a sufficent ignition point around the fuel

reply to post by jimmyx


There was enough pooled in the basement of one of the houses that they had to evacuate though. So that should have been plenty enough for at least a small fire. I guess we'll have to wait for the preliminary report.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by F4guy

 

The only reports that I've seen said "problem with the mechanical" whatever that means. Regardless, it's rather interesting that there was a fuel spill, and no fire. Even with an electrical problem on board, there should have still been sparks, and sparks from the house, etc. More than enough to cause a fire. Especially if there was fuel spilled into the basement. As fast as Jet-A1 turns into vapor, and the time it took to get the utilities turned off, should have been enough to cause a fire of some kind.

I might be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but the only times I've seen a crash without a fire on board, there was a fuel problem, as I said.

What makes you think the Beechjet was using Jet A-1. Jet A-1 is a special fuel used for operations at extremely low temperatures. This aircraft took off from Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. airport in Tulsa and neither Christensen Aviation nor Riverside Jet Center in Tulsa carries A-1. They both carry Jet A only, which has a very low vapor pressure - much less volatile than 100LL avgas, for instance. Jet A is pretty resistant to spaking, and has a higher flashpoint and autoignition point than gasoline.

reply to post by F4guy


Because I've seen birds come back from Guam using Jet A-1. I can't count how many times I've seen planes come back from areas that don't see cold weather using Jet A-1 (including within the US). Honolulu uses Jet A-1. Jet A-1 is the standard for everywhere but the US. The US standard is Jet A, but Jet A-1 is used as well.

Even with Jet A as opposed to A-1, I have yet to see a crash that didn't see a fire afterwards. The flash point of Jet A is roughly 124 degrees. With all the fuel, and fuel vapor in the area after this crash, if they didn't have a fuel problem, nothing in the area sparked at over that temperature until utilities were cut off? There were no pilot lights that were lit, that were over that temperature? It's an amazing coincidence if so. Even more amazing if all the fuel pooled into the basement of one house.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by F4guy

 

Because I've seen birds come back from Guam using Jet A-1. I can't count how many times I've seen planes come back from areas that don't see cold weather using Jet A-1 (including within the US). Honolulu uses Jet A-1. Jet A-1 is the standard for everywhere but the US. The US standard is Jet A, but Jet A-1 is used as well.

Even with Jet A as opposed to A-1, I have yet to see a crash that didn't see a fire afterwards. The flash point of Jet A is roughly 124 degrees. With all the fuel, and fuel vapor in the area after this crash, if they didn't have a fuel problem, nothing in the area sparked at over that temperature until utilities were cut off? There were no pilot lights that were lit, that were over that temperature? It's an amazing coincidence if so. Even more amazing if all the fuel pooled into the basement of one house.

You have pointed out an important difference which is not widely understood, and that is the difference between "flash point" and autoignition temperature. Flash point is the temp at which vapor occurs sufficient to sustain a fire. "Autoignition temperature", on the other hand, is the ignition temperature to start a fire. And for dudocane, or C12H26, that temperature is 202 degrees C, or about 400F.
In 40 years of investigating aircraft accidents, I have seen plenty of crashes with no fire, particularly when the aircraft was at partial or no power. The last one of those I remember was a turbine Pilatus in Burlington, NC. One witness described the Beechjet as "spiriling down upside down, a description of a power off flat inverted spin, which will cause a flame out on almost every turbofan. Such a spin can be easily considered if an electrical outage caused a loss of attitude indicators and the yaw damper.
In any event, it's all speculation until a full investigation can be completed. This was a Part 91 small aircraft operation.operation so no DFDR/CVR is likely.

reply to post by F4guy


I haven't personally investigated crashes, but I've studied up on them for many years, and all of them that I have studied had a fire afterwards, unless it was something like the Avianca flight that went down in New York after running out of fuel. Even ones that I personally witnessed had significant fires afterwards.

As I said, I may be wrong, I have been before, but going by what I've studied, and what I know, I haven't seen any that weren't caused by fuel starvation that didn't have a fire. They're supposed to release a preliminary report within 10 days, so we'll just have to see what that says. We can go round and round all day on this, but best to just let the NTSB say what they have to say.

We can go round and round all day on this, but best to just let the NTSB say what they have to say.

If only the media were so wise.