NTSB Identification: ERA14FA459A
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, September 27, 2014 in Lancaster, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 07/25/2016
Aircraft: CESSNA 172M, registration: N9679H
Injuries: 2 Fatal, 2 Uninjured.
NTSB Identification: ERA14FA459B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, September 27, 2014 in Lancaster, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 07/25/2016
Aircraft: KEVIN D'ANGELO SEAREY, registration: N89KD
Injuries: 2 Fatal, 2 Uninjured.
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 accident airplanes, a Cessna and an experimental amateur-built Searey, were two of several airplanes participating in a volunteer event designed to provide the opportunity for young people to fly in a general aviation airplane. A route of flight for the event was established and briefed, and the pilots were instructed to make position reports over the airport’s common traffic advisory frequency at certain landmarks along the route of flight; however, no procedures were in place to account for the disparate operating characteristics and speeds of the aircraft participating in the event. Radar and GPS data showed that the Cessna overtook and descended to the altitude of the Searey as the Searey climbed slowly. During the last moments before impact, both airplanes were depicted at the same altitude and in close lateral proximity. The Searey pilot was unaware that his airplane had collided with the Cessna, but upon experiencing control difficulty, performed a forced landing to an area of thick vegetation. The Searey was substantially damaged during the landing. Immediately after the collision, the Cessna entered a descending spiral to ground contact.
A performance radar and cockpit visibility study determined that the Searey would have remained a relatively small and stationary object in the Cessna’s windscreen, appearing below the horizon and just above the engine cowling, for several minutes before the impact. The study also determined that the Searey may have been difficult to distinguish against the background of terrain. Additionally, since the airplanes were on a converging course, the Searey would have presented little relative motion to the other pilot, making detection more difficult. The Cessna would not have been visible to the Searey pilot because it approached from an area that was obstructed by the airplane’s structure.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot’s failure to maintain an adequate visual lookout for known traffic in the fly-in event traffic pattern, which resulted in a midair collision.
HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On September 27, 2014, about 1020 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172M, N9679H, and an experimental amateur-built Searey XLS, N89KD, collided in midair approximately 2 miles southeast of the Buffalo-Lancaster Regional Airport (BQR), Lancaster, New York. The commercial pilot and passenger on board the Cessna were fatally injured. The pilot of the Searey performed a forced landing to a thicket of low brush, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The private pilot and passenger in the Searey were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for either airplane, each on local personal flights which departed BQR at 1009 (Searey) and 1012 (Cessna). Both airplanes were participating in an Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Young Eagles event, and the flights were conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
Several witnesses provided statements, and their accounts were consistent throughout. They each said their attention was drawn to the sound of the airplanes and/or the sound of collision. The airplanes were both traveling westbound as one airplane overtook the other, or was on top of the other, before one airplane (Cessna) was seen to "tip" or "roll" inverted before it descended vertically in a spiral. The second airplane (Searey) descended in a 180-degree turn and the sound of the engine was increasing and decreasing, "revving" or "sputtering" throughout the descent.
Radar information provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) depicted both airplanes traveling westbound on roughly the same ground track; the Cessna at 1,774 feet and 90 knots groundspeed, and the Searey ahead of the Cessna, at 1,575 feet and 70 knots groundspeed. As the Cessna approached the Searey from the east, it descended slowly to 1,625 feet. At the same time, the Searey climbed slowly to 1,625 feet. During the last moments prior to impact, both airplanes were depicted at 1,625 feet, and in close lateral proximity. Radar contact with the Cessna was lost in the vicinity of its accident site, while the Searey was depicted in a descending right turn.
The pilot of the Searey, who was flying from the left seat, said he was in cruise flight and nearing the point when he was to begin the turn north toward the airport, when he felt a sudden "bang" and heard a "snapping" sound. He said he wasn't sure if the airplane had struck something, or if something in the airplane had broken. The pilot said the airplane was unresponsive to control inputs in the pitch axis, and that he used engine power to control pitch. Due to limited controllability and trees further along on his flight path, he elected to land the airplane in the thicket to avoid greater hazards and for crash attenuation.
The passenger in the right seat of the Searey was interviewed by police in the company of her parents the day following the accident. According to the passenger, she looked out the right window and "…saw a white airplane coming at us from above and I knew it was going to hit us. I tried to warn the pilot but there wasn't enough time and the microphone was too far away." The passenger went on to describe the collision, the descent, the landing in the thicket, and her egress from the airplane.
PERSONNEL INFORMATION
The Cessna pilot held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land and instrument airplane. His most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued September 16, 2014 at which time he reported 2,115 total hours of flight experience.
The Searey pilot held a private pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land, single-engine sea, and instrument airplane. His most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued July 10, 2014. The pilot reported 4,270 total hours of flight experience.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
According to FAA records, the Cessna was manufactured in 1975. The airplane's most recent annual inspection was completed April 25, 2014 at 8,069 total aircraft hours.
According to FAA records, the Searey was manufactured in 2014. Its most recent condition inspection was completed January 13, 2014, and the airplane had accrued 160 hours since that date.
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
The 1054 weather observation at Buffalo International Airport (BUF), Buffalo, New York, located 5 miles west of the accident site included clear skies, calm winds, and 10 statute miles visibility.
AERODROME INFORMATION
BQR was situated beneath the outer ring of the Class C airspace that surrounded BUF, at a field elevation of 752 feet mean sea level (msl). The single runway, oriented 8/26, was 3,199 feet long at 75 feet wide. The traffic pattern altitude was 1,552 feet msl, and the airport was not tower-controlled.
WRECKAGE INFORMATION
The Cessna came to rest on flat, wooded terrain and was examined at the accident site. All major components were accounted for at the scene. The airplane came to rest in a nose-down attitude, with the engine buried beneath the instrument panel in the initial impact crater, and was severely deformed by impact forces. The leading edges of both wings were uniformly crushed aft in compression. The airframe was cut by rescue personnel, and further sectioned for removal from the woods. Control continuity was established from the cockpit area to all flight control surfaces. The propeller blades displayed twisting, bending, leading edge gouging and chordwise scratching. Both blades displayed spiral striations about 5 inches inboard of the tips consistent with a wire strike.
The Searey came to rest upright in a dense thicket. The trailing edge of the right wing flap displayed a series of parallel slash marks, the structural tubing was severed, and the fracture surfaces were smeared. The structural cable between the wing strut and the empennage was still attached at each end, but missing an approximate 5-foot section of its middle. The two severed ends displayed features consistent with overload. The empennage displayed a vertical opening and parallel slash marks.
MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION
The Office the Chief Medical Examiner for the County of Erie, Buffalo, New York, performed the autopsy on the Cessna pilot. The autopsy report listed the cause of death as multiple blunt force injuries.
The FAA's Bioaeronautical Sciences Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, performed toxicological testing of the Cessna pilot. The testing was negative for the presence of carbon monoxide, cyanide, and ethanol. Amlodipine was detected in the blood and urine. Amlodipine was in a group of drugs called calcium channel blockers and was used to treat high blood pressure or angina. Salicylate, a metabolite of aspirin, was detected in the urine.
The NTSB Chief Medical Officer performed a medical review of the pilot's records and the reports cited above. The review revealed no evidence of any medical condition or substance that may have contributed to the accident.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Young Eagles Event
The purpose of the EAA Young Eagles Program was to provide the opportunity for young people to fly in a general aviation airplane. The district coordinator for the event was interviewed by an FAA inspector about the conduct of the event.
The coordinator had organized the event using the instructions provided by EAA, which included an informational webinar for organizers. The volunteer pilots were required to be EAA members, and were also required to attend a briefing prior to the event. The items briefed included the current and forecast weather, the runway in use, the route of flight, and the various landmarks that defined the route.
The flight route consisted of a straight-out departure to the east, climbing to an altitude of 1,800 feet. About 10 nautical miles from the airport, the airplanes were to turn right and return to the airport on a track parallel to and about 2 miles south of the outbound track. The course terminated abeam the midpoint of runway 08/26. At or about that point, the airplanes were to descend to traffic pattern altitude, turn north to cross the runway south to north, then enter a left downwind for landing on runway 08. Traffic pattern altitude at BQR was 1,552 feet.
Pilots were instructed to use the BQR common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) for all communications, which included position reports when making turns and at several designated landmarks along the route of flight. Airspeeds were neither set nor restricted while established on the route.
According to the vice president of the local EAA Chapter, each airplane participating in the event was assigned a discrete transponder code in coordination with the control tower at BUF; however, none of the airplanes were in contact with, or receiving any services from, the control tower.
Radar Study
A radar study was performed by an NTSB Airplane Performance Specialist. The radar data used in the study were secondary returns from the short-range Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9) located at Buffalo Niagara International airport (BUF), Buffalo, NY (transponder codes 0433 and 0416 for the Searey and the Cessna, respectively).
In addition to the radar data, a Garmin 496 portable GPS receiver was recovered from the Searey and successfully downloaded. The radar and GPS track data was used to establish a timeline of the flights, ground and flight tracks for each airplane and to create a simulation of the flight as viewed from the cockpit of the Cessna.
According to the simulations and graphs produced by the study, as seen from the Cessna, the Searey would have been located below the horizon and just above the Cessna's engine cowling for most of the westbound leg of the flight. While the Searey may have been within the Cessna's field of view, the Searey would have been difficult to see against the background of the terrain. Further, based on the distance between the Cessna and the Searey throughout the flight, the Searey would have been a small dot in the terrain background until the final seconds before impact.
Because of the high-wing structure of the Searey, and its relative position and altitude, the Cessna was blocked from the Searey pilot's view by the right wing, roof, and aft cabin structure, as the Cessna was above and behind the Searey during the latter portion of the flight prior to collision.
Although the pilot of the Searey stated that he was reporting his position on the CTAF along the route of flight as prescribed in the pre-event briefing, this could not be confirmed, as radio communications made over the CTAF were not recorded.
FAA Advisory Circular 90-48D, "Pilots' Role in Collision Avoidance," stated, "Pilots should also be familiar with, and exercise caution in, those operational environments where they may expect to find a high volume of traffic or special types of aircraft operation. These areas include airport traffic patterns, particularly at airports without a control tower…"
FAA Pamphlet P-8740-51, "How to Avoid a Midair Collision," stated, "…an aircraft on a collision course with you will appear to be motionless. It will remain in a seemingly stationary position, without appearing to move or to grow in size for a relatively long time, and then suddenly bloom into a huge mass filling one of your windows. This is known as "blossom effect." Since we need motion or contrast to attract our eyes' attention, this effect becomes a frightening factor when you realize that a large bug smear or dirty spot on the windshield can hide a converging plane until it is too close to be avoided."
According to statistical studies, flying is far safer than driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) 2008 compilation of driving and flying statistics, for example, revealed more than 5 million U.S. driving accidents for that year and only 20 accidents for U.S. air carriers. Based on the study’s results, NHTSA calculated the odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash to be 1 in 98 and the odds of dying in a plane crash to be 1 in 7,178 over a person’s lifetime. Yet, the public remains rightly concerned when plane crashes, including those caused by mid-air collisions, occur.
On September 27, 2014, for example, a double-plane crash in Lancaster, New York, resulted in the death of two people and the injury of two others during a youth aviation program at the Buffalo-Lancaster Regional Airport. According to a police officer who investigated the crash, the program involved the Experimental Aircraft Association and was intended to “expose youth to aviation.” A report by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) revealed that the two single-engine planes involved in the collision were a Cessna 172 and an amateur-built Searey aircraft. The operator of the Searey was able to make an emergency landing in a field, but the Cessna 172, which was occupied by a 78-year-old man and a 14-year-old boy, crashed, resulting in the death of both occupants. Though at least one eye witness has reported seeing the planes “clip wings,” the exact cause of the accident is still under investigation by the National Traffic Safety Board (NTSB).
Who can be held responsible for injuries or deaths caused in plane accidents? In cases such as the accident between the amateur Searey and the Cessna 172 in Lancaster, New York, more than one individual and/or entity may be subject to liability.
Legal Responsibility for Injuries and Deaths Resulting from Plane Collisions and other Aircraft Accidents
Mid-air collisions between aircraft larger than those involved in the Lancaster crash are less common than they once were. Federal regulations requiring the installation in such aircraft of Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) have contributed to the decrease in mid-air collisions between larger planes. TCAS allow a pilot to monitor the air traffic around an aircraft and provide details regarding the location of nearby traffic. More advanced systems also provide a pilot with specific instructions for avoiding nearby traffic.
Under Title 14, Part 91 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), however, small, non-commercial aircraft that fly in the United States are not required to have TCAS. Though the owners of small non-commercial aircraft may purchase TCAS, the system will not provide the location of other aircraft that do not have transponders. This system of avoiding mid-air collisions is not foolproof, according to many who use it. Nevertheless, the Lancaster collision may have been avoided if both planes had been equipped with TCAS.
Can the owners and/or operators of planes involved in mid-air collisions be held responsible for the injuries and deaths caused by the crash if their planes were not equipped with TCAS? The answer to this question will depend on the circumstances of the particular case.
The violation by an owner or operator of a plane of any Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) would be considered negligence on the part of the aircraft owner or operator in a negligence action brought to recover damages for someone’s injury or death sustained in an aircraft accident. In order to hold such a defendant liable, however, the plaintiff would also need to establish that the violation of the rule in question was a cause of the victim’s injury or death. Thus, in a collision between two large commercial aircraft resulting in injuries or deaths, the owner of either aircraft may be held liable for victims’ resulting injuries or deaths if the owner’s failure to install and/or properly maintain TCAS is determined to have been a cause of the collision that resulted in the victims’ injuries or deaths.
In the case of the collision between the small, non-commercial aircraft in Lancaster, New York, however, the absence of TCAS would not be a factor in the determination of the plane owners’ and operators’ liability, since TCAS is not required for such aircraft. Under what circumstances can the owners or operators of smaller planes be liable for victims’ injuries and deaths?
The owner of a plane may be found directly liable for accident injuries and deaths caused by negligently maintaining the plane or by negligently allowing an incompetent pilot to fly the plane. The non-owner operator of an aircraft may be held liable for injuries and deaths caused by the operator’s negligence. Such negligence may include a pilot’s violation of any applicable FAR, decision to fly in bad weather, or failure to keep an adequate lookout for other planes in the area. In the case of the collision between the Cessna and Searey aircraft, both operators may be found to have negligently contributed to the accident by flying too close to each other.
The Dangers Posed by Small Non-commercial Aircraft Operated by Negligent or Inexperienced Pilots Are a Serious Concern
Today’s writer is Jeff Killino, a respected litigation attorney and the managing partner of The Killino Firm, P.C. Attorney Killino has extensive experience with all types of accident and wrongful death cases, including those arising out of airplane accidents caused by owner or operator negligence or defects in aircraft. He has achieved national recognition for his work in accident and personal injury cases, including a product liability action that led to the recall of 450,000 defective tires manufactured in China, on major television networks such as CNN, ABC, FOX, and the Discovery Channel.
- Source: http://www.theepochtimes.com
NTSB Identification: ERA14FA459A
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, September 27, 2014 in Lancaster, NY
Aircraft: CESSNA 172M, registration: N9679H
Injuries: 2 Fatal,2 Uninjured.
NTSB Identification: ERA14FA459B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, September 27, 2014 in Lancaster, NY
Aircraft: KEVIN D'ANGELO SEAREY, registration: N89KD
Injuries: 2 Fatal,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 either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On September 27, 2014, about 1020 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172M, N9679H, and an experimental amateur-built D'Angelo Searey XLS, N89KD, collided in midair approximately 2 mile southeast of the Buffalo-Lancaster Regional Airport (BQR), Lancaster, New York. The Cessna departed controlled flight after the collision, descended vertically in a spiral, and was destroyed by impact forces at ground contact. The Searey entered a descending right turn, and performed a forced landing to a thicket of low brush, and was substantially damaged. The commercial pilot and passenger on board the Cessna were fatally injured. The private pilot and passenger in the Searey were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for either airplane, each on local personal flights which departed BQR at 1009 (Seareay) and 1012 (Cessna), respectively. Both airplanes were participating in an Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Young Eagles event, and the flights were conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
Several witnesses provided statements, and their accounts were consistent throughout. They each said their attention was drawn to the sound of the airplanes and/or the sound of collision. The airplanes were both traveling westbound as one airplane overtook the other, or was on top of the other, before one airplane (Cessna) was seen to "tip" or "roll" inverted before it descended vertically in a spiral. The second airplane (Seareay) descended in a 180-degree turn and the sound of the engine was increasing and decreasing, "revving" or "sputtering" throughout the descent.
Preliminary radar information provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) revealed that both airplanes were assigned discrete transponder codes. The data depicted both airplanes traveling westbound on roughly the same ground track. The Cessna was at 1,774 feet and 90 knots groundspeed and the Searey was further west, at 1,575 feet and 70 knots groundspeed. As the Cessna approached the Searey from the east, it descended slowly to 1,625 feet. At the same time, the Searey climbed slowly to 1,625 feet. For the last few seconds of the Cessna's flight, both airplanes were depicted at 1,625 feet, and in close lateral proximity. Radar contact with the Cessna was suddenly lost in the vicinity of its accident site, while a descending right turn was depicted for the Searey.
The 1054 weather observation at Buffalo International Airport (BUF), 5 miles west of the accident site included clear skies, calm winds, and 10 miles visibility.
The Cessna came to rest on flat, wooded terrain and all major components of the airplane were accounted for at the scene. The airplane came to rest nose down with the engine buried beneath the instrument panel in the initial impact crater, and was severely deformed by impact forces. The leading edges of both wings were uniformly crushed aft in compression. Control continuity was established from the cockpit area to all flight control surfaces. Both propeller blades displayed similar twisting, bending, leading edge gouging and chordwise scratching.
The Searey came to rest upright in a dense thicket. Examination of the airplane revealed that the trailing edge of the right wing flap displayed a series of parallel slash marks, and the structural tubing was severed, and the fracture surfaces were smeared. The structural cable between the wing strut and the empennage was still attached at each end, but missing a section about 5 feet in length in the middle. The two severed ends displayed features consistent with overload separation. The empennage displayed a vertical opening and parallel slash marks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment