Saturday, August 02, 2014

Records explain why US Airways flight buzzed The Centre at Salisbury shopping mall - Maryland

US Airways passenger Flight 4343 was on its way to the Salisbury-Ocean City Wicomico Regional Airport (KSBY) when a rapid descent caused the flight attendant to look out the window.

What she saw was scary. The plane was low, and it was going quickly.

“My brain went into emergency/evacuation mode,” flight attendant Charlene Helgason said, according to a record of her phone interview with Federal Aviation Administration officials.

She didn’t know the pilot-in-command, Edmund C. Draper, had purposely lowered the plane in order to fly over his home, according to Federal Aviation Administration documents recently reviewed by The Daily Times.

His Zion Road home is near The Centre at Salisbury shopping mall, which was still open for holiday shopping during the late-night hours of Friday, Dec. 21, 2012, according to the documents provided in response to a Freedom Of Information Act request.

About 24 passengers were aboard the DHC-8-102 aircraft heading from Philadelphia to the Salisbury-Ocean City: Wicomico Regional Airport, along with two fellow crewmembers.

“On or about December 21, 2012, you operated an aircraft with reckless disregard for safety during a Part 121 flight with 24 passengers on board at an excessive speed and dangerously low altitude when not necessary for landing,” an FAA determination of emergency in this case reads. “Your acts endangered the lives of your passengers, fellow crewmembers and people and property at The Centre at Salisbury Mall. You have demonstrated that you are unable or unwilling to comply with basic regulatory requirements.”

Emergency order

Draper’s airline transport pilot certificate number was revoked June 19, 2013, with an emergency order of revocation from the FAA.

The order alleges that Draper violated these federal aviation regulations:

• a. Section 91.13(a), which states no person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

• b. Section 91.119(b), which states no person may operate an aircraft over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, below an altitude of 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

“As a result of the foregoing, the Administrator finds that you lack the qualifications necessary to hold an FAA Airline Transport Pilot Certificate,” the order reads. “He therefore has determined that safety in air commerce or air transportation and the public interest require the revocation of the above-mentioned certificate(s).”

The order stated that Draper wouldn’t be allowed to apply for a new pilot certificate nor be issued one for a year.

Pilots in Draper’s position have an opportunity to appeal the case. An administrative law judge from the National Transportation Safety Board will hear the appeal or petition, according to the board’s website.

“The pilot initially appealed the FAA’s revocation order to the NTSB, but later withdrew the appeal and entered into a settlement agreement with FAA,” a spokeswoman for the administration wrote in an email. “He surrendered his certificate and was eligible to apply for a new one after January 20, 2014.”

Draper didn’t appear to have a current listed phone number, and a reporter was told that the Air Line Pilots Association, per its policy, does not comment on ongoing investigations. The Air Line Pilots Association is a large pilot union.

Jackie Jennings, spokeswoman for Piedmont Airlines, said Dec. 21, 2012, was Draper’s last day flying for Piedmont, and he is no longer employed there. Documents provided by the aviation administration indicate he had been employed there since 2000.

Draper, now 38, does have his airline transport pilot certificate back. According to the Federal Aviation Administration registry, his airline transport pilot certificate was issued Feb. 25, 2014. Draper also has a flight instructor certificate, issued Feb. 26, 2014, according to the registry.

“Draper One Arrival”

First Officer Neil Hoy was the co-pilot on Flight 4343 on Dec. 21, 2012. He was new to Piedmont, hired in March 2012.

“Everyone Knows about the Draper One Arrival,” First Officer Christopher Quillen said, according to a record of his interview with administration personnel. “Ed has a house right off Highway 13 and he likes to fly over his house on the way into Salisbury. I hear he usually does it at 1500’ but I hear that on the 21st he did it at around 400’. Man, that’s crazy being that low, and over the mall, all those people. That’s like the busiest day of the year for shopping there.”

Quillen shared how Draper wouldn’t try to do the Draper One Arrival with more seasoned pilots.

“Ed won’t do it against the older guys, only the young guys, they are impressionable and try to fit in,” Quillen said, according to the record of the interview. “I have been around and would not put up with that. Ed is very knowledgeable about the systems on the airplane and even writes study guides unofficially but his leadership and judgment is not good.”

It was unclear Friday whether Hoy was reprimanded in any way. The Federal Aviation Administration advised filing an additional Freedom Of Information Act request.

In the case of Draper’s Dec. 21, 2012, flight, the EGPWS –– Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System –– alerted “too low gear.”

An interview with Capt. John Buchanan, included in the administration’s documents, revealed information was originally withheld. Among the findings of a company investigation were these:

“7. The chief pilot determined that the flight was a deliberate action on the crews part.

8. The crew were buzzing Ed Drapers house and looking out the window. As a result of this distraction, the ... EGPWS sounded the warning “TOO LOW GEAR.” Draper told FO Hoy to look out the window for his house, Hoy was the non flying pilot on this leg.”

Downward path

Two minutes and 45 seconds before the plane was to land at the Salisbury-Ocean City: Wicomico Regional Airport, it was flying at a height of about 1,400 feet above ground level. Then, during just more than a minute, the plane descended to 557 feet above ground level when flying over the mall, and 525 feet above ground level when flying over Draper’s home, according to a graph included with administration documents.

The order of revocation notes the plane went as low as about 493 feet above ground level before the plane went higher to prepare for landing.

As the plane made its descent toward the mall, the plane was flying at about 245 knots, according to the documents, which is about 281 mph.

After the plane was flying low in the area of the mall, Draper ascended to about 1,000 feet above ground level to prepare for landing at the airport, the graph shows.

Justin Saulter, the son of flight attendant Cindy Saulter, was at the mall that night. The plane had taken off from Philadelphia at about 10:51 p.m. and landed in Salisbury at about 11:29 p.m., documents show.

He said in a Federal Aviation Administration witness statement that he was in the mall parking lot by the food court, theater and Macy’s, waiting for his wife, when he saw the headlights of the plane.

Justin Saulter called his mom about the low-flying plane, the witness statement reads. He told an administration official that the plane rattled his car windows.

In Cindy Saulter’s witness statement, she spoke of how her son had called to check on her, but she was at home sleeping. She realized another flight attendant, Charlene Helgason, was expected to be on a flight coming into Salisbury that evening and called her. Cindy Saulter said it was the fear she could tell Helgason was feeling that led her to report what happened.

“This is negligence”


Capt. Ross Aimer, a retired United Airlines captain and the CEO of Los Angeles-based Aero Consulting Experts, said he’s heard of pilots flying over someone’s home –– maybe a pilot who wants to go over the home of a girlfriend or a friend.

“This usually happens when the pilot is new and inexperienced and perhaps young,” Aimer said. “I would say it’s very, very rare that a seasoned commercial pilot would do something like that.”

Aimer said it’s a basic rule any pilot would know.

He said people are generally safer at a higher altitude because there is more time to react if anything goes wrong. Also, the plane would be closer to any obstacles if it were flying at a lower altitude.

According to Helgason, the passengers on Flight 4343, who were reading or sleeping, didn’t seem to notice there was any problem.

The incident made Helgason not want to go on a flight with Draper again.

“I didn’t know what was going on then, but now that I do know, I’m furious,” the report of a Federal Aviation Administration interview with her reads. “I will never fly a trip with him (Draper) again. I feel that I didn’t sign up for this, the passengers didn’t sign up for this. I’m doing my job in the back and they are running an air show up front. Other people are coming out about it now. ... It’s called the ‘Draper 1 Approach.’ This is negligence.”

About

500 ft

above ground level:


Federal Aviation Administration documents show Capt. Ed Draper flew Flight 4343 at about 557 feet, 525 feet and 493 feet above ground level in the area of The Centre at Salisbury.

1,000 ft

above the highest obstacle:


According to Federal Aviation Regulation, Section 91.119(b), a pilot is not allowed to fly an aircraft over a congested area below 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a 2,000-foot horizontal radius.

About

1,400 ft

above ground level:


Flight 4343 from Philadelphia was flying at about 1,400 feet above ground level prior to descending toward The Centre at Salisbury and Capt. Edmund Draper’s home, Federal Aviation Administration documents state.


- Source:   http://www.delmarvanow.com

 

No comments:

Post a Comment