Removing one's hand from the power lever should not be considered a radical technique.

More importantly - why are you advocating for an airplane that clearly has a fixable design flaw not to have that flaw fixed? Do you really not care about the people you are putting in these airplanes? Somehow I doubt that. So... why can we not just admit that there is a mechanical problem here that is dangerous, but fixable, and get on with the fixing part? I can't imagine the accident rate due to PLM is helping aircraft values, if you need a more direct motivation.

The fix is already built onto the airplane in the friction locks. Seems rather simple to me, since that's been a part of every checklist of every airplane I've flown since primary training.

It is not on all nor is it on many other planes because it has never been considered very important.

Google “King Air Checklist” and try to find it on one.

And there is not a potential deadly consequence when it is overlooked in other planes.

Clearly not.

The accident would not have happened if the engine had made intended power.

The plane put the pilot in a critical and preventable situation. There is no excuse for that when it could have been fixed.

Mike C.

It is not on all nor is it on many other planes because it has never been considered very important.

Google “King Air Checklist” and try to find it on one.

And there is not a potential deadly consequence when it is overlooked in other planes.

Attributing PLM to pilot error may be accurate. And so can running out of fuel, getting into weather they are not ready for, mishandling fuel transfers and just about every other damn thing.

So what?

I detect a bit or arrogance in some of this, not, "There but for the grace of God..." Sometimes some poor unfortunate gets "analyzed" on Crash Talk, and you'll see posts to the effect of "That won't happen to be because I always..." or "I do recurrent training twice a year and I was taught to..." and so on, as though some particular practice can immunize one from the vicissitudes of error. Training an best practice are great, but they do not provide absolute protection.

Hubris can be expensive.

Seems like there would be an easy fix for PLM, too easy not to do.

That same logic could be used against having liability insurance, since it only applies if you make a mistake. I strive to prevent mistakes, but I also pay for my insurance.

Clearly not.

The accident would not have happened if the engine had made intended power.

The plane put the pilot in a critical and preventable situation. There is no excuse for that when it could have been fixed.

Mike C.

Clearly not.

The accident would not have happened if the engine had made intended power.

The plane put the pilot in a critical and preventable situation. There is no excuse for that when it could have been fixed.

Mike C.

Blaming all the pilots, at least 10 such cases in recent years, who have died because of this issue is stupid. There is clearly a critical flaw in the King Air such that the first 20 seconds of flight comes with a huge risk that far exceeds other aircraft.

The pilots who died were generally not inexperienced, either.

If a plane kills people in such a specific way, so many times with nearly identical accident descriptions, you have to conclude there is a problem here.

The whole point of the machine is to NOT create critical situations that kill people. The King Air is failing to do that.

Mike C.

Sure, perhaps the pilots screwed up. But before the pilot could screw up, the plane had to perform an uncommanded change in power settings (assuming this is all PLM). Why not fix the plane AND train the pilots better? Historically, looks like planes are easier to fix than pilots.

Fail safe is better than fail dangerous. Fixing the plane once is going to be cheaper and more effective than trying to fix all the pilots who fly it ever after, and keeping them fixed. Sooner or later, lots (Most? All?) pilots are going to experience a skill level migration (brain fart, in the trade...)

This thread is a good example of emotional bias.

Clearly there is a problem with the KA throttles. But so many of you won’t allow anyone to say anything negative about your favorite aircraft even if it’s true.

What Mike C is saying is 100% correct. The fact that anyone argues with this is insane.

Mike

No one is arguing that there isn't a problem. Tom Clements figured out what the problem was, and for the many years since, he, myself and many others have been preaching about it relentlessly.

If there's a simple fix, I have yet to see anyone provide an STC to have it done.

The only STC'd "fix" I am aware of is autothrottles, either from IS&S or Garmin.

Those are the options as far as I know - if the airplane doesn't have autothrottles, just make sure the friction locks are set AS REQUIRED.

Chip

Go back and read the post including yours. Lots of arguments saying it’s the pilots that are the issue.

You are offended at Mikes comments because you knew a victim. His points are valid regardless of who knows who.

Edit. It’s the same with the PA-46 nose gear issues. It’s a bad design but if you say that to the Pa-46 guy they say it’s a pilot problem. LOL. Emotional bias

Mike

You're almost right... we are not arguing that there isn't a problem, we are arguing that the solution to the problem is for the pilot fly the airplane properly. I get Mike's point that the design should be more foolproof and I agree with him. But, you could say the same for elevator trim on some aircraft, fuel selectors on others, the list goes on.

It does take a combination of forgetting to check the locks, rotating too early and trying to clean the airplane up prematurely that causes this... so it is a pilot issue.

I do not have an STC for a repair. So, the only solution I personally have to offer is that we teach ALL King Air pilots to check their friction locks before EVERY flight.

It's also good practice to fly the big numbers, wait for gear until there's no runway left and have the aircraft trimmed properly for take-off.

There are currently 6180 King Airs still in operation, to put that in perspective, there's only 2112 PC-12's, and 1169 TBM's.

If you had 6000 airplanes flying around that had a real problem, you'd have a heck of a lot more crashes than we have seen. As always, there are links in the accident chain, break as many as you can.

Tell that to the dead people that have been killed in KA departure crashes.

Personally I think it’s OK to talk about and admit weaknesses in systems and design. That’s how we get better.

For instance I think it’s a bad design to have the igniter switches right below the Avionics and AC power switches in a Citation. My guess is there are a few crashes on departure that were caused by this weakness. Admitting it’s a potential issue is why I added a Gi-275 on my pilots side in case I were to ever make that mistake. Then I at least have something to fly from while the systems come back online.

I couldn’t care less if talking about that weakness offends someone.

Mike