Back to Squawk list
  • 19

C90GTi ditches due to fuel exhaustion close to Aruba

Saw this didn't make it to flight aware yet, not taking credit for this. Just sharing with my fellow aviation bugs. Thought? ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

eichelro 3
On a positive note, the empty tanks help the plane float better!
Jeff Lawson 3
Flight track for N8116L --
Planes are gas guzzlers
acmi 5
sad, only about 10 hours TT on the bird

3 causes of accidents

ROOR= ran out of runway
ROOA= ran out of air
ROOF= ran out of fuel
Marcus Pradel 2
I bet the airplane's owner wishes the pilots were left to swim the 20 miles to shore..

They could've slowed down a bit and got more range from it.
pilot0987 2
Maybe manufacturers should start posting realistic fuel burns for there airplanes.
Toby Sharp 3
Looks to be on her delivery flight from the factory to Brazil......oh boy
chalet 2
Seems that the pilots were inclined to stretch the max range of this aircraft and caught up by it; The previous day they filed a flight plan from the Beech factory to Ft. Lauderdale some 1100 naut. miles away but for some reason which seems easy to surmize, decided to land at the Marianna airport in upper Florida, refuel and continue to FLL almost two hours further SE. The sandard range of the B90 is 877 miles so in all likelyhood she was fitted with extra fuel tanks. foFtunately the two pilots were able to walk away (another good landing? you fools?).
Extra fuel tanks not required and range figures are incorrect for this model.
chalet 1
I looked it up on the official Hawker Beech webpage.
chalet 1
I just noticed that the correct range is 737 naut. miles.
Track a N730EZ and then explain to me how the airplane goes the distance with no auxiliary tanks.
chalet 1
I don't understand your arguments, you are contradicting yourself. Firstly you say that a B90 needs no auxiliary tanks and now you are wondering how N730EZ flies 1.3K nm without them. If Beech says the range is 737 nm then you need extra tanks to go any further unless you are a Johnny Weismuller and enjoy swimming (LOL)..

No contradictions. I am saying that you can keep that airplane in the air for 7.5 hours if you know what you are doing. Obviously these pilots did something differently. I do this for a living, and you? What is your background ?
chalet 1
I don´t understand how you can maintain that they can fly it for 7.5 hours, c´mon, which pilots in their right minds would spend an entire day to traverse a few hundred miles and according to Fligthaware they were cruising at 260 knots, we are not taking here about landing speeds. Now using your own figures: "Range Full Fuel 1236 NM" and this is no wind, but you can´t plan on that, you ought to factor in some head winds, weather and so on. As for me I am in sales and marketing of gas (combustion), steam and hydraulic turbines obviously for power generation, big babies by the way and fuel management/efficiency is very important, besides I have a few hours on Cessnas 152s. Now what it is exactly that you do for a living, sales of fuel, fuel management or what.
I am a 21000 hour ferry pilot and I move these airplanes around the world. I KNOW what I am doing. You talked in one of your squawks about highly trained and highly experienced pilots, I am that pilot. With over 500 transatlantic and transpacific crossings to date, it takes knowledge of many variables before jumping across the big pond. These guys TAS of 260 tells me a lot.
chalet 1
Show me your money, I don't think you habe more than a few hours, if any, as PIC, as for the hundreds of ocean crossings, show me your passport, if you ever got one: I don`t think you ever left the boondocks, the Ozarks? or the Bayou?.
chalet 1
I would have never imagined that you have so many hours and so many atlantic crossings if you did mention that, even more so when you suggest that the C90 can fly for 7.5 hours which computes to aobut 130 KIAS; now you tell me what would be the range at such slow speed (about 50% of normal cruise as per the Manual)and what would that do to the turbines for I would assume that you know that they are designed for max efficiency flying at normal cruise speed not at landing speeds as you suggest.
chalet 1
Oh, you are in a terrible flap, sorry to hear about it, tsk, tsk.
Right off the HBC website for a C90GTx:

Maximum Cruise Speed 272 kt 504 km/h
Range: Max Payload 298 nm 552 km
Range: Full Fuel/Available Payload 1,236 nm 2,289 km
Range: 4 Passengers 1,192 nm 2,208 km
Range: Ferry 1,310 nm 2,426 km
Max Operating Altitude 30,000 ft 9,144 m
Take-off Field Length (MTOW) 2,552 ft 778 m
Landing Field Length (MLW) 2,363 ft 720 m
You and Chalet have me confused with your debate. Explain this again if you don't mind.
chalet 1
My point is that the Brazilian pilots who ditched in the Caribbean run out of fuel because they stretched the range of their B90 King Air beyond the published range of 737 miles. The ditching took place about 3:45 hours from takeoff flying at the filed speed of 260 knots which is the normal cruising speed as per the manufacturers manual. St. Germain claims, quite wrongly, that this plane could fly for 7.5 hours which computes to 50% of its normal cruise speed and hence did not require extra fuel tanks. My counterpoint is that nobody in his right mind would fly this beauty at such slow speed for such long hours, it runs against everything.
Do you even understand the concept of KIAS and TAS ? If you doubt my qualifications, I will gladly give you tail numbers of all the flights that I was PIC on for the past 30 years. Here are a couple of recent flights for you to look at. (N-730EZ and N-8029W). Both were the same airframe type as the accident aircraft. Departed CYYT to LPAZ for a 6.6 hour flight and uplifted 309 USG, more than 75 USG remaining or 1.5 more hours of flight until burn out. That was 1374 nm. No tailwind to speak of, in fact had up to 40 knots of headwind at one point !! Call me again when you fly something that burns kerosene !!
andrew tobin 1
With distances like that, I would have looked in to alternate methods of ferrying it over. I'm not too familiar with the rules and regs, but you might be able to take the wings off and slide it in a shipping container. After taking a peek at the flight track, it looks like they could have stopped for gas in the Bahamas, or Inagua.
chalet 1
Nonsense, dismantling and reassemblying needs specialized mechanics and costs far more than ferrying, besides for decades they have been ferrying single engine planes to Africa by way of Canada, Greenland and Europe, and to Australia and Far East by way of Alaska or direct to Hawaii with no problems but then again, the pilots got to be highly trained and highly experienced not like the bozos that ruined this brand new plane (I almost cried when seeing this beauty sinking).
Inagua is The Bahamas.
tim mitchell 1
hmmm.....someone needs to upgrade to an battery operated
ltcjra -1
Uh-oh. According to a blog with the article it was a new Beech being ferried!!! The FlightAware link is in the article'as blog. Oh boy!


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.