Friday, December 21, 2012

Beechcraft 55 Baron, N30WC: Accident occurred December 21, 2012 in Las Cruces, New Mexico

http://registry.faa.gov/N30WC

NTSB Identification: CEN13LA110 
 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, December 21, 2012 in Las Cruces, NM
Probable Cause Approval Date: 06/24/2013
Aircraft: BEECH 95-B55 (T42A), registration: N30WC
Injuries: 1 Minor.

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

The pilot said he added 31 gallons of fuel (for a total 0f 70 gallons) prior to departure. The fuel gauges indicated the main tanks were one-half to three-quarters full, with the remainder in the auxiliary tanks. The fuel selectors were on the main tanks. After a short 10-minute flight, the pilot executed an ILS approach in VMC. Ten miles from the runway threshold, the right engine started surging. Fuel flow fluctuated between 28 gph and 2 gph. He advanced the throttle, propeller, and mixture controls and turned on the fuel boost pumps. The airplane yawed and he identified the right engine as having lost power. He feathered the propeller and secured the engine. Shortly thereafter, the left engine lost power. The airplane impacted terrain, shearing off the left wing. The right engine was partially separated from the right wing. An FAA inspector examined the wreckage and said the right propeller was not feathered and both fuel selectors were in the auxiliary tank position. The left engine throttle, propeller, and mixture controls were full forward. The right engine throttle and propeller control were only slightly retarded, and the mixture control was in the IDLE CUTOFF position. Both fuel selectors were positioned on the auxiliary tanks, but the fuel gauge selector switch was on the main tanks.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot's failure to properly manage the airplane's fuel, which resulted in engine failure due to fuel starvation.

On December 21, 2012, at 1650 mountain standard time, a Beech 95-B55, N30WC, impacted terrain 2 miles southeast of runway 30 while on landing approach to Las Cruces International Airport (KLRU), Las Cruces, New Mexico. The pilot, the sole occupant on board, sustained minor injuries. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and no flight plan had been filed. The local flight originated from Santa Teresa (5T6), New Mexico, approximately 1640.

According to the pilot's accident report, he added 31 gallons of fuel (for a total of 70 gallons) prior to departing K5T6. The fuel gauges indicated the main tanks were one-half to three-quarters full, with the remainder in the auxiliary tanks. The fuel selectors were on the main tanks. He executed the ILS (instrument landing system) to runway 30, in visual meteorological conditions, and was 10 miles from the runway threshold when the right engine started surging. Fuel flow fluctuated between 28 gph (gallons per hour) to 2 gph. He advanced the throttle, propeller, and mixture controls and turned on the fuel boost pumps. He said the airplane yawed 45 to 70 degrees left and right, and he identified the right engine as having lost power. He feathered the propeller and secured the engine. Shortly thereafter, the left engine lost power. The airplane impacted terrain, shearing off the left wing. The right engine was partially separated from the right wing. In a hospital interview, the pilot told a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector that he had shut down the right engine and he described the procedure he used.

The inspector told the pilot that the right propeller had not been feathered and that both fuel selectors were in the auxiliary tank position. Photographs taken by the inspector showed the left engine throttle, propeller, and mixture controls were full forward. The right engine throttle and propeller control were only slightly retarded, and the mixture control was in the IDLE CUTOFF position. Both fuel selectors were positioned on the auxiliary tanks, but the fuel gauge selector switch was on the main tanks.

In his written statement, the inspector estimated there should have had about 7 gallons in each auxiliary tank, and he computed this to be the fuel remaining after a flight from Santa Teresa to the accident site. The inspector also noted a placard affixed on the instrument panel, warning: DO NOT TAKE OFF IF FUEL QUANTITY GAGE INDICATES IN YELLOW ARC OR WITH LESS THAN 13 GALLONS IN EACH MAIN TANK.


NTSB Identification: CEN13LA110 
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, December 21, 2012 in Las Cruces, NM
Aircraft: Beech 95-B55 (T42A), registration: N30WC
Injuries: 1 Minor.

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

On December 21, 2012, at 1648 mountain standard time, a Beech 95-B55, N30WC, impacted terrain 2 miles southeast of runway 30 while on landing approach to Las Cruces International Airport (KLRU), Las Cruces, New Mexico. The pilot, the sole occupant on board, sustained minor injuries. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and no flight plan had been filed. The local flight originated from Santa Teresa, New Mexico (K5T6) approximately 1625.

According to the pilot, the right engine began running rough. He said he secured the engine and feathered the propeller. Shortly thereafter, the left engine lost power. The airplane impacted terrain, shearing off the left wing. The right engine was partially separated from the right wing.


 
Photo Credit: Scorpion


 



EL PASO, Texas - A plane crashed about two miles south of the Las Cruces airport Friday evening, according to New Mexico State Police

 The ABC-7 Investigative team learned the plane belongs to a man by the name of Sean Tommervik from East Bridgewater, Massachussetts.
 

Dona Ana County Sheriff Kelly Jameson said airport personnel called central dispatch at 5:08 p.m. after receiving radio dispatch from the pilot that they were having engine failure.

New Mexico State Police found the plane. The pilot was uninjured.

"Captain Rich Libicer said it's still unclear if the plane crashed or had an emergency landing," according to the Associated Press.

A person who lives near the scene of the accident said the beach craft plane hit a sand dune but did not catch on fire.


LAS CRUCES — An aircraft crashed Friday evening south of Interstate 10 near the Las Cruces International Airport, according to police. New Mexico State Police Capt. Rich Libicer said a small, single-engine airplane went down about 2 1/2 to 3 miles from the airport, on the city's West Mesa. He said the plane's pilot was the only person in the aircraft, and appeared to be unhurt. The identity of the pilot was not immediately disclosed.

"He was just shaken up," Libicer said. "He's fine. There were no injuries."

Libicer said it was not yet clear if the plane performed an emergency landing or had "a bad crash." The Federal Aviation Administration was notified of the mishap and an investigation will be conducted.

The last plane crash near the airport was in May 2010, according to Sun-News archives. A single-engine Cessna crashed shortly after takeoff.

The pilot and two passengers suffered injuries, but were able to walk back to the terminal.

Jacksonville Aviation Authority hopes $1 million makeover will fill vacant hangar

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- It could mean millions of dollars and lots of high-paying jobs at Jacksonville International Airport. A lucrative defense contract to build state-of-the-art fighter planes in the River City is on hold. But Action News has learned, the Jacksonville Aviation Authority is still spending more than $1 million to renovate the hangar where assembly is supposed to take place.

Air Force officials awarded Embraer, an international defense company, a $355 million contract to build A-29 Super Tucano attack planes for the military.

But rival company, Kansas-based Hawker-Beechcraft, stepped in protesting that it was wrongly excluded from vying for the contract. Air Force officials in January announced that the war planes were back open for bidding.

Embraer had stated it would build that military might at a hangar in Jacksonville. It's an operation that promised to deliver 50 high-paying assembly jobs to Jacksonville International Airport.

Instead of collecting monthly rent from a private company, JAA's only empty hangar is used for a far less lucrative event once a year.

"Last year and this year we were hoping this was the last time we would be using it for the holiday party because we would be having a paying tenant in here," said Michael Stewart with JAA.

After 15 years of sitting empty, 2012 brought hope that the 27,000-square-foot facility would house the production of Air Force warplanes.

"We are cautiously optimistic on getting them here because of the size of the company," said Stewart. "The potential of them bringing more business to Jacksonville is really what's exciting."

Even though the deal is far from done, JAA is giving the hangar a top-to-bottom renovation priced at $1.1 million.

From refinishing floors and windows to painting and replacing insulation, Stewart says the million-dollar makeover is money well spent. "It would shorten the timeline of them getting in because the work needs to be done and if we don't get it, it puts us in a position to market this much more aggressively for potential tenants."

The Department of Defense expects to make a decision on the fighter plane contract next month, possibly Jan. 10. 


Source:   http://www.actionnewsjax.com

German bank sues Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Kingfisher Airlines

NEW DELHI | Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:46pm IST

(Reuters) - Germany's DVB Bank SE has sued aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Kingfisher Airlines to have two planes it financed for the troubled carrier deregistered, a possible first step towards recouping its funds.

The case underlines the problems that leasing firms and financing companies face in recovering grounded planes from Kingfisher, as airports, banks and tax authorities scramble for the crisis-hit carrier's assets.

International Lease Finance Corp (ILFC) - owned by U.S. insurer AIG - is also struggling to take back Kingfisher planes it owns, one of which, an Airbus A-320, has been impounded by tax authorities for non-payment of dues by the carrier.

The DGCA must deregister the DVB-financed Airbus planes, now parked in Istanbul, before the bank can put them to use or lease them out.

"Our main trouble really is with the DGCA, which should deregister the aircraft," Carsten Gerlach, senior vice president of aviation finance at DVB, told Reuters.

"We have now filed a writ petition at the High Court in Delhi against DGCA and also Kingfisher, strictly focused on deregistration," Gerlach said by phone from Frankfurt.

However, the DGCA argues that those aircraft were not financed by DVB alone, so deregistering them would make the DGCA answerable to other financiers, who are also trying to recover their money, according to a senior government source with direct knowledge of the situation.

The DGCA and Kingfisher did not respond to requests for comment.

Meanwhile, leasing company IFCL has also asked the DGCA to deregister four Kingfisher-operated planes, but it faces separate obstacles.

These planes include an Airbus A-320 parked at Mumbai airport that was impounded by tax authorities last week after the carrier failed to settle long-pending dues.

"People just go the airport, see a plane in Kingfisher colors, and stake their claim on it," the source said, referring to the tax authorities' impounding of the Airbus.

"What they don't understand is that the plane may not belong to Kingfisher at all."

Kingfisher, owned by flamboyant liquor baron Vijay Mallya, has hit back at the tax authorities' actions, saying it is illegal for authorities to seize aircraft that are owned by foreign lessors.

"This will send a very wrong signal to any foreigner who wishes to do business in the aviation industry in India," the airline said in a statement last week.

Kingfisher has 33 scheduled passenger planes registered in India, according to data from the DGCA. It had a fleet of 64 a year back, when it was India's No. 2 carrier by market share.

It is saddled with a combined debt load of $2.5 billion, according to one estimate, and has not paid salaries for months.

Kingfisher, which has not flown since October, had its license suspended in October after months of canceled flights and staff walkouts.


Source:    http://in.reuters.com

United States refuses airspace navigation charges to Pakistan

LAHORE - Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was told that United States (US) has refused to pay Rs72.4 million owed for using country’s airspace by its aircrafts, a private TV channel reported.

According to the source, Lieutenant General (retd) Asif Yaseen Malik told PAC that US has refused payment on grounds military aircrafts belonging to the state are exempted from navigation charges under international laws, adding that Pakistan’s aircrafts were not charged by US on several similar occasions.

However, domestic analysts say Islamabad did not authorize US operations in Pakistan airspace and that exemption from navigation charges is allowed only when missions like joint air exercises are agreed by the two countries.

Earlier in July, PAC had asked defense secretary to raise the issue with the foreign office and invoke bilateral agreement for the recovery of airspace navigation charges.


Source:    http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk

Disruptive passenger removed from plane at Richmond International Airport (KRIC), Virginia

HENRICO COUNTY, Va. (WTVR) – A “disruptive passenger” was pulled off a U.S. Air Flight at Richmond International Airport Friday afternoon, according to airport spokesman Troy Bell. 

The flight, which was heading to Atlanta from Philadelphia, made an unscheduled stop in Richmond. Bell did not know what, if any, charges the passenger faced nor what exactly happened on the plane that convinced the crew to make the unexpected landing.

The plane continued on its trip to Atlanta at 2:15 p.m.


Story and reaction/comments:   http://wtvr.com


http://www.flyrichmond.com

http://airnav.com/airport/RIC

Audit: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department managers misused aircraft for personal use

An audit released Thursday found that Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department managers improperly used department aircraft, including a helicopter dispatched to give a commander’s daughter a ride to a retirement party. 

In another instance, sheriff’s officials used a department airplane to fly to Connecticut, costing the county more than $35,000 for a trip that would have been significantly cheaper and likely faster on a commercial flight. 

The county audit was prompted earlier this year by a Los Angeles Times report about allegations that officials were abusing aircraft privileges, purposely delaying emergency calls to make the case for more overtime pay, and possibly manipulating time sheets. The Times reporting was based on internal sheriff’s memos and a deputy’s lawsuit that implicated officials.

While the audit found that aircraft were improperly used, it did not find evidence to support the most troubling claims: that calls for emergency service were ignored or that time sheets were manipulated. The auditor-controller’s office found those allegations were not supported by sheriff’s records.

Department spokesman Steve Whitmore called the audit an “exoneration” of the department’s air support division, saying the most serious allegations were unsubstantiated.

“They’re always going to find little things that are questionable,” he said. “The sheriff does not accept any questionable uses of county items and is prepared to correct anything that needs correcting.”

The audit pointed to three problematic trips. Along with the $35,000 flight to Connecticut to research new helicopters, a department plane was flown to Tucson, Ariz., in 2010 to pick up three sheriff’s officials for a conference. The trip was recorded as a training flight, a description that “appears notably convenient,” the audit found.

The third flight, also in 2010, involved the daughter of a commander being picked up in Calabasas by a sheriff’s helicopter, and given a ride to the commander’s retirement party in East Los Angeles. At the time, the helicopter was supposed to be assigned to patrol duty.

“The daughter had allegedly been delayed by highway traffic,” according to the audit.

At a county Board of Supervisors meeting in March after the allegations were made public, the unit’s captain said that one of the accusers had himself flown two relatives on a department helicopter a few years back, picking them up from northern L.A. County and flying them to LAX. 

Whitmore said the Sheriff’s Department has not yet decided whether to discipline anyone involved in the questionable flights mentioned in the audit. He said he did not have any of their names, and that Sheriff Lee Baca had not yet decided whether to release those names.

Story and reaction/comments:    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com

Want to buy an airplane engine?

SUMMERSIDE — Have several hundred thousand dollars to spare?

If so, a powerful — and expensive — aircraft engine could be yours.

On Dec. 27, at 800 Aerospace Blvd., Hangar 8 in Slemon Park, the engine of an ATR 42-300 aircraft, serial number 601 (model PW127FS/NPCE-127068) will be auctioned off.

The engine will sold subject to a reserve bid and there are conditions of the sale, said Derek Key, Q.C., solicitor for Vector Aerospace Engine Services — Atlantic Inc.

The public auction is being held under terms of the Garage Keeper’s Lien Act with Trans Airways Ltd. as debtor and Vector Aerospace Engine Services — Atlantic Inc. as creditor and lien holder.

“It’s the only way to transfer the title from the debtor to the people that did the work,” said Key of why a public auction must be held.

He added the aerospace industry has been pressuring the province for almost a decade to enact “legitimate” commercial lien legislation.

“All of the other aerospace provinces… they all have good commercial lien legislation. We’re relying on the Garage Keeper’s Lien Act,” said Key. “Aircraft engines and parts fit under the provisions of the Garage Keeper’s Lien Act.”

He said a similar auction was held two months ago.

“It’s the same thing as if you took your car into Canadian Tire and you don’t pay for it, they have the right to sell it. In this case it’s just a little more money and instead of being something with four wheels it’s an engine in a box.”

The ATR 42-300 is a twin-turboprop, short-haul regional airliner built in France and Italy by ATR (Aerei da Trasporto Regionale or Avions de Transport Régional) from 1981 to 1996. The name 42 comes from the aircraft's standard seating, which varies from 40 to 52. The aircraft retails for $12 to $16 million.

The aircraft engine had been shipped to Slemon Park from Indonesia to be prepared by Vector Aerospace Engines Services.

“Before the engine gets released of course you get paid because it’s usually several hundred thousand dollars,” said Key. “These folks didn’t pay and couldn’t pay. This has gone on quite a while so now the engine is going to be sold.”

If the engine doesn’t sell, which Key said it likely won’t, it will become the property of Vector Aerospace Engine Services.

“They can either use it for parts or sell to somebody else.”

Key has received calls of interest about the airplane engine.

“One guy wanted one for his fishing boat. It’s a hoot.”

But, added Key, there aren’t many people with several hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting around to buy the engine and fewer with a need for it.


Source:    http://www.journalpioneer.com

New York State Police helicopter used in search for missing boaters

 
A state police helicopter aids in the search for two Dutchess County men in the Hudson River after their boat overturned this morning. 
 Ryan Paraggio -Poughkeepsie Journal




HYDE PARK — As long as there's daylight, authorities will search for the two Dutchess County men whose boat capsized in the Hudson River this morning, said Hyde Park Police Chief Eric Paolilli. 

 Police are searching the river and surrounding land for Barrett Raymond, 31, of Hyde Park and Baylin Coddington, 26, of Millbrook.

Raymond, Coddington and Michael Maurer, 29, of Hyde Park took a canoe into the Hudson River around 11:30 p.m. Thursday, when the boat became unbalanced and tipped roughly 200 yards off shore today at 1:37 a.m., Paolilli said.

The three men clung to the canoe, but the 48 degrees water pressured Maurer into swimming to shore. Once on land, he walked through the woods and knocked on an apartment door at the Royal Crest Apartments in the Town of Hyde Park. Maurer was unsure what happened to Raymond and Coddington, the chief said.

Maurer is at Saint Francis Hospital with hypothermia but suffered no serious injuries, Paolilli said.

The chief said officials are trying to determine how the boat flipped and why the men were on the river, but said there's "no reason to believe there's any criminality."

Officials will search as long as there's daylight and if still unsuccessful authorities will meet later today to decide their next steps, the chief said.

Based on the Coast Guard formula for survivability, the men could survive for approximately eight hours in 48-degree water. They have been missing for more than 12 hours, but the search is still a rescue mission, Paolilli said.

The three men's canoe excursion by Bard Rock near the Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site.

Hyde Park police Lt. Robert Benson said shortly after 11 a.m. that, "We’re still right in the middle of the search right now."

He said officers from the National Park Service, state forest rangers, the state Department of Environmental Conservation, the Dutchess County Sheriff's Office, state police, Northern Dutchess Paramedics, and firefighters from the Roosevelt, Staatsburg and Hyde Park fire departments, and members of Dutchess County Emergency Response were on the scene.

A state police helicopter was dispatched to assist in the search, he said.

Coast Guard officials say its New York City sector was notified around 2 a.m. Friday that a canoe with three aboard overturned near the Rodgers Point Boat Club in Hyde Park, on the river's east bank just north of Poughkeepsie.

Paolilli said authorities are searching land three miles above and below the point where it's believed the boat capsized and are checking a quarter-mile into the river on all sides.

The Coast Guard Cutter Hawser, based in Bayonne, N.J., was already on the river when the call came in and is assisting in the search along with local and state police and firefighters.

A command post has been set up at the boat club.

Check back for updates.

2 Air Canada flights to New York City warned of flying too low: Embraer 175s on autopilot made runway approaches below regulations

Twice within the span of two weeks, an Air Canada plane's crew was warned by air traffic controllers that it was flying too low while approaching New York's LaGuardia airport.

On Dec. 9, Air Canada Flight 730 left Toronto's Pearson airport bound for LaGuardia. The plane, an Embraer 175 with 72 people on board, was on autopilot, nearing the airport and about to make its final approach to runway 4.

That's when air traffic controllers noticed the plane was coming in below the minimum approach height of 1,400 feet. After air traffic control alerted the flight crew, the plane rose up to 1,500 feet before continuing its approach and landing safely.

The incident was similar to an event a little over a week earlier, with the same type of aircraft. In that case, an Embraer 175 with 40 people on board flying from Montreal to LaGuardia. In that case, too, the plane was on autopilot when it became apparent it was making its approach well under the minimum approach height. The flight crew abandoned their first landing attempt before another approach and landing, without incident.

"We are studying these two cases," Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said. "During both approaches the crew followed all standard operating procedures and all path corrections were completed well above the alerting thresholds."

"At no time were the passengers and crew in any danger," Fitzpatrick said. "Flight crews have been instructed to no longer use this type of approach in LGA and there have been no other such instances. We are also following up with Embraer and Honeywell," the company that makes the plane's electronics, he said.


Source:   http://www.cbc.ca

Have more to add? 
News tip? Tell us 

Delta Air Gets 22,000 Applications for 300 Attendant Jobs

Delta Air Lines Inc., the world’s second-largest carrier, received 22,000 applications for about 300 flight attendant jobs in the first week after posting the positions outside the company.

The applications arrived at a rate of two per minute, Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson told workers in a weekly recorded message. Applicants will be interviewed in January and those hired will begin flying in June, for the peak travel season.

“We’re hunting for foreign-language speakers as we continue to expand to all points around the globe,” Richard Anderson, chief executive officer of Delta Air Lines Inc. said.

“We’re hunting for foreign-language speakers as we continue to expand to all points around the globe,” Anderson said. “We are experiencing a phenomenal response to the job posting.”

Delta’s applicant rush reflects the demand for jobs amid a 7.9 percent U.S. unemployment rate and the interest in an industry where flight privileges are a prized employee benefit. The Atlanta-based carrier received 100,000 applications for 1,000 jobs when it last hired flight attendants in October 2010.

While Anderson put the number of positions in the latest round of hiring at about 300, Betsy Talton, a spokeswoman, said it could reach 400. As many as 30 percent will speak languages including Japanese, Hindi, Mandarin and Portuguese, she said.

Delta has said it plans to develop Seattle into a U.S. West Coast gateway for flights to Asia, adding service to Tokyo’s Haneda airport and to Shanghai. In October, the Atlanta-based airline said it would add flights between Paris and 11 U.S. cities in 2013.

US Airways Group Inc. attracted 14,000 applicants when it hired 420 attendants in December of that year.

Airline Employment

U.S. passenger airlines employed 384,310 workers in October, down 1.3 percent from a year earlier, the U.S. Transportation Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics said in a report today. The total for October, the latest month for which government statistics are available, was the lowest since May 2011, the agency said.

Five so-called network airlines that include Delta and United Continental Holdings Inc. employ two-thirds of the total workers. They reported 1.4 percent fewer full-time equivalent employees in October from a year earlier.

Low-cost carriers such as Southwest Airlines Co. and JetBlue Airways Corp. reported a 1.6 percent increase, BTS said.

Source:    http://www.bloomberg.com

Trident Aircraft at Bay Bridge Airport (W29), Stevensville, Maryland

"Anyone have any experience with Trident Aircraft?  I hear good things.  Any feedback about customer service/maintenance?"

Shadowdog is inquiring: http://kentisland.proboards.com

http://www.tridentaircraft.com

http://www.airnav.com/airport/W29

Aviation recruitment never stops

 DENTON— Keeping one of the nation’s largest flight schools up and running requires a steady focus on recruiting CFIs and students. At any given time there are about 75 CFIs working with 230 - 250 students in the two training facilities owned by US Flight Academy, a branch of the US Aviation. Training operations are conducted at the home field in Denton Texas as well as at Grayson County Airport in Sherman, Texas.

The average tenure for a CFI at US Flight Academy varies according to the hiring activity in the airlines. "In most cases, a CFI will instruct for six to nine months before moving on to the airlines, cargo lines or to a job in corporate flying,” said David Adams, Director of Logistics and Assistant Chief Instructor at the Academy. "We’ve had a few who have been here for a couple years, because they like it and are in no rush to sign up with a regional airline.” Over 90 percent of the students the CFIs work with are training for careers as professional pilots, primarily in the airlines.


Once the federal requirement for airline employment increases this summer to 1500 hours, the tenure of CFIs at US Flight Academy will also change. A CFI at US Flight Academy can log between 800 and 1000 hours a year, so their stay at the Academy will begin to average 18 months before they move on. Given the looming airline pilot shortage and the average pilot age, 51 years, there is little doubt that CFIs from US Flight Academy will have no problems getting employment once they hit the 1500 hour mark.


The trips to job fairs will continue. Adams is in constant communication with schools like Embry Riddle, Spartan, Southeast Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University and Utah Valley University for candidates. He also receives resumes from all over the United States. Once every three weeks he starts an indoctrination class for new CFIs, covering a 250-page training manual and a flight test. "It’s a lot like the airlines in that everything a CFI does with one of our students is articulated in the manual,” said Adams. "Once they learn the discipline of training, they find it easy to adapt to airline procedures.” Airline recruiters have already begun showing up at US Flight Academy to sign new pilots from the CFI ranks.


For more information on CFI opportunities visit www.USFlightAcademy.com

Story and photo:   http://focusdailynews.com

US Flight Academy:  http://www.usflightacademy.com

American Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-83, N962TW, Flight AA-1295: Engine shut down in flight, landed without incident - Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport (KCLE), Ohio

CLEVELAND - An American Airlines jet suffered engine failure upon takeoff from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport around 2 p.m. Friday, airport officials said. 

 The flight was sent back to the airport. 

The Aircraft Rescue and Firefighter Station was called out after officials issued an "Alert 2."

There were about 139 people on board American Airlines Flight 1295, an MD80 that was headed to Dallas, Texas.

A section of the runway was cleared and the plane landed safely around 2:40 p.m.


http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL1295

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCLE

Have more to add? 
News tip? Tell us

Plane Makes Emergency Landing at Elmira/Corning Regional Airport (KELM), New York

 

Big Flats, N.Y. (WETM 18) - A single-engine aircraft landed at Elmira-Corning Regional Airport. 

 The flight was traveling from Rochestor to Wilkes-Barre Scranton.

The pilot on board the flight called for an emergency landing because the windshield of the aircraft began to ice over.

The aircraft landed safely, and the people on board were alerted to the issue.

No one was injured as a result of the emergency landing. 


http://www.wetmtv.com

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KELM

Have more to add? 
News tip? Tell us

Bell 230, Operated by Sky-Line: Helicopter force landed

A helicopter has made an emergency landing on a coastal sidewalk due to the harsh weather conditions in Sarıyer, the northernmost district of Istanbul on the European side, daily Hürriyet has reported.

The helicopter was carrying a well-known Turkish businessman, chairman of the executive board of Hattat Holding Mehmet Hattat, as well as his two companions.

"We left Amasra [in the Black Sea province of Bartın] and it took one-and-a-half hours to reach Istanbul with a calm flight. We were supposed to land in Maslak, but there was a smoke cloud above it. It is important for a helicopter not to enter fog or cloud, and I didn't want to take a risk. This is why I landed the helicopter in the safest place I found," helicopter pilot Mehmet Aksel said after landing.

Wintry weather caused traffic chaos around Istanbul yesterday, causing accidents and bottlenecks on highways on both sides of the city.

Watch Raw Video:  http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com


Have more to add? 
News tip? Tell us 

Hummel H5, N156FH: Accident occurred December 18, 2012 in Calhoun, Georgia

NTSB Identification: ERA13LA093
 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, December 18, 2012 in Calhoun, GA
Aircraft: RUSSOM ROY G HUMMEL H5, registration: N156FH
Injuries: 1 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 may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.


On December 18, 2012, about 1400 eastern standard time, an experimental amateur-built Hummel H5, N156FH, was substantially damaged when it impacted trees and terrain shortly after taking off from Tom B. David Field (CZL), Calhoun, Georgia. The private pilot was fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed for the local personal flight which was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.

According to a responding Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, witnesses reported that the airplane took off from runway 17 with engine sounds, ground roll and departure all "normal." Then, about 300 feet above ground level, the airplane began a slow roll to the right, reaching about 90 degrees angle of bank and 60 degrees nose-down when it descended into trees heading about 300 degrees magnetic.

The airplane's initial impact point was in a tree, about 50 feet above the ground, in the vicinity of 34 degrees, 27.03 minutes north latitude, 084 degrees, 55.83 minutes west longitude. The wreckage path angle of decent was about 60 degrees, heading approximately 290 degrees.

The engine and firewall sustained heat damage, and most of the center section aft of the fire wall was consumed by fire. The right wing exhibited compressions consistent with an initial right-wing-down impact, and the wooden propeller was broken near the hub flange.

The wreckage was subsequently moved to a hangar for further examination. Throttle and mixture were at full power positions and the carburetor heat control was found in the full cold position. Flight control continuity was confirmed, but with numerous flight control surfaces separated from the cockpit controls, consistent with impact overload.

The FAA inspector also noted that the airplane had accumulated 3.8 hours of total flight time as part of its initial Phase I operating limitations for an amateur-built aircraft.


 Roy Gardner Russom
(February 9, 1936 - December 18, 2012)

Mr. Roy Gardner Russom, age 76 of Calhoun, died Tuesday, December 18, 2012. He was born in Cairo, TN on February 9, 1936, son of the late R.D. and Sarah Maye Warren Russom.

Mr. Russom was a veteran, serving his country in the United States Air Force for over 21 years. He retired as an Aircraft Maintenance Superintendent. He was a member of the EAA.

Survivors include his wife, Eula Mae Comer Russom of the residence; a daughter and son-in-law, Tina and Randy Hopkin of Rake, Iowa; a brother, William Russom of Covington, TN; a sister, Barbara Ray, also of Covington; a granddaughter, Jennifer Anne Ihle of Winnebago, Minnesota; three great-grandchildren, Keagen, Jalan, and Koby Ihle; and several nieces and nephews.

Mr. Russom will be cremated, and a memorial service will be held from the chapel of Max Brannon and Sons Funeral Home. Date and time of the service will be announced at a later date.

The family requests flowers be omitted, and memorial contributions made in Mr. Russom’s name to the American Cancer Society, 200 W. Emery St., Ste 3, Dalton, GA 30720.

Online condolences may be expressed and the guest book signed at www.maxbrannonandsons.com. Max Brannon and Sons Funeral Home, a legacy of compassion and care, is in charge of funeral arrangements for Mr. Roy Gardner Russom, age 76 of Calhoun.

 
Guest Book:   http://www.legacy.com

Obituary:   http://www.maxbrannonandsons.com

Hummel H5, N156FH 

IDENTIFICATION
  Regis#: 156FH        Make/Model: EXP       Description: EXP- 
  Date: 12/18/2012     Time: 1900

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

LOCATION
  City: CALHOUN   State: GA   Country: US

DESCRIPTION
  AIRCRAFT CRASHED INTO A WOODED AREA, THE 1 PERSON ON BOARD WAS FATALLY 
  INJURED, NEAR CALHOUN, GA

INJURY DATA      Total Fatal:   1
                 # Crew:   1     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: COLLEGE PARK, GA  (SO11)              Entry date: 12/19/2012 

Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority OKs air charter company lease at Toledo Express Airport (KTOL), Ohio

A California air charter company has begun hiring pilots and mechanics to work at a new base at Toledo Express Airport for which the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority approved a hangar lease Thursday

 Sierra West Airlines, based in Oakdale, Calif., will pay $52,560 a year, plus a 3 percent annual escalator, for use of a 17,550-square-foot hangar formerly used by BD Aeroworks LTD.

The lease is for 30 years, with two 10-year options.

Kendra Robinson, Sierra West’s vice president of operations, said the firm already flies here — primarily handling automotive-related freight — and has “had our eyes on it [Toledo] for a while” as a permanent operating location.

Ms. Robinson’s mother, Debbe Robinson, founded and owns Sierra West. Before Sierra West, which operates on-demand air cargo, passenger, and ambulance flights, moves in, the port authority will provide up to $100,000 worth of energy-efficiency improvements to the building.

Port directors voted 11-0 to approve the deal, with board members Opie Rollison and Sharon Speyer absent.

Sierra West’s fleet consists primarily of small jets. Port officials said the company provides for-hire charter services on behalf of Grand Aire Inc., an aviation services company at Toledo Express.

“We’ve worked with Sierra West since 1985,” Jim Renda, Grand Aire’s business-development manager, told the port board Thursday.

“It’s good to have a charter operator based at Toledo Express to compete with the folks up at Willow Run,” he said, referring to a busy business-jet airport near Ypsilanti, Mich.

“There’s a lot of business that can come in and go out of Toledo Express that’s been going to other airports,” port President Paul Toth said after the vote. He noted that Grand Aire had flown such charters itself before a series of crashes during the mid-2000s that killed six of its pilots, including its founder Tahir Cheema.

Sierra West recently has based several airplanes at Grand Aire, with assigned pilots and mechanics. Ms. Robinson said her firm has hired several more trainees and expects to employ between 10 and 15 people in Toledo when it moves into the hangar.

“We plan on continuing to do business with Grand Aire. They’re a big part of our success,” Ms. Robinson said, adding that Sierra West expects to “join a really big team” of aviation-related businesses at the local airport.

Besides serving its customers, Mr. Toth agreed, Sierra West should become a customer itself for airport businesses that provide aviation fuel, aircraft maintenance, and other services.


http://www.toledoblade.com
 
http://www.sierrawestairlines.com

http://www.toledoexpress.com

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KTOL

Cessna 150J, Pressley Aviation Inc., N50757: Accident occurred December 20, 2012 in Indian Trail, North Carolina

NTSB Identification: ERA13LA095 
 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, December 20, 2012 in Indian Trail, NC
Aircraft: CESSNA 150J, registration: N50757
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

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

On December 20, 2012, about 1530 eastern standard time, a Cessna 150J, N50757, was substantially damaged following a runway overrun at Goose Creek Airport (28A), Indian Trail, North Carolina. The commercial pilot and passenger were not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by Bamert Aviation LLC under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The flight departed from 28A at 1400.

According to the pilot, he was demonstrating flight maneuvers to a passenger. He approached the airport for a full stop landing. While in the downwind, he set the flaps. However, he was unable to determine their position since there was no flap position indicator. He looked out the window and estimated that the flaps were at 8-degrees down. He continued his approach at 60 knots and realized that he was fast and high on short final. When the airplane crossed over the runway numbers, he reduced power but the airplane went into ground effect and was unable to land. The airplane touched down approximately 300-400 feet from the end of the runway. He applied the brakes and was unable to stop the airplane. The airplane overran the runway, went down an embankment and collided with trees.

A post-accident examination by the Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that the left and right wings had received substantial damage.





UNION COUNTY, N.C. -- A single-engine Cessna aircraft crashed Thursday afternoon at the Goose Creek airport in Union County.

 The Union County Sheriff's Office says the aircraft ran off the end of the runway during landing around 3:15 Thursday afternoon.

The FAA was notified of the crash, and has authorized the removal of the aircraft.

No one was injured.


http://www.wcnc.com

 http://www.goosecreekairport.com

Nose gear collapsed: Fairoaks Airport - UK

 
Photo Credit: High Level Photography Ltd

A light aircraft tipped onto its nose on the runway at Fairoaks Airport in Chobham on Friday (December 21).

 A student pilot at Fairoaks Flight Centre had just landed from a solo flight when the aircraft fell forwards at around 2pm.

Glen Heavens, managing director of Synergy Aviation, based at the airport, said the student was flying on his own as part of a private pilot license course.

Mr Heavens said the plane had just landed when something happened to its nose, which resulted in the aircraft ending up sitting on its front.

"It started on the ground and finished on the ground," he said.

No-one was injured as a result of the incident but firefighters attended the scene 

Have more to add?  
News tip? Tell us


http://www.getsurrey.co.uk

 http://www.fairoaksairport.com

 http://www.flysynergy.com

Chicago to Explore Leasing Midway International Airport (KMDW), Emanuel Says

Chicago plans to explore leasing Chicago Midway International Airport and would proceed with a deal only if a transaction would benefit taxpayers and travelers, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said today.

The decision by Emanuel, who has criticized a 75-year lease of the city’s parking-meter system pushed by his predecessor, Richard M. Daley, revives an idea that died in 2009. The new proposal envisions a lease of fewer than 40 years, and the city would retain ownership. The airport is Chicago’s second-biggest, behind O’Hare International.

The city said it will submit a preliminary application to the Federal Aviation Administration that would preserve a slot to make such a deal through the Airport Privatization Pilot Program. Emanuel described the move as “exploratory” and said no decisions have been made about leasing the facility. Initial proceeds would be used to pay debt that Chicago issued in 1996 to rebuild Midway.

“I am exploring all options on behalf of taxpayers,” the mayor, a Democrat, said in a news release today. “We all know the parking meter deal was bad for taxpayers and the city, and I have instructed my staff to ensure we mandate significant changes that protect us from the mistakes made with the parking meter deal.”


Deficit Plug

 
Daley came under criticism for using meter revenue to plug operating deficits. Emanuel said the city would receive a percentage fee from the lease deal as well as an annual cash stream.

The federal program is designed to enable airports to raise private capital for development and improvements. It allows as many as 10 public airport sponsors to sell or lease an airport, according to a statement from the FAA. The deadline to participate is Dec. 31.

Puerto Rico in July received a $2.6 billion offer in a proposed 40-year lease of its San Juan airport, the busiest airport in the Caribbean.

Midway was dedicated in 1927 and is home to the Chicago operations of Southwest Airlines Co. The facility handled about 16.4 million passengers in 2012 through October. That was up 4 percent from the previous year, according to the Chicago Department of Aviation’s website. In comparison, 56.7 million passengers traveled through O’Hare during the same period.

Midway had $1.4 billion of debt as of Dec. 31, 2011, according to an annual fiscal report.


Source:   http://www.bloomberg.com

http://www.airnav.com/airport/MDW

Cobb Board of Commissioners OKs $2.56M control tower for Cobb County Airport-Mc Collum Field (KRYY), Atlanta, Georgia

(A big thank you to *Augusta Jim* for sharing!)


MARIETTA – The Cobb Board of Commissioners is planning to build a new, $2.56 million control tower at Cobb County McCollum Field.

Commissioners issued a request for qualifications for the tower during Thursday’s board meeting in a 4-0 vote, with Woody Thompson absent.

Airport manager Karl Von Hagel said the new tower should be in place by fall of 2014.

The county expects the Federal Aviation Administration to pay for half the cost, county chairman Tim Lee said, with the rest coming out of the General Fund.

The existing tower, which has a floor 31 feet above ground, was built in 1994 for $360,000.

“It’s not terribly old in age, but when it was built in 1994 it was built as a starter control tower, meaning that it was built with all local funds, and the primary goal of it was efficiency of cost,” Von Hagel said. “When we constructed it, we did as little as we had to to be compliant since it was all local funding involved.”

Commissioners also approved a $94,590 expense with The LPA Group, Inc., an engineering consultant, to determine the best location and size of the new tower.

The current tower is square with four windows. The corners of the windows are supported by frames which cause visibility problems. FAA guidelines call for control towers that are shaped as hexagons to eliminate blind spots, Von Hagel said.

Von Hagel addressed a rumor that a hangar built in 2002 beside the tower by one of the fixed-base operators at McCollum, Atlanta Executive Jet Center, was the reason the county had to build the new tower. Von Hagel said he’s heard some pilots allege that the 12,000-square-foot hangar, which rises to about 30 feet in height by the tower, was violating FAA rules by creating a blind spot for traffic controllers.

“That’s not the case,” Von Hagel said. “But it does create a blind spot on the parking apron where the aircraft park.”

However, controllers are not required to see the parking apron, he said.

Another problem is that as aircraft come in from the northwest, they don’t become visible “until late in the process” because of the height of the tower relative to the height of the trees and the hills that are to the northwest of the airport, he said.

“All of these put together create a diminished situational awareness for the controller,” he said.

The airport contributes $112.4 million to the local economy each year, with 842 local jobs dependent on activity conducted at the airport. There are about 225 aircraft based at McCollum Field and about 186 takeoffs or landings every day, Von Hagel said.

“It’s important,” Lee said. “The airport is such a huge economic grinder for us in terms of developing the opportunity for fleets. In fact, we had an aircraft leave the other day from our airport who went all the way down to Argentina. As soon as we get customs in — that’s another thing we’re going to bring this fall — that will increase the number of flights coming in directly from overseas. Having a good tower with good visibly and communication is important for the safety, not only for the aircraft and the pilots and the folks on the aircraft, but the people who work there as well.”

Private and corporate jets flying from outside of the country have not been able to land at McCollum Field because it lacks a customs inspection office. That will soon change because of a deal the county recently struck with Atlanta Executive Jet Center, which will build a facility and pay the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to operate it.

The deal calls for Atlanta Executive to reimburse the county for all expenses related to the customs service for up to 10 years. The cost of the customs operation is estimated at $140,000 in the first year of operation, and $120,000 per year thereafter. The $140,000 will not begin until the building is put into operation, which will be Sept 30, Von Hagel said. Atlanta Executive Jet Center must also build a facility that meets the standards of U.S. Customs. The proposed 2,500-square-foot customs building, which will be located on the south apron, is estimated to cost $450,000.

In other business Thursday, the commissioners allotted $136,220 to renovate the Tax Commissioner’s Motor Vehicle satellite office in the East Cobb Government Service Center. The work is in reaction to Georgia’s new car tax law that goes into effect on March 1, which is expected to cause a good deal of public frustration, Tax Commissioner Gail Downing said.

“The overall protection of customers, employees, cash and inventory at our East Cobb Motor Vehicle Satellite needs to be addressed,” Downing writes in the agenda item. “It is anticipated that the implementation of HB386 on March 1, 2013 will result in a more complex and contentious tag, title and registration transactions as well as an increase in the amount of cash handled by our staff.”

The proposed new office layout would better allow Downing to control public access to restricted work areas while also improving customer service, she writes.

Also Thursday, commissioners made several appointments.

Rose Wing was appointed to the Historic Preservation Commission to serve out the remainder of Karen Lockhart’s term, which expires on Dec. 31, 2014. Wing was nominated by Commissioner JoAnn Birrell.

Roger Phelps was reappointed to the Board of Tax Assessors, nominated by Commissioner Bob Ott.

Peggy Holbrook was reappointed to the Cobb Public Library Board, nominated by Commissioner Helen Goreham.

Commissioner-elect Lisa Cupid was appointed to the Solid Waste Management Authority, replacing outgoing Thompson. Cupid was nominated by Lee.

All votes were 4-0. Thompson, who will be replaced by Cupid in January, did not attend the last commission meeting of the year.


Source: The Marietta Daily Journal


Related:

http://dot.cobbcountyga.gov/mccollum.htm

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KRYY

Boeing 727-221F, 5N-BJN, Allied Air: Families Of Plane Crash Victims Hire U.S. Lawyer, Accident occurred June 02, 2012 in Accra, Ghana

 

 After much frustration with the airline and its insurers, the families of those killed in the Allied Air Cargo Plane crash in Ghana on June 2, 2012 have hired John K. Akpalu, a high-powered Harvard-trained US and Ghanaian lawyer with expertise in insurance law to fight for compensation for them. 

John Akpalu, who has been practicing insurance law and litigation in New York, previously worked as defense counsel for insurance carriers including the City of New York and the New York City Transit Authority. He is a member of both the New York and Ghana Bars and has a satellite office in Accra.

In an interview in his New York office, Lawyer Akpalu lamented the reluctance of the airline and its insurers to deal fairly with the victims’ families. Noting that some of these victims were the breadwinners of their families, he said: “I am sure that the owners will put in for millions of dollars in insurance claims to cover damage to the aircraft, yet they and their insurers want to devalue the lives of their victims.” “Ghanaian lives are not cheap, and no airline should be operating in the country if they do not have adequate insurance to cover damages for their negligent acts.”

Allied Air Cargo Plane, a Boeing 727, crashed on landing at Kotoka International Airport in Accra on June 2, 2012, breaking the airport perimeter fence in the process and running into a bus and a taxi on the Elwak stadium road killing ten people and injuring several others. Aside of huge funeral expenses which the families have had to endure with only a meager contribution from the airline, the families continue to suffer financial hardships due to the loss of income from their deceased relatives.

Lawyer Akpalu also complained about the way insurance companies and wrongdoers in Ghana get away with paying little or no compensation to their victims and pointed to the recent Melcom building collapse and the frustrations the families are going through in securing compensation. He stated that he is in consultation with some of those families to secure compensation for them and added that not all lawyers have expertise in insurance law and it behooves clients to retain the proper attorney.

Shifting to the serious problem of medical malpractice in Ghana, Lawyer Akpalu opined that Ghana is now a middle income country and must learn from the developed world where doctors are required to carry insurance so that their victims can be compensated in cases of negligent treatment leading to death or serious injury. Hospitals and Clinics, he said, must also be made to carry insurance so that they will be more careful in hiring and supervising their staff.

Story and reaction/comments:  http://www.ghanaweb.com


Photos:   http://vibeghana.com

Cessna T210L Turbo Centurion, Victor Pantaleo (rgd. owner), N732BX: Accident occurred June 26, 2011 in Romeoville, Illinois

NTSB Identification: CEN11FA425 
 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, June 26, 2011 in Romeoville, IL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/21/2012
Aircraft: CESSNA T210L, registration: N732BX
Injuries: 1 Fatal,1 Serious.

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

According to the passenger, the pilot had successfully completed two touch-and-go landings, and during the climbout, the engine lost power. The airplane impacted trees, a power line, and terrain. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no fuel in the wing fuel tanks, and the gascolator only contained about 2 ounces of fuel. Only a trace amount of fuel was found in the engine’s fuel manifold valve. The passenger said that the pilot had drained the fuel sumps, but he did not recall whether the pilot had fueled the airplane. A subsequent examination and operational test of the airplane’s engine was performed. No defects in engine operation were detected and the engine produced full rated power during the test.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
A total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot’s inadequate fuel planning.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On June 26, 2011, about 1431 central daylight time, a Cessna T210, N732BX, impacted trees, a power line, and terrain, during a forced landing after a loss of engine power near Romeoville, Illinois. The private pilot was fatally injured and the passenger received serious injuries. The airplane sustained substantial damage during the impact. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual flight rules (VFR) conditions prevailed for the flight which was not on a flight plan. The flight originated from the Brookeridge Airpark (LL22), Downers Grove, Illinois at an unconfirmed time and was en route to the Lewis University Airport (LOT), Romeoville, Illinois.

The airplane was owned by the pilot and based at LL22. LOT is located 10 miles south-southwest of LL22. The passenger in the airplane reported that they departed LL22 with the intention of completing some touch and go’s at LOT. He stated that they had just completed two touch and go maneuvers and were climbing out when the engine quit. He stated that the pilot attempted an off field landing short of the airport. The passenger stated that he remembered the pilot draining the fuel sumps before takeoff but could not remember if they ever put fuel in the aircraft.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION
The pilot held a private pilot certificate with single-engine land airplane and instrument airplane ratings. He was issued a third class airman medical certificate, with a limitation requiring the pilot to have glasses available for near vision, on November 10, 2009. He reported 5,850 hours total flight time on his most recent airman medical certificate application. His most recent flight review was completed on May 31, 2011. The pilot’s flight logbook was not available for review during the investigation.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
The airplane was a 1976 Cessna model T210L airplane, serial number 21061397. The airplane was a six seat, high wing monoplane of predominately aluminum construction. It had a tricycle retractable landing gear configuration, and was powered by a 285 horsepower, turbo-charged six cylinder engine. The engine was a Continental Motors model TSIO-520-PCH, bearing serial number 513067.

The airplane had accumulated about 5,160 hours at the time of the most recent annual inspection. That inspection was completed on August 16, 2010. About 9 hours had accumulated on the airplane since that inspection.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
At 1440, the weather conditions recorded at LOT were: wind from 110 degrees at 7 knots; visibility 10 miles; scattered clouds at 2,000 feet above ground level (agl); temperature 27 degrees Celsius; dew point 14 degrees Celsius; altimeter 29.93 inches of mercury.

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION
The airplane came to rest on the side of an embankment near the intersection of Airport Road and Illinois Route 53 in Romeoville, Illinois. During the impact sequence, the airplane struck trees and a power line. The resting location of the airplane was about 2,100 feet east-northeast of the approach end of runway 27 at LOT. The airplane came to rest facing east having struck a tree during the impact sequence. Impact evidence indicated that the airplane was travelling in a southwest direction prior to its impact with the tree. The airplane struck the tree on the forward right side of the fuselage which was crushed rearward and inward. The airplane’s engine was separated from the airframe and located about 50 feet southwest of the main wreckage. The airplane wreckage was removed from the accident site for further examination.

Examination of the airplane in a hangar at LOT was conducted on June 30, 2011. The engine was separated from the airframe and was resting on a wooden pallet. The engine was lifted using an engine hoist. The propeller was removed during the examination. The upper spark plugs were removed and a borescope examination of the engine performed. No defects that would prevent engine operation were detected. The engine rotated freely and compression and suction could be felt on all cylinders while rotating the engine. The magneto impulse couplings could be heard while rotating the engine. Spark was detected on all spark plug leads during rotation. The fuel manifold valve was opened and a trace amount of fuel was found. The engine was shipped to Continental Motors for a possible engine run examination.

The airframe was substantially intact. The airplane was positioned level and the wings shored up to keep it level. The wings and tail surfaces remained attached. The landing gear was in the retracted position and the flaps were in the up position. The elevator trim tab actuator was measured to be 1.55 inches equating to a 0 to 5 degrees tab down deflection. There was buckling of the aft fuselage in a downward left direction. There was leading edge damage to the left wing that was consistent with the reported impact with the overhead power line. All control surfaces remained attached and all hinge locations were intact. Continuity was confirmed from each control surface to the cockpit area. No fuel was found in either wing fuel tank when checked with a fuel strainer cup. The gascolator was removed and its contents drained. An estimated 2 ounces total quantity of liquid was drained from the gascolator. Of that 2 ounces, about 1-1/2 ounces appeared to be 100LL aviation gasoline and ½ ounce appeared to be water. The sample was tested using a water detection paste to confirm the presence of water. The separated layer was confirmed to be water.

A subsequent examination and test run was conducted on the engine from the airplane on October 11, 2011 at the Continental Motors facility in Mobile, Alabama. The NTSB investigator in charge was present for the preparation and engine test run. Several engine components that had sustained impact damage during the accident were replaced with substitute or repaired parts prior to the engine test run. Subsequently, the engine was placed into an engine testing cell and run at various throttle settings from idle to full throttle. No defects were detected in the operation of the engine during the test run. The engine was able to produce full rated power output and exhibited no hesitation or stumbling during throttle application.

MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION
An autopsy of the pilot was performed on June 27, 2011. The pilot’s was attributed to multiple traumatic injuries sustained in the accident.

The FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute forensic toxicology report noted the presence of Ibuprofen and Quinine in the submitted samples. Specifically, the report noted:
Ibuprofen detected in Urine;
Quinine detected in Urine;

Ibuprofen is a nonnarcotic analgesic and anti-inflammatory agent. It is available in prescription, as well as nonprescription, forms.
Quinine is an anti-malarial used in the treatment of malaria and leg cramps. It is an additive in tonic water.

========

The survivor of a July 2011 plane crash in Romeoville is suing the estate of the Darien man who was piloting the aircraft.

Victor Pantaleo, 68, was killed when his Cessna 210 went down near the Lewis University Airport.

The sole passenger in Pantaleo's plane, Daniel Guinta, filed his lawsuit against Pantaleo at the Will County Courthouse. The suit alleges that Pantaleo failed to adequately control the plane or to ensure it was sufficiently fueled.

Pantaleo ran the plane into power lines and trees prior to crashing down to the ground, according to the lawsuit. Guinta's lawsuit claims Pantaleo should have seen the power lines and trees before he hit them.

The lawsuit also says Guinta suffered severe and permanent injuries as well as anguish.

Story, reaction/comments:    http://romeoville.patch.com


 
Victor Pantaleo 
(Submitted photo)








Vote for U.S. Coast Guard's Top Moments of 2012

The U.S. Coast Guard unveiled their Top 10 compelling videos of 2012 at their Cape May Training Center Wednesday morning.   A preview of the videos was released on the Coast Guard’s YouTube page. Included in the preview are videos of rescues at sea and on ice as well as the Coast Guard battling heavy surf.  The public will get the chance to view the full videos and vote on their favorite video starting Saturday on Youtube and on Facebook.
 
 
 
We've combed through all of the Coast Guard's videos from throughout the year to select the top 10 videos highlighting the year's most compelling cases from the work done every day by America's Coast Guard. Now we need your help in deciding the top three!

These real-life operations, like many performed by the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard, largely go unseen by members of the public. While some may get a glimpse of the action, we wanted to give you something more... 

Tune in through the end of the year, Dec. 22 through Dec. 31, so you can watch each individual video and vote for your favorite.

Visit www.uscgnews.com, facebook.com/UScoastguard, ‪http://coastguard.dodlive.mil or www.uscgnews.com for more information.

Piper PA-28-160 Cherokee, N5714W: Accident occurred December 16, 2012 in Parkton, North Carolina

NTSB Identification: ERA13FA088
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, December 16, 2012 in Parkton, NC
Probable Cause Approval Date: 04/10/2014
Aircraft: PIPER PA-28-160, registration: N5714W
Injuries: 1 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 instrument-rated pilot departed with nearly full fuel tanks, obtained his instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance, and proceeded toward the destination airport, which, at the time of the accident, was IFR with a 500-foot ceiling. The pilot was vectored onto final approach for an instrument landing system approach. Radar data showed that the airplane performed s-type turns; the pilot then reported to the local controller that he had “...lost some gyros but I think we are getting it.” When the airplane was about 1 mile from the approach end of the runway at 1,300 feet, the local controller cancelled the approach clearance because the airplane was too high and advised the pilot to fly runway heading and climb to 2,000 feet. Radar data indicated that the pilot turned toward an easterly heading without clearance from the controller. The pilot was then instructed to maintain an easterly heading followed by a southwesterly heading (220 degrees) consistent with a downwind leg to fly parallel to runway 4. The pilot turned well past the southwesterly heading to a northwesterly heading, and was asked by the controller if he was having any problem with the airplane such that he was unable to fly assigned headings. The pilot advised the radar controller that he “...currently [had] no gyro I think the best thing for me to climb a little bit and go to my alternate of ah Columbus or some point south.” There was an adequate supply of fuel onboard to fly to his alternate airport, which at that time was under visual meteorological conditions with 10 miles visibility and a ceiling at 5,500 feet. As a result of the loss of gyros, the pilot was flying the airplane with a partial panel. The pilot was cleared to climb direct to his alternate airport; however, extensive heading and altitude deviations were noted during this portion of the flight, which was operating in IMC. The radar controller asked the pilot if he was ok to which he replied, “uh no im not okay right now.” This verbiage and the fact that extensive altitude and heading deviations occurred were clear indications that an emergency situation existed; however, the controller did not recognize this and did not request the necessary information needed to offer assistance, as outlined in FAA Order 7110.65, 10-2-1. The controller later reported that he believed the gyro comment would have affected only the pilot’s ability to maintain heading, thus, he did not believe the loss of gyros while in instrument conditions constituted an emergency. The controller then asked the pilot if he wanted to land at the airport, and he answered, “uh the best thing to”; however, the communication was not finished. It is likely that the pilot was intending to tell the controller again that he wanted to go to his alternate airport. However, because the controller did not recognize the emergency, he continued to vector the pilot to land using an ILS approach. While thbeing vectored, when the airplane was operating in IMC, major heading and altitude changes were noted; however, when the airplane was operating at higher altitudes in VFR conditions, the pilot was able to maintain the airplane’s assigned heading and altitude. The steady flight in VFR conditions should have been a cue to the controller that safe flight was possible in visual conditions; thus he should have encouraged the pilot to continue the flight to his alternate airport as the pilot had requested. Instead, the controller vectored the pilot to intercept the localizer, advised that the flight was about 4 miles from the final approach fix, and cleared the pilot to conduct an ILS approach. The pilot managed to fly onto final approach, but while in IMC conditions, rolled to the right and crashed inverted in a wooded area about 7.5 nautical miles from the approach end of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airframe and flights controls for roll, pitch, and yaw revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction. Examination of the power section of the engine revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction; one propeller blade exhibited “S”-bending consistent with the engine developing power at impact. No discrepancies were noted with the airport approach systems.
Examination of the engine-driven vacuum pump, which operates the primary flight instruments consisting of the attitude indicator and directional gyro revealed fire damage to the shear shaft; however, no evidence of scoring of the interior surface of the housing was noted. Further, inspection of the gyroscopic flight instruments operated by the engine-driven vacuum pump revealed no evidence of rotational scoring; therefore, the engine-driven vacuum pump, which was about 3 years 4 months beyond the suggested replacement interval, was not operating at the moment of impact. This was consistent with the comment from the pilot that he had lost his gyro instruments. Although no determination could be made as to whether the pilot was instrument current, his inability to maintain control of the airplane while flying with a partial panel suggests he was not proficient in doing so; he failed this criteria in April 2002 during his first instrument rating checkride. In August 2004, in response to an NTSB recommendation, the FAA implemented national computer-based training to alert controllers of in-flight emergencies a pilot may encounter and the effect of the emergency. NTSB review of the current version of the CBI revealed it did not contain scenarios related to failures of the vacuum system or gyro flight instruments. Although the training provided to the controllers involved appeared to be inconsistent, it is unlikely that consistent training would have affected the outcome of the accident because specific mention of gyro malfunction was not a covered topic in the CBI training. Although the pilot had not declared an emergency, he had advised ATC personnel that he had lost his gyros, and that he was “not OK.” Further, extensive altitude and heading excursions of the aircraft were noted, all of which were clear indicators that an in-flight emergency existed. Had any of the FAA controller personnel understood either by experience or training that the pilot’s declarations or altitude and heading changes constituted an emergency, they could have declared an emergency for the pilot and obtained the necessary information required by section 10-2-1 of FAA Order 7110.65U, “Air Traffic Control.” Had that occurred, it is likely the pilot would have been vectored to an airport with VFR conditions for an uneventful landing.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The failure of the instrument-rated pilot to maintain control of the airplane while in instrument meteorological conditions after reporting a gyro malfunction. Contributing to the accident was the loss of primary gyro flight instruments due to the failure of the vacuum pump, the inadequate assistance provided by FAA ATC personnel, and the inadequate recurrent training of FAA ATC personnel in recognizing and responding to in-flight emergency situations.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On December 16, 2012, about 1532 eastern standard time, a Piper PA-28-160, N5714W, registered to and operated by a private individual, crashed in a wooded area near Parkton, North Carolina. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and an instrument flight rules (IFR) plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal flight from Summerville Airport (DYB), Summerville, South Carolina, to Fayetteville Regional Airport/Grannis Field (FAY), Fayetteville, North Carolina. The airplane sustained substantial damage and the private pilot, the sole occupant, was fatally injured. The flight originated from DYB about 1400.

The pilot departed VFR and at 1412, he established contact with Charleston air traffic control tower (ATCT) and was issued a discrete IFR transponder code. About 1 minute later the airplane was radar identified, the pilot was issued IFR clearance, and instructed to climb and maintain 5,000 feet which he acknowledged. While proceeding towards the destination airport, air traffic control (ATC) communications were transferred to Shaw Air Force Base Approach, followed by Fayetteville Approach Control.

According to a transcription of communications with Fayetteville Air Traffic Control Tower, at 1451:41, the pilot established contact with the radar controller of the East Radar position of Fayetteville ATCT, and advised the controller that the flight was at 5,000 feet mean sea level (msl). The radar controller instructed the pilot to advise when he had automated terminal information service (ATIS) Alpha, and to expect instrument landing system (ILS) runway 4 approach, to which he immediately acknowledged having obtained ATIS information Alpha and to expect ILS runway 4 approach. The controller then provided the altimeter setting to the pilot and he read-back correctly the last 2 digits.

At 14:57:20, the radar controller asked the pilot if he could accept direct ZODGI, which is the initial approach fix (IAF) for the ILS to runway 4. While the transcription of communication indicates the pilot's response was unintelligible, NTSB review of the certified voice tape revealed his comment was in the affirmative. The controller issued the pilot a 055 degree heading to join the localizer, and instructed him to report established on the final approach course. The pilot did not respond, so the radar controller repeated the transmission. The pilot apologized and acknowledged the instructions.

At 14:59:41, the radar controller issued the pilot a weather advisory for a small area of moderate precipitation at the pilot's one o'clock position and 3 miles, which he acknowledged. At 1504:38, the radar controller instructed the pilot to descend and maintain 2,300 feet and, "…verify established" on the localizer. The pilot acknowledged the altitude assignment, and stated, "…couldn't (unintelligible) isn't quite established yet sir." At 1504:51, the pilot asked if a heading of 055 was good to intercept, and the radar controller replied affirmative.

At 1506:07, the controller advised the pilot that the flight was 10 miles from the final approach fix, fly the present heading and to maintain at or above 2,300 feet until established on the localizer, cleared for ILS straight in runway 4 approach. The pilot acknowledged the instructions and advised the controller, "…I think we're established now thanks." Radar data indicates that before reaching ZODGI, the pilot flew slightly east of the final approach course, followed by a left turn flying west of the final approach course. Air traffic control communications were transferred to local control of the FAY ATCT, and at 1507:10, while west of the final approach course but before ZODGI, the pilot established contact with local control and was cleared to land. The local controller also provided the wind direction and velocity information to the pilot but he did not reply. The radar data indicated that as the flight continued towards FAY near ZODGI, the airplane flew in an easterly direction flying east of the final approach course. The airplane was observed on radar turning to the northwest and intercepting the final approach course, then turned again and flew east of the final approach course.

At 1509:43, the radar controller contacted the local controller and advised that the airplane appeared to be right of course; at that time the airplane was east of the final approach course. The radar data indicates that the pilot performed S type turns while remaining right of course and at 1510:34, the local controller questioned the pilot if he was receiving the localizer to which he replied, "having a little bit of trouble right now I seem to have lost some gyros but I think we're getting there." The local controller advised the pilot to maintain 2,000 and suggested a heading of 020 to join the localizer, which he acknowledged. At that time, coordination between the local and radar east positions occurred. At 1511:24, the local controller advised the pilot to maintain 1,900 feet until receiving the glideslope, which he acknowledged. Radar data indicates that the flight proceeded towards FAY, and at 1512:15, the pilot was advised that the flight was crossing CINLO, which is the final approach fix. At 1513:30, when the flight was at 1,700 feet msl, about 211 degrees and 2.8 nautical miles from the approach end of runway 4, the local controller asked the pilot if he was receiving the glide slope. The pilot responded, "I'm sorry sir yes sir ah, I would have [unintelligible words] I realize we're coming now."

At 1513:37, the local controller asked the pilot if he wanted, "…to come back out for another approach" to which the pilot stated that, "…I think we're doing OK if it looks OK to you." The local controller informed the pilot that he could not tell with the rate of descent and cleared the pilot for a localizer approach to runway 4. The local controller later stated during an interview that he wanted to give the pilot every opportunity to complete the approach and wanted him to worry less about the glideslope so that is the reason that he cleared him for a localizer approach. The pilot acknowledged the clearance with part of his call sign and approximately 37 seconds later, or at 1514:29, the controller cancelled the approach clearance and advised the pilot to climb and maintain 2,000 feet and fly runway heading, which he acknowledged. Radar data indicates that about that time, the airplane was at 1,300 feet and 1.0 nautical mile from the approach end of runway 4.

At 1514:40, the local controller informed the pilot that overcast clouds existed at 500 feet, the flight was at 1,200 feet about ½ mile away from the runway, and asked the pilot if he wanted to perform another approach. The pilot responded, "that'll be fine thanks one four whiskey." Coordination between the local and east radar positions occurred. Radar data indicates that beginning about 1514:29, to about 1515:03, the pilot turned right to a nearly due east heading despite the instruction from the controller to maintain runway heading. At 1515:05, the local controller advised the pilot to fly heading 090 degrees climb and maintain 2,000 feet which he correctly read back. The controller then asked the pilot what heading he was flying he reported 081 degrees. The local controller again instructed the pilot to fly heading 090 degrees, climb and maintain 2,000 feet, and to contact Fayetteville Departure Control on frequency 133.0 MHz. Coordination between the local controller and radar east radar controller occurred during which time the local controller stated, "he's having a lot of problems holding a steady heading he's trying a ninety heading right now at two thousand." The transcription does not indicate that the local controller advised the radar controller that the pilot had stated that he lost some of his gyros.

The pilot established contact with Fayetteville Approach Control at 1515:44, and he advised the Radar East controller that he was heading 095 degrees going to 090 degrees. The flight was radar identified and the controller then advised the pilot to climb and maintain 2,300 feet which the pilot acknowledged. At 1516:09, a position relief briefing of the radar east radar control position occurred. During the briefing the weather conditions at FAY was discussed and the comment was that the airport was IFR due to the ceilings. The radar east control position was manned by an OJTI (instructor) and developmental (controller in training). At 1516:42, the radar east OJTI and/or the developmental controller instructed the pilot to turn right to heading 140 degrees, which he acknowledged. At 1517:18, the radar controller advised the pilot to turn right to heading 220 degrees, though the pilot did not respond. The controller repeated the heading which the pilot read back. Radar data indicates that the pilot flew past the instructed heading and at 1517:49, the radar controller asked the pilot what heading he was on and the immediate reply was, "…three one zero" The radar controller again advised the pilot that he was to fly heading 220 degrees, to which the pilot correctly read back the heading. At 1518:01, the controller then stated, "…are you having problems with your airplane you can't um fly an appropriate heading", to which the pilot replied at 1518:05, "ok I'm currently no gyro I think the best thing for me to climb a little bit and go to my alternate of ah Columbus or some point south."

The radar controller questioned the pilot about his ability to navigate to his alternate airport without gyros and he replied he could. The controller then asked the pilot what airport he wanted to go to and at 1518:26, he replied, "…columbus would be fine sir." The radar controller cleared the flight to Columbus County Airport (CPC), and to climb and maintain 3,000 feet, which the pilot did not acknowledge. The controller repeated the clearance and the pilot did not reply. Two more attempts were made to communicate with the pilot and it wasn't until 1519:12, after the second attempt that he replied, "approach." The radar data indicates that from about 1518:36, until his comment approach at 1519:13, the airplane went from a northwesterly heading to a south-southwesterly heading with altitude deviations noted. At 1519:13, the radar controller stated, "and um it appears um your altitude is changing erratically you going up to eighteen hundred down to eighteen hundred then up to two thousand three hundred are you okay." The pilot responded at 1519:21, "uh no im not okay right now." The radar controller asked the pilot if he wanted, "…to come into Fayetteville" to which the pilot stated, "uh the best thing to" but the communication was not finished. The radar data indicates that the airplane turned to a west-southwesterly heading, followed by a left turn to an easterly heading at 1519:41

At 1519:40, the radar controller asked the pilot if he could fly southwest bound and he advised "yeah southwest." The controller then asked the pilot if he was flying southwest bound and he immediately replied that he was flying heading 253 degrees and his altitude was 2,500 feet msl, trying to climb to 3,000 feet msl. The radar data about this time indicates the airplane was heading 245 degrees and the altitude was 2,564 feet. The controller then asked the pilot if he could do a non-gyro standard rate turns to which he replied he could. The controller advised the pilot to start a left turn and about 19 seconds later told him to stop the turn. The radar data indicated that during that period, the heading began at about 248 degrees and ended at 251 degrees. At 1521:01, the radar controller advised the pilot to expect an ILS approach into FAY, and about 9 seconds later informed the pilot that he did not turn at all during the previous non-gyro start and stop times. The radar controller also asked the pilot if he knew how to do a non-gyro approach, to which he replied that he had done the drill before.

At 1521:53, the radar controller asked the pilot if he was picking up the glideslope and localizer during the first approach and he replied affirmative. The controller advised the pilot to expect an ILS approach runway 4. Radar data indicates that the flight proceeded generally in a southwesterly direction with heading deviations noted, and at 1522:27, the pilot informed the controller that he was flying heading 268 degrees. The controller then asked the pilot if the autopilot was flying the airplane or he was, to which he replied he was. The flight continued generally in a southwesterly direction while maintaining altitude until about 1523:21, at which time the flight proceeded in a southerly direction as instructed by the radar controller. Minimal heading and altitude deviations were noted in the radar data while flying in a southerly heading between 1523:26 and 1526:20. At 1526:17, the radar east controller instructed the pilot to fly west heading 270 degrees. The radar data reflects the pilot turned to and remained on a westerly heading with minimal altitude and heading deviations noted. Based on the upper sounding, pilot reports (PIREPS), and weather radar images, the airplane was in VFR conditions between about 1523 and 1527, which was the entire time the flight was flying in a southerly direction and portion of the flight while flying in a westerly direction.

At 1529:42, the radar controller advised the pilot that the flight was 4 miles from the final approach fix, turn right heading northbound on the 010 and maintain 2,000 feet until established on the localizer, cleared for ILS approach to runway 4. The pilot read back, "…heading 010 maintain 2,000 cleared for the approach." The radar reflects the airplane turned to a north-northeasterly heading and at 1531:16, the pilot advised the radar controller that the flight was established on the localizer. About that time the airplane was at 2,764 feet heading 029 degrees. The radar controller then asked the pilot if he was picking up the glide slope to which the pilot advised he was not. There were no further recorded legible transmissions from the pilot despite numerous attempts by the controller. The radar data reflects a right turn to an east-southeasterly heading beginning about 1531:17, and about 20 seconds later, or at 1531:37, a loud squeal was heard on the frequency; this was attributed to be from the accident airplane. 

One witness reported hearing a loud engine sound from a 4 cylinder engine then looked across I-95 and noted smoke from a wooded area. Another witness reported hearing the sound of the engine revved up, "like it was making a dive bomb run." The witness did not see the airplane accident but reported that the airplane flew near his house. Another witness who was inside her residence reported hearing the airplane fly near her house and reported seeing smoke and flames from the accident. The witness then went outside and directed law enforcement to the accident site.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION

The pilot, age 63, held a private pilot certificate with airplane single engine land, and instrument airplane ratings; the instrument rating was issued August 7, 2003. He held a third class medical certificate with a limitation that the holder, "must wear corrective lenses for near and distant vision" issued on March 2, 2011. On the application for the last medical certificate he indicated a total flight time of 1,006 hours.

According to FAA records, on April 11, 2002, he received notice of disapproval for his instrument airplane rating because he failed the "air traffic control clearances and procedures", "instrument approach procedures", and "emergency operations" areas of operations, with special emphasis on partial panel. His pilot logbook reflects he obtained additional flight training which included partial panel training. FAA records also indicate that on June 3, 2002, he received a second notice of disapproval for his instrument airplane rating because he failed the "air traffic control clearances and procedures", "instrument approach procedures", and "emergency operations" with emphasis of flying approaches as published. His pilot logbook reflects that he immediately received some training, but the training tapered off then increased immediately before he obtaining the instrument rating in August 2003.

Further review of the pilot's first pilot logbook which contained entries from March 24, 1999, to November 5, 2005, revealed that about the time he obtained his instrument rating, he had accrued about 67 hours simulated instrument flight and 10 hours actual instrument flight. Since obtaining his instrument rating, he logged approximately 4 hours simulated instrument flight and 16 hours actual instrument flight. Excerpts of the pilot logbook are contained in the NTSB public docket.

The pilot's wife reported that her husband's most recent (second) pilot logbook would have been on-board the airplane at the time of the accident. A thorough search among the burned wreckage did not reveal any remains of a pilot logbook; therefore, no determination could be made as to whether he was instrument current or the date of his last instrument proficiency check.

The pilot's wife provided his known sleep and wake schedule for the previous 7 days. A review of the provided schedule revealed that from December 9th through December 14th, he rested for about 6.5 hours each night, with slight variations notes. On December 15th, she reported that he went to bed after 0230, but she was not sure what time he woke up. She was also not sure what time he went to bed on December 15th, nor the time he woke up on December 16th.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

The airplane was manufactured in 1963 by Piper Aircraft Corporation as model PA-28-160, and was designated serial number 28-1215. It was powered by a 160 horsepower Lycoming O-320-D2A engine and equipped with a fixed pitch propeller. The airplane was also equipped with a single-axis autopilot control system that was installed in accordance with supplemental type certificate (STC).

The airplane's flight instruments consisted of an attitude indicator, turn coordinator, vertical speed indicator, airspeed indicator, directional gyro (DG), altimeter, and compass.

The attitude indicator and DG were powered by an engine-driven vacuum pump installed on the accessory case of the engine, and are considered gryo flight instruments. These instruments are connected to the vacuum pump by flexible hoses and stainless steel clamps. Additionally, a vacuum pump regulator and vacuum system filter are installed between the engine-driven vacuum pump and the flight instruments.

The engine-driven vacuum pump consists of a housing, rotor, vanes, inlet and outlet ports, and a shear shaft. The inlet and outlet ports have a fitting, which flexible hoses are connected.

According to the airplane maintenance manual, wear of the vanes of the vacuum pump is compensated for by a vacuum regulator. The vacuum pump regulator is adjusted to a service range of 4.8 to 5.2 inches of Mercury.

The airplane maintenance records reflect that on August 19, 2003, which at the time was owned by the accident pilot, a new engine-driven vacuum pump part number RA215CC, serial number A9749, was installed on the engine. The engine-driven vacuum pump was manufactured under FAA Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA), and was equipped with an inspection port for determining wear of the vanes. The recording tachometer time at installation was recorded to be 2960.41. The last entry in the airframe maintenance records dated January 27, 2012, associated with the last annual inspection, indicates the tachometer time was 3558.4, or an elapsed time of approximately 598 hours since the new engine-driven vacuum pump was installed. Between the date of the engine-driven vacuum pump installation and the date of the last annual inspection, there was no record of replacement or repair of the tachometer, or removal, replacement, or repair of the engine-driven vacuum pump.

The airplane maintenance records further indicate that the last altimeter, automatic pressure altitude reporting system, static system, and ATC transponder tests were performed on January 4, 2012. Copies of the maintenance record entries are contained in the NTSB public docket.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

At 0740 EST, or about 6 hours 20 minutes before the accident flight departed, a meteorological impact statement (MIS) for ATC planning purposes only, valid for the accident site through 1500 EST, advised of IFR conditions with rain from central Virginia through central North Carolina. The conditions were expected to slowly improve after 1200 EST to VFR.

Airmet Sierra issued at 1126 EST, or approximately 2 hours 34 minutes before the flight departed, valid for the accident time, forecast IFR conditions for the accident site with ceilings below 1,000 feet and visibilities below 3 miles with precipitation, mist, and fog.

The destination airport terminal area forecast (TAF) issued at 1241 EST, or approximately 1 hour 19 minutes before the flight departed, valid for a 24 hour period beginning at 1300 EST, expected the wind from 180 degrees at 5 knots, visibility greater than 6 miles, and overcast clouds at 300 feet above ground level (agl). Temporary conditions of a broken ceiling at 1,000 feet agl were forecast between 1300 and 1700 EST.

A surface observation weather report taken at the destination airport (FAY) at 1253 EST, or about 1 hour 7 minutes before the flight departed, indicated the wind was from 230 degrees at 4 knots, the visibility was 7 statute miles, and overcast clouds existed at 300 feet. The temperature and dew point were each 13 degrees Celsius, and the altimeter setting was 30.01 inches of Mercury.

The area forecast issued at 1345, or about 15 minutes before the flight departed, and about 2 minutes before the pilot contacted IAD DUATS, forecasted a broken ceiling between 1,500 and 2,500 feet msl, and an overcast layer between 8,000 and 10,000 feet msl with layered clouds through Flight Level 240 (24,000). Occasional visibilities between 3 and 5 miles and mist were forecast with widely scattered light rain showers.

At 1347 hours local, the pilot accessed DUATS vendor IAD. Although the records from the transaction were not requested in time and were not available, weather information that would have been available to the pilot at that time included the airmet sierra for IFR conditions, the 1253 surface observation for the destination airport, and destination airport TAF.

A surface observation weather report taken at FAY at 1543, or about 11 minutes after the accident, indicates the wind was from 210 degrees at 3 knots, the visibility was 3 statute miles with mist, scattered clouds existed at 700 feet, and overcast clouds existed at 1,300 feet. The temperature and dew point were each 14 degrees Celsius, and the altimeter setting was 29.99 inches of Mercury. The accident site was located about 8 nautical miles and 207 degrees from the center of FAY.

According to the NTSB Weather Group Factual Report, there was a high probability of clouds between the surface and 2,500 feet, then another cloud layer from 8,000 to 25,000 feet. Plotting of the aircraft's flight path overlaid onto weather radar images indicates that between 1516 to before 1522, the airplane flew through 20 to 30 dBz reflectivity values, and likely encountered precipitation while located within a cloud layer. At 1528, or approximately 4 minutes before the accident, the airplane was flying in a westerly direction and encountered weather radar echoes with reflectivity between 20 and 30 dBz, consistent with rain showers within a cloud layer. The weather radar image at 1533, or approximately 1 minute after the accident indicates the cell had moved to the east with the accident site located in an area with no weather radar reflectivity echoes. The NTSB Weather Factual Report is contained in the NTSB public docket.

AIDS TO NAVIGATION

On the day of the accident about 0000, the runway 4 ILS DME monitor was recorded in the FAY Daily Record of Facility Operation Log as being out of service and was carried over from the previous log.

As a result of the accident, at 1758 EST, the Runway 4 ILS navigation equipment consisting of the localizer, glide slope, DME, and outer marker were taken out of service (OTS), and a notice to Airman (NOTAM) was issued. Records provided by FAA indicate that the localizer, glide slope, DME, and outer marker were checked postaccident and the "As Found" readings were within tolerance. The navigation equipment was certified and returned to service (RTS) at 2316, as indicated by the FAY Daily Record of Facility Operation Log.

COMMUNICATIONS

The pilot was in contact with the Fayetteville Regional Airport air traffic control tower at the time of the accident. There were no reported communication difficulties.

AIRPORT INFORMATION

The Fayetteville Regional Airport/Grannis Field is a public use airport equipped with multiple runways designated 4/22 and 10/28. Runway 4/22 is 7,709 feet long and 150 feet wide and is serviced by an instrument landing system (ILS) or Localizer/DME, RNAV (GPS), and VOR instrument approaches.

The terminal approach chart for the ILS approach to runway 4 at FAY specifies that the minimums for a category A airplane (accident airplane) is 200 feet and ¾ mile visibility. The approach specified to maintain 2,300 feet until reaching ZODGI which is 13.3 DME from the I-GRA Localizer which is set to 110.5 MHz. From ZODGI a descent to CINLO which is the glideslope intercept point and also the final approach fix. CINLO is located 6.5DME from I-GRA Localizer. From CINLO a 3.00 degree descent commences to 200 feet and ¾ mile. The published missed approach is to climb to 1,100 feet then climbing right turn to 3,000 feet and intercept the FAY VOR/DME 131 degree radial and fly outbound to the GANDS Intersection which is 14.6 DME from the FAY VOR/DME.

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION

The airplane crashed in a heavily wooded area; the accident site was located at 34 degrees 52.362 minutes North latitude and 078 degrees 57.138 minutes West longitude, or approximately 7.5 nautical miles and 206 degrees from the approach end of runway 4 at FAY. A postcrash fire occurred in the immediate area.

Further examination of the accident site revealed debris along an energy path oriented on a magnetic heading of 044 degrees. Damage to trees of decreasing heights were noted between the resting position of a portion of the right wing and an impact crater located approximately 41 feet from the resting position of the right wing. The impact crater was noted to have the propeller partially buried in it. Debris along the energy path and to the left and right of the energy path centerline was noted and major components were documented.

Wreckage debris located on the right side of the energy path centerline consisted of the outer portion of the left wing, center portion of left wing, and left wing fuel tank, while debris located to the left of the energy path centerline consisted of the inboard section of the right wing. The empennage with both stabilizers and rudder was located on the energy path centerline about 40 feet from the ground impact crater. The engine assembly was located on the energy path about 21 feet from the resting point of the cockpit, cabin, and main spar. The wreckage was recovered for further examination, and components consisting of the suction gauge, attitude indicator, directional gyro, electric turn coordinator, vacuum pump regulator, KX155 communication and navigation transceiver, and Apple 64GB iPad; were secured for further examination.

Examination of the airplane following recovery revealed the airframe was extensively fragmented. All structural components with the exception of the outer section of the right wing, and a small outer section of the left wing were extensively heat damaged. All components necessary to sustain flight were accounted for at the accident site. Examination of the flight controls for roll, pitch, and yaw revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction.

Examination of the cockpit revealed the instrument panel was not identified with the exception of the portion that contained the suction gauge, and a separate section that contained the directional gyro. All remaining flight and engine instrument were separated from the panel and found loose at the accident site. The No. 2 communication transceiver which was not digital exhibited impact damage; the communication selector was in the off position. The communication frequency was between 128.20 and 127.25 MHz while the navigation frequency was between 108.75 and 108.80 MHz; the Fayetteville VOR frequency is 108.8 MHz. The VOR/LOC Converter & Glide Slope indicator and the VOR/LOC Converter indicator were extensively impact damaged which precluded any type of testing. A terminal instrument approach chart book for southeast 2 was found in the wreckage. The book was valid until November 15, 2012. The book was turned to the ILS or LOC/DME RWY 4 page of FAY; the page was torn.

Examination of the left wing revealed it was fragmented into 4 major pieces. The flap and aileron were accounted for at the accident site. The outer portion of the aileron exhibited tree contact with the tree strike oriented with the wing 90 degrees to the right of normal direction of travel. The aileron bellcrank remained attached structurally, and 1 cable remained attached to the bellcrank but that cable exhibited tension overload approximately 7 inches from the bellcrank attach. The other aileron control cable clevis remained attached to the bellcrank but the cable pulled through the clevis. The main spar exhibited bending. A tree contact was noted on the leading edge of the wing about 32 inches, or 3 ribs inboard from the wingtip end rib. The pitot mast was in-place but the lines were damaged.

Examination of the right wing revealed it was fragmented into 3 major pieces. The outer section of the wing with the attached aileron did not exhibit fire damage. The leading edge of the wing about 21 inches inboard from the wingtip end rib was torn. The flap remained attached. The aileron bellcrank was structurally separated. Both aileron control cables remained attached to the bellcrank, but one cable exhibited tension overload 66 inches inboard from the bellcrank while the other cable exhibited tension overload 62 inches inboard from the bellcrank.

Examination of the empennage revealed it was separated approximately 28 inches forward of the aft fuselage bulkhead. The full-span stabilator remained attached, and both stabilator flight control cables remained attached to the stabilator balance weight assembly. Both cables were cut. The leading edge of the right stabilator was displaced up approximately 90 degrees at the tip. Both rudder flight control cables remained connected at the bellcrank near the control surface, and the rudder remained connected to the vertical stabilizer. The vertical stabilizer was rolled to the left approximately 70 degrees.

Examination of the separated engine revealed impact and fire damage. The engine-driven vacuum pump remained secured to the accessory case of the engine, but the vacuum pump was damaged by fire and the outlet fitting was fractured. The drive coupling was melted. Both magnetos, the oil filter, starter, and alternator were separated from the engine, but the carburetor and engine-driven fuel pump were partially secured to the engine. The crankshaft flange was separated and remained attached to the propeller hub; the remaining portion of the crankshaft was noticeably bent which precluded rotation of the crankshaft by hand. The Nos. 2 and 4 cylinders were removed which allowed for visual inspection of the powertrain components which revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction. Examination of the impact and heat damaged carburetor revealed the control cables remained attached at their respective attach points. Disassembly inspection of the carburetor revealed impact damage to one of the brass floats consistent with hydraulic deformation, while the other float was partially separated from the float arm and exhibited heat damage. No fuel was noted in the float bowl. The engine-driven fuel pump was extensively heat damaged. Both magnetos were separated from the accessory case. One magneto was destroyed by fire and the other magneto produced spark at all ignition towers when rotated by hand. Inspection of the spark plugs revealed all exhibited normal wear and color signatures, and inspection of the ignition harness revealed it was fire and impact damaged. The oil suction screen was clean, and the oil filter element was examined and no ferrous particles were noted. The engine-driven vacuum pump was retained for further examination.

Examination of the two-bladed fixed-pitch propeller revealed one blade was fractured near the hub and the other blade was full span. The fractured blade exhibited "S" bending, leading edge twisting, and chord-wise abrasions. The other blade exhibited a smooth-radius aft approximately 90 degrees, and chord-wise abrasions.

MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION

A postmortem examination of the pilot was performed by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) , Raleigh, North Carolina. The autopsy reported indicated the cause of death was "Massive blunt force trauma due to plane crash."

Forensic toxicology was performed on specimens of the pilot by the FAA Bioaeronautical Sciences Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and also by the OCME. The toxicology report by FAA stated testing for carbon monoxide and cyanide was not performed. No ethanol was detected in the submitted urine specimen, while unquantied amounts of chlorpheniramine, metoprolol, and pseudoephedrine were detected in the submitted muscle specimen. Chlorpheniramine, ephedrine, oxymetazoline, and pseudoephedrine were detected in the submitted urine specimen. A copy of the toxicology report is contained in the NTSB public docket.

The results of analysis by OCME indicated the carbon monoxide level was less than 5 percent saturation, and no ethanol was detected. A copy of the toxicology report is contained in the NTSB public docket.

TESTS AND RESEARCH

The airplane was fueled at the departure airport before departure. According to the person who fueled the airplane, both tanks were fueled bringing the level of fuel in each tank to within 1 inch of the top. There were no reported issues related to the fuel at the departure airport.

The pilot's alternate airport on his IFR flight plan was listed as Columbus County Municipal Airport (CPC), Columbus, North Carolina. The CPC Airport is located about 42 nautical miles south-southeast from FAY Airport.

Based on the true airspeed listed in the flight plan from DYB to FAY (100.0 knots), the estimated time en-route under no wind conditions from FAY to CPC Airport was calculated to be approximately 25 minutes. Based on the time the pilot first advised the controller that he wanted to proceed to CPC, his estimated time of arrival at CPC would have been about approximately 1543.

A surface observation report taken at the CPC Airport at 1535, or about 3 minutes after the accident, revealed the wind was calm, the visibility was 10 miles, scattered clouds existed at 2,900 feet, and a ceiling of broken clouds existed at 5,500 feet. The temperature and dew point were 16 and 15 degrees Celsius respectively, and the altimeter setting was 29.99 inches of Mercury.

An iPad located in the wreckage was retained and sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Division located in Washington, DC. Examination of the iPad revealed impact damage to two internal chips; therefore, no data could be recovered from the device. A copy of the report from the Vehicle Recorder Division is contained in the NTSB public docket.

As previously reported, the engine-driven vacuum pump had accrued about 598 hours since installation at the last annual inspection. According to a service letter by the vacuum pump manufacturer, it is recommended that the vacuum pump be replaced after 6 years; the service letter is not mandatory.

Inspection of the suction gauge revealed the needle was off scale high, and the glass was fractured. Inspection of the gauge face was performed by NTSB Materials Laboratory personnel using a 5 and 50 power zoom stereomicroscope for needle witness marks; none were found. A copy of the NTSB Materials Laboratory Factual Report is contained in the NTSB public docket.

Inspection of the electric turn coordinator was performed at the manufacturer's facility with FAA oversight. The results of the significantly impacted instrument examination indicate rotational scoring of the rotor assembly. A copy of the report from the manufacturer and FAA concurring statement is contained in the NTSB public docket.

Inspection of the engine-driven vacuum pump was performed at the manufacturer's facility with FAA oversight. The results of the examination indicate the unit exhibited extensive heat damage. The external drive gear and shear shaft were damaged beyond recognition due to heat damage. Visual inspection of the front end of the component revealed deformation consistent with impact damage. Disassembly inspection revealed the rotor was cracked and vane No. 5 was chipped. No apparent scratches or gouges were detected in the internal cavity wall. Visual inspection of the rear end of the component revealed the portion of chipped No. 5 vane was lodged in the outlet port. Inspection of the front end revealed the internal gear was damaged beyond recognition due to heat. Visual inspection of the bearing showed some deep rotational scratches. The report from the manufacturer with FAA concurring statement is contained in the NTSB public docket.

Inspection of the engine-driven vacuum pump was then performed by the NTSB Materials Laboratory located in Washington, D.C. The examination of the rotor revealed the primary and secondary fractures, and fractures extending between the center hole and vane slots 5 and 6 all intersected at an area of the center hole surface approximately 0.25 inch to 0.375 inch from the aft surface. An impression was noted on the aft flange corresponding to contact with the corner between the outer surface and vane slot No. 6 on rotor piece marked B. An impression was also observed on the forward flange corresponding to the edge of vane slot No. 2 rotor piece marked B. No evidence of rotational sliding was observed at the impression on the forward or aft flanges or the corresponding locations on the rotor. A copy of the NTSB Materials Laboratory examination report is contained in the NTSB public docket.

Inspection of the Honeywell (formerly Bendix-King) KX155 communication transceiver and navigation receiver was performed at the manufacturer's facility with FAA oversight. The examination revealed extensive impact damage to the unit and non-volatile memory chip which precluded operational testing or recovery of the stored navigation and communication frequencies. A copy of the report is contained in the NTSB public docket.

Inspection of the vacuum regulator was performed at the manufacturer's facility with FAA oversight. The examination revealed extensive impact and heat damage which precluded operational testing. No determination could be made as to the vacuum regulator vacuum setting at the time of the accident. The unit was inspected and a copy of the report and FAA concurring statement is contained in the NTSB public docket.

Examination of the attitude indicator (AI) and directional gyro (DG) were performed at a FAA repair station with NTSB oversight. The inspection of both components revealed extensive impact damage which precluded operational testing. No scoring was noted to the rotor of the AI, while light rotational scoring of the rotor housing of the AI was noted at an area between the 4 and 7 o'clock positions; however, no corresponding scoring of the rotor was noted. Inspection of the fire and impacted DG revealed no rotational scoring to the rotor or rotor housing. A copy of the examination notes is contained in the NTSB public docket.

ADDITIONAL DATA

Previous NTSB Recommendations Concerning Controller Emergency Awareness

On December 15, 1993, as a result of an accident investigated by NTSB in which a Mitsubishi MU-2B-60 crashed in instrument meteorological conditions during an approach for an emergency landing, the NTSB issued recommendation A-93-158 to FAA to enhance the emergency assistance section of Air Traffic Control Handbook 7110.65 to fully address the issue of selecting the best possible diversion airport for an IFR aircraft in an emergency status. The NTSB also submitted recommendation A-93-160 to FAA to provide expanded emergency procedures training for air traffic controllers. This recommendation also indicated that the general capabilities of airplanes in various emergency scenarios involving air traffic control should be a focal point of this training, and past air traffic control-related accident reports should be used. About 1 year later the FAA responded that it had developed a training course to address emergency procedures training for air traffic controllers and that it had developed a training aid titled, "ATC Challenge" to help improve and strengthen controllers' knowledge of other topics involving emergency situations. In June 1995, the Safety Board classified this recommendation as "Closed – Acceptable Action"; however, in January 2001, the Safety Board learned that the "ATC Challenge" was no longer in use.

On September 24, 2001, as a result of several accidents investigated by NTSB in which FAA air traffic control (ATC) controller personnel lacked awareness of emergency situations, and also because the "ATC Challenge" was no longer in use, the NTSB submitted to FAA in part recommendations A-01-35 and A-01-36. Recommendation A-01-35 recommended FAA amend FAA Order 7110.65, "Air Traffic Control" paragraph 10-2-5, "Emergency Situations," to include as emergencies in part in-flight failure of attitude instruments needed to operate safely in IMC if the affected aircraft cannot remain in visual meteorological conditions for the remainder of its flight. Recommendation A-01-36 suggested FAA develop and ensure that air traffic controllers receive academic and simulator training that teaches controllers to quickly recognize and aggressively respond to potential distress and emergency situations in which pilots may require air traffic control (ATC) assistance. This included in part an understanding of common aircraft system failures that may require ATC assistance or special handing, and the application of special techniques for assisting pilots that encounter aircraft system failures. The recommendation also indicated that the training should be based on actual accidents or incidents, include a comprehensive review of successful flight assists and the techniques used, and be reviewed annually to ensure that the training materials remain current and effective.

In response to recommendation A-01-35, the FAA responded on November 29, 2001, that FAA Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control adequately addresses this recommendation. The NTSB classified recommendation A-01-35 on July 16, 2002, as, "Closed—Reconsidered."

In response to recommendation A-01-36, the FAA developed computer-based instruction (CBI) course 57098 titled Recognizing and Responding to Aircraft Emergencies, and in August 2004, began national distribution of the course. The FAA also revised Joint Order 3120.4M, "Air Traffic Technical Training" which details the requirements for local, facility-led annual air traffic controller training which includes real-life scenarios, and addressed the potential domino effects of common inflight mechanical problems. In June 2012, the NTSB classified recommendation A-01-36 as, "Closed-Acceptable Action."

Computer-based instruction (CBI) course 57098 Recognizing and Responding to Aircraft Emergencies

NTSB review of the current course material contained in the CBI revealed it discussed different types of emergency situations, in-flight mechanical issues and possible domino effects, communication techniques, and finally notification procedures for emergency situations. Although flight equipment malfunction is mentioned as one possibly emergency, a pilot reported gyro malfunction was not discussed.

Postaccident FAA Controller Interviews

As part of the investigation, a NTSB air traffic control specialist conducted interviews of personnel of the FAY ATCT consisting of the Radar East controller, the Radar East OJTI controller, the Radar East developmental controller, the local controller, and the Front Line Manager (FLM). The local controller and the Radar East controller who were in contact with the pilot when he advised that he had either lost his gyros or was no gyro both reported those comments meant that the pilot could not maintain headings. The local controller stated he did not know that a comment from a pilot pertaining to lost gyros would affect the pilot's ability to keep the wings level, or about turns and turn rates. He also indicated he did not recall any refresher training in unusual situations or about no-gyro emergencies. The Radar East controller reported conducting emergency training quite often, but that a reported loss of gyro was not covered. The Radar East OJTI controller reported that he could not recall doing any recurrent training on emergency situations, but did state that he had completed training previously through a briefing or CBI module. He also stated that the pilot's comment concerning the gyro issue meant the pilot would have difficulty maintaining direction of flight. The Radar East developmental controller stated that training about unusual emergency situations was mostly done with monthly recurrent training via the CBI, MBI, and verbal briefs. He also advised he would not know what would happen of a pilot were to lose the gyros of the airplane. The FLM stated that the facility had conducted team briefings on emergency situations and losses of equipment, but not consistently. He also stated that a comment about loss of gyro meant the pilot could not turn or maintain headings. The Radar East OJTI, and the Radar East developmental controllers did not know the weather conditions at the alternate airport (CPC), and the Radar East developmental controller stated that in hindsight, the pilot's comment that he was not OK was an indication that he was in distress, and the flight should have continued to CPC. The NTSB ATC Group Chairman Factual report which contains the interview summaries is contained in the NTSB public docket.

FAA Order JO 7110.65U, "Air Traffic Control"

Review of Section 10 of the order titled "Emergencies" provides controllers with the following guidance on recognizing and handling emergency situations:

Section 10-1-1 Emergency Determinations:

An emergency can be either a distress or an urgency condition as defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. The section also indicates that a pilot who encounters a distress condition should declare an emergency with the word "Mayday" preferably repeated three times, or "Pan-Pan" if an urgency condition also preferably repeated three times. If "Mayday" or "Pan-Pan" are not broadcast by the pilot but you (controller) are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency. Because of the infinite variety of possible emergency situations, specific procedures cannot be prescribed; however, when you believe an emergency exists or is imminent, select and pursue a course of action which appears to be most appropriate under the circumstances and which most nearly conforms to the instructions in this manual.

Section 10-1-2 Obtaining Information:

Obtain enough information to handle the emergency intelligently. Base your decision as to what type of assistance is needed on information and requests received from the pilot because he/she is authorized by 14 CFR Part 91 to determine a course of action.

Section 10-2-1 Information Requirements:

a. Start assistance as soon as enough information has been obtained upon which to act. Information requirements will vary, depending on the existing situation. Minimum required information for inflight emergencies is:

NOTE-
In the event of an ELT signal see para 10-2-10 Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) Signals.

1. Aircraft identification and type
2. Nature of the emergency
3. Pilot's desires

b. After initiating action, obtain the following items or any pertinent information from the pilot or aircraft operator, as necessary:

NOTE-

Normally, do not request this information from military fighter-type aircraft that are at low altitudes (i.e. on approach, immediately after departure, on a low level route, etc.). However, request the position of an aircraft that is not visually sighted or displayed on radar if the location is not given by the pilot.

1. Aircraft altitude
2. Fuel remaining in time
3. Pilot reported weather
4. Pilot capability for IFR flight
5. Time and place of last known position
6. Heading since last known position
7. Airspeed
8. Navigation equipment capability
9. NAVAID signals received
10. Visible landmarks
11. Aircraft color
12. Number of people on board
13. Point of departure and destination
14. Emergency equipment on board


NTSB Identification: ERA13FA088 
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, December 16, 2012 in Parkton, NC
Aircraft: PIPER PA-28-160, registration: N5714W
Injuries: 1 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 December 16, 2012, about 1532 eastern standard time, a Piper PA-28-160, N5714W, registered to and operated by a private individual, crashed in a wooded area near Parkton, North Carolina. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and an instrument flight rules (IFR) plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal flight from Summerville Airport (DYB), Summerville, South Carolina, to Fayetteville Regional Airport/Grannis Field (FAY), Fayetteville, North Carolina. The airplane sustained substantial damage and the private pilot, the sole occupant, was fatally injured. The flight originated from DYB about 1400.

After takeoff the flight proceeded towards the destination airport. According to recorded air traffic control communications with the FAY air traffic control tower (ATCT), the pilot contacted Fayetteville Approach Control and advised the controller that he had automated terminal information service (ATIS) information Alpha and the approach controller advised the pilot to expect vectors for ILS approach to runway 4. The pilot was vectored for an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 04 at FAY Airport, and air traffic control (ATC) communications were transferred to local control at the FAY ATCT.

The pilot established contact with local control and advised the controller that he was descending to 2,000 feet. The local controller cleared the pilot to land runway 4 and advised him the wind was from 240 degrees at 3 knots. About 2 minutes 26 seconds later, coordination between the local and radar east controller occurred. During that conversation it was noted that the flight was drifting right of course. The local controller then asked the pilot if he was receiving the localizer, to which he replied he was having a little bit of trouble right now and I seem to have, “…lost some gyros but I think we are getting it.” The local controller advised the pilot to maintain 2,000 and suggested a heading of 020 to join the localizer, which the pilot acknowledged.

At that time coordination between the local and radar east control positions occurred. The local controller then asked the pilot if he was picking up the glideslope to which he advised “…we are on it now.” The local controller asked the pilot if he wanted to attempt another approach but the pilot stated that, “…I think we are doing OK if it looks OK to you.” The local controller informed the pilot that he could not tell with the rate of descent and cleared the pilot for a localizer approach to runway 4. The pilot acknowledged the clearance with part of his call sign and approximately 37 seconds later, the controller cancelled the approach clearance and advised the pilot to climb and maintain 2,000 feet and fly runway heading, which he acknowledged. The controller then informed the pilot that overcast clouds existed at 500 feet, and the flight was at 1,200 feet about ½ mile away from the runway so he asked the pilot if he wanted to perform another approach. The pilot advised he did, and coordination between the local and east radar control positions occurred. The local controller then advised the pilot to fly heading 090 and climb and maintain 2,000 feet, which he acknowledged. About 4 seconds later, the controller asked the pilot his heading and he advised 081. Coordination between the local and Approach Control controller then occurred, and at that time a discussion was made about the pilot’s ability to maintain a steady heading. The local controller again instructed the pilot to maintain 090 degrees, climb and maintain 2,000 feet, and to contact Fayetteville Departure Control on frequency 133.0 MHz, which he acknowledge by reading back part of the frequency.

The pilot established contact with Fayetteville Approach Control, and he advised the departure controller that he was heading 095 going to 090 degrees. The flight was radar identified and the controller then advised the pilot to turn to heading 140 degrees, which he acknowledged. Review of recorded radar data from Fayetteville ATCT revealed that after the controller instructed the pilot to turn to heading 140 degrees, the radar recorded the pilot turned to right past the instructed heading. The voice communications then indicate that the controller advised the pilot to fly heading 220 degrees which he acknowledged. The recorded radar data indicates that the controller then asked the pilot what his current heading was and he replied 310 degrees. The controller again advised the pilot that he was to fly heading 220 degrees, to which he correctly read back the heading. The controller then asked the pilot if he was experiencing any problems with the airplane that prevented him from flying the assigned heading, to which he replied yeah and I’m currently, “…no gyro…” and I think the best thing for me is to climb a little bit and go to my alternate of ah Columbus or some point south.

The approach controller questioned the pilot about his ability to navigate to his alternate airport without gyros and he replied he could. The controller then cleared the flight to Columbus County Airport (CPC), and to climb and maintain 3,000 feet, which the pilot did not immediately acknowledge. The voice recording indicates a new controller established communication with the pilot and advised him the altitude was erratic and asked the pilot if he was OK. The pilot replied that he was not and the controller asked him if he wanted to fly to FAY Airport. The pilot began to state that the “…best thing” but the comment was truncated. The controller then asked the pilot if he could fly southwest bound and he advised “yeah southwest.” The controller then asked the pilot what heading he was flying and he advised 253 and his altitude was 2,500 trying to climb to 3,000. The controller then asked the pilot if he could do a non-gyro turn to which he replied he could. The controller advised the pilot to start a left turn and told him when to stop the left turn; however, the controller later advised the pilot that he never turned at all during the non-gyro turn instructions. The controller then asked the pilot if he could do a non-gyro approach to which he replied that he had, “done the drill before.” The controller asked the pilot that if during the first instrument approach was he picking up the glide slope and localizer to which he replied affirmative.
The controller then informed the pilot that they would again try an ILS approach to runway 4. The controller then asked the pilot his heading and he replied 268 degrees, to which the controller asked the pilot if the autopilot was flying the airplane or he was. The pilot’s reply was that he was. The controller then advised the pilot to fly southwest, and advised him that he had been flying southwest bound, but was now flying west bound. The controller asked the pilot if he could fly heading 200, to which he replied he could. The controller then asked the pilot if the airplane was equipped with a compass and reading off the cardinal headings, to which he replied affirmative. The controller then advised the pilot to fly south, which he acknowledged. Recorded radar data reflects the airplane proceeded in a southerly heading with no deviation noted. About 2 minutes 42 seconds later, the controller advised the pilot to fly heading 270 degrees, which he acknowledged. The radar data reflects the pilot turned to a westerly heading.

About 3 minutes 22 seconds later, the pilot was advised that the flight was 4 miles from the final approach fix, turn right heading northbound on the 010 and maintain 2,000 until established on the localizer, cleared for ILS approach to runway 4. The pilot read back, “…heading 010 maintain 2,000 cleared for the approach.” The radar reflects the airplane proceeded on a northerly then northeasterly heading and the controller then asked if the pilot was picking up the localizer, to which the pilot replied he was, and the controller then asked the pilot if he was picking up the glide slope to which the pilot advised he was not. The recorded radar data reflects a right turn, and about 18 seconds later, a loud squeal was heard on the frequency. There were no further recorded transmissions from the pilot despite numerous attempts by the controller to contact him..

One witness reported hearing a loud engine sound from a 4 cylinder engine then looked across I-95 and noted smoke from a wooded area. Another witness reported hearing the sound of the engine revved up, “like it was making a dive bomb run.” The witness did not see the airplane accident but reported that the airplane flew near his house. Another witness who was inside her residence reported hearing the airplane fly near her house and reported seeing smoke and flames from the accident. The witness then went outside and directed law enforcement to the accident site.





 
Retired Col. Virgil T. 'Tom' Deal




A memorial for retired Army Col. Virgil Thomas "Tom" Deal Jr. is today at the Airborne & Special Operations Museum in downtown. 

Deal, 63, died in a plane crash over the weekend. He was a decorated Army doctor who had multiple tours at Fort Bragg and most recently served as acting chief of surgery at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center.

The memorial is at 4 p.m. Another service is Sunday afternoon at Helen Street Church of Christ in Fayetteville.

Deal was piloting the small plane that crashed in Robeson County. The cause of the crash remains under investigation. He was the only person on board.

Deal was well-known throughout the military, especially within the special operations and medical communities.

He had served as command surgeon of Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., and was commander of Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.

Deal is survived by his wife of 42 years, Ida; children Wesley Deal and Susanne Glass; a brother; and several granddaughters.

Seating at today's memorial is expected to be limited, as more than 200 people are attending from Fort Bragg, according to a VA spokeswoman.

The service Sunday is 3 p.m. at Helen Street Church of Christ in Fayetteville. In lieu of flowers, memorials can be made to Helen Street Church of Christ at 500 Helen St., Fayetteville NC 28303 for "Vimba Vana - Tom Deal." Donations also can be made to the local Fisher House.


Read more: http://www.fayobserver.com

Obituary and Guest Book:   http://www.legacy.com

Piper PA-28-160 Cherokee, N5714W

IDENTIFICATION
  Regis#: 5714W        Make/Model: PA28      Description: PA-28 CHEROKEE
  Date: 12/15/2012     Time: 2034

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

LOCATION
  City: FAYETTEVILLE   State: NC   Country: US

DESCRIPTION
  AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 1 PERSON ON BOARD WAS 
  FATALLY INJURED, 6 MILES FROM FAYETTEVILLE, NC

INJURY DATA      Total Fatal:   1
                 # Crew:   1     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: GREENSBORO, NC  (SO05)                Entry date: 12/17/2012