KATHMANDU, Nov 5: With
the objective to strengthen its domestic network, national flag carrier
has started preparations to operate its five grounded twin-otters. The
airlines has decided to overhaul the engines of these aircraft on
exchange basis, some of which has been not operated for almost a decade
in the lack of maintenance and unavailability of spare parts.
The decision comes at the time when the government has decided to procure eight aircraft.
Raju
Bahadur K.C, acting Managing Director of the airlines said they were
unable to directly go for the tender to exchange the engine because of
the existing bylaws of the NAC which has not mentioned anything about
procuring engine on exchange basis.
“As per our plan to operate
the grounded aircrafts we have forwarded the proposal to the board so
that the process can go ahead with the amendment of the bylaws,” he
said. Once, the board amends the bylaws, the corporation will invite
tender for the overhauling of the engine.
According to K.C, the
engine overhaul will be carried on zero value basis meaning the engines
will be as good as new one. The airlines had decided to repair the
grounded aircrafts after comparing the cost. “In order to procure a
similar kind of aircraft it will cost us around US $ 6.5 million but on
an average the cost of overhauling is around US $ 2 million,” said K.C.
The
airlines plans to use these aircrafts as profit center. “The demand in
domestic sector is higher and its convenient to operate flight in
domestic sector,” K.C said. “Although we can´t focus on profit only like
private carriers we will try our best to generate more revenue and
provide service to passengers at same time,” he added.
NAC was
planning to increase the flight frequency to its rural destinations and
use the aircrafts for chartered flight which generate more revenue. He
said, “Besides, we are preparing to operate service to tourist
destinations like Lukla and Jomsom.”
NAC operates to most rural
airports with total destinations of around 20. Despite that the airlines
has been operating at a loss, particularly in domestic sector since the
beginning. Not just that, the market share of the airlines in domestic
sector has shrunk to three percent in the last fiscal year because of
limited number of aircrafts.
NAC´s plan to flight to Dammam on hold
Although
the airlines was preparing to operate flights to Dammam of Saudi
Arabia, it has been forced to postpone its plan in the lack of Air
Service Agreement. The NAC board had decided to operate three flights in
a week by cutting down the flights to Dubai in September. As per the
current agreement with Saudia Arabia Nepal can operate two flights a
week to Riyadh only.
“We have requested tourism ministry to
review the ASA so that we can start the direct flight to Dammam,” acting
Managing Director Raju Bahadur K.C said. As the flight hours to Riyadh
is more than six hours, ageing Boeing 757 can´t operate the flights.
Saudi
Arabia is one of the largest destinations for Nepali migrant workers.
Every year more than 80,000 migrant workers fly to Saudi Arabia from
Tribhuvan International Airport. At present NAC is operating 22 flights a
week to five international destinations.
http://www.myrepublica.com
Sunday, November 04, 2012
North Carolina Civil Air Patrol Sending Aircraft To Northeast
Burlington, NC -- The
Civil Air Patrol's North Carolina Wing is sending one Cessna 182
aircraft to the Northeast to help with Sandy cleanup, the unit announced
Sunday.
CAP will send a pilot, an observer and a mission scanner on aerial photography missions to survey areas hit hardest by Super Storm Sandy.
Col. David E. Crawford, wing commander, said the group left from Asheville Sunday morning and rendezvoused with other CAP members in Wilmington, DE.
The mission's goal is to provided FEMA with photos of damages to property and infrastructure throughout Sandy's path.
CAP has been on standby since the storm approached the North coastline.
http://www.digtriad.com
CAP will send a pilot, an observer and a mission scanner on aerial photography missions to survey areas hit hardest by Super Storm Sandy.
Col. David E. Crawford, wing commander, said the group left from Asheville Sunday morning and rendezvoused with other CAP members in Wilmington, DE.
The mission's goal is to provided FEMA with photos of damages to property and infrastructure throughout Sandy's path.
CAP has been on standby since the storm approached the North coastline.
http://www.digtriad.com
Private pilots helping with Hurricane Sandy relief efforts: Delivering food and supplies to those in need
Elkhart, IN -- When Michael McConnell saw the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy, he felt the same heartbreak we all did.
"Like everyone, I was just stunned and amazed at how much destruction in such a heavy populated place," McConnell said. "You don't think of New York being hit with something like that."
McConnell is a private pilot from Peoria, Illinois who's helping out with relief efforts.
He flew into the Elkhart Municipal Airport early this morning to load up on supplies from the Elkhart Chapter of Feed The Children.
"Our mission is to help those in need," John Tracy, Distribution Center Manager, said.
Over 500 pounds of cereal and oatmeal was packed into this small carrier plane.
It's only part of what Feed The Children plans to do.
"In Elkhart alone, we're preparing about ten trailer loads of food and other personal care items to go into the devastated area," Tracy said.
Areas; planes can reach more easily than big trucks.
"Small aircrafts have a really big advantage," McConnell said. "We can get in and out, and get a lot of supplies there in a short amount of time."
After getting gassed up, McConnell started his engine, and was wheels up on his way to New Jersey.
"It's nice to have a mission," McConnell said. "It's nice to feel rewarded for helping to contribute even on a really small level like this."
He plans on making more delivery trips throughout the week.
Story and video: http://www.abc57.com
Cessna 310, N6BS: Accident occurred November 04, 2012 in Stotts City, Missouri
NTSB Identification: CEN13FA044
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, November 04, 2012 in Stotts City, MO
Probable Cause Approval Date: 01/30/2014
Aircraft: CESSNA 310, registration: N6BS
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
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.
The pilot and the pilot-rated passenger originally planned to make several circuits in the traffic pattern to test the right engine, which recently underwent extensive maintenance, before repositioning the airplane to a nearby airport. However, the flight was delayed to make an adjustment to the propeller lever friction lock. Because of the delay, the pilots departed after the sun had set and decided to fly directly to the other airport, which did not have runway lights. While en route, the right engine began to lose oil pressure and lost total power, so the pilot shut the engine down and feathered the propeller. The pilot elected to return to the departure airport, but was unable to maintain altitude. The airplane impacted trees and a postimpact fire consumed most of the airplane. According to witnesses, the airplane's nose gear landing strut was flat before departure and the pilots agreed they would leave the landing gear extended for the flight. Witnesses who saw the airplane just before impact confirmed the landing gear was extended.
Postaccident examination of the right engine revealed the oil filter adapter was not properly assembled or adequately secured to the engine. The mechanic who performed maintenance to the oil adapter admitted that he did not follow the manufacturer's instructions when reassembling the adapter and when installing it on the engine. As a result, the adapter came loose during flight, which resulted in a loss of oil. Based on the single-engine performance data provided by the airplane manufacturer, the airplane should have had a single-engine climb rate of about 166 feet per minute with the landing gear extended, assuming the airplane was properly configured and the operating engine was producing full power. Although the airplane did not have a current annual inspection, no mechanical malfunctions or failures were noted with the airplane or the left engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain airplane control after he shut down the right engine in flight due a loss of oil pressure. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's decision to reposition the unairworthy airplane during twilight after extensive maintenance had been done to the right engine along with a known mechanical deficiency with the landing gear. Contributing to the accident was the mechanic's improper assembly and installation of the right engine's oil filter adapter, which resulted in a loss of oil to that engine.
HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On November 4, 2012, approximately 1800 central standard time, N6BS, a twin-engine Cessna 310 airplane, was substantially damaged when it collided with trees and terrain near Stotts City, Missouri. The commercial pilot and the pilot rated passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot rated passenger. No flight plan was filed for the flight that originated from the Monett Regional Airport (HFJ), Monett, Missouri, about 1735, and destined for a private airstrip in Miller, Missouri. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the repositioning flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
According to a pilot rated witness, the airplane's right engine was recently overhauled and the accident flight was the first flight after the new engine was installed. He said the pilots had originally planned to fly to Miller on November 2nd, but had to postpone the flight because the left main landing gear brake was "soft" during the engine run-up. In addition to the left main landing gear brake problem, the nose landing gear strut was also flat.
According to the mechanic, who was hired to overhaul the engine, the pilot rated passenger asked him if he would fix the nose gear strut. The mechanic told him it would take at least a day to complete the repair. Since the owner planned to fly the airplane to Ohio later that week for a corrosion inspection; he told the mechanic he would have the gear fixed then. In the meantime, he would fly with the landing gear extended because he was concerned the gear would get stuck in the nose well. As a temporary fix, the mechanic used shop-air provided by the Monett Airport manager to inflate the nose gear strut.
The witness stated that the flight was re-scheduled for November 4th and he met both pilots at the Monett airport around 1700. During the preflight inspection, the pilots noted the nose gear strut was flat again and there was another discussion about keeping the gear extended for the flight. The two pilots boarded the accident airplane, started the engines, and taxied toward the runway. The airplane stopped on the taxiway and the engines were run-up three or four times. He said the pilots then taxied back to the hangar and shut the engines down. The pilot exited the airplane and said the right propeller was not "feathering" and needed to be fixed. The passenger called the same mechanic and asked him if he could look at the problem. The mechanic arrived 30-40 minutes later and opened the right inboard cowling on the right engine. About five minutes later, the mechanic said they were, "Good to go."
According to the mechanic, the pilot rated passenger called him at 1648 and told him that the right propeller control lever was not moving smoothly through its full range of travel. There was no mention that the propeller was not feathering. The mechanic said he was surprised that they were planning to do an engine flight test at night. About 30-40 minutes later he arrived at the Monett airport and opened up the right inboard cowling for the right engine. The mechanic asked one of the pilots to move the propeller control lever in the cockpit through its full range of travel. The mechanic said the arm on the propeller governor moved smoothly from stop to stop as the lever was moved. He told one of the pilots to adjust the friction lock for the lever, which eased the tightness of the lever. He also noticed the nose gear strut was flat again.
The witness said he heard the pilot and passenger discussing if they should postpone the flight because it was getting dark. They were originally going to make a few circuits around the traffic pattern before they flew to Miller. However, since they were delayed they agreed to just fly to Miller.
The pilots got back in the accident airplane; the pilot passenger sat in the front left seat and the pilot sat in the front right seat. Both engines started normally and the airplane taxied toward the runway where another long engine run-up on the taxiway was conducted, which included cycling the propeller several times. The witness also noted that only the airplane's beacon lights were turned on.
The mechanic also observed the airplane before it departed and provided a similar account of the engine run-up. He also confirmed that only the beacon lights were turned on.
After the accident airplane departed runway 18, the witness departed in another airplane and followed them to Miller, which was 24 miles north of Monett. The witness planned to fly the pilot and pilot rated passenger back to Monett after they dropped off the accident airplane.
The mechanic said that he was surprised when he saw the airplane heading north toward Miller because he thought they were going to stay in the traffic pattern to test the engine. He then called his assistant, who lived at the private airstrip in Miller, and told him that the accident airplane was headed that way.
In an interview, the assistant said he received a call from the mechanic at 1738. He was surprised that anyone would attempt to land on an unlighted grass airstrip at night. The assistant said that by the time he and his girlfriend walked over to the runway, he could see the airplane approaching from the west. Only the airplane's beacon lights were turned on and he could not tell if the landing gear were extended because it was too dark. The airplane was approximately 500 to-800 feet above the ground and in a level flying attitude. The assistant said both engines sounded normal and there was "nothing indicating any distress." The airplane then made a smooth right turn toward the south and maintained a constant altitude. As the airplane turned south, the assistant said he got a call from the owner of the airstrip asking if he would bring a fire extinguisher out to the airplane when it landed. The assistant said he grabbed a nearby extinguisher, but the airplane never returned.
The witness said that after he departed Monett airport, he established communication with the other pilots via a common air-to-air traffic frequency and made visual contact with the accident airplane. While en route, noted that the accident airplane was not on course for the private airstrip. The pilot rated passenger asked if they were heading in the right direction and the witness said they needed to correct 20-30 degrees back to the left. Shortly after, the pilot rated passenger said that "fuel or oil" was coming out of the right engine. He asked the witness to arrange for a fire extinguisher to be available when they landed, which he did. A few minutes later, the pilot rated passenger asked the witness where the private airstrip was located, and the witness told him they were "right on top of it." The pilot rated passenger then said they were losing oil pressure and were returning to Monett, followed by, "We shut the engine down." The witness responded, "Ok, I'll follow you." At this time, the witness said the accident airplane was turning from crosswind to downwind approximately 800-900 feet above the ground over the private airstrip. The witness said he then flew up along the right side of the accident airplane and noted that there was no smoke or fire coming from the engine. The witness then trailed back and to the right. He could not recall if the landing gear were extended, but did recall that the light on the nose gear was turned on.
According to the witness, when the accident airplane was approximately 1 mile south of the private airstrip, the passenger announced, "110 knots" over the radio frequency. About 30 seconds later, the passenger said they were having trouble gaining altitude followed by they were not able to maintain altitude. The passenger then asked the witness for a vector to Mount Vernon Airport. The witness responded that it was 127 degrees and 4 miles, and he turned the runway lights on for them. The passenger again informed the witness that they were not able to maintain altitude. The witness said he could see the airplane losing altitude and advised them that Interstate 44 was one mile ahead. The pilot then announced they were going to land on the interstate.
The witness said the accident airplane continued to lose altitude. The passenger then said, "Oh my God, I think we are going to crash." This statement was followed by, "We're going to crash." The witness said he saw the light on the accident airplane's nose gear illuminate the trees in front of them. Then the nose of the airplane pitched up, rolled slightly to the right, and then pitched forward, followed by flames and a fireball.
Several people on the ground also witnessed the accident. One witness stated that he was at his home located about 1 mile northeast of the accident site when he first heard the airplane. He ran out on to his porch and established visual contact with the airplane. The airplane was descending toward the south, and the wings were "rocking" side to side. He said a bright "spotlight" was turned on at the bottom of the airplane. The witness, who was a diesel engine mechanic, said it sounded like only one of the airplane's engines was running, but he could not confirm which engine. He described the sound of the engine as revving up and down as if the pilot was "jockey-ing" the throttle. There was no smoke or fire trailing behind the airplane. The airplane then "dropped down" toward trees and the "throttle went wide open." Finally, the airplane "leaned off to the side" and he heard the sound of the airplane impacting the trees followed by two explosions. The witness saw a large cloud of black smoke and immediately went to the accident site.
A second ground witness stated that he was walking out of the woods after hunting about 6-7 miles north of the accident site when he saw two airplanes flying south and were about 100 yards apart from each other. He said there was no smoke or fire trailing either airplane and both had their lights turned on. The witness said the "airplane on the right" had a "very bright spotlight" turned on. Both airplanes were 500 feet or higher above the ground and he did not hear the engines. The witness said he could not see any landing gear because it was "too dark outside."
Another ground witness stated he was driving in his truck about ¾-mile north of the accident site when he first heard and saw the airplane. He said it flew directly over-head and was heading due south approximately 600 feet above the ground. The witness said it was dusk, around 1800, but still light outside. He said the airplane was descending in level flight and "the engine" was revving up and down. There was no smoke or fire trailing the airplane. He did not see any lights on the airplane, and thought the landing gear was extended. He said the airplane disappeared out of his view behind a house and made a "hard right bank." The witness did not see the airplane impact terrain but did see a large fireball moments later.
PILOT INFORMATION
The pilot held a commercial pilot certificate for airplane single and multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. He was also a certified flight instructor for airplane single and multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. In addition, he held an airframe and power plant (A&P) certificate. A review of his logbook revealed that as of October 6, 2012, he had a total of 3,299 flight hours; 411 hours in multi-engine airplanes, of which, 102 hours were in a Cessna 310.
The pilot rated passenger held a private pilot certificate for airplane single-engine land, and instrument airplane. A review of his logbook revealed that as of September 28, 2012, he had a total of 1,621.8 hours; of which, all 10.6 hours of multi-engine time were in the accident airplane.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
A review of the airplane's maintenance logbooks revealed the accident airplane did not have a current annual inspection as required by Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 91.409. The last annual inspection was completed on August 10, 2010, at a total time of 4,549.7 hours.
In September 2011, the airplane's previous owner hired a mechanic based in Arkansas to perform an annual inspection. According to the mechanic, the airplane was unairworthy because the nose-jack point had collapsed into the belly of the airplane and "a lot" of corrosion was found in the forward cabin bulkhead. Two Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors from the Little Rock Flight Standards District Office also examined the airplane and concurred that the airplane was unairworthy. The mechanic entered the unairworthy items in the aircraft logbook and made an endorsement that the airplane was "safe" to be ferried back to Missouri with the "gear down only." The FAA issued the owner a "Special Flight Permit" for this flight on November 10, 2011.
The passenger purchased the airplane in January 2012 and according to FAA records, was registered on April 2, 2012. At some point, the airplane was flown to Miami, Oklahoma, for an annual inspection. According to the aircraft logbook, on February 12, 2012, the mechanic that was hired to perform the inspection wrote, "No corrosion of significant airworthy found," but did observe "buckling caused by improper jacking not airworthy condition." According to the FAA, there were no records that a ferry permit was issued for the flight to or from Miami, Oklahoma. A review of both pilot's logbooks revealed the airplane was flown a total of 8 times after the last "Special Flight Permit" was issued in 2011.
The mechanic, who was hired to overhaul the engine, said he talked to the pilot on November 2nd, before the first planned test flight regarding the work he had performed on the engine. The mechanic said he had the right engine logbook, yellow tags and the engine data plate spread out on the horizontal stabilizer for the pilot to review, since he was also a mechanic. However, he said the pilot never looked at the logbook. He told the pilot that he had not "signed off" on the overhaul and was waiting for some older components to be replaced in addition to the flight test. At that time, he planned to sign off the work as a repair only. The mechanic said that after they talked, he gave the pilot the logbook along with the yellow tags and engine data plate because the pilot said the pilot rated passenger, who owned the airplane, wanted to review them. After the accident, the mechanic turned over the airplane's remaining maintenance logbooks that he had in his possession. The right engine logbook was never located.
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
At 1753, the automated weather report at Joplin Regional Airport (JLN), Joplin, Missouri, about 24 miles west of the accident site, was reported as wind from 120 degrees at 3 knots, clear skies, temperature 13 degrees Celsius, dewpoint 3 degrees Celsius, and a barometric pressure setting of 30.08 inches of mercury.
WRECKAGE INFORMATION
The airplane collided with a stand of tall trees and traveled approximately 100 feet on a heading of 182 degrees before it came to rest on a pile of wooden planks and other debris. A post-impact fire consumed most of the cockpit, fuselage, and portions of both wings and the tail section. Impact marks on the trees were progressively lower along the wreckage path. Examination of the airplane revealed the flaps were in the retracted position and the landing gear were extended out of their respective wheel wells. Each of the wing mounted landing lights were found retracted. Both engines had separated from the airplane. The right propeller assembly had separated from the engine and was partially buried in the ground. The propeller blades were found in the feathered position. The left propeller assembly remained on the left engine. Both blades exhibited aft bending and leading edge damage.
Both engines were examined at Continental Motors Incorporated, Mobile, Alabama, on December 11-12, 2012, under the supervision of the National Transportation Safety Board Investigator-in-Charge (NTSB IIC).
External examination of the right engine revealed impact and thermal damage. The oil cooler; magnetos, vacuum pump, starter adapter, oil pump, and pressurized carburetor remained attached to the engine. The oil filter adapter was not properly attached to the engine and was not properly secured. There was also a thin coating of oil on the crankcase around the fitting. Approximately 2 quarts of dark oil were drained from the oil sump. There was a small breach in the sump from impact damage near the drain plug. The breach was on the seam of a weld point.
The adapter was not original to the engine and wasinstalled on the engine per supplemental type certificate (STC) (SE09356SC). Examination of the adapter revealed it was not properly safety-wired to the engine as per the installation instructions in the STC and was loose. The adapter was removed from the engine and disassembled. Two copper crush rings (gaskets) were found on the oil transfer cylinder. According to the STC, only one copper crush ring was to be used and a fiber leak-guard gasket was to be used at the base of the adapter. According to the STC holder, F&M Enterprises, Inc., if a fiber leak-guard gasket was not used, the oil adapter would leak due to an insufficient seal.
A test was conducted to determine what signatures would be made on a copper crush ring if it was installed at the base of the adapter using the suggested torque values per the STC. These signatures/dimensions were then compared to the ones left on the copper gasket originally found inside the adapter. A new copper crush ring was measured (.090-inches-wide) and placed on the right engine oil adapter. It was then torqued to the STC suggested torque value of 65 foot-pounds (ft/lbs) with a calibrated torque wrench. The ring was removed and measured (.052 inches-wide). There were also visible groves embedded in the copper material from the ridged grooves machined into the base of the adapter.
The original bottom copper crush ring found inside the right engine oil adapter measured approximately .074-inches wide. This ring and the test copper crush rings were examined under a microscope. The original ring did not exhibit the visible grooves observed on the test ring. Some groves were visible around 1/3 of the ring but were not as deep or pronounced as on the test ring.
According to the STC holder of the oil adapter, ridges were machined on the base of the adapter to help grab on to the fiber leak-guard gasket and create a better seal. When the fiber gasket gets oil soaked it expands and creates a better seal.
The test confirmed that the improperly installed original bottom copper crush ring did not exhibit the signatures or dimensions that would be created if it had been installed at the proper torque value.
Examination of the oil pump revealed that the tachometer drive adapter was sealed with silk thread. The threading observed on the oil pump was compared to the manufacturer's threading diagram presented in Service Information Letter (SIL99-2). The threading observed on the oil pump did not match, which could result in an oil leak.
Both magnetos were placed on a test bench and functioned normally.
Examination of the crankshaft, rods, bearings, camshaft, cranks case, pistons and cylinder assemblies revealed no mechanical anomalies.
External examination of the left engine revealed impact and extensive thermal damage. The oil cooler; magnetos, vacuum pump, starter adapter, oil pump, and pressurized carburetor remained attached to the engine. The oil filter adapter was still attached to the engine but the fitting was no tproperly secured and could be manually moved. No safety wire was noted on either the adapter or filter. Disassembly of the oil pump revealed that it too was not threaded properly. However, there were no mechanical malfunctions with the engine that would have precluded normal operation.
In a follow up interview with the mechanic, he said that he had removed the oil filter adapter from the right engine; disassembled the unit, replaced the gaskets with the copper gaskets, then reassembled the adapter and installed it back on the engine. He did not reference the STC instructions and did not use a torque wrench to tighten the adapter to the engine. He said he tightened it to "feel" what he thought was an industry standard of 60 ft/lbs. He said he also did not reference the STC installation instructions when applying the safety-wire. The mechanic also stated that he disassembled the oil pump and re-threaded the case. However, he did not reference the threading diagram presented in Continental Motors Incorporated (formerly Teledyne Continental Motors) Service Information Letter (SIL99-2).
MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION
An autopsy was conducted on the pilot by Southwest Missouri Forensics, Nixa, Missouri, on November 6, 2013. The cause of death was determined to be, "Exsanguination secondary to aortic laceration induced by blunt force trauma to the chest in an airplane crash."
Toxicological testing was conducted by the FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The results were positive for the following:
>34 (ug/ml, ug/g) Acetaminophen detected in urine
>0.013 (ug/ml. ug/g) Chlorpheniramine detected in blood (cavity)
>Chlorpheniramine detected in urine
>Salicylate detected in urine
Although Chlorpheniramine can be impairing, a review of the toxicology results by the NTSB Medical Officer found that the low level of Chlorpheniramine identified in post mortem cavity blood was unlikely to have contributed to the accident.
An autopsy was conducted on the pilot rated passenger by Southwest Missouri Forensics, Nixa, Missouri, on November 6, 2013. The cause of death was determined to be, "Cardiac arrhythmia secondary to myocardial hypoxia caused by hypoxemia due to the combined effects of multiple bilateral rib fractures (flail chest) and cardiac lacerations induced by blunt force trauma to the chest in an airplane crash."
Toxicological testing was conducted by the FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The results were negative for drugs and alcohol.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A review of the 1956 Cessna 310 Owner's Manual revealed the single-engine climb-data chart only calculated single-engine climb rates with the flaps and gear retracted. The chart also assumed the inoperative propeller was feathered, and the wing was banked 5 degrees toward the operating engine, which would have to be at full throttle (2600 RPM) and leaned for best power. When the chart was interpolated for these and other conditions that existed at the time of the accident, the accident airplane would have had an approximate rate of climb of 566 feet per minute (ft/min). According to Cessna, the single-engine climb rate penalty if the gear was extended would have been about 400 ft/min. Based on this data, the accident airplane would have had a single-engine climb rate of about 166 ft/min at the time of the accident assuming the airplane was properly configured and the operating engine was producing full power.
http://registry.faa.gov/N6BS
NTSB Identification: CEN13FA044
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, November 04, 2012 in Stotts City, MO
Aircraft: CESSNA 310, registration: N6BS
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. 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 November 4, 2012, approximately 1800 Central Standard Time, N6BS, a twin-engine Cessna 310 airplane, was substantially damaged when it collided with trees and terrain near Stotts City, Missouri. The commercial pilot and the pilot rated passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot rated passenger. No flight plan was filed for the flight that originated from the Monett Regional Airport (HFY), Monett, Missouri, approximately 1735, and was destined for a private airstrip in Miller, Missouri. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the repositioning flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
According to a witness, who was a friend of both pilots, he said the airplane’s right engine was recently overhauled and this was the first flight after the new engine was installed. He said the pilots had originally planned to fly to Miller on November 2nd, but had to postpone the flight because the left main landing gear brake was “soft” during the engine run-up. The witness, who was also a pilot, said that in addition to the left main landing gear brake problem, the nose landing gear strut was also flat. According to the mechanic, who was hired to overhaul the engine, the pilot rated passenger asked him if he would fix the nose gear. The mechanic told him it would take at least a day to do the repair. Since the owner planned to fly the airplane to Ohio later that week for a corrosion inspection; he told the mechanic he would have the gear fixed then. In the meantime, he would have to fly with the landing gear extended or “stiff-legged” because he was concerned the gear would get stuck in the nose well. As a temporary fix, the mechanic used shop-air provided by the Monett Airport manager to inflate the nose strut.
The witness said the flight was re-scheduled for November 4th and he met both pilots at the Monett airport around 1700. During the preflight inspection, the pilots noted the nose gear strut was flat again and there was another discussion about keeping the gear extended for the flight. The witness said the two pilots boarded the accident airplane, started the engines, and taxied toward the runway. The airplane stopped on the taxiway and the engines were run-up three or four times. He said the pilots then taxied back to the hangar and shut the engines down. The commercial pilot got out of the airplane and said the right engine was not “feathering” and it needed to be fixed. The pilot rated passenger called the same mechanic and asked him if he could look at the problem. The mechanic arrived 30-40 minutes later and opened the right inboard cowling on the right engine. About five minutes later, the mechanic said they were, “Good to go.”
According to the mechanic, the pilot rated passenger called him at 1648 and told him that the right propeller control lever was not moving smoothly through its full range of travel. There was no mention that the propeller was not feathering. The mechanic said he was surprised that they were planning to do an engine flight test at night. About 30-40 minutes later he arrived at the Monett airport and opened up the right inboard cowling for the right engine. The mechanic asked one of the pilots to move the propeller control lever in the cockpit through its full range of travel. The mechanic said the arm on the propeller governor moved smoothly from stop to stop as the lever was moved. He told one of the pilots to adjust the friction lock for the lever, which eased the tightness of the lever. He also noticed the nose gear strut was flat again.
The witness said he heard the two pilots discussing if they should postpone the flight because it was getting dark. They originally were going to make a few circuits around the traffic pattern before they flew to Miller. However, since they were delayed they agreed to just fly to Miller.
The witness said the pilots got back in the accident airplane;the pilot rated passenger got in the front left seat and the commercial pilot sat in the front right seat. Both engines started normally. The airplane taxied toward the runway and did another long engine run-up on the taxiway, which included cycling the propeller several times. The witness also noted that only the airplane’s beacon lights were turned on.
The mechanic provided a similar account of the engine run-up and also confirmed that only the beacon lights were turned on.
After the accident airplane departed Runway 18, the witness departed in another airplane and followed them to Miller.
The mechanic said that he was surprised when he saw the airplane heading north toward Miller because he thought they were going to stay in the traffic pattern to test the engine. He then called his assistant, who lives at the private airstrip in Miller, and told him that the accident airplane was headed that way.
In an interview, the assistant said he received a call from the mechanic at 1738. He was surprised that anyone would attempt to land on an unlighted grass airstrip at night. The assistant said that by the time he and his girlfriend walked over to the runway, he could see the airplane approaching from the west. Only the airplane’s beacon lights were turned on and he could not tell if the landing gear were extended because it was too dark. The airplane was approximately 500-800 feet above the ground and in a level flying attitude. The assistant said both engines sounded normal and there was “nothing indicating any distress.” The airplane then made a smooth right turn toward the south and maintained a constant altitude. As the airplane turned south, the assistant said he got a call from the owner of the airstrip and asked if he would bring a fire extinguisher out to the airplane when it landed. The assistant said he grabbed a nearby extinguisher, but the airplane never returned.
According to the witness, once he departed Monett airport, he established communication with the other pilots via a common air-to-air traffic frequency and made visual contact with the accident airplane. While en route, the witness noted that the accident airplane was not on course for the private airstrip. The pilot rated passenger asked if they were heading in the right direction and the witness said they needed to correct 20-30 degrees back to the left. Shortly after, the pilot rated passenger said that “fuel or oil” were coming out of the right engine. He asked the witness to arrange for a fire extinguisher to be available when they landed, which he did. A few minutes later, the pilot rated passenger asked the witness where the private airstrip was located, and the witness told him they were "right on top of it". The pilot rated passenger said they informed him that they were losing oil pressure and were returning to Monett, followed by, “We shut the engine down.” The witness responded, “Ok, I’ll follow you.” At this time, the witness said the accident airplane was turning from crosswind to downwind approximately 800-900 feet above the ground. The witness said he then flew up along the right side of the accident airplane and noted that there was no smoke or fire coming from the engine. The witness then trailed back and to the right. He could not recall if the landing gear were extended, but did recall that the light on the nose gear was turned on.
According to the witness, when the accident airplane was approximately a mile south of the private strip, the pilot rated passenger announced, “110 knots.” About 30 seconds later, he said they were having trouble gaining altitude followed by they were not able to maintain altitude. The pilot rated passenger then asked the witness for a vector to Mount Vernon Airport. The witness responded that it was 127 degrees and 4 miles, and he turned the runway lights on for them. The pilot rated passenger again informed the witness that they were not able to maintain altitude. The witness said he could see the airplane losing altitude and advised them that Interstate 44 was one mile ahead. The commercial pilot then announced they were going to land on the interstate.
The witness said the accident airplane continued to lose altitude. The pilot rated passenger then said, “Oh my God, I think we are going to crash.” This was followed by, “We’re going to crash.” The witness said he saw the light on the accident airplane's nose gear come on (the witness thought the light had been turned off at some point) and illuminate the trees in front of them. He then said the nose of the airplane pitched up, rolled slightly to the right, and then pitched forward, followed by flames and a fireball.
The airplane collided with a stand of tall trees and traveled approximately 100 feet on a heading of 185 degrees before it came to rest on a large pile of wooden planks and other debris. A post-impact fire consumed most of the cockpit, fuselage, and portions of both wings and the tail section. The entire airplane was accounted for at the site. From the initial impact point to where the wreckage came to rest, impact marks on the trees became progressively lower along the airplane's direction of travel.
Examination of the airplane revealed the flaps were in the retracted position and the main landing gear were out of the wheel wells. Each of the wing mounted landing lights were found retracted. Both engines had separated from the airplane. The right propeller assembly had separated from the engine and was partially buried in the ground. The two-bladed propeller was found in the feathered position. The left propeller assembly remained on the engine. Both blades exhibited aft bending and leading edge damage. Both engines were retained for further examination.
The commercial pilot held a commercial pilot certificate for airplane single and multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. He was also a certified flight instructor for airplane single and multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. In addition, he held an airframe and power plant certificate. A review of his logbook revealed that as of October 6, 2012, he had a total of 3,299 flight hours; 411 hours in multi-engine airplanes, of which, 102 hours were in a Cessna 310.
The pilot rated passenger held a private pilot certificate for airplane single-engine land, and instrument airplane. A review of his logbook revealed that as of September 28, 2012, he had a total of 1,621.8 hours; of which, all 10.6 hours of multi-engine time were in the accident airplane.
Weather at Joplin Regional Airport (JLN), Joplin, Missouri, about 24 miles west of the accident site at 1753, was reported as wind from 120 degrees at 3 knots, clear skies, temperature 13 degrees Celsius, dewpoint 3 degrees Celsius, and barometric pressure setting of 30.08 inches of Hg.
STOTTS CITY, Mo. — Investigators today were working to determine what caused a twin-engine airplane to crash Sunday night near Stotts City, killing two people.
The victims have not been identified by county or federal investigators, pending the results of autopsies that are planned for Tuesday.
The National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration have been notified of the crash, local authorities said. Information about the plane’s origin and its intended destination were not immediately available from those agencies.
Sgt. Mike Watson, with the Missouri State Highway Patrol, said the plane went down shortly after 6 p.m. in a wooded area near Route F, four miles west of Stotts City in Lawrence County.
Don Lakin, with Lakin Funeral Home, Pierce City, said the bodies were received by the funeral home and that autopsies will be conducted on Tuesday.
“We are not sure we will have the names of the victims even then,’’ said Lakin.
Lakin said dental records will be used to identify the victims.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, November 04, 2012 in Stotts City, MO
Probable Cause Approval Date: 01/30/2014
Aircraft: CESSNA 310, registration: N6BS
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
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.
The pilot and the pilot-rated passenger originally planned to make several circuits in the traffic pattern to test the right engine, which recently underwent extensive maintenance, before repositioning the airplane to a nearby airport. However, the flight was delayed to make an adjustment to the propeller lever friction lock. Because of the delay, the pilots departed after the sun had set and decided to fly directly to the other airport, which did not have runway lights. While en route, the right engine began to lose oil pressure and lost total power, so the pilot shut the engine down and feathered the propeller. The pilot elected to return to the departure airport, but was unable to maintain altitude. The airplane impacted trees and a postimpact fire consumed most of the airplane. According to witnesses, the airplane's nose gear landing strut was flat before departure and the pilots agreed they would leave the landing gear extended for the flight. Witnesses who saw the airplane just before impact confirmed the landing gear was extended.
Postaccident examination of the right engine revealed the oil filter adapter was not properly assembled or adequately secured to the engine. The mechanic who performed maintenance to the oil adapter admitted that he did not follow the manufacturer's instructions when reassembling the adapter and when installing it on the engine. As a result, the adapter came loose during flight, which resulted in a loss of oil. Based on the single-engine performance data provided by the airplane manufacturer, the airplane should have had a single-engine climb rate of about 166 feet per minute with the landing gear extended, assuming the airplane was properly configured and the operating engine was producing full power. Although the airplane did not have a current annual inspection, no mechanical malfunctions or failures were noted with the airplane or the left engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain airplane control after he shut down the right engine in flight due a loss of oil pressure. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's decision to reposition the unairworthy airplane during twilight after extensive maintenance had been done to the right engine along with a known mechanical deficiency with the landing gear. Contributing to the accident was the mechanic's improper assembly and installation of the right engine's oil filter adapter, which resulted in a loss of oil to that engine.
HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On November 4, 2012, approximately 1800 central standard time, N6BS, a twin-engine Cessna 310 airplane, was substantially damaged when it collided with trees and terrain near Stotts City, Missouri. The commercial pilot and the pilot rated passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot rated passenger. No flight plan was filed for the flight that originated from the Monett Regional Airport (HFJ), Monett, Missouri, about 1735, and destined for a private airstrip in Miller, Missouri. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the repositioning flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
According to a pilot rated witness, the airplane's right engine was recently overhauled and the accident flight was the first flight after the new engine was installed. He said the pilots had originally planned to fly to Miller on November 2nd, but had to postpone the flight because the left main landing gear brake was "soft" during the engine run-up. In addition to the left main landing gear brake problem, the nose landing gear strut was also flat.
According to the mechanic, who was hired to overhaul the engine, the pilot rated passenger asked him if he would fix the nose gear strut. The mechanic told him it would take at least a day to complete the repair. Since the owner planned to fly the airplane to Ohio later that week for a corrosion inspection; he told the mechanic he would have the gear fixed then. In the meantime, he would fly with the landing gear extended because he was concerned the gear would get stuck in the nose well. As a temporary fix, the mechanic used shop-air provided by the Monett Airport manager to inflate the nose gear strut.
The witness stated that the flight was re-scheduled for November 4th and he met both pilots at the Monett airport around 1700. During the preflight inspection, the pilots noted the nose gear strut was flat again and there was another discussion about keeping the gear extended for the flight. The two pilots boarded the accident airplane, started the engines, and taxied toward the runway. The airplane stopped on the taxiway and the engines were run-up three or four times. He said the pilots then taxied back to the hangar and shut the engines down. The pilot exited the airplane and said the right propeller was not "feathering" and needed to be fixed. The passenger called the same mechanic and asked him if he could look at the problem. The mechanic arrived 30-40 minutes later and opened the right inboard cowling on the right engine. About five minutes later, the mechanic said they were, "Good to go."
According to the mechanic, the pilot rated passenger called him at 1648 and told him that the right propeller control lever was not moving smoothly through its full range of travel. There was no mention that the propeller was not feathering. The mechanic said he was surprised that they were planning to do an engine flight test at night. About 30-40 minutes later he arrived at the Monett airport and opened up the right inboard cowling for the right engine. The mechanic asked one of the pilots to move the propeller control lever in the cockpit through its full range of travel. The mechanic said the arm on the propeller governor moved smoothly from stop to stop as the lever was moved. He told one of the pilots to adjust the friction lock for the lever, which eased the tightness of the lever. He also noticed the nose gear strut was flat again.
The witness said he heard the pilot and passenger discussing if they should postpone the flight because it was getting dark. They were originally going to make a few circuits around the traffic pattern before they flew to Miller. However, since they were delayed they agreed to just fly to Miller.
The pilots got back in the accident airplane; the pilot passenger sat in the front left seat and the pilot sat in the front right seat. Both engines started normally and the airplane taxied toward the runway where another long engine run-up on the taxiway was conducted, which included cycling the propeller several times. The witness also noted that only the airplane's beacon lights were turned on.
The mechanic also observed the airplane before it departed and provided a similar account of the engine run-up. He also confirmed that only the beacon lights were turned on.
After the accident airplane departed runway 18, the witness departed in another airplane and followed them to Miller, which was 24 miles north of Monett. The witness planned to fly the pilot and pilot rated passenger back to Monett after they dropped off the accident airplane.
The mechanic said that he was surprised when he saw the airplane heading north toward Miller because he thought they were going to stay in the traffic pattern to test the engine. He then called his assistant, who lived at the private airstrip in Miller, and told him that the accident airplane was headed that way.
In an interview, the assistant said he received a call from the mechanic at 1738. He was surprised that anyone would attempt to land on an unlighted grass airstrip at night. The assistant said that by the time he and his girlfriend walked over to the runway, he could see the airplane approaching from the west. Only the airplane's beacon lights were turned on and he could not tell if the landing gear were extended because it was too dark. The airplane was approximately 500 to-800 feet above the ground and in a level flying attitude. The assistant said both engines sounded normal and there was "nothing indicating any distress." The airplane then made a smooth right turn toward the south and maintained a constant altitude. As the airplane turned south, the assistant said he got a call from the owner of the airstrip asking if he would bring a fire extinguisher out to the airplane when it landed. The assistant said he grabbed a nearby extinguisher, but the airplane never returned.
The witness said that after he departed Monett airport, he established communication with the other pilots via a common air-to-air traffic frequency and made visual contact with the accident airplane. While en route, noted that the accident airplane was not on course for the private airstrip. The pilot rated passenger asked if they were heading in the right direction and the witness said they needed to correct 20-30 degrees back to the left. Shortly after, the pilot rated passenger said that "fuel or oil" was coming out of the right engine. He asked the witness to arrange for a fire extinguisher to be available when they landed, which he did. A few minutes later, the pilot rated passenger asked the witness where the private airstrip was located, and the witness told him they were "right on top of it." The pilot rated passenger then said they were losing oil pressure and were returning to Monett, followed by, "We shut the engine down." The witness responded, "Ok, I'll follow you." At this time, the witness said the accident airplane was turning from crosswind to downwind approximately 800-900 feet above the ground over the private airstrip. The witness said he then flew up along the right side of the accident airplane and noted that there was no smoke or fire coming from the engine. The witness then trailed back and to the right. He could not recall if the landing gear were extended, but did recall that the light on the nose gear was turned on.
According to the witness, when the accident airplane was approximately 1 mile south of the private airstrip, the passenger announced, "110 knots" over the radio frequency. About 30 seconds later, the passenger said they were having trouble gaining altitude followed by they were not able to maintain altitude. The passenger then asked the witness for a vector to Mount Vernon Airport. The witness responded that it was 127 degrees and 4 miles, and he turned the runway lights on for them. The passenger again informed the witness that they were not able to maintain altitude. The witness said he could see the airplane losing altitude and advised them that Interstate 44 was one mile ahead. The pilot then announced they were going to land on the interstate.
The witness said the accident airplane continued to lose altitude. The passenger then said, "Oh my God, I think we are going to crash." This statement was followed by, "We're going to crash." The witness said he saw the light on the accident airplane's nose gear illuminate the trees in front of them. Then the nose of the airplane pitched up, rolled slightly to the right, and then pitched forward, followed by flames and a fireball.
Several people on the ground also witnessed the accident. One witness stated that he was at his home located about 1 mile northeast of the accident site when he first heard the airplane. He ran out on to his porch and established visual contact with the airplane. The airplane was descending toward the south, and the wings were "rocking" side to side. He said a bright "spotlight" was turned on at the bottom of the airplane. The witness, who was a diesel engine mechanic, said it sounded like only one of the airplane's engines was running, but he could not confirm which engine. He described the sound of the engine as revving up and down as if the pilot was "jockey-ing" the throttle. There was no smoke or fire trailing behind the airplane. The airplane then "dropped down" toward trees and the "throttle went wide open." Finally, the airplane "leaned off to the side" and he heard the sound of the airplane impacting the trees followed by two explosions. The witness saw a large cloud of black smoke and immediately went to the accident site.
A second ground witness stated that he was walking out of the woods after hunting about 6-7 miles north of the accident site when he saw two airplanes flying south and were about 100 yards apart from each other. He said there was no smoke or fire trailing either airplane and both had their lights turned on. The witness said the "airplane on the right" had a "very bright spotlight" turned on. Both airplanes were 500 feet or higher above the ground and he did not hear the engines. The witness said he could not see any landing gear because it was "too dark outside."
Another ground witness stated he was driving in his truck about ¾-mile north of the accident site when he first heard and saw the airplane. He said it flew directly over-head and was heading due south approximately 600 feet above the ground. The witness said it was dusk, around 1800, but still light outside. He said the airplane was descending in level flight and "the engine" was revving up and down. There was no smoke or fire trailing the airplane. He did not see any lights on the airplane, and thought the landing gear was extended. He said the airplane disappeared out of his view behind a house and made a "hard right bank." The witness did not see the airplane impact terrain but did see a large fireball moments later.
PILOT INFORMATION
The pilot held a commercial pilot certificate for airplane single and multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. He was also a certified flight instructor for airplane single and multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. In addition, he held an airframe and power plant (A&P) certificate. A review of his logbook revealed that as of October 6, 2012, he had a total of 3,299 flight hours; 411 hours in multi-engine airplanes, of which, 102 hours were in a Cessna 310.
The pilot rated passenger held a private pilot certificate for airplane single-engine land, and instrument airplane. A review of his logbook revealed that as of September 28, 2012, he had a total of 1,621.8 hours; of which, all 10.6 hours of multi-engine time were in the accident airplane.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
A review of the airplane's maintenance logbooks revealed the accident airplane did not have a current annual inspection as required by Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 91.409. The last annual inspection was completed on August 10, 2010, at a total time of 4,549.7 hours.
In September 2011, the airplane's previous owner hired a mechanic based in Arkansas to perform an annual inspection. According to the mechanic, the airplane was unairworthy because the nose-jack point had collapsed into the belly of the airplane and "a lot" of corrosion was found in the forward cabin bulkhead. Two Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors from the Little Rock Flight Standards District Office also examined the airplane and concurred that the airplane was unairworthy. The mechanic entered the unairworthy items in the aircraft logbook and made an endorsement that the airplane was "safe" to be ferried back to Missouri with the "gear down only." The FAA issued the owner a "Special Flight Permit" for this flight on November 10, 2011.
The passenger purchased the airplane in January 2012 and according to FAA records, was registered on April 2, 2012. At some point, the airplane was flown to Miami, Oklahoma, for an annual inspection. According to the aircraft logbook, on February 12, 2012, the mechanic that was hired to perform the inspection wrote, "No corrosion of significant airworthy found," but did observe "buckling caused by improper jacking not airworthy condition." According to the FAA, there were no records that a ferry permit was issued for the flight to or from Miami, Oklahoma. A review of both pilot's logbooks revealed the airplane was flown a total of 8 times after the last "Special Flight Permit" was issued in 2011.
The mechanic, who was hired to overhaul the engine, said he talked to the pilot on November 2nd, before the first planned test flight regarding the work he had performed on the engine. The mechanic said he had the right engine logbook, yellow tags and the engine data plate spread out on the horizontal stabilizer for the pilot to review, since he was also a mechanic. However, he said the pilot never looked at the logbook. He told the pilot that he had not "signed off" on the overhaul and was waiting for some older components to be replaced in addition to the flight test. At that time, he planned to sign off the work as a repair only. The mechanic said that after they talked, he gave the pilot the logbook along with the yellow tags and engine data plate because the pilot said the pilot rated passenger, who owned the airplane, wanted to review them. After the accident, the mechanic turned over the airplane's remaining maintenance logbooks that he had in his possession. The right engine logbook was never located.
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
At 1753, the automated weather report at Joplin Regional Airport (JLN), Joplin, Missouri, about 24 miles west of the accident site, was reported as wind from 120 degrees at 3 knots, clear skies, temperature 13 degrees Celsius, dewpoint 3 degrees Celsius, and a barometric pressure setting of 30.08 inches of mercury.
WRECKAGE INFORMATION
The airplane collided with a stand of tall trees and traveled approximately 100 feet on a heading of 182 degrees before it came to rest on a pile of wooden planks and other debris. A post-impact fire consumed most of the cockpit, fuselage, and portions of both wings and the tail section. Impact marks on the trees were progressively lower along the wreckage path. Examination of the airplane revealed the flaps were in the retracted position and the landing gear were extended out of their respective wheel wells. Each of the wing mounted landing lights were found retracted. Both engines had separated from the airplane. The right propeller assembly had separated from the engine and was partially buried in the ground. The propeller blades were found in the feathered position. The left propeller assembly remained on the left engine. Both blades exhibited aft bending and leading edge damage.
Both engines were examined at Continental Motors Incorporated, Mobile, Alabama, on December 11-12, 2012, under the supervision of the National Transportation Safety Board Investigator-in-Charge (NTSB IIC).
External examination of the right engine revealed impact and thermal damage. The oil cooler; magnetos, vacuum pump, starter adapter, oil pump, and pressurized carburetor remained attached to the engine. The oil filter adapter was not properly attached to the engine and was not properly secured. There was also a thin coating of oil on the crankcase around the fitting. Approximately 2 quarts of dark oil were drained from the oil sump. There was a small breach in the sump from impact damage near the drain plug. The breach was on the seam of a weld point.
The adapter was not original to the engine and wasinstalled on the engine per supplemental type certificate (STC) (SE09356SC). Examination of the adapter revealed it was not properly safety-wired to the engine as per the installation instructions in the STC and was loose. The adapter was removed from the engine and disassembled. Two copper crush rings (gaskets) were found on the oil transfer cylinder. According to the STC, only one copper crush ring was to be used and a fiber leak-guard gasket was to be used at the base of the adapter. According to the STC holder, F&M Enterprises, Inc., if a fiber leak-guard gasket was not used, the oil adapter would leak due to an insufficient seal.
A test was conducted to determine what signatures would be made on a copper crush ring if it was installed at the base of the adapter using the suggested torque values per the STC. These signatures/dimensions were then compared to the ones left on the copper gasket originally found inside the adapter. A new copper crush ring was measured (.090-inches-wide) and placed on the right engine oil adapter. It was then torqued to the STC suggested torque value of 65 foot-pounds (ft/lbs) with a calibrated torque wrench. The ring was removed and measured (.052 inches-wide). There were also visible groves embedded in the copper material from the ridged grooves machined into the base of the adapter.
The original bottom copper crush ring found inside the right engine oil adapter measured approximately .074-inches wide. This ring and the test copper crush rings were examined under a microscope. The original ring did not exhibit the visible grooves observed on the test ring. Some groves were visible around 1/3 of the ring but were not as deep or pronounced as on the test ring.
According to the STC holder of the oil adapter, ridges were machined on the base of the adapter to help grab on to the fiber leak-guard gasket and create a better seal. When the fiber gasket gets oil soaked it expands and creates a better seal.
The test confirmed that the improperly installed original bottom copper crush ring did not exhibit the signatures or dimensions that would be created if it had been installed at the proper torque value.
Examination of the oil pump revealed that the tachometer drive adapter was sealed with silk thread. The threading observed on the oil pump was compared to the manufacturer's threading diagram presented in Service Information Letter (SIL99-2). The threading observed on the oil pump did not match, which could result in an oil leak.
Both magnetos were placed on a test bench and functioned normally.
Examination of the crankshaft, rods, bearings, camshaft, cranks case, pistons and cylinder assemblies revealed no mechanical anomalies.
External examination of the left engine revealed impact and extensive thermal damage. The oil cooler; magnetos, vacuum pump, starter adapter, oil pump, and pressurized carburetor remained attached to the engine. The oil filter adapter was still attached to the engine but the fitting was no tproperly secured and could be manually moved. No safety wire was noted on either the adapter or filter. Disassembly of the oil pump revealed that it too was not threaded properly. However, there were no mechanical malfunctions with the engine that would have precluded normal operation.
In a follow up interview with the mechanic, he said that he had removed the oil filter adapter from the right engine; disassembled the unit, replaced the gaskets with the copper gaskets, then reassembled the adapter and installed it back on the engine. He did not reference the STC instructions and did not use a torque wrench to tighten the adapter to the engine. He said he tightened it to "feel" what he thought was an industry standard of 60 ft/lbs. He said he also did not reference the STC installation instructions when applying the safety-wire. The mechanic also stated that he disassembled the oil pump and re-threaded the case. However, he did not reference the threading diagram presented in Continental Motors Incorporated (formerly Teledyne Continental Motors) Service Information Letter (SIL99-2).
MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION
An autopsy was conducted on the pilot by Southwest Missouri Forensics, Nixa, Missouri, on November 6, 2013. The cause of death was determined to be, "Exsanguination secondary to aortic laceration induced by blunt force trauma to the chest in an airplane crash."
Toxicological testing was conducted by the FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The results were positive for the following:
>34 (ug/ml, ug/g) Acetaminophen detected in urine
>0.013 (ug/ml. ug/g) Chlorpheniramine detected in blood (cavity)
>Chlorpheniramine detected in urine
>Salicylate detected in urine
Although Chlorpheniramine can be impairing, a review of the toxicology results by the NTSB Medical Officer found that the low level of Chlorpheniramine identified in post mortem cavity blood was unlikely to have contributed to the accident.
An autopsy was conducted on the pilot rated passenger by Southwest Missouri Forensics, Nixa, Missouri, on November 6, 2013. The cause of death was determined to be, "Cardiac arrhythmia secondary to myocardial hypoxia caused by hypoxemia due to the combined effects of multiple bilateral rib fractures (flail chest) and cardiac lacerations induced by blunt force trauma to the chest in an airplane crash."
Toxicological testing was conducted by the FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The results were negative for drugs and alcohol.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A review of the 1956 Cessna 310 Owner's Manual revealed the single-engine climb-data chart only calculated single-engine climb rates with the flaps and gear retracted. The chart also assumed the inoperative propeller was feathered, and the wing was banked 5 degrees toward the operating engine, which would have to be at full throttle (2600 RPM) and leaned for best power. When the chart was interpolated for these and other conditions that existed at the time of the accident, the accident airplane would have had an approximate rate of climb of 566 feet per minute (ft/min). According to Cessna, the single-engine climb rate penalty if the gear was extended would have been about 400 ft/min. Based on this data, the accident airplane would have had a single-engine climb rate of about 166 ft/min at the time of the accident assuming the airplane was properly configured and the operating engine was producing full power.
http://registry.faa.gov/N6BS
NTSB Identification: CEN13FA044
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, November 04, 2012 in Stotts City, MO
Aircraft: CESSNA 310, registration: N6BS
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. 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 November 4, 2012, approximately 1800 Central Standard Time, N6BS, a twin-engine Cessna 310 airplane, was substantially damaged when it collided with trees and terrain near Stotts City, Missouri. The commercial pilot and the pilot rated passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot rated passenger. No flight plan was filed for the flight that originated from the Monett Regional Airport (HFY), Monett, Missouri, approximately 1735, and was destined for a private airstrip in Miller, Missouri. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the repositioning flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
According to a witness, who was a friend of both pilots, he said the airplane’s right engine was recently overhauled and this was the first flight after the new engine was installed. He said the pilots had originally planned to fly to Miller on November 2nd, but had to postpone the flight because the left main landing gear brake was “soft” during the engine run-up. The witness, who was also a pilot, said that in addition to the left main landing gear brake problem, the nose landing gear strut was also flat. According to the mechanic, who was hired to overhaul the engine, the pilot rated passenger asked him if he would fix the nose gear. The mechanic told him it would take at least a day to do the repair. Since the owner planned to fly the airplane to Ohio later that week for a corrosion inspection; he told the mechanic he would have the gear fixed then. In the meantime, he would have to fly with the landing gear extended or “stiff-legged” because he was concerned the gear would get stuck in the nose well. As a temporary fix, the mechanic used shop-air provided by the Monett Airport manager to inflate the nose strut.
The witness said the flight was re-scheduled for November 4th and he met both pilots at the Monett airport around 1700. During the preflight inspection, the pilots noted the nose gear strut was flat again and there was another discussion about keeping the gear extended for the flight. The witness said the two pilots boarded the accident airplane, started the engines, and taxied toward the runway. The airplane stopped on the taxiway and the engines were run-up three or four times. He said the pilots then taxied back to the hangar and shut the engines down. The commercial pilot got out of the airplane and said the right engine was not “feathering” and it needed to be fixed. The pilot rated passenger called the same mechanic and asked him if he could look at the problem. The mechanic arrived 30-40 minutes later and opened the right inboard cowling on the right engine. About five minutes later, the mechanic said they were, “Good to go.”
According to the mechanic, the pilot rated passenger called him at 1648 and told him that the right propeller control lever was not moving smoothly through its full range of travel. There was no mention that the propeller was not feathering. The mechanic said he was surprised that they were planning to do an engine flight test at night. About 30-40 minutes later he arrived at the Monett airport and opened up the right inboard cowling for the right engine. The mechanic asked one of the pilots to move the propeller control lever in the cockpit through its full range of travel. The mechanic said the arm on the propeller governor moved smoothly from stop to stop as the lever was moved. He told one of the pilots to adjust the friction lock for the lever, which eased the tightness of the lever. He also noticed the nose gear strut was flat again.
The witness said he heard the two pilots discussing if they should postpone the flight because it was getting dark. They originally were going to make a few circuits around the traffic pattern before they flew to Miller. However, since they were delayed they agreed to just fly to Miller.
The witness said the pilots got back in the accident airplane;the pilot rated passenger got in the front left seat and the commercial pilot sat in the front right seat. Both engines started normally. The airplane taxied toward the runway and did another long engine run-up on the taxiway, which included cycling the propeller several times. The witness also noted that only the airplane’s beacon lights were turned on.
The mechanic provided a similar account of the engine run-up and also confirmed that only the beacon lights were turned on.
After the accident airplane departed Runway 18, the witness departed in another airplane and followed them to Miller.
The mechanic said that he was surprised when he saw the airplane heading north toward Miller because he thought they were going to stay in the traffic pattern to test the engine. He then called his assistant, who lives at the private airstrip in Miller, and told him that the accident airplane was headed that way.
In an interview, the assistant said he received a call from the mechanic at 1738. He was surprised that anyone would attempt to land on an unlighted grass airstrip at night. The assistant said that by the time he and his girlfriend walked over to the runway, he could see the airplane approaching from the west. Only the airplane’s beacon lights were turned on and he could not tell if the landing gear were extended because it was too dark. The airplane was approximately 500-800 feet above the ground and in a level flying attitude. The assistant said both engines sounded normal and there was “nothing indicating any distress.” The airplane then made a smooth right turn toward the south and maintained a constant altitude. As the airplane turned south, the assistant said he got a call from the owner of the airstrip and asked if he would bring a fire extinguisher out to the airplane when it landed. The assistant said he grabbed a nearby extinguisher, but the airplane never returned.
According to the witness, once he departed Monett airport, he established communication with the other pilots via a common air-to-air traffic frequency and made visual contact with the accident airplane. While en route, the witness noted that the accident airplane was not on course for the private airstrip. The pilot rated passenger asked if they were heading in the right direction and the witness said they needed to correct 20-30 degrees back to the left. Shortly after, the pilot rated passenger said that “fuel or oil” were coming out of the right engine. He asked the witness to arrange for a fire extinguisher to be available when they landed, which he did. A few minutes later, the pilot rated passenger asked the witness where the private airstrip was located, and the witness told him they were "right on top of it". The pilot rated passenger said they informed him that they were losing oil pressure and were returning to Monett, followed by, “We shut the engine down.” The witness responded, “Ok, I’ll follow you.” At this time, the witness said the accident airplane was turning from crosswind to downwind approximately 800-900 feet above the ground. The witness said he then flew up along the right side of the accident airplane and noted that there was no smoke or fire coming from the engine. The witness then trailed back and to the right. He could not recall if the landing gear were extended, but did recall that the light on the nose gear was turned on.
According to the witness, when the accident airplane was approximately a mile south of the private strip, the pilot rated passenger announced, “110 knots.” About 30 seconds later, he said they were having trouble gaining altitude followed by they were not able to maintain altitude. The pilot rated passenger then asked the witness for a vector to Mount Vernon Airport. The witness responded that it was 127 degrees and 4 miles, and he turned the runway lights on for them. The pilot rated passenger again informed the witness that they were not able to maintain altitude. The witness said he could see the airplane losing altitude and advised them that Interstate 44 was one mile ahead. The commercial pilot then announced they were going to land on the interstate.
The witness said the accident airplane continued to lose altitude. The pilot rated passenger then said, “Oh my God, I think we are going to crash.” This was followed by, “We’re going to crash.” The witness said he saw the light on the accident airplane's nose gear come on (the witness thought the light had been turned off at some point) and illuminate the trees in front of them. He then said the nose of the airplane pitched up, rolled slightly to the right, and then pitched forward, followed by flames and a fireball.
The airplane collided with a stand of tall trees and traveled approximately 100 feet on a heading of 185 degrees before it came to rest on a large pile of wooden planks and other debris. A post-impact fire consumed most of the cockpit, fuselage, and portions of both wings and the tail section. The entire airplane was accounted for at the site. From the initial impact point to where the wreckage came to rest, impact marks on the trees became progressively lower along the airplane's direction of travel.
Examination of the airplane revealed the flaps were in the retracted position and the main landing gear were out of the wheel wells. Each of the wing mounted landing lights were found retracted. Both engines had separated from the airplane. The right propeller assembly had separated from the engine and was partially buried in the ground. The two-bladed propeller was found in the feathered position. The left propeller assembly remained on the engine. Both blades exhibited aft bending and leading edge damage. Both engines were retained for further examination.
The commercial pilot held a commercial pilot certificate for airplane single and multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. He was also a certified flight instructor for airplane single and multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. In addition, he held an airframe and power plant certificate. A review of his logbook revealed that as of October 6, 2012, he had a total of 3,299 flight hours; 411 hours in multi-engine airplanes, of which, 102 hours were in a Cessna 310.
The pilot rated passenger held a private pilot certificate for airplane single-engine land, and instrument airplane. A review of his logbook revealed that as of September 28, 2012, he had a total of 1,621.8 hours; of which, all 10.6 hours of multi-engine time were in the accident airplane.
Weather at Joplin Regional Airport (JLN), Joplin, Missouri, about 24 miles west of the accident site at 1753, was reported as wind from 120 degrees at 3 knots, clear skies, temperature 13 degrees Celsius, dewpoint 3 degrees Celsius, and barometric pressure setting of 30.08 inches of Hg.
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 6BS Make/Model: C310 Description: 310, T310 (U-3, L-27)
Date: 11/04/2012 Time: 2345
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Destroyed
LOCATION
City: STOTTS CITY State: MO Country: US
DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT CRASHED INTO A FIELD, THE 2 PERSONS ON BOARD WERE FATALLY INJURED,
NEAR STOTTS CITY, MO
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1
# Crew: 2 Fat: 1 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: KANSAS CITY, MO (CE05) Entry date: 11/05/2012
STOTTS CITY, Mo. — Investigators today were working to determine what caused a twin-engine airplane to crash Sunday night near Stotts City, killing two people.
The victims have not been identified by county or federal investigators, pending the results of autopsies that are planned for Tuesday.
The National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration have been notified of the crash, local authorities said. Information about the plane’s origin and its intended destination were not immediately available from those agencies.
Sgt. Mike Watson, with the Missouri State Highway Patrol, said the plane went down shortly after 6 p.m. in a wooded area near Route F, four miles west of Stotts City in Lawrence County.
Don Lakin, with Lakin Funeral Home, Pierce City, said the bodies were received by the funeral home and that autopsies will be conducted on Tuesday.
“We are not sure we will have the names of the victims even then,’’ said Lakin.
Lakin said dental records will be used to identify the victims.
Hong Kong-made plane grounded by government's snub
An aircraft handmade
by Hong Kong students will be ready to take to the skies in a year, but
the government's refusal to inspect it and to issue a permit means it
may be grounded indefinitely.
The two-seater plane, now in its final stage of assembly in a classroom at St Paul's Convent School, is a collaborative effort between Cathay Pacific pilot Hank Cheng Chor-hang and students over four years.
Cheng, a Hongkonger educated in the US, said he contacted the Civil Aviation Department before he bought the HK$1.4 million kit from the US in 2008.
But the government's stance was not clear until a stern refusal to inspect the plane in May.
The department cited busy traffic at Hong Kong International Airport as a reason for declining Cheng's request.
But he said: "We just need to leave and land in the airport. For the rest of the time, we'll be out in the air. I can't see why we can't test-fly," he said. A plane needs to go through 25 hours of test-flying before it is considered safe.
The team could skip the red tape by shipping the plane elsewhere for registration and then returning it to Hong Kong, but Cheng is reluctant to do so.
"It's Hong Kong's responsibility to certify a plane that is made here," he said.
Other air fields in Hong Kong are unsuitable for the test flight, including Shek Kong because of nearby residential buildings.
The department confirmed it received Cheng's application to register the plane and for a "permit to fly", but said the airport was too busy. "The [airport] is not a suitable location ... and hence there is no point in conducting any inspections on the aircraft," said a spokeswoman.
http://www.scmp.com
The two-seater plane, now in its final stage of assembly in a classroom at St Paul's Convent School, is a collaborative effort between Cathay Pacific pilot Hank Cheng Chor-hang and students over four years.
Cheng, a Hongkonger educated in the US, said he contacted the Civil Aviation Department before he bought the HK$1.4 million kit from the US in 2008.
But the government's stance was not clear until a stern refusal to inspect the plane in May.
The department cited busy traffic at Hong Kong International Airport as a reason for declining Cheng's request.
But he said: "We just need to leave and land in the airport. For the rest of the time, we'll be out in the air. I can't see why we can't test-fly," he said. A plane needs to go through 25 hours of test-flying before it is considered safe.
The team could skip the red tape by shipping the plane elsewhere for registration and then returning it to Hong Kong, but Cheng is reluctant to do so.
"It's Hong Kong's responsibility to certify a plane that is made here," he said.
Other air fields in Hong Kong are unsuitable for the test flight, including Shek Kong because of nearby residential buildings.
The department confirmed it received Cheng's application to register the plane and for a "permit to fly", but said the airport was too busy. "The [airport] is not a suitable location ... and hence there is no point in conducting any inspections on the aircraft," said a spokeswoman.
http://www.scmp.com
Cessna 140, N77227: Accident occurred November 02, 2012 in Watsonville, California
NTSB Identification: WPR13CA033
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, November 02, 2012 in Watsonville, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 02/27/2013
Aircraft: CESSNA 140, registration: N77227
Injuries: 1 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 reported that after a normal approach, he landed the tailwheel-equipped airplane on the main wheels (wheel landing). As the airplane decelerated during the landing roll, the pilot directed his attention inside of the cockpit and eased back pressure off of the control yoke. When the pilot redirected his attention outside, the airplane nosed down, and the propeller struck the ground; the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. During the accident sequence, the wings and empennage were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions 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 airplane control during the landing roll.
The pilot reported that after a normal approach he landed the tail-wheel equipped airplane on the main wheels (wheel landing). As the airplane decelerated during the landing roll, the pilot directed his attention inside of the cockpit and eased back pressure off of the control yoke. When the pilot redirected his attention outside, the airplane nosed down and the propeller struck the ground; the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. During the accident sequence, the wings and empennage were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operations.
http://registry.faa.gov/N77227
WATSONVILLE — A pilot walked away with minor injuries after flipping his single-engine Cessna 140 upside down on the main runway at Watsonville Municipal Airport about 5 p.m. Friday.
The pilot, who declined to comment, appeared to be in his 60s. He had a gash on the left side of his head, but appeared otherwise unharmed.
Watsonville Fire Capt. John Martorella said the pilot was alone in the plane, and was able to extricate himself from the wreckage.
Witnesses, who declined to give their names, said the pilot was landing, but airport manager Rayvon Williams was unable to confirm.
The runway was cleared about 6 p.m. with the help of crews from nearby businesses.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, November 02, 2012 in Watsonville, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 02/27/2013
Aircraft: CESSNA 140, registration: N77227
Injuries: 1 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 reported that after a normal approach, he landed the tailwheel-equipped airplane on the main wheels (wheel landing). As the airplane decelerated during the landing roll, the pilot directed his attention inside of the cockpit and eased back pressure off of the control yoke. When the pilot redirected his attention outside, the airplane nosed down, and the propeller struck the ground; the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. During the accident sequence, the wings and empennage were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions 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 airplane control during the landing roll.
The pilot reported that after a normal approach he landed the tail-wheel equipped airplane on the main wheels (wheel landing). As the airplane decelerated during the landing roll, the pilot directed his attention inside of the cockpit and eased back pressure off of the control yoke. When the pilot redirected his attention outside, the airplane nosed down and the propeller struck the ground; the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. During the accident sequence, the wings and empennage were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operations.
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 77227 Make/Model: C140 Description:
Date: 11/02/2012 Time: 2330
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial
LOCATION
City: WATSONVILLE State: CA Country: US
DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT FLIPPED OVER ON THE RUNWAY UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES,
WATSONVILLE, CA
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 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: Unknown Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER
FAA FSDO: SAN JOSE, CA (WP15) Entry date: 11/05/2012
http://registry.faa.gov/N77227
Firefighters respond to a flipped plane at Watsonville Municipal Airport
(DONNA JONES/Santa Cruz Sentinel)
WATSONVILLE — A pilot walked away with minor injuries after flipping his single-engine Cessna 140 upside down on the main runway at Watsonville Municipal Airport about 5 p.m. Friday.
The pilot, who declined to comment, appeared to be in his 60s. He had a gash on the left side of his head, but appeared otherwise unharmed.
Watsonville Fire Capt. John Martorella said the pilot was alone in the plane, and was able to extricate himself from the wreckage.
Witnesses, who declined to give their names, said the pilot was landing, but airport manager Rayvon Williams was unable to confirm.
The runway was cleared about 6 p.m. with the help of crews from nearby businesses.
Waco SRE, N247E: Aircraft flipped over on the runway - Lafayette, Louisiana
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 247E Make/Model: WACO Description: O, E, GXE, CTO
Date: 11/04/2012 Time: 2300
Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown
LOCATION
City: LAFAYETTE State: LA Country: US
DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT FLIPPED OVER ON THE RUNWAY, LAFAYETTE, LA
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
OTHER DATA
Activity: Pleasure Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER
FAA FSDO: BATON ROUGE, LA (SW03) Entry date: 11/05/2012
http://registry.faa.gov/N247E
LAFAYETTE, La. - The aviation director at Lafayette Regional Airport says an antique plane has crashed there, but the pilot and two passengers all escaped without injury.
Gregory Roberts says the plane crashed about 5 p.m. Sunday while approaching the airport.
The airport was closed while rescue workers assessed the situation. Roberts says the National Transportation Safety Board was being contacted about removing the damaged plane, which he believed was built by Waco Aircraft.
Waco Aircraft Corp. of Battle Creek, Mich., says that from 1919 to 1947, Waco Aircraft Co. of Troy, Ohio, built more aircraft than any other manufacturer. The Michigan company's website says it began producing planes in 1986, using the design of Waco's last model re-engineered to meet current Federal Aviation Administration requirements.
http://www.dailycomet.com
Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP, registered to and operated by Marcair Inc under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a solo instructional flight, N985GE: Accident occurred November 03, 2012 at at the Northwest Regional Airport (52F), Roanoke, Texas
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Fort Worth, Texas
Aviation Accident Final Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf
Investigation Docket - National Transportation Safety Board: https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms
Aviation Accident Data Summary - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf
http://registry.faa.gov/N985GE
Location: Roanoke, TX
Accident Number: CEN13LA041
Date & Time: 11/03/2012, 1040 CDT
Registration: N985GE
Aircraft: CESSNA 172S
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Miscellaneous/other
Injuries: 2 Minor, 1 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Instructional
Analysis
The student pilot was returning from a solo cross-country flight at the time of the accident. He stated that the approach for landing was normal until he was on short final approach, when the airplane's landing gear struck an automobile that was being driven on a road that crossed near the approach end of the runway. The airplane subsequently landed hard and the nose and left main landing gear collapsed. The airplane veered off the right side of the runway before coming to rest in the grass. The student pilot stated that there were no malfunctions or failures with the airplane before it impacted the vehicle. The automobile driver reported that he had been to the airport before and was aware of the proximity of the road to the runway, describing the layout as "precarious." He noted that he did not see or hear the approaching airplane traffic before the accident. He said he was about halfway across the road, immediately north of the runway, when he first heard the airplane engine; the airplane impacted his car immediately afterward.
The displaced threshold for the landing runway was located about 140 feet from the approach end of the runway. The roadway that crossed the extended runway centerline was located about 25 feet from the approach end of the runway pavement, about 165 feet from the displaced threshold. Data indicated that the runway threshold was previously displaced 400 feet. Although the privately-owned airport was not required to maintain airport design standards established by the Federal Aviation Administration, the proximity of the roadway and the reduced runway threshold displacement did not provide any safety margin for approaching aircraft.
Probable Cause and Findings
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The student pilot's failure to maintain clearance from obstacles on the runway approach path. Contributing to the accident was the airport management's decision to relocate the runway displaced threshold, which did not provide an adequate safety margin for approaching aircraft, and the automobile driver's inadequate lookout for approaching aircraft before crossing the runway's approach path.
Findings
Aircraft
Descent/approach/glide path - Not attained/maintained (Cause)
Personnel issues
Incorrect action performance - Student pilot (Cause)
Environmental issues
Ground vehicle - Effect on operation (Factor)
Airport facilities/design - Effect on operation (Factor)
Factual Information
On November 3, 2012, about 1040 central daylight time, a Cessna 172S, N985GE, impacted an automobile on final approach to runway 17 (3,500 feet by 40 feet, asphalt) at the Northwest Regional Airport (52F), Roanoke, Texas. The student pilot was not injured. The automobile driver and passenger sustained minor injuries. The airplane was substantially damaged. The aircraft was registered to and operated by Marcair, Inc. under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a solo instructional flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which was operated on a visual flight rules flight plan. The cross-country flight originated from Possum Kingdom Airport (F35), Graford, Texas, about 1005, with an intended destination of 52F.
The student pilot reported that he was returning from a solo cross-country flight, entered a left traffic pattern for runway 17 at 52F. He recalled that the approach was normal and the airspeed was about 60 knots when crossing the fence near the end of the runway. He stated that just after crossing the fence the landing gear impacted an automobile, which resulted in a hard landing. The nose and left main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane veered off the right side of the runway before coming to rest in the grass. The student pilot stated that there were no malfunctions or failures associated with the airplane before impacting the automobile.
The driver of the automobile reported that he had been to the airport before and was aware of the proximity of the road to the runway, describing the layout as "precarious." He noted that he did not see or hear the approaching airplane traffic prior to the accident; although, he had rolled the car windows down and turned off the radio to assist in hearing any airplane traffic. He stated that the vehicle was about halfway across the road immediately north of the runway when he first heard the airplane engine. The airplane impacted his car immediately afterward. He noted that the airplane impacted his car about 4-1/2 feet above the road.
The accident airport consisted of a single north-south oriented runway, designated 17 / 35. The published runway dimensions at the time of the accident were 3,500 feet by 40 feet. Although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Facility Directory (AFD) current at the time of the accident noted a 400-foot displaced threshold for runway 17, the runway threshold was actually displaced approximately 140 feet at the time of the accident. Satellite imagery indicated that the runway threshold markings were changed sometime between June 12, 2011, and the date of the accident. The edge of the roadway crossing the runway 17 approach path was located about 25 feet from the end of the runway; about 165 feet from the displaced threshold. The roadway was marked with a faded "Stop" indication painted on the pavement at each side of the runway. However, there were no signs requiring drivers to stop or advising them of low flying aircraft. Because the accident airport was privately owned, the airport management was under no obligation to maintain the airport to any federal standard.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport design guidance (Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A) noted a standard approach slope of 20:1, or about 3 degrees. Guidance related to Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI), contained in Chapter 2 of the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, noted that a standard runway glide path angle is 3 degrees; however, the glide path angle may be up to 4.5 degrees if necessary for obstacle clearance. The calculated glide path height above the roadway, considering a 165-foot distance between the displaced runway threshold and the edge of the roadway, would be 8.6 feet and 13.0 feet for a 3-degree and a 4.5 degree glide path, respectively. This does not take into account any difference in the elevation of the roadway relative to the runway, nor does it include any safety margin for momentary inadvertent operations slightly below the glidepath.
History of Flight
Approach-VFR pattern final
Miscellaneous/other (Defining event)
Collision with terr/obj (non-CFIT)
Loss of control in flight
Student Pilot Information
Certificate: Student
Age: 43, Male
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Left
Other Aircraft Rating(s): None
Restraint Used: Seatbelt, Shoulder harness
Instrument Rating(s): None
Second Pilot Present: No
Instructor Rating(s): None
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 3 With Waivers/Limitations
Last FAA Medical Exam: 02/10/2012
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 08/10/2012
Flight Time: 45 hours (Total, all aircraft), 45 hours (Total, this make and model), 3 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 20 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 10 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 1 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Make: CESSNA
Registration: N985GE
Model/Series: 172S
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Year of Manufacture:
Amateur Built: No
Airworthiness Certificate: Normal
Serial Number: 172S10045
Landing Gear Type: Tricycle
Seats: 4
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 09/12/2012, 100 Hour
Certified Max Gross Wt.: 2558 lbs
Time Since Last Inspection: 89 Hours
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time: 4798 Hours at time of accident
Engine Manufacturer: LYCOMING
ELT: Installed, activated, did not aid in locating accident
Engine Model/Series: IO-360-L2A
Registered Owner: Marcair Inc.
Rated Power: 180 hp
Operator: Marcair Inc.
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Meteorological Information and Flight Plan
Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: AFW, 722 ft msl
Distance from Accident Site: 7 Nautical Miles
Observation Time: 1053 CDT
Direction from Accident Site: 225°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Few / 9000 ft agl
Visibility: 10 Miles
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility (RVR):
Wind Speed/Gusts: 3 knots /
Turbulence Type Forecast/Actual: /
Wind Direction: Variable
Turbulence Severity Forecast/Actual: /
Altimeter Setting: 30.07 inches Hg
Temperature/Dew Point: 23°C / 16°C
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: Graford, TX (F35)
Type of Flight Plan Filed: VFR
Destination: Roanoke, TX (52F)
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time: 1005 CST
Type of Airspace:
Airport Information
Airport: Northwest Regional (52F)
Runway Surface Type: Asphalt
Airport Elevation: 643 ft
Runway Surface Condition: Dry
Runway Used: 17
IFR Approach: None
Runway Length/Width: 3500 ft / 40 ft
VFR Approach/Landing: Full Stop; Traffic Pattern
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: 2 Minor
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 Minor, 1 None
Latitude, Longitude: 33.049722, -97.232222 (est)
No one was seriously hurt.
The accident happened at Northwest Regional Airport in Roanoke, which is linked to three other incidents in the past six weeks, including two fatal crashes that killed a total of six people.
Department of Public Safety spokesman Trooper Lonny Haschel said the 2005 Cessna Skyhawk was coming in for a landing when its landing gear struck a 2008 Volvo SUV that was traveling on an perimeter road at the airport around 10:50 a.m.
The plane skidded off the runway and into a grassy area about 75 yards from the point of impact. Pilot William Davis of Flower Mound was not hurt, but the aircraft was damaged.
The occupants of the SUV, Frank and Heather Laudo of Flower Mound, were taken to a hospital for treatment of non-life threatening injuries, Haschel said.
Four people died on October 7 when their plane crashed in Van Zandt County after taking off from Northwest Regional Airport.
On September 11, two people were killed after their small plane crashed in a wooded area shortly after takeoff from Northwest Regional Airport.
And on October 11, a small plane landed upside-down after its engine cut out shortly after takeoff. The pilot was able to walk away.
ROANOKE — After Saturday's collision between a small plane landing at Northwest Regional Airport and a sport utility vehicle on a road at the north end of the runway, Frank and Heather Laudo told News 8 the impact came as a complete surprise.
"We couldn't see anything at all, and then... all of a sudden... equipment was falling into the car," Heather said.
The pilot, William Davis had asked his wife Kandy to shoot home video of his first solo round-trip. William said the video shows the couple driving into plane.
"I was shocked," he said. "Just from the video that I saw, it looks like they kept going... they didn't stop at the stop sign."
But here's what the video doesn't show: The word STOP is actually painted on the pavement, more than 50 feet from the north end of the runway. The angle of the recording does not show where the Laudos' SUV would have stopped.
Airport management said drivers are supposed to stop when the runway is active. But moments before the Laudos' vehicle crossed the path of Davis' plane, his wife's recording shows a white vehicle taking the same path.
The Laudos said they never saw the plane, even though it was feet away, preparing to land at 65 mph.
In the aftermath of the crash, airport manager Glen Hyde can be heard on Kandy Davis' recording yelling, "Is anybody hurt?"
Hyde grabbed his first aid kit and ran to the Laudos' vehicle. He immediately asked them whether they saw the stop sign... or the approaching plane.
"Whatever that is, it fell. Whatever that it is it hit our car," they said.
"That is the landing gear," Hyde responded. "You got hit by a plane."
"I know that!" Heather Laudo said in the recording.
"Why did you pull out if front of an airplane, is what I wanna know?" Hyde asked.
"We didn't see it," Frank Laudo said.
"We didn't pull out in front of an airplane," Heather Laudo added.
"Yes, you did!" Kandy Davis said.
William Davis said he is grateful everyone survived, but after the incident, he has decided to give up flying, saying it was all too traumatic — even though he was just four weeks away from receiving his pilot's license.
"Things like that make you reconsider what is important and what could have happened," Davis said. "I have a young daughter and a wife, and they need me to be there to take care of them."
Northwest Regional Airport has tried to purchase the property where the private roadway exists to enforce safety measures, but say the owner has declined the offer.
Glen Hyde has asked the FAA to step in and help work out a plan with the owner to place flashing lights and more visible stop signs.
Aviation Accident Final Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf
Investigation Docket - National Transportation Safety Board: https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms
Aviation Accident Data Summary - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf
http://registry.faa.gov/N985GE
Location: Roanoke, TX
Accident Number: CEN13LA041
Date & Time: 11/03/2012, 1040 CDT
Registration: N985GE
Aircraft: CESSNA 172S
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Miscellaneous/other
Injuries: 2 Minor, 1 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Instructional
Analysis
The student pilot was returning from a solo cross-country flight at the time of the accident. He stated that the approach for landing was normal until he was on short final approach, when the airplane's landing gear struck an automobile that was being driven on a road that crossed near the approach end of the runway. The airplane subsequently landed hard and the nose and left main landing gear collapsed. The airplane veered off the right side of the runway before coming to rest in the grass. The student pilot stated that there were no malfunctions or failures with the airplane before it impacted the vehicle. The automobile driver reported that he had been to the airport before and was aware of the proximity of the road to the runway, describing the layout as "precarious." He noted that he did not see or hear the approaching airplane traffic before the accident. He said he was about halfway across the road, immediately north of the runway, when he first heard the airplane engine; the airplane impacted his car immediately afterward.
The displaced threshold for the landing runway was located about 140 feet from the approach end of the runway. The roadway that crossed the extended runway centerline was located about 25 feet from the approach end of the runway pavement, about 165 feet from the displaced threshold. Data indicated that the runway threshold was previously displaced 400 feet. Although the privately-owned airport was not required to maintain airport design standards established by the Federal Aviation Administration, the proximity of the roadway and the reduced runway threshold displacement did not provide any safety margin for approaching aircraft.
Probable Cause and Findings
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The student pilot's failure to maintain clearance from obstacles on the runway approach path. Contributing to the accident was the airport management's decision to relocate the runway displaced threshold, which did not provide an adequate safety margin for approaching aircraft, and the automobile driver's inadequate lookout for approaching aircraft before crossing the runway's approach path.
Findings
Aircraft
Descent/approach/glide path - Not attained/maintained (Cause)
Personnel issues
Incorrect action performance - Student pilot (Cause)
Environmental issues
Ground vehicle - Effect on operation (Factor)
Airport facilities/design - Effect on operation (Factor)
Factual Information
On November 3, 2012, about 1040 central daylight time, a Cessna 172S, N985GE, impacted an automobile on final approach to runway 17 (3,500 feet by 40 feet, asphalt) at the Northwest Regional Airport (52F), Roanoke, Texas. The student pilot was not injured. The automobile driver and passenger sustained minor injuries. The airplane was substantially damaged. The aircraft was registered to and operated by Marcair, Inc. under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a solo instructional flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which was operated on a visual flight rules flight plan. The cross-country flight originated from Possum Kingdom Airport (F35), Graford, Texas, about 1005, with an intended destination of 52F.
The student pilot reported that he was returning from a solo cross-country flight, entered a left traffic pattern for runway 17 at 52F. He recalled that the approach was normal and the airspeed was about 60 knots when crossing the fence near the end of the runway. He stated that just after crossing the fence the landing gear impacted an automobile, which resulted in a hard landing. The nose and left main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane veered off the right side of the runway before coming to rest in the grass. The student pilot stated that there were no malfunctions or failures associated with the airplane before impacting the automobile.
The driver of the automobile reported that he had been to the airport before and was aware of the proximity of the road to the runway, describing the layout as "precarious." He noted that he did not see or hear the approaching airplane traffic prior to the accident; although, he had rolled the car windows down and turned off the radio to assist in hearing any airplane traffic. He stated that the vehicle was about halfway across the road immediately north of the runway when he first heard the airplane engine. The airplane impacted his car immediately afterward. He noted that the airplane impacted his car about 4-1/2 feet above the road.
The accident airport consisted of a single north-south oriented runway, designated 17 / 35. The published runway dimensions at the time of the accident were 3,500 feet by 40 feet. Although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Facility Directory (AFD) current at the time of the accident noted a 400-foot displaced threshold for runway 17, the runway threshold was actually displaced approximately 140 feet at the time of the accident. Satellite imagery indicated that the runway threshold markings were changed sometime between June 12, 2011, and the date of the accident. The edge of the roadway crossing the runway 17 approach path was located about 25 feet from the end of the runway; about 165 feet from the displaced threshold. The roadway was marked with a faded "Stop" indication painted on the pavement at each side of the runway. However, there were no signs requiring drivers to stop or advising them of low flying aircraft. Because the accident airport was privately owned, the airport management was under no obligation to maintain the airport to any federal standard.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport design guidance (Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A) noted a standard approach slope of 20:1, or about 3 degrees. Guidance related to Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI), contained in Chapter 2 of the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, noted that a standard runway glide path angle is 3 degrees; however, the glide path angle may be up to 4.5 degrees if necessary for obstacle clearance. The calculated glide path height above the roadway, considering a 165-foot distance between the displaced runway threshold and the edge of the roadway, would be 8.6 feet and 13.0 feet for a 3-degree and a 4.5 degree glide path, respectively. This does not take into account any difference in the elevation of the roadway relative to the runway, nor does it include any safety margin for momentary inadvertent operations slightly below the glidepath.
History of Flight
Approach-VFR pattern final
Miscellaneous/other (Defining event)
Collision with terr/obj (non-CFIT)
Loss of control in flight
Student Pilot Information
Certificate: Student
Age: 43, Male
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Left
Other Aircraft Rating(s): None
Restraint Used: Seatbelt, Shoulder harness
Instrument Rating(s): None
Second Pilot Present: No
Instructor Rating(s): None
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 3 With Waivers/Limitations
Last FAA Medical Exam: 02/10/2012
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 08/10/2012
Flight Time: 45 hours (Total, all aircraft), 45 hours (Total, this make and model), 3 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 20 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 10 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 1 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Make: CESSNA
Registration: N985GE
Model/Series: 172S
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Year of Manufacture:
Amateur Built: No
Airworthiness Certificate: Normal
Serial Number: 172S10045
Landing Gear Type: Tricycle
Seats: 4
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 09/12/2012, 100 Hour
Certified Max Gross Wt.: 2558 lbs
Time Since Last Inspection: 89 Hours
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time: 4798 Hours at time of accident
Engine Manufacturer: LYCOMING
ELT: Installed, activated, did not aid in locating accident
Engine Model/Series: IO-360-L2A
Registered Owner: Marcair Inc.
Rated Power: 180 hp
Operator: Marcair Inc.
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Meteorological Information and Flight Plan
Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: AFW, 722 ft msl
Distance from Accident Site: 7 Nautical Miles
Observation Time: 1053 CDT
Direction from Accident Site: 225°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Few / 9000 ft agl
Visibility: 10 Miles
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility (RVR):
Wind Speed/Gusts: 3 knots /
Turbulence Type Forecast/Actual: /
Wind Direction: Variable
Turbulence Severity Forecast/Actual: /
Altimeter Setting: 30.07 inches Hg
Temperature/Dew Point: 23°C / 16°C
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: Graford, TX (F35)
Type of Flight Plan Filed: VFR
Destination: Roanoke, TX (52F)
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time: 1005 CST
Type of Airspace:
Airport Information
Airport: Northwest Regional (52F)
Runway Surface Type: Asphalt
Airport Elevation: 643 ft
Runway Surface Condition: Dry
Runway Used: 17
IFR Approach: None
Runway Length/Width: 3500 ft / 40 ft
VFR Approach/Landing: Full Stop; Traffic Pattern
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: 2 Minor
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 Minor, 1 None
Latitude, Longitude: 33.049722, -97.232222 (est)
ROANOKE — The Federal Aviation
Administration is investigating after a sport utility vehicle had a hole
punched in its roof by a small plane Saturday morning.
No one was seriously hurt.
The accident happened at Northwest Regional Airport in Roanoke, which is linked to three other incidents in the past six weeks, including two fatal crashes that killed a total of six people.
Department of Public Safety spokesman Trooper Lonny Haschel said the 2005 Cessna Skyhawk was coming in for a landing when its landing gear struck a 2008 Volvo SUV that was traveling on an perimeter road at the airport around 10:50 a.m.
The plane skidded off the runway and into a grassy area about 75 yards from the point of impact. Pilot William Davis of Flower Mound was not hurt, but the aircraft was damaged.
The occupants of the SUV, Frank and Heather Laudo of Flower Mound, were taken to a hospital for treatment of non-life threatening injuries, Haschel said.
Four people died on October 7 when their plane crashed in Van Zandt County after taking off from Northwest Regional Airport.
On September 11, two people were killed after their small plane crashed in a wooded area shortly after takeoff from Northwest Regional Airport.
And on October 11, a small plane landed upside-down after its engine cut out shortly after takeoff. The pilot was able to walk away.
"We couldn't see anything at all, and then... all of a sudden... equipment was falling into the car," Heather said.
The pilot, William Davis had asked his wife Kandy to shoot home video of his first solo round-trip. William said the video shows the couple driving into plane.
"I was shocked," he said. "Just from the video that I saw, it looks like they kept going... they didn't stop at the stop sign."
But here's what the video doesn't show: The word STOP is actually painted on the pavement, more than 50 feet from the north end of the runway. The angle of the recording does not show where the Laudos' SUV would have stopped.
Airport management said drivers are supposed to stop when the runway is active. But moments before the Laudos' vehicle crossed the path of Davis' plane, his wife's recording shows a white vehicle taking the same path.
The Laudos said they never saw the plane, even though it was feet away, preparing to land at 65 mph.
In the aftermath of the crash, airport manager Glen Hyde can be heard on Kandy Davis' recording yelling, "Is anybody hurt?"
Hyde grabbed his first aid kit and ran to the Laudos' vehicle. He immediately asked them whether they saw the stop sign... or the approaching plane.
"Whatever that is, it fell. Whatever that it is it hit our car," they said.
"That is the landing gear," Hyde responded. "You got hit by a plane."
"I know that!" Heather Laudo said in the recording.
"Why did you pull out if front of an airplane, is what I wanna know?" Hyde asked.
"We didn't see it," Frank Laudo said.
"We didn't pull out in front of an airplane," Heather Laudo added.
"Yes, you did!" Kandy Davis said.
William Davis said he is grateful everyone survived, but after the incident, he has decided to give up flying, saying it was all too traumatic — even though he was just four weeks away from receiving his pilot's license.
"Things like that make you reconsider what is important and what could have happened," Davis said. "I have a young daughter and a wife, and they need me to be there to take care of them."
Northwest Regional Airport has tried to purchase the property where the private roadway exists to enforce safety measures, but say the owner has declined the offer.
Glen Hyde has asked the FAA to step in and help work out a plan with the owner to place flashing lights and more visible stop signs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
