From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: Re: Twin Beechcraft crashed in Hinckley, IL
Reply-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: Vis-Orb Tragnetics Recorporation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:09:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.150335.5783@eecs.nwu.edu>, phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>Bad news from the midwest.  A Twin Beechcraft (B-18?) went down
>just north of the Hinckley airport yesterday (Labor day) afternoon
>shortly after takeoff.  The plane had a full load of skydivers.
>12 people on board, no survivors.
>
>	That particular plane has made many successful jump flights
>	with 12 people on board.  This was a flight very similar to
>	many many other flights that the skydiving club had made.

>	The density altitude was not favorable:  it was hot and humid
>	yesterday.  But, that airport (0C2) is only at about 800 feet.


	I was just there watching their operation last week.  It had been a
boring morning at work, so I went to Hinckley Soaring, which shares the strip
with them.  I ended up gravitating towards the skydiving end of the field, as I
had been getting the jumping itch again (so call me crazy).  I am a vastly
experienced jumper with, count them, 2 jumps.  Although I don't remember any
names, it is possible that I met a couple of the
instructors/photographers/pilot.
	From what I saw at the time, the aircraft seemed to have no problem
taking a full load aloft.  According to the paper here (they cite Jane's) a
normal D-18 with that load of people (12) has a carrying capacity, with full
tanks, of ~250 pounds/(person+equipment), and more if the fuel load is
shortened or the interior seats are removed.  I don't know what they do with
the fuel, but I know that the seats were removed from that aircraft.  Also, the
day that I was there was a much hotter day then yesterday (don't recall the
humidity, but it's ALWAYS high around here) and the plane seemed to climb just
fine.  If it had an engine failure, though, I couldn't say anything about it's
performance on the remaining engine.

	The witnesses that the newspaper quoted seemed to be describing a
"failure to maintain airspeed" approach, saying the plane was going so slow
that it seemed to be "just floating", and that the pilot had a problem
keeping the wings level, with lots of wavering back and forth in bank.  This
seems to say that the control effectiveness was inadequate, which to my mind
says that the airspeed was too low.

	Also, Bill mentioned a witness reporting a stopped prop near the
ground.  The newspaper quoted  an "expert" (sheriff's deputy or something)
supposing that the prop stopping right near the ground may have distracted the
pilot at a crucial moment.  This, combined with low airspeed, sounds
reasonable.

[deletia]
>	The winds were not a factor.
>
	Here at FermiLab (about 15 miles away) there really weren't any.


>Another depressing note, this crash has gotten *extensive* local media
>coverage.  Why I don't know, other than it is "sensational".  One
>TV station spent the first TWENTY minutes of their 10 pm broadcast
>on it.  Others spent 10 and 15 minutes.  The whole time I was watching
>this rather exaggerated coverage, I kept asking myself "how many people
>died in automobile accidents around here this holiday weekend, and why
>don't they report that stuff as well?  And what about all those protestors
>in South Africa?"

	At least I haven't heard these common bits of misinformation cited as
causes:
	* The plane did not file a flight plan
	* The field is unpaved, uncontrolled
	* The engine stalled (although this may clostest to describing an
	  engine failure)
	* Those Damn little planes!


>And the skydivers are defending their avocation with statements like
>"this was a plane crash---not a skydiving accident."  But I guess I
>can't blame them, given the bloodthirsty media.  :-(

	I agree.

DISCLAIMER:  Much of the above are my speculations.  We will have to wait until
the NTSB report for any REAL information.

Ray Swartz
Newsgroups: rec.aviation