Monday, September 3, 2012

Ground handling staffer allegedly assaults airport security in cocaine smuggling attempt

A Roraima Airways security officer Monday morning allegedly assaulted a special constabulary airport security guard at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA) after he failed to get a quantity of cocaine on a Delta Airlines flight, sources said.

He was arrested after airport security saw him allegedly placing a bag at the back of the forklift.

The bag contained a blanket in which the cocaine was stitched into six compartments, sources said.

Roraima Airways is the ground handling agent for Delta Airlines.

Demerara Waves Online News (www.demwaves.com) was told that the airline security officer had assaulted the female airport security after she refused an inducement of GUY$10,000 and US$200 to allow him to pass hassle-free.

The Roraima Airways official Monday night remained in police custody. Investigators have already released one of the staff members of Water Chris catering service but continued to detain another for further questioning.,

“This had nothing to do with Water Chris. Nothing was in the food,” the official told DemWaves

The source explained that after the Roraima Airways official was challenged about why he had placed the bag aback the forklift that usually takes the food bins into the aircraft, he was taken to a room.

It was from there that he tried to escape.

On arriving at the airport, the Roraima Airways security officer had objected to colleague taking over from him to escort the food to the aircraft.

Source:    http://www.demerarawaves.com

Looking into China's Booming Private Jet Market

 

by NTDTV

In late July, the world's number 3 aircraft maker, Bombardier, toured its new Global 6000 jet in four Chinese cities. The Canadian company expects China to gobble up 1,000 business jets from 2012-2021 and a further 1,400 in the following decade, an estimate some industry watchers deem ambitious.

The country of 1.3 billion people now has fewer than 200 private jets. But Bombardier's Regional Vice President of China Sales, Michael Han, says China could become the jet maker's number three market in a decade.

[Michael Han, Bombardier's Regional Vice President of China Sales]:
"The market is really booming now, especially since starting in early 2011. As of last year, we have seen very, very strong increase in demand in the business jet market. And China is now the second largest economy in the world. And we see from Bombardier's perspective big potential for China to be the third largest market after the U.S. and Europe in the next 10 years."

Beijing-based businessman Zhai Jiahua's China Stem Cell Health Group owns not one, but three private jets of different sizes. Zhai plans to buy two more planes for his business within the next couple years.

Although business jet makers are bullish on their China forecasts, some first-time buyers may neglect the string of needs that comes with a private jet.

Hong Kong based Metrojet offers business aviation services such as chartering and managing planes.

[Bjorn Naf, President & CEO of Metrojet Hong Kong]:

"Once you buy an aircraft -- and I think it's relatively easy to buy an aircraft if you have the money -- but I think it's more difficult to operate an aircraft. And for this you have to have an infrastructure, you need to have airports, you need to have terminals, VIP terminals, you need to have the airspace control as well. And I think that certainly is a challenge in mainland China today, because of it's military airspace controll, as well as the regulations, and also you don't have secondary airports."

China's military controls 70 percent of its airspace.

The country has roughly 180 airports open for civilian use, compared with about 14,000 in the United States that cater to the country's 312 million people.

Registration could also pose a problem for buyers -- securing an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) can take at least 12 months.

The aviation regulator, Civil Aviation Administration of China, expects there will be 30 AOCs by the end of 2015, meaning 20 new certificates in the next three years at most, despite a queue of at least 80 now.

For more news and videos visit ☛ http://english.ntdtv.com
Follow us on Twitter ☛ http://twitter.com/NTDTelevision
Add us on Facebook ☛ http://on.fb.me/s5KV2C

Martin Mars water bomber 1 sold, 1 remains


PORT ALBERNI - The Philippine Mars, the oldest Mars Water Bomber in the world, is being repaired and repainted with plans to fly it to the world's largest naval museum in Florida. 

 The Philippine Mars has been out of commission for five years and is beginning to deteriorate on the dock. Up until 2007, the Philippine Mars was used in conjunction with the Hawaii Mars to fight forest fires around B.C.. But advances in firefighting and new techniques mean there is only a demand for one water bomber, leaving the Philippine Mars with little value.

The company that owns the Philippine Mars, the Coulson Group, was contacted by the naval museum in Florida about bringing the bomber to the museum as part of its world war two exhibit. The plane was originally built by the US Navy in 1946 and was used during the Korean War.

The group will fix up the Philippine and repaint it back to its original naval blue colour. The plan is to have the plane ready to fly down to Florida by late 2012. The Coulson Group is expecting to receive something back in exchange for the Philippine.


 

The Martin Mars aircraft named Philippine Mars is under restoration and will soon be going to the US Navy Museum in Pensacola Florida ,It will be painted the same blue Navy colors from her early work days.

Filmed Aug 9 2012 at the home base of the Martin Mars Water Bombers on Sproat Lake in Port Alberni Vancouver Island British Columbia Canada

Click Below to see Martin Mars Water Bomber all 4 engines starting up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wug90cngexY

Please Visit Their Webs Sites
http://www.martinmars.com/
http://www.coulsongroup.com/aviation.html

Future Home of the Philippine Mars
http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/

LOW LEVEL: The Pilatus Porter below FL 100

Taylorcraft F21, N2005E: Accident occurred September 02, 2012 in Willow, Alaska

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/N2005E


NTSB Identification: ANC12LA096  
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, September 02, 2012 in Willow, AK
Probable Cause Approval Date: 09/12/2013
Aircraft: TAYLORCRAFT AVIATION CORP. F21, registration: N2005E
Injuries: 1 Serious.

NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

During takeoff from a lake in a float-equipped airplane, the pilot said the airplane became airborne, but the engine began to lose power. The pilot said that he did not think the airplane would clear the trees at the end of the lake, so he started a right turn to stay over the water. As he steepened the turn, the airplane stalled and impacted the lake.

The pilot said the outside temperature was about 55 degrees Fahrenheit and that it was raining. He reported that the more he thought about the circumstances, the more he believed that the loss of power was the result of carburetor ice. The weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to serious icing conditions at any engine power setting. No preaccident mechanical problems that would have precluded normal operation were reported.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane after a loss of engine power during takeoff due to carburetor ice.


On September 2, 2012, about 1600 Alaska daylight time, a float-equipped Taylorcraft F21 airplane, N2005E, sustained substantial damage when it impacted the water during takeoff at Willow Lake Seaplane Base, Willow, Alaska. The airplane was being operated by the pilot as a visual flight rules (VFR) personal cross-country flight, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91, when the accident occurred. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and the solo pilot received serious injuries.

During a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge (IIC) on September 3, the pilot said he had landed at the lake due to turbulence along his route of flight. After waiting about 30 minutes, he decided to depart. During takeoff, the airplane became airborne, but he did not think he would clear the trees at the end of the lake. He started a right turn to stay over the water, but as the turn steepened the airplane stalled, and impacted the lake. He said he did not know if the airplane's engine was producing full power. The right wing of the airplane was severed.

In a written statement to the NTSB dated September 14, the pilot said after takeoff the engine began missing. He also indicated that the outside temperature was about 55 degrees F, and that it was raining. He further wrote that "maybe a more lengthy run-up to rule out carburetor ice" would have been appropriate.

In an email to the NTSB IIC dated April 10, 2013, the pilot wrote that eventually the airplane had been salvaged from the lake, and sold for parts. He reported that the more he thought about the circumstances, the more he believed that the loss of power was the result of carburetor ice.

The closest weather reporting facility was the Palmer Airport, about 10 miles east of the accident site. The 1353 weather observation from the Palmer Airport was reporting, in part: Wind, 140 degrees (true) at 16 knots, gusting to 21 knots; visibility, 10 statute miles; clouds and sky condition, 4,000 scattered, 7,000 feet broken, 9,000 overcast; temperature, 55 degrees F; dew point, 33 degrees F; altimeter, 29.77 inches Hg.

According to a carburetor icing probability chart, the conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to serious carburetor icing at any engine power setting.

No preaccident mechanical problems were reported, and due to the remote location, the airplane and engine were not examined by the NTSB.


NTSB Identification: ANC12LA096 
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, September 02, 2012 in Willow, AK
Aircraft: TAYLORCRAFT AVIATION CORP. F21, registration: N2005E
Injuries: 1 Serious.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On September 2, 2012, about 1415 Alaska daylight time, a float-equipped Taylorcraft, F21 airplane, N2005E, sustained substantial damage when it impacted the water during takeoff at Willow Lake, Willow, Alaska. The airplane was being operated by the pilot as a visual flight rules (VFR) personal cross-country flight, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91, when the accident occurred. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and the solo pilot received serious injuries.

During a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge (IIC) on September 3, the pilot said he had landed at the lake due to turbulence along his route of flight. After waiting about 30 minutes, he decided to depart. During takeoff, the airplane became airborne, but he did not think he would clear the trees at the end of the lake. He started a right turn to stay over the water, but as the turn steepened the airplane stalled, and impacted the lake. He said he did not know if the airplane's engine was producing full power. The right wing of the airplane was severed.

The closest weather reporting facility was the Palmer Airport, about 10 miles east of the accident site. The 1353 weather observation from the Palmer Airport was reporting, in part: Wind, 140 degrees (true) at 16 knots, gusting to 21 knots; visibility, 10 statute miles; clouds and sky condition, 4,000 scattered, 7,000 feet broken, 9,000 overcast; temperature, 55 degrees F; dew point, 33 degrees F; altimeter, 29.77 inches Hg.



ANCHORAGE, Alaska—
An Anchorage man was injured Sunday afternoon in Willow after his floatplane suffered engine problems and crashed on landing, according to Alaska State Troopers.

A Sunday AST dispatch says troopers were informed of the incident on Willow Lake at about 4:15 p.m. Stephen Long, 63, had taken off from the lake in his Taylorcraft F-21, but was forced to attempt an immediate landing due to the engine trouble and crashed.

Long was taken to Mat-Su Regional Hospital with what troopers described as non-life-threatening injuries.

The Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board were notified of the crash.

Cessna 172N Skyhawk, N5247D: Aircraft landed short of the runway and flipped over - Broomfield, Colorado



IDENTIFICATION
  Regis#: 5247D        Make/Model: C172      Description: 172, P172, R172, Skyhawk, Hawk XP, Cutla
  Date: 09/02/2012     Time: 2236

  Event Type: Incident   Highest Injury: None     Mid Air: N    Missing: N
  Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
  City: BROOMFIELD   State: CO   Country: US

DESCRIPTION
  AIRCRAFT LANDED SHORT OF THE RUNWAY AND FLIPPED OVER, BROOMFIELD, CO

INJURY DATA      Total Fatal:   0
                 # Crew:   2     Fat:   0     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    
                 # Pass:   0     Fat:   0     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    
                 # Grnd:         Fat:   0     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    


OTHER DATA
  Activity: Training      Phase: Landing      Operation: OTHER


  FAA FSDO: DENVER, CO  (NM03)                    Entry date: 09/04/2012 
 
BROOMFIELD, Colo. (CBS4) – A federal investigation is under way to determine exactly what caused a crash landing in Jefferson County over the weekend. 

The crash happened Sunday at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport when a student pilot and his instructor got caught in some high winds. The plane came to a rest upside-down and was heavily damaged, but both men walked away from the crash.

Sean Garneau, 18, of Superior was worried about a fiery plane crash and whether the spinning propeller would invade the cockpit. But that didn’t happen because his instructor, who didn’t want to be identified, cut the power to the plane and the fuel supply before impact.

Garneau praised his instructor for saving his life.

“Oh my gosh I am lucky and blessed to be here,” he said.

Garneau was finishing his lesson when suddenly strong winds rocked the Cessna 172 Skyhawk.

“It kind of looked like we were a toy airplane. It was throwing us around pretty hard.”
 

The decision was made to cut the lesson short and land.

“There was some microbursting and down-drafts and we couldn’t gain any altitude, so it was either keep going and possibly crash into houses or crash in the road.”

While fighting the wind the instructor attempted to land at the longest runway at Rocky Mountain Airport. Coming in at 30 miles per hour another burst of wind forced a hard landing short of the runway.

“We landed in the dirt and did a little flip,” Garneau said. “When we were flipping it was a lot of force and it was scary. Because at that point, you’re thinking the propeller may back-strike and literally chop you to pieces.”

With the plane upside-down, they were left dangling.

“We were pretty dazed, pretty confused at that moment. We unclipped and dropped to the roof of the plane and his door was open so we crawled out and gave each other a hug,” Garneau said. “At that moment it was pretty emotional knowing that we shouldn’t have made it out of that crash.”

Garneau wants to fly again. He actually wants to someday become a fighter pilot.

The flight school didn’t want to comment.

Story, photo and video:  http://denver.cbslocal.com


http://registry.faa.gov/N5247D

http://www.flickr.com/photo

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photos

GROUNDED: Plane towing anti-Harper banner grounded by Royal Canadian Mounted Police: 'Stephen Harper hates us,' PSAC's French sign read

OTTAWA — A pilot hired by the Public Service Alliance of Canada to fly over Ottawa and Gatineau with a political banner was ordered to land his plane, the RCMP admitted Monday, even though the aircraft had not entered restricted airspace.

The union says it paid for a plane to fly over the capital region for three hours on Saturday with a trailing banner that read, in French, “StephenHarperNousDéteste.ca” (Stephen Harper hates us), to coincide with the popular Hot Air Balloon Festival in Gatineau.

But things didn’t go according to plan.

“When the plane took off from Rockcliffe (airport), it was flying for about an hour-and-a-half and the pilot received a message that he must land his plane immediately and that the RCMP wanted to question him,” said PSAC’s Larry Rousseau.

It remains unclear why the plane was ordered out of the sky as the RCMP and the Quebec-based pilot offered conflicting stories.

RCMP spokeswoman Cpl. Lucy Shorey said officers on the ground spotted the plane and felt it was flying within restricted airspace over Parliament Hill, so they ordered the pilot to return to the Rockcliffe airport for questioning.
 
An airplane commissioned by one of Canada's largest national labour unions to fly over Parliament Hill while tugging an anti-Stephen Harper banner was ordered grounded by the RCMP over the weekend. 

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, which booked the plane to soar over Ottawa and Gatineau, Que., on Saturday, has complained the Mounties called for the plane to land because the message it carried was critical of the prime minister.

The banner, which was in French, read "Stephen Harper nous déteste.ca" (translated as "Stephen Harper hates us.ca" in English).

Cpl. Lucy Shorey with the RCMP told CBC News it appeared the PSAC plane was flying in restricted airspace, and confirmed that the police force commanded the pilot to terminate the flight plan so that he could be questioned by officers.

But in a release, the union denied the plane ever entered restricted airspace, saying "the pilot was fully aware of airspace restrictions in place in Ottawa and Nav Canada, Canada's air traffic control service, confirms that for the entire flight the PSAC-hired airplane remained outside the restricted zone."

PSAC added that the plane had been making the rounds over Montreal and other Quebec communities for the past two weeks as part of its "We are all affected" campaign, which opposes public service job cuts.

The union said it believes the RCMP decision to order the plane was made due to political reasons associated with the banner's message.

"Had the RCMP been concerned about the plane's potential route, it could have easily communicated with the pilot via radio and sought clarification rather than ordering it back down to the airport," the PSAC said in the release.

Source:  http://www.cbc.ca

Piper PA-12 Super Cruiser, N3031M: Accident occurred August 31, 2012 in Rye, Colorado

NTSB Identification: CEN12FA594
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, August 31, 2012 in Rye, CO
Aircraft: PIPER PA-12, registration: N3031M
Injuries: 2 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.


On August 31, 2012, about 0920 mountain daylight time, a Piper PA-12, N3031M, co-owned by the pilot, was substantially damaged after impacting mountainous terrain near Rye, Colorado. The certificated private pilot and passenger were fatally injured. The flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91, with no flight plan filed. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. The flight departed Pueblo Memorial Airport (PUB), Pueblo, Colorado at about 0806.

According to law enforcement witnesses, the pilot and passenger arrived to their planned surveillance location and established radio contact with law enforcement personnel stationed on the ground. These law enforcement personnel, as well as other witnesses, observed multiple passes of the airplane at about 500 to 1000 feet above ground level, followed by a maneuvering of the airplane towards the west and out of their sight. The airplane subsequently impacted terrain about two miles west of the surveillance area in a heavily wooded area at about 10,171 feet. A postimpact fire ensued.



 PUEBLO COUNTY, Colo (KKCO)-- Two Pueblo County lawmen are being honored after they were killed in a plane crash.

Leide Defusco, 43, and John Barger, 63, died when their plane crashed in the San Isabel National Forest on Friday.

They were searching the Southern Colorado mountains for evidence of an illegal marijuana grow.

Defusco was a captain with the Pueblo County Sheriff's Office and Police Department.

Barger retired from the police department in 2009 after 32 years of service. Both also served on the local SWAT team. 

Source:   http://www.nbc11news.com

IDENTIFICATION
  Regis#: 3031M        Make/Model: PA12      Description: PA-12 Super Cruiser
  Date: 08/31/2012     Time: 1600

  Event Type: Accident   Highest Injury: Fatal     Mid Air: N    Missing: N
  Damage: Destroyed

LOCATION
  City: PUEBLO   State: CO   Country: US

DESCRIPTION
  AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 2 PERSONS ON BOARD WERE 
  FATALLY INJURED, NEAR GREENHORN MOUNTAIN, CO

INJURY DATA      Total Fatal:   2
                 # Crew:   2     Fat:   2     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    
                 # Pass:   0     Fat:   0     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    
                 # Grnd:         Fat:   0     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    


OTHER DATA
  Activity: Unknown      Phase: Unknown      Operation: OTHER


  FAA FSDO: DENVER, CO  (NM03)                    Entry date: 09/04/2012 
 
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=3031M

Fresh suit halts coroner’s hearing on Dana Air crash: McDonnell Douglas MD-83, 5N-RAM

Hearing at a Lagos coroner court in  an inquest into the June 3 crash of a Dana Air plane has been halted by a suit challenging the  powers of the coroner to investigate deaths arising from aviation accidents.

The suit was filed before Justice Okon Abang of a Federal High Court, Lagos.

Following the service of the processes of the suit on the coroner, Mr. Oyetade Komolafe, the proceedings, which were supposed to continue on Monday had therefore been adjourned indefinitely.

Hearing of the fresh suit has been fixed for Thursday.

The plaintiffs, a Non-Governmental   Organisation – Civil Aviation Roundtable Initiative – and its President,  Captain Dele Ore, said the setting up of the inquest and its proceedings so far constituted a violation of various provisions of Convention on International Civil Aviation Chicago, 1994 as ratified and domesticated under the Civil Aviation Act, 2006, in particular, Annex 13.

Their counsel, Dr. Joseph Nwobike, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, stated that the deaths which occurred from the Dana Air crash of the June  3, 2012 was not such “that falls within the contemplation of Coroners’ System Law of Lagos State, 2007 in particular Sections 14 and 15 thereof.”

The coroner is joined as the first defendant in the suit.

Also joined as defendants in the suit are the Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Ayotunde Philips; the Chief Coroner of the state, Justice Lateefat Okunnu; and the state Attorney-General, Mr. Ade Ipaye.

Other defendants are the Federal Ministry of Aviation, Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority, Accident Investigation Bureau, Nigeria Airspace Management Authority and Dana Air.

Among the eight prayers sought by the plaintiffs, is an order of the court “setting aside the proceedings already conducted till date of the coroner’s inquest in complain No. CR/AL/01/2012, presided over by Alexander O. Komolafe, the 1st respondent herein on the grounds that the coroner lacks the requisite authority and/or competence to investigate the cause of deaths occurring from the Dana Air crash on June 3, 2012.”

However, a counsel in the state Ministry of Justice, Mr. Akinjide Bakare, had on behalf of the coroner, the Chief Judge, the Chief Coroner of the state, and the state Attorney-General, filed a counter-affidavit to the suit, asking the court to dismiss it.

Another counsel in the state ministry, Mrs. Osibajo Olawunmi, who deposed to the counter-affidavit, said, “The applicant in the suit are not in any way affected by the activities of the 1st defendant.

“That the 1st applicant is not one of the bodies created by bodies created by NCAA Act Cap.  94 Law of Federation.”

She also opposed the claim of the plaintiffs that the functions of the coroner was limited to the determination of the cause of death of the victims of the crash.

According to her, in addition to finding the cause of death, the coroner has the function of finding out “the identity, place of death and the manner of death” of the victims of the crash.

“That the findings of the AIB is limited to the remote and immediate causes of air crashes and not relating to emergency procedures and other ancillary matters,” she added.

 Source:   http://www.punchng.com

"Radio calls are not a substitute for a visual scan"


Comments left on this video:  "You need to be doing a visual scan ALL OF THE TIME.   Radio calls are not a substitute for a visual scan. Both of you should be scanning for traffic, but the guy who isn't flying should be scanning the most. You'd better understand this now because, the next time you read comments that are similar to what I just wrote, it'll be in the form of hindsight AFTER you've crashed into someone."

"It's funny how you guys get a traffic advisory and THEN you start looking for traffic.  Ah, man... you guys are gonna get yourselves killed...."

Cessna 182L, N42014: Accident occurred September 02, 2012 in Metaline Falls, Washington

NTSB Identification: WPR12CA389 
 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, September 02, 2012 in Metaline Falls, WA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/05/2012
Aircraft: CESSNA 182L, registration: N42014
Injuries: 2 Minor.

NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.

The pilot stated that there was a sudden wind shift from a headwind to a tailwind during the landing roll. This pushed the airplane past the end of the runway and down a 50-foot embankment and resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and control surfaces. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have affected normal operation.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot’s inadequate compensation for a sudden wind shift during the landing roll, which resulted in a runway overrun.

The pilot stated that during the landing roll, the airplane experienced a sudden wind shift from a headwind to a tailwind. This pushed the airplane past the end of the runway down a 50-foot embankment. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and control surfaces.



IDENTIFICATION
  Regis#: 42014        Make/Model: C182      Description: 182, Skylane
  Date: 09/02/2012     Time: 1925

  Event Type: Accident   Highest Injury: Serious     Mid Air: N    Missing: N
  Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
  City: METALLINE FALLS   State: WA   Country: US

DESCRIPTION
  AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, METALLINE FALLS, WA

INJURY DATA      Total Fatal:   0
                 # Crew:   2     Fat:   0     Ser:   2     Min:   0     Unk:    
                 # Pass:   0     Fat:   0     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    
                 # Grnd:         Fat:   0     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    


OTHER DATA
  Activity: Unknown      Phase: Unknown      Operation: OTHER


  FAA FSDO: SPOKANE, WA  (NM13)                   Entry date: 09/04/2012 

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=42014

METALINE FALLS, Wash. -

Two people walked away from the crash of a Cessna 182 Sunday afternoon near Metaline Falls.

The aircraft went down at 12:19 p.m. Sunday, coming to a rest upside down on the south side of Sullivan Creek Road, just north of Sullivan Lake State Airport.

Read more here:  http://www.kxly.com

Spectacular Photos: Canadian International Air Show - Toronto Air Show ....today's show....

http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/089.jpg

http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/084.jpg

http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/091.jpg


http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/080.jpg

http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/098-2.jpg


http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/092.jpg

http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/103.jpg


http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/087.jpg

http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/097-1.jpg


http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/077.jpg

http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/101-2.jpg


http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab20/bizjets101/110-1.jpg


Thank you very much for sharing, Rob "Biz Jets"!! 

Cessna 150M, N3700V: Accident occurred September 03, 2012 in Toledo, Oregon

http://registry.faa.gov/N3700V

NTSB Identification: WPR12LA391
 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, September 03, 2012 in Toledo, OR
Probable Cause Approval Date: 02/14/2013
Aircraft: CESSNA 150M, registration: N3700V
Injuries: 1 Serious.

NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

The pilot reported that the approach and landing were normal, but the airplane veered to the right immediately after touchdown. The pilot said that he attempted to apply left rudder to correct the veer; however, the rudder pedal would not move, and the airplane exited the right side of the runway and struck a hangar. One witness reported that the accident airplane landed “hard and fast” and veered right after it touched down. Another witness stated that the airplane touched down fast, bounced about 5 to 8 feet in the air, wobbled, touched down again, and then veered off the right side of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot’s failure to maintain directional control of the airplane after landing.

On September 3, 2012, about 0945 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 150M, N3700V, sustained substantial damage during landing at the Toledo State Airport (5S4), Toledo, Oregon. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The commercial pilot, the sole occupant of the airplane, sustained serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight. The local flight originated from Newport, Oregon, at 0930 with an intended destination of 5S4.

The 94-year old pilot reported to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector that following normal approach and landing on runway 31, a 1,750-foot long and 40-foot wide asphalt runway, the airplane veered to the right. The pilot said that he attempted to apply left rudder, however, the rudder pedal would not move. Subsequently, the airplane exited the right side of the runway and struck a hangar. The pilot further reported to the inspector that he reduced the throttle before landing, and did not advance the throttle prior to impact with the hangar.

Witnesses located adjacent to the accident site reported observing the accident airplane enter a normal final approach for runway 31. One witness stated that the airplane “landed hard and fast” about 100 feet from the runway threshold, and started going to the right. Another witness stated that the airplane touched down fast near the approach end of the runway, bounced 5 to 8 feet in the air, begin to wobble, and touch back down. The witness said that the airplane traveled about 100 feet along the runway when it violently veered to the right. The witness added that the engine noise got louder just before the airplane exited the runway, and did not decrease until the airplane came to rest in a ditch.

Examination of the airplane by an FAA inspector and a representative from Cessna Aircraft Company revealed that both wings and the fuselage were structurally damaged. Examination of the airplanes flight controls, brake system, nose wheel steering system, and engine throttle control revealed no evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation.



 NTSB Identification: WPR12LA391 
 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, September 03, 2012 in Toledo, OR
Aircraft: CESSNA 150M, registration: N3700V
Injuries: 1 Serious.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On September 3, 2012, about 0945 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 150M, N3700V, sustained substantial damage during landing at the Toledo State Airport (5S4), Toledo, Oregon. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The commercial pilot, sole occupant of the airplane, sustained serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight. The local flight originated from Newport, Oregon, at 0930 with an intended destination of 5S4.

The pilot reported that following normal approach and landing on runway 31, a 1,750-foot long and 40-foot wide asphalt runway, the airplane veered to the right. The pilot said that he attempted to apply left rudder, however, the rudder pedal would not move. Subsequently, the airplane exited the right side of the runway and struck a hangar.

Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed that both wings and the fuselage were structurally damaged. The airplane was recovered to a secure location for further examination.


IDENTIFICATION
  Regis#: 3700V        Make/Model: C150      Description: 150, A150, Commuter, Aerobat
  Date: 09/03/2012     Time: 1638

  Event Type: Accident   Highest Injury: Serious     Mid Air: N    Missing: N
  Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
  City: TOLEDO   State: OR   Country: US

DESCRIPTION
  AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, WENT INTO A DITCH, TOLEDO, OR

INJURY DATA      Total Fatal:   0
                 # Crew:   1     Fat:   0     Ser:   1     Min:   0     Unk:    
                 # Pass:   0     Fat:   0     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    
                 # Grnd:         Fat:   0     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    


OTHER DATA
  Activity: Unknown      Phase: Landing      Operation: OTHER


  FAA FSDO: PORTLAND, OR  (NM09)                  Entry date: 09/04/2012 



 

 
Photo Courtesy of Will Ewing



TOLEDO, Ore. -- A well-known man in aviation circles on the Oregon coast crashed his plane Monday morning at the Toledo Airport.  

 Toledo's Jack Hagerty, 95, crashed his Cessna 172 just before 10 a.m. Monday. Hagerty was on a flight from Newport to Toledo when the plane suffered a mechanical failure between his left aileron and his left pedal.

Witnesses on the ground said Hagerty came in too high and too fast, but still managed to set the plane down on the runway at the airport. But because of the mechanical failure, the plane's steering capabilities were limited and the plane landed and then took a hard right turn off the runway, across a small tarmac and into Hagerty's own hangar.

The plane clipped a door support on the hangar and then ploughed into a ditch and an embankment which broken the plane in two.  Hagerty suffered injuries but none thought to be life-threatening. He was removed from the plane and taken by ambulance to Pacific Communities Hospital in Newport.

Staff from the National Transportation Safety Board was on scene assessing the situation and trying to confirm the cause of the crash.

Hagerty is a celebrated figure in the Newport area, having been a life-long pilot. On his 90th birthday in 2006, Hagerty flew an airplane under the Yaquina Bay Bridge simply because he'd always wanted to, even though it was illegal because it's 135 feet from the traffic lanes down to the water. Hagerty's cohorts said that when he landed after flying under the bridge in 2006, FAA officials revoked his pilot license. He got back his license within a year.


Source:   http://www.kval.com

At about 9:35 this morning (9/3) Toledo Fire and ambulance personnel responded to the Toledo airport on a report of an airplane crash. Upon arrival Toledo Fire found that a single engine plane had gone off the runway and made a hard right and crashed into a building and into a ditch. 

The 95-year old pilot was transported to Samaritan Pacific Communities Hospital with some minor injuries. According to witnesses, he apparently came in with a malfunction, which caused a very fast and hard landing. He was unable to successfully apply the brakes causing the plane to pull to the right and strike a building and then go into the ditch.

Chief Ewing said he called Reach Air Ambulance, however the call was cancelled when the pilot reported only some minor injuries. He said it was also fortunate that the airplane did not have a fuel leak, they were concerned due to the heavy damage to the left wing and put out fire protection lines just in case while removing the pilot. Both the National Transportation Safety Board and the FAA are investigating the crash.


Source:   http://oregoncoastdailynews.wordpress.com


Ninety-five year old Jack Hagerty of Toledo was delivering his just repaired Cessna 150 from Newport to Toledo Monday morning when something went wrong. His brake pedal malfunctioned and he came in too high and too fast. He managed to get the plane on the ground but it lurched to the right, went across the tarmac and smashed into a hangar door support post. It kept going, went nose first into a ditch and hit the side of an embankment. 

 Hagerty was still in the cockpit when Toledo Fire Rescue arrived. They got him out and into an awaiting ambulance which took him to PCH in Newport to be checked out. He was expected to be discharged later in the day or sometime tomorrow. National Transportation Safety Board inspectors were on scene to assess the cause of the crash.

Hagerty is somewhat of a flying folk hero on the Central Coast. Back in 2006, on his 90th birthday, Hagerty, on a whim, decided he wanted to do something bold on such an important birthday. So he flew his Cessna 150 under the Yaquina Bay Bridge. The feat was reported to the FAA which, in turn, suspended his pilot’s license for a year. It’s believed his license was reinstated after the year’s period and so would have been fully licensed today.


Source:   http://www.newslincolncounty.com

Judge to now decide pilot's fate

A Pacific Blue pilot charged with carelessly operating an aircraft will have to wait until October to learn his fate.


 The future of a pilot with more than 33 years' flying experience will be known next month after the Civil Aviation Authority and defence made their final closing submissions at the Queenstown District Court yesterday.

A 54-year-old Auckland pilot faces charges of operating an aircraft carelessly after he allegedly departed Queenstown on June 22, 2010, in conditions of near darkness, high winds, with a low cloud ceiling and outside a departure time limit, and he will know his fate on October 23.

Earlier this year, Judge Kevin Phillips heard more than four weeks of evidence from expert, pilot, and ground witnesses.

The CAA alleges the pilot exceeded the level of care required on his Pacific Blue 89 flight, carrying 65 passengers and five crew bound for Sydney.

"There were standards, there was a prescription and there were procedures. He operated outside of the procedures of what the CAA had approved to be safe and what passengers assumed to be safe," prosecution lawyer Fletcher Pilditch said.

He reflected on the six expert opinions that have been in front of the court during the four-week hearing and said each had "distinct experiences, distinct personalities and distinct idiosyncrasies".

"There has to be rules ... sometimes there is a line, those lines are there for a reason.

"Rules are there to be met and to be followed in every instance.

"They were not followed and that amounts to careless operation of an aircraft."

Defence lawyer Matthew Muir submitted the context of the pilot's departure must be considered in his final decision and that the breaches did not amount to a level of non-conformance or carelessness.

The pilot's decision-making behind the departure was based upon "in-built conservatism".

"He was not going to leave until he was satisfied the conditions for departure were met."

Mr Muir told the court the pilot faced falling on the wrong side of criminal law in regard to the crosswind breach because, had he flown for Air New Zealand on that day, the 19 knot crosswind component he allegedly breached would not have surpassed the Air New Zealand 20 knot limit.

"You have other airlines operating under higher limitations."

Mr Pilditch said a breach alone in departure time, crosswind limits, the planned contingency and a required visual segment would mean a level of carelessness. The fact more than one of those were allegedly breached meant the standard of a reasonable prudent pilot had not been met on June 22, 2010, he said.

It was important to consider the technical and challenging environment of Queenstown's surrounds also.

Mr Pilditch's closing submission placed emphasis on the pilot's operation of the aircraft in the air, such as the lowering of the plane's altitude level causing a "don't sink" warning, the first officer's verbal "speed" call warning and the "bank angle" cockpit alert caused by the plane's level-off over the Kelvin Height's golf course area.

The three warnings had all occurred within one minute and 11 seconds of the flight's departure, something the prosecution claims is highly unusual.

"This wasn't another day in the office. Look at the way the aircraft had to be flown in these conditions."

The defence's case relied on the judge being convinced that the actions and the decision-making were those of a reasonable and prudent pilot.

If the CAA case is successful, the pilot faces disqualification as a commercial pilot and a fine of up to $7000.

Source:   http://www.odt.co.nz

Allegiant Air Calls It Quits In Northern Colorado

FORT COLLINS, Colo. (CBS4) – Allegiant Air brought discount flights from Las Vegas to Northern Colorado. Now the airline is pulling out of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.

The company says it will discontinue service next month but the carrier isn’t saying why. The decision came as a shock to airport officials and passengers.

It’s soon going to be a bit more difficult for Lois Bailey to come visit her grandchildren in Northern Colorado.

“She picks me up and we just make the rounds with my kids,” Bailey said.

“It made us just sad. My grandmother uses it once a year to come see us and it’s really convenient to get her over here,” Bailey’s granddaughter said. “She doesn’t have to wait in the lines. It’s something we always look forward to, so it’s a bummer.”

Allegiant Air announced earlier this week that on Oct. 29 they will discontinue service.

“Well, we were obviously taken by surprise,” airport manager Jascon Licon said.

Read more here:  http://denver.cbslocal.com

France hands over bag found near 1966 Air India crash site to India

French High Mountain Gendarmerie Squad captain Emmanuel Vegas (R) gives to a representative of the Embassy of India in Paris, Satwant Khanala, a diplomatic bag belonging to the Indian Government after it was found at the Bossons Glacier, near the Mont Blanc in the French Alps — Photo by AFP

Paris: A 46-year-old diplomatic bag, found on Mont Blanc in the French Alps last month, was handed over to India by France but the contents were not immediately known. 

 The jute bag, stamped "Diplomatic mail" and "Ministry of External Affairs", was recovered by a mountain rescue worker on August 21 on Mont Blanc close to where an Air India plane flying from Mumbai to New York crashed in January 1966 killing all 117 on board, including top nuclear scientist Homi J Bhabha.

Satwant Khanalia, an official with India's Embassy in Paris, took possession of the bag from the authorities at Chamonix town in the mountain base, embassy sources said.

Bhabha is known as the "father" of Indian nuclear program.


Source:  http://ibnlive.in.com

Serious Snow Removal at Poplar Grove Airport (C77) - Illinois

Scenes of plowing snow at the Poplar Grove Airport, winter 2010/2011 set to the theme song of Shaft by Isaac Hayes.

The only flying 1929 Laird Speedwing visits the Poplar Grove Airport (C77) - Illinois

Navy officer punches airline ticket seller for flight delay

An airline employee at a ticket counter at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport reported a military officer to the police after being punched in the face on Monday because of a flight delay.

Airport police spokesman Insp. Agus Tri said that Riki Pandani, 20, an employee of Lion Air, who was on duty at the domestic flight terminal, claimed that he was punched in his right eye by a passenger identified as Sri Sugianto.

“We quickly followed up the report and summoned the passenger, who was later identified as Lt. Col. Sri Sugianto, a Surabaya-based Navy officer,” he said.

The police spokesman said that the military officer had bought a Lion Air ticket on flight number 748, which was scheduled to depart for Surabaya at 8:20 but was delayed for two hours.

“The two-hour delay made the official angry and as he lost his patience. He approached the ticket counter and hit the ticket seller in the face,” he said.

Agus Tri said that since the suspect was a military officer, the police had handed over the case to the Tangerang District Military Command (Kodim 0506) Garnizun for further handling.

Tangerang District Military Commander Lt. Col. Dani Wardana confirmed that the case had been taken over from the airport police.

“It is true that the suspect is a Surabaya-based Navy officer and we have directly handed him over to the Navy Military Police headquarters (Danpom) in North Jakarta,” he said.(iwa)


Source:  http://www.thejakartapost.com

Singapore: S$200m fund set up for air traffic management R&D


SINGAPORE: Singapore will be developed into a centre of excellence for air traffic management.

To spur research and development, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore has set up a S$200 million fund to provide grants and incentives over the next 10 years.

Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew said a dedicated programme office will be established in CAAS to drive and support efforts.

Mr Lui said the capabilities and solutions developed in Singapore will also benefit the Asia-Pacific region, given that air traffic is poised to see more growth.

Thus, a boost to air traffic management (ATM) is timely.

"Particularly here in Singapore, will need to invest heavily in ATM research and development, to address our ATM needs, particularly as we expect Changi's air traffic to grow strongly," said Mr Lui.

"Over the last 10 years, we have been averaging close to 4 per cent compounded annual air traffic growth. For the rest of the decade, we estimate the growth to be somewhere around four to five per cent in line with what we see as strong demand for air traffic in our region," he added.

Mr Lui made the announcement as he commissioned the next generation Long Range Radar and Display System (LORADS) III air traffic control simulator.

The simulator will prepare Changi Airport's air traffic controllers before the new system kicks in, in the second half next year.

At a ceremony on Monday, Mr Lui witnessed the handing over of the LORADS III Air Traffic Control Simulator from Mr Adam Burford, Vice President Air Operations of Thales, to Mr Yap Ong Heng, Director-General of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS).  

Source:    http://news.insing.com

Cirrus SR22 GTS X G3, Bobo Aviation LLC, N221DV: Accident occurred September 01, 2012 in Falmouth, Massachusetts

NTSB Identification: ERA12FA540 
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, September 01, 2012 in Falmouth, MA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/17/2014
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22, registration: N221DV
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 2 Serious.

NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

During the cross-country instructional flight in the side-stick airplane, with the student pilot on the controls in the left seat and the flight instructor in the right seat, the airplane entered the landing pattern. During the final approach, witnesses saw the airplane drifting to the left while descending at a relatively high sink rate. Witnesses heard the power being adjusted, and, close to the ground, the engine went to high power. The airplane’s nose rose, and the airplane veered to the left. The airplane touched down left wing down off the runway in grass, heading about 40 degrees left of the runway centerline. It then entered woods, where it hit numerous trees and came to rest upside down and on fire. The student pilot stated that he thought the instructor was on the flight controls with him as had happened during previous flights. He also recalled the instructor pointing to the airspeed indicator on final approach and took it to mean that the airplane was slow. Although the instructor had previously used positive passing of controls on other flights, neither the student pilot nor the passenger recalled hearing him say anything during the final approach. The student pilot indicated that at some point he was not sure who was flying, although, after the accident, witnesses heard him saying multiple times that he was sorry he “did that.” Examination of the wreckage revealed no preexisting mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Wind, as recorded at a nearby airport, was from slightly left of runway heading at 15 knots, gusting to 18 knots. Five of the instructor’s seven private pilot candidates failed their initial practical test, which went unnoticed by his flight school. However, none of the failures were due to poor landings, all the candidates passed on their second try, and all interviewed had positive words about the instructor. One of the instructor’s previous students indicated that he had ridden the controls with her as well. The instructor had been known to work extra hours, but there was no evidence that he was fatigued during the flight. The instructor likely also had a discussion with a principal of the flight school that resulted in him arriving late for the flight, but there was no indication that it distracted him during the approach. The instructor was responsible for the safety of the flight and, as such, should have effected positive remedial action before the student pilot was able to put the airplane in an unrecoverable position. 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The flight instructor’s inadequate remedial action. Contributing to the accident was the student pilot’s poor control of the airplane during the approach. 

HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On September 1, 2012, about 1105 eastern daylight time, a Cirrus SR22, N221DV, was substantially damaged when it impacted trees during a landing attempt at Falmouth Airpark (5B6), Falmouth, Massachusetts. The certificated flight instructor (CFI) was fatally injured, and the student pilot and the passenger were seriously injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed for the flight from Tweed-New Haven Airport (HVN), New Haven, Connecticut. The instructional flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.

Due to the extent and severity of his injuries, the student pilot first provided a statement through his attorney on March 31, 2013. At that time, he stated that on the day of the accident, "the flight was conducted in the same manner as previous occasions." The student pilot had earlier advised the flight school that he and his wife wanted to fly to 5B6 to spend Labor Day weekend. When they arrived at the flight school, they met the CFI, who did the flight planning while the student pilot performed the airplane preflight inspection. 

When the CFI was ready, they boarded the airplane with the student pilot in the left seat, the CFI in the right seat, and the student pilot's wife in one of the rear seats. The student pilot was manipulating the controls and performing radio communications at the direction of the CFI. 

The flight to 5B6 was uneventful. The student pilot remembers obtaining weather information approaching Falmouth from, he believes, Hyannis, south of Falmouth. The CFI directed that he enter the landing pattern at 5B6 by flying over the airport at 3,000 feet and then descending to enter the downwind for a right traffic pattern to runway 7. They conducted the landing checklist before turning onto the base leg. 

As in the past, the student pilot was flying the airplane with the CFI's hands and feet on the controls. The student pilot remembered making a right turn to enter the base leg of the approach and turning onto final. The airplane cleared the trees at the approach end of runway 7 when the CFI said that the airplane was "low and slow." The student pilot did not remember much thereafter other than then being "jounced around a bit" in the airplane. He did not remember "seeking" the runway or touching down on or near the runway. He did not know if the CFI took control of the airplane, or if he continued to fly it, nor did he recall the CFI saying anything else to him other than they were "low and slow." The next thing the student pilot remembered was the airplane hitting trees, breaking up and coming to rest. He did not realize that there was a fire until he saw the skin on his hands was coming off. He could not unfasten his seat belt but his wife had been able to do so and had left the airplane. He called for help and she returned and unbuckled him and pulled him from the burning wreckage.

In response to additional questions posed through his attorney, and after his release from the hospital, the student pilot recalled that the CFI had not said that they were low and slow. Instead, the CFI had pointed to the airspeed indicator, "to indicate a slower than desired landing approach speed. He did not verbalize any words; he just pointed at the electronic display which I understood to mean that he wanted me to note our speed which was 69 knots, a slightly low speed. I corrected that condition…I was still in the hospital and heavily medicated when I initially spoke to [my attorney], and do not recall our exact conversation." 

The student pilot further noted that his wife was also wearing headphones, and did not recall any conversation between himself and the CFI. 
According to the student pilot's wife, her first awareness of something unusual was the crash itself. She realized that she was standing in fire in the airplane on the ground. She recalled unbuckling her husband and pulling him out of the plane with her right hand. The fire was so intense that they had to exit the airplane, and she shouted that the CFI was still in the airplane to the people who began arriving at the site.

The wife also believed that her husband was flying the airplane, with the CFI providing instruction. She did not know if the CFI had his hands on any of the airplane's controls at any point that day, but in the past had seen him do so. 

According to several witnesses, the airplane completed a right downwind for runway 7. The final approach over trees was described as "unstable, with rocking wings," and one witness asked another if he thought the airplane was going to go around. 

Exact recollections differed, but in general, witnesses recalled that as the airplane neared the runway, the airplane's rate of descent increased, and there were some additions and reductions in power. The airplane started veering to the left, there was an addition of power, and the left wing almost hit the ground. The airplane then touched down in the grass to the left of the runway, went through the last section of a wooden fence, entered some woods and burst into flames. 

In an email, one witness stated, "Subject aircraft was on a short final when he came in over the trees…he was low and slow…he got in to a high sink rate and he went to full power and pulled the nose up abruptly about 30 to 40 degrees nose up and the plane veered to the left and went in to the trees and exploded on impact." 

In an interview, one witness stated that at the crash site, the student pilot repeatedly said that he was "sorry I did that." 

PERSONNEL INFORMATION

The CFI, age 24, held a commercial pilot certificate with single engine land, multi-engine land, and instrument-airplane ratings. He also held a flight instructor certificate with single engine land, multi-engine land and instrument-airplane ratings. The CFI's latest FAA first class medical certificate was dated May 1, 2012.

The CFI completed "Cirrus Standardized Instructor Pilot" training on September 29, 2011.

A copy of the CFI's logbook entries through August 13, 2012, listed 1,519 total flight hours, with 1,407 hours of single engine flight time, and 1,002 hours of instructor time. 

The CFI's fiancée, who had moved to the local area in preparation for their wedding, was asked about the CFI's recent history leading up to the accident. According to the fiancée, she worked as a nurse during the night shift, and because of their differing schedules, and not wanting to disturb each other's sleep, she was sleeping on the couch while he slept in the bedroom. She saw the CFI on the morning of the day before the accident, but because of their work schedules, she didn't see him that night. The day of the accident, he had left for work prior to her waking up.

CFI Employer

According to the employer's attorney, "Robinson Flight, LLC ('Robinson Flight'), and Robinson Aviation, Inc. ('Robinson Aviation'), are two separate and distinct entities with their own legal status. Robinson Flight is a subsidiary company of Robinson Aviation – it is a single-member limited liability company with its single member being Robinson Aviation [Flight?]. Robinson Aviation is a C-corporation with [one person] serving as the President and Treasurer. Those who actually manage Robinson Aviation are not necessarily the same as those who manage Robinson Flight. Robinson Flight maintains its own separate payroll, has its own checks, and pays rent to Robinson Aviation. [The CFI] was employed by and paid by Robinson Flight."

"All of the time that was billed for the [student pilot's] flights was for instructional purposes." In addition, "Robinson Aviation was unaware of the passenger onboard. Officers of Robinson Flight also were unaware that there was to be a passenger on board."

CFI Student Pass Rate

According to FAA records, seven of the CFI's student pilots attempted the private pilot practical (flight) test. Of the seven, five failed the test on their initial try, but all of those passed their test on their second try.

Four of the five former students who initially failed were able to be contacted. None of the four indicated any instructional lapses for their initial failures, and none of the failures involved landing pattern work or normal landings. Two of the pilots attributed their initial performance to nerves, one due to fatigue because a family member had returned home the night before, and one included weather as a factor and was off required altitude. Most involved navigation. The designated examiner for the fifth student pilot confirmed that his failure also did not involve landing pattern work or normal landings.

When asked about the CFI's low initial pass rate, or if any corrective actions were taken, the attorney for the flight school responded, "Robinson Flight disagrees with the above characterizations. Robinson Flight is interested in seeing the basis for these conclusions. Robinson Flight saw no reason to take corrective action." 

CFI – Students' Perceptions

From the four student pilots previously noted and one additional student who switched to another airplane make and model in the midst of training (she didn't continue with the CFI because he wasn't qualified in that airplane at the time):

"Very mellow and relaxed in the cockpit. He was a good pilot, a good instructor, good instincts, who always had a plan, while other instructors would just show up to fly. He always had something he wanted to accomplish during the flight." He was also always alert; and the student pilot felt safe with him.

"The best of all of them." He was the best rounded, patient, and made the student pilot feel comfortable; "very thorough and meticulous." 

Always professional in the airplane; "encouraging," and loved to fly; always at the airport.

A "very good instructor" who knew what he wanted to do, how to do it, and then did it. The student pilot enjoyed flying with him, felt no fear with him and was comfortable with him as an instructor. 

He was a "pretty good instructor," especially compared to another instructor, and he had a lot more confidence in the student pilot. She felt very comfortable with him; he explained everything very well. 

CFI and the Destination Airport

According to the attorney for the flight school, when asked if the CFI expressed any concerns about flying to 5B6, particularly in regards to the winds/crosswinds, the response was "Not to the knowledge of Robinson Flight."

The accident student pilot was asked the same thing through his attorney and responded, "He did not express any concerns whatsoever." 

CFI Workload

According to the attorney for the flight school, "[The CFI] did not have a set schedule or general hours for Robinson Flight; he was responsible for setting and managing his own schedule including flights, ground school, and office hours. [The CFI] very rarely worked more than 40 hours per week." 

When asked if there was a contract to confirm the working arrangement, the attorney replied, "There was no written contract or written instruction explicitly stating that [the CFI] was responsible for setting and managing his own schedule. That was the practice that was acceptable to both Robinson Flight and [the CFI]."

In addition, "[the CFI] was permitted to, and from time to time did, voluntarily stay in the office on his own accord to answer phones in an attempt to garner more business. Such voluntary office hours, however, were not reflected in [his] hours or pay." 

When asked about the CFI's work schedule, his fiancée stated that he worked as many hours as he could during the week to maximize his opportunities to fly. His normal work schedule was 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and sometimes he would fly and sometimes he would not. When asked if there were any fatigue issues, the fiancée stated that there were none that she knew of. She also stated that she would say to him that he was getting worked too hard, but he never complained. 

When asked if there were any other issues at work, the fiancée stated that there were no issues that she knew of.

CFI – Accident Student Pilot Relations 

According to the fiancée, the CFI had a good rapport with all his students. 

When asked about the relationship between the CFI and the student pilot/owner of the airplane, she stated that it was a very good one. She did not hear anything negative about student pilot and even if there was something, the CFI was professional in that he never said anything about any of his students. 

The fiancée also stated that the CFI had a "great" relationship with the student pilot. In fact, the student pilot let the CFI use his airplane when he wanted, as long as he put fuel in it. About 2 weeks prior to the accident, the CFI and fiancée flew together in the airplane to Ohio to get their wedding license. 

Accident Student Pilot

The student pilot, age 55, stated that he had 117 hours of flight time at the time of the accident, and that his logbook was destroyed in the postcrash fire. His FAA third class medical certificate was issued on February 7, 2012.

He also stated that he stated that he started taking flight training at "Robinson Aviation," and was introduced to a Cirrus SR20 as well as other types of airplanes. Since he was interested in buying an airplane, he researched what was available and decided on a Cirrus SR22 based on its performance, load carrying ability and utility. When he purchased the accident airplane, he had accumulated about 17 hours of dual instruction and continued to take flight instruction at Robinson, where he was assigned the accident CFI as his primary instructor.

The student pilot further noted that most of his flight instruction began with a ground briefing where the CFI would explain what they would be doing, including the maneuvers to be performed. The student pilot would perform the preflight inspection of the airplane. 

The student pilot would sit in the left seat, and the CFI in the right seat. Throughout each lesson, whether they were maneuvering or flying in the traffic pattern, the CFI would keep his hands on the controls while the student pilot flew the airplane, "meaning he would keep the right-hand side stick in his right hand, his feet on the rudder pedals and his left hand on the throttle below my hand." During the lessons there were many occasions where the CFI would take control of the airplane if he felt he should do so, then would typically explain the reason for doing so and, if appropriate, have the student pilot perform the maneuver again.

On occasion, the student pilot and his wife would want to go somewhere overnight or for a weekend, and the only way they could use the airplane was to hire "Robinson Aviation" to transport them. The accident CFI would fly those trips. They would meet at HVN at Robinson facilities where the CFI would take care of all flight planning duties, and the student pilot would typically perform the preflight inspection. During the flight, the student pilot would sit in the left seat with the CFI in the right seat and the student pilot's wife in one of the rear seats. Upon arrival at the destination airport, the student pilot would fly the traffic pattern and make the landing, again with the CFI providing direction and keeping his hands and feet on the controls.

After deplaning at the intermediate destination, the CFI would then fly the airplane back to HVN, and when the student pilot and his wife were ready to return home, the CFI would return to pick them up. The flight back would then be conducted in the same manner as the outbound flight. The student pilot paid Robinson for each of the flights.

The student pilot's wife confirmed that there had been a number of occasions where the CFI had flown with them to a destination, then fly the airplane back to HVN and return to pick them up again for the return trip home. It was her understanding that the CFI was providing instruction to her husband and that his credit card was billed by Robinson Aviation.

When asked why, with 117 hours of flight time, the student pilot had not taken his private pilot test yet, he replied through his attorney, "He was not in a rush to obtain his private pilot certificate and believed that the additional time and instruction would only make him a better, safer, pilot. He also advises that a substantial amount of his flight hours, perhaps 30 hours, were conducted in a manner similar to the day of the accident where he was being taken to a location by [the CFI] and was not devoted to instruction. He also advises that he had not completed several areas of required instruction that was needed before he could obtain his license, including night flying and cross country solo work."

When asked if there were any problem areas that the CFI suggested needed more work, the student pilot responded through his attorney, "[The CFI] suggested no areas to focus on during the flight that day." The student pilot also stated that the CFI had not advised him of any areas that needed special attention in the recent past leading up to the accident flight. Before an instructional flight, the CFI would usually tell the student pilot what area they would focus on that day, such as landings or stalls, "although on occasion, he would just suggest that they go out and fly, or something to that effect." 

CFI on the Controls

Because the student pilot indicated that the CFI would be on (ride) the controls with him at times, the question of riding the controls was asked of the other five student pilots who were interviewed. Three said he did not ride the controls, one said that he would be on the rudders and one, who was only with the CFI before her solo, said he did. All but one of the student pilots flew with the CFI in a conventional, yoke-configured airplane. The one who flew with him in a side-stick Cirrus was also one of the student pilots who said the CFI did not ride the controls, but further noted that he had about 60 hours' experience in a Cirrus while taking previous training in California. 

CFI Distractions

On the morning of the accident, another flight instructor spoke with the CFI as he was walking out to the accident airplane. The CFI seemed upset and for the first time ever, made disparaging remarks about the president of Robinson Aviation. The other CFI did not ask about what brought about the remarks. 

The student pilot also stated that they were delayed about an hour in waiting for the CFI, and that he appeared "normal but slightly distracted," but said something like, "ready to have some fun." During the flight, the CFI "seemed to be his normal self but somewhat casual." 

AIRPLANE INFORMATION

The airplane, which was manufactured in 2008, was purchased by the student pilot in 2012 from a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, company. A pre-buy inspection was completed on March 28, 2012, at 768.2 flight hours, 842.0 Hobbs hours; an annual inspection was completed April 10, 2012, with the same number of flight hours noted; and the student pilot accepted the airplane on April 15, 2012.

Additional maintenance logged by Robinson Aviation included a change of the batteries on August 28, 2012, and an alternator change on August 31, 2012, at 875.9 flight hours, 965.3 Hobbs hours. 

AIRPORT INFORMATION

Falmouth Airpark had a single runway, 7/25, that was 2,298 feet long and 40 feet wide. Runway 7 elevation threshold was 38 feet. There was no control tower or recorded communications. 

METEROROLOGICAL INFORMATION

Weather, recorded at an air national guard base 4 miles to the north, at 1055, included a few clouds at 1,600 feet, visibility 10 statute miles, wind from 050 degrees true (066 degrees magnetic), at 15, gusting to 18 knots, temperature 24 degrees C, dew point 19 degrees C, altimeter setting 30.02 inches Hg. 

WRECKAGE INFORMATION

An examination of the accident site revealed skid marks in the grass to the left of the runway, with the mark attributed to the position of the left main landing gear appearing first. The marks commenced about 80 feet left of the runway, 300 feet from the approach end, and headed about 030 degrees magnetic, toward the woods. The airplane's left wing was found separated from the rest of the airplane at the first large tree in the woods, and the airplane came to rest about 80 feet beyond that tree, upside down.

The airplane was mostly consumed by fire. Evidence of all flight control surfaces was found at the scene, and continuity was confirmed from the cockpit along the lengths of all flight control cables. The flap actuator indicated that the flaps were at 50 percent. 

The engine exhibited severe fire damage, and the crankshaft could not be rotated. Two of the three metal propeller blades exhibited torsional bending, and one blade could be rotated in the hub. The third propeller blade was straight, but had cut into the propeller spinner toward the direction of rotation. The spinner also had a large concave indentation in it, similar in shape to a tree trunk. 

Data chips were not recovered from the primary flight display and multifunction display, which were charred and jelled together. The tail-mounted remote data module was recovered and forwarded to the NTSB Recorders Laboratory; however, the unit was thermally damaged internally, and no data extraction was possible. 

MEDICAL AND TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION 

An autopsy was conducted on the CFI by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Boston, Massachusetts. Cause of death was listed as, "inhalation of heated gases and thermal injuries."

Toxicological testing, which was performed by the FAA Forensic Toxicology Research Team, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, included 10 percent carbon monoxide saturation in heart blood, and no drugs detected. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

FAA Advisory Circular 61-115, "Positive Exchange of Flight Controls Program," states that, "Numerous accidents have occurred due to a lack of communication or misunderstanding as to who actually had control of the aircraft, particularly between students and flight instructors." In addition, "During flight training, there must always be a clear understanding between students and flight instructors of who has control of the aircraft."

FAA-H-8083-25, "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge," notes that, "To the pilot, 'torque' (the left turning tendency of the airplane) is made up of four elements:"

1. Torque reaction from the engine and propeller, which, for most U.S. engines that rotate the propeller clockwise as viewed from the pilot's seat, tend to make the airplane roll left.
2. Corkscrewing effect of the slipstream, which at high propeller speeds and low forward airplane speed, produces a compact spiraling rotation of the slipstream that exerts a strong sideward force on the airplane's left side of the vertical tail surface.
3. Gyroscopic action (precession) of the propeller, that produces yawing and pitching.
4. Asymmetric loading of the propeller (P Factor), that, during high angles of attack, results in the downward propeller blades moving faster than the upward blades, creating more lift from the downward blades which tends to pull (yaw) the airplane's nose to the left.

http://registry.faa.gov/N221DV

http://www.flickr.com/photo

NTSB Identification: ERA12FA540
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, September 01, 2012 in Falmouth, MA
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22, registration: N221DV
Injuries: 1 Fatal,2 Serious.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

 
On September 1, 2012, about 1100 eastern daylight time, a Cirrus SR22, N221DV, was substantially damaged when it impacted trees during a landing attempt at Falmouth Airpark (5B6), Falmouth, Massachusetts. The flight instructor was fatally injured, and the student pilot and passenger were seriously injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed for the flight from Tweed-New Haven Airport (NVN), New Haven, Connecticut. The instructional flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.

While the student pilot and a passenger survived the accident, due to the extent of their injuries, they could not be interviewed. According to several witnesses, the airplane completed a right downwind for runway 7. The final approach over trees was described as "unstable, with rocking wings," and one witness asked another if he thought the airplane was going to go around.

Exact recollections differed, but in general, witnesses recalled that as the airplane neared the runway, there were some additions and reductions in power. The airplane started veering to the left, there was an addition of power, and the left wing almost hit the ground. The airplane then touched down in the grass to the left of the runway, went through the last section of a wooden fence, entered some woods and burst into flames.

An examination of the accident site revealed skid marks in the grass to the left of the runway, with the mark attributed to the position of the left main landing gear appearing first. The marks commenced about 80 feet left of the runway, 300 feet from the approach end, and headed about 030 degrees magnetic, toward the woods. The airplane's left wing was found separated from the rest of the airplane at the first large tree in the woods, and the airplane came to rest about 80 feet beyond that tree, upside down.

The airplane was mostly consumed by fire. Evidence of all flight control surfaces was found at the scene, and continuity was confirmed from the cockpit along the lengths of all flight control cables. The flap actuator indicated that the flaps were at 50 percent.

The engine exhibited severe fire damage, and the crankshaft could not be rotated. Two of the three metal propeller blades exhibited torsional bending, and one blade could be rotated in the hub. The third propeller blade was straight, but had cut into the propeller spinner toward the direction of rotation. The spinner also had a large concave indentation in it, similar in shape to a tree trunk.

Data chips were not recovered from the primary flight display and multifunction display, which were charred and jelled together. The tail-mounted remote data module was recovered and forwarded to the NTSB Recorders Laboratory; however, the unit was thermally damaged internally and no data extraction was possible. The unit's memory chip was then extracted and attempts to restore it are ongoing. 


IDENTIFICATION
  Regis#: 221DV        Make/Model: SR22      Description: SR-22
  Date: 09/01/2012     Time: 1502

  Event Type: Accident   Highest Injury: Fatal     Mid Air: N    Missing: N
  Damage: Destroyed

LOCATION
  City: FALMOUTH   State: MA   Country: US

DESCRIPTION
  AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WERE 3 PERSONS ON 
  BOARD, 1 WAS FATALLY INJURED, 2 SUSTAINED SERIOUS INJURIES, NEAR FALMOUTH, 
  MA

INJURY DATA      Total Fatal:   1
                 # Crew:   3     Fat:   1     Ser:   2     Min:   0     Unk:    
                 # Pass:   0     Fat:   0     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    
                 # Grnd:         Fat:   0     Ser:   0     Min:   0     Unk:    


OTHER DATA
  Activity: Unknown      Phase: Unknown      Operation: OTHER


  FAA FSDO: BOSTON, MA  (EA61)                    Entry date: 09/04/2012

 
 



 
Aaron Mentkowski had planned to marry his fiance, Zoe Behrens, later this month.


FALMOUTH, MASS. —   Police confirmed Monday that a 23-year-old Wallingford resident died in Saturday's plane crash at Falmouth Airpark.

Aaron Mentkowski was pronounced dead at the crash scene, they said.

Two others were seriously injured in the crash and brought to Boston area hospitals: Dianne Palmeri, 54, of Guilford, and Albert Rossini, 55, also of Guilford.

The crash occurred Saturday morning when the Guilford couple was learning to fly. A Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman said the plane was flying from Tweed New Haven Airport and crashed while landing at a small airport in Falmouth.

Fire officials said the plane veered into a wooded area in between the backyard of two homes before catching fire. They said the plane was carrying a flight instructor, a student pilot and the student pilot's wife. It is unclear who was piloting the plane when it crashed.

Mentkowski was a flight instructor at Robinson Aviation, an East Haven company that provides services at Tweed New Haven Airport. A May 2012 newsletter for Robinson Aviation lists Rossini as a new aircraft owner.

Palmeri is the chief financial officer and associate dean for finance and administration for Yale University's School of Management. She's worked at Yale since 1981.


http://www.courant.com

http://theoriginalgreenwichdiva.com 
 


Cirrus SR22, N221DV 
Accident occurred September 01, 2012 at Falmouth Airpark (5B6), Massachusetts  



Photo Courtesy:  David G. Curran/SatelliteNewsService.com


EAA AirVenture Oshkosh – July 26, 2005 – In an airplane with a paint scheme that he designed, Aaron Mentkowski, 17, of Bay Village, Ohio, took to the skies on Tuesday during the EAA AirVenture Fly-In held in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.  
Read more and photos:  http://www.youngeagles.org

http://www.youngeagles.org

(WTNH) -- Police have identified the occupants of a plane that crash Saturday in Falmouth, Massachusetts.

Aaron Mentkowski, 23, of Wallingford, was killed when the Cirrus SR22 aircraft crashed as it was trying to land at Falmouth Air Park. The crash sparked a fire and authorities say Mentkowski was trapped inside.

The plane's other occupants, Dianne Palmeri, 54, and Albert Rossini, 55, of Guilford were both seriously injured and were flown to Boston Hospitals to be treated.


Palmeri is the Chief Financial Officer and Associate Dean for Finance and Administration at Yale's School of Management.


The small plane had departed from Tweed-New Haven Airport earlier in the day.


The FAA is investigating the crash.


Source:  http://www.wtnh.com

Massachusetts authorities have identified the Connecticut man who died in a plane crash in Falmouth over the weekend as Aaron Mentkowski.

Twenty-three year old Mentkowski, of Wallingford, worked as a flight instructor at Robinson Aviation in East Haven.

Authorities said Mentkowski was teaching a Guilford couple, Dianne Palmeri and Albert Rossini, how to fly when their small plane went down at Falmouth Air Park Saturday morning.

Fifty-four year old Palmeri and 55-year-old Rossini were rushed to Boston area hospitals.  Their conditions were not available at press time.

Authorities said the plane veered into a wooded area in between the backyard of two homes catching fire while attempting to land at the small airport.

It’s unclear who was piloting at the time of the accident.

Palmeri is the Chief Financial Officer and Associate Dean for Finance and Administration at Yale’s School of Management.

Records show that her husband Albert Rossini was the owner of the Cirrus SR22.