At Least One Dead In Minnesota TBM Crash Into House

At least one person aboard a TBM 700 was killed when the aircraft crashed vertically into a house in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota on Saturday. Local first responders didn't even realize there was a crash until after the resulting fire was brought under control. It is believed that no one on the ground was hurt but by late Saturday authorities could only say there were no survivors on the plane but not how many were on board. More details are expected Sunday.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/at-least-one-dead-in-minnesota-tbm-crash-into-house

Who’s dead? In the plane, or, on the ground? Where’s the proof? How’d it happen? Probably the impact my guess… The NTSB hasn’t even read the headlines and you’r already jumping to a conclusion. The hypocrisy is stunning.

I’m sorry, what hypocrisy? Are you just tossing word salads…just because?

The article is clear both on the “at least person” because at least the pilot was on board. It was also clear it was summarizing other news reports by stating “no one on the ground was hurt”. MrMilkshake, let’s have a refresher,

Hypocrisy
“the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.”

Please point out hypocrisy in the article, we all will appreciate the lesson. (/s)

As to the video, hell, that plane was in a vertical dive just on the video for close to 10 secs with seemingly no ability to pull out? I am not sure the NTSB will find much from the wreckage to piece together what may have cased such a long near vertical dive. Does the TBM have a flight data recorder? I understand that icing can cause a wing to stall outside normal stall numbers, perhaps cause a roll into a spin but at an approach altitude, would there not be enough time to attempt a pull out. A very sad tragedy and if true, it is good no one was hurt on the ground as the plane crashed into it.

2 Likes

What in the world are you talking about? I have no difficulty with the news write up and know we’ll get the full picture eventually.

This tragic GA accident and the two hangar friends I have lost within the past eight months from aircraft accidents - one due to randomity (birds) and another speculated density altitude - about nine-thousand hours evenly combined, would offer to the crowd of “We envision a day with zero fatal general aviation accidents…”
…to join us back on Earth and maybe put forth instead a “National Pause for General Aviation Reward, Risk and Reality” initiative to replace chasing the ‘zero fatality’ horizon of perfect safety.
Today, however, I’ll pause to recognize the grief involved with this recent fatality.

2 Likes

The findings will be pilot error. Pilot flew into known icing, stalled the airplane, lost control, and lawn darted it into a home.

How dare you make that supposition, Randy. Mr. Milkshake is gonna holler at you, too :roll_eyes: You’re supposed to wait two years for the final report by the NTSB after they analyze every rivet they can find and spend more than the airplane cost doing it.

1 Like

The TBM 700 does not have a flight data recorder.

The TBM is certified for flight into known icing conditions. I’m not suggesting that it’s ice-proof. But typical rime ice on climb-out or descent is not a problem. At 1000ft/min climb or descent rate the plane would typically be in ice for no more than a few minutes. If ATC asks you to descend into the ice 60 miles from your destination and keeps you there for 20 minutes; that’s a different story. Of course, the ice protection equipment (boots, prop heater, inertial separator and pitot heaters) have to be operative and manually turned on.

The TBM is equipped with boots, yet there have been multiple incidents of icing causing stalls, even with those boots in place. It’s surprising that, given the significant investment you’re making, it doesn’t include weeping wing protection.

I live and fly in the area. The freezing levels were well above 6,000 at the time of the crash. Even if he had picked up ice, it likely would have melted off once he descended for the approach. Winds would have favored the GPS 9 approach at ANE and it appeared he was being vectored for that. If the ADS-B data are correct, in the last minute of data his airspeed was trending downward and decreased by 10 knots, with 77 knots being the final speed recorded (from FlightAware).

…and spend more than the airplane cost doing it.

Are you suggesting that the extent of their investigations should be based upon the retail value of the lost aircraft?

C’mon rpstrong … extrapolate! Gimme a break.

I wasn’t suggesting that at all. I’m poo poo’ing the amount of time and money the NTSB spends doing investigations to gain the last 5 or 10% of data / info on accidents / reportable incidents and then writing long and expensive reports that provide little more than what we knew right away. AND … I was poo poo’ing the people who inhabit this space who are moaning about people who evaluate a situation “too soon.” The facts are the facts and in this case are pretty clear. Same thing with the DCA crash. Ya don’t need differential equations to figure it all out. Finally, I was poo poo’ing Mr. Milkshake’s comment.

And given the extent of the damage from being a vertical lawn dart followed by a horrible fire, they won’t find much left, either.

THAT is all I was saying … extrapolate.

Blockquote

The problem with “weeping wings” is you only have so much fluid aboard. For example, the Cirrus TKS runs dry after 37 minutes on max flow rate. As such, they’re good for popping through a layer but not for cruising. Boots have their faults, but the continue to operate as long as the engine(s) run(s).

Cudos, Milkshake. I wondered at first read before commenting, but methinks now that I couldn’t see clearly enough your tongue well-hidden in your cheek. If true, well done.

Just a minor correction: the speeds shown on FlightAware and other ADS-B aggretators are groundspeed, not airspeed. This is not always significant for discussion purposes, but it can be.

As far as I can tell, the only facts in this case that are clear are:

  1. This airplane entered a vertical dive and crashed.
  2. The pilot died.

We do not know:

  1. Whether there were others on board.
  2. Whether the plane was flying in icing conditions.
  3. Whether the plane stalled.
  4. Whether pilot incapacitation was involved prior to the vertical descent.

Perhaps we may have answers to these and other uncertainties that may supplement the facts we do have. Time will tell.

Even allowing for a bit of error, ADS B groundspeed vs airspeed, the airplane was too slow. Likely on autopilot at a low power setting.
Clean stall early TBM 700-73 knots
later models because of changes in certification rules: approximately 77 kts
Likely the pilot was incapacitated. There was plenty of time/altitude for recovery from the vertical dive.
Apples to Bananas but the icing speed for a King Air 100 is 140 knots. I have had the King Air 100 buffet at 120 kts in a 30 degree bank with just a trace of ice and conversely touched down at a normal speed on landing with the most ice I ever saw on a King Air

How do we KNOW the pilot died? He may have set the “Emergency Descent Mode (EDM)” or just set the autopilot to ‘down’, jumped out and ran away with the banker’s money? They haven’t found him yet, have they? And as for “Mr. Milkshake” … anyone who gives himself that moniker is either a descendant of Ray Kroc OR some sort of comedian?

Good point. And I actually did consider the fact that really, we don’t know, since apparently no human remains have been positively identified. I’ll add it to the list of “do-no-knows” and reprise my conclusion: time will tell.

Yes, absolutely correct. Thanks for the correction