Max Conrad
1903-1979
By John Oyler
Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2015, 9:00 p.m.
In a column last summer I reported that my son-in-law, Michael Finke, was a private pilot who owned a 65-year-old Piper Pacer in which he, our daughter Elizabeth, and our granddaughter Rachael had flown from Champaign, Ill., to Meadville for a weekend visit with us at our cottage at Conneaut Lake.
Some of the readers of this column are aware of my hobby doing pen-and-ink sketches of simple subjects. This summer I decided to try to sketch Mike's Pacer, FAA number N7330K. Since none of the photographs I took of the plane seemed suitable for sketching, I decided to look on the web for a better picture of that particular model.
At some point I remembered Mike telling me this specific aircraft had participated in a famous flight by a well-known aviator, Max Conrad. That initiated additional research, which turned up a remarkable story. Conrad was born in Winona, Minn., in 1903 and grew up during the birth pangs of aviation. Infatuated with flying, he earned his license in 1928; by the time he died in 1979 he had logged more than 50,000 hours in the air, far more than any other pilot in the history of aviation.
His involvement with the N7330K, which he lovingly dubbed “Thirty Three Okay,” began with a chance encounter with Piper Aircraft Co. President William Piper. The company had recently released the PA-20 Pacer, a successor to their popular Piper Cub line, and was looking for a way to promote its new product. Conrad's wife Betty and their nine children were living in Geneva, Switzerland, and he was looking for an affordable way to go to Europe and visit them.
Conrad and Piper worked out a deal. Piper would provide a brand new Pacer and Max would fly it to Europe and back. This was a significant challenge for such a tiny plane. Weighing less than 1,000 pounds and driven by a 125-horsepower engine, it had a range of 500 miles. In contrast, Lindbergh's “Spirit of St. Louis” had a 223-horsepower engine and a range of 4,000 miles. Undaunted, Conrad took delivery of “Thirty Three Okay” at Lock Haven, added auxiliary fuel tanks, and flew to Teterboro, N.J., to begin his memorable flight.
The first stop on his “great circle” route from Teterboro to Geneva was an airfield in Massachusetts. From there he flew to Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada, a military airfield frequently used by transatlantic airliners for refueling. Next came Greenland, another military airbase, and from there to Iceland.
As was true from Goose Bay to Greenland, his flight from Greenland to Iceland was accompanied by Air Force B-17s, to help with his navigation. Next stop was Prestwick, Scotland, then Tousssus near Paris, and finally Geneva, where he was met by his happy family.
This was the first of many long distance solo flights, all in Piper Aircraft models, including a non-stop flight of 7,668 miles from Casablanca to Los Angeles in a Piper Comanche 250. He eventually set nine official light plane world records, three of which still stand. When he died, in 1979, his home airfield in Winona was renamed Max Conrad Field in his honor.
Although Conrad never achieved the fame of his contemporaries Lindbergh, Rickenbacker and Doolittle, he is still revered by private pilots all over North America.
One wonders if his travels in the 1930s and 1940s ever brought him to the old Mayer Field in Bridgeville. I am sure he would have felt right at home there. Reading about his career brought back many memories of Sunday afternoons with the sky seemingly filled with “Mayer crates,” the nickname we gave to the Piper Cubs of that era.
When I remarked to my daughter Beth about the fact that Mike's 65-year-old plane was still completely serviceable, she replied, “Well, don't forget George Washington's hatchet!”
She was, of course, referring to a popular legend that claims the original hatchet Washington used to chop down the cherry tree is still at Mount Vernon and has been used continuously every day for two-and-a-half centuries. Of course, during that time the head was replaced seven times and the handle 15.
I'm sure all the replaceable parts on Mike's plane have been replaced many times and the fabric on the wings and fuselage as well, but the original frame and the famous number N7330K can attest to having fond memories of the 1950 transatlantic flight.
Like most early aviators, Max Conrad was an expert mechanic, navigator, and weather prognosticator, as well as a skilled pilot. He well deserves an important spot in history.
Source: http://triblive.com
NEW DELHI: The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has grounded two IndiGo pilots, who allegedly did not maintain the level assigned to them while taking off from Jammu on Monday.
Their plane had come perilously close to a landing Air India aircraft and action against them came a day after TOI reported this serious near miss.
"The airline (IndiGo) has been advised not to use the pilots pending investigation," DGCA chief M Sathiyavathy, who has ordered a probe into this incident, said on Wednesday.
The problem arose when an Air India Airbus A-320 was approaching Jammu to land and IndiGo A-320 was taking off. The two aircraft breached the minimum separation of 1,000 feet and were just 400 feet apart.
The traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) alarm went off in cockpits of both the aircraft, signaling another plane was dangerously close.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Aero Contractors Airlines has been penalized for allowing its passengers disembark from an aircraft with the use of a ladder.
The Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority has imposed an applicable sanction on Aero Contractors in line with Nigerian Civil Aviation Regulations.
According to Sam Adurogboye, Acting General Manager, Public Relations of NCAA released a statement on Tuesday, stating that Aero Contractors would pay a fine running into millions of naira.
“The Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) has imposed an applicable sanction on Aero Contractors Airlines in line with Nigerian Civil Aviation Regulations (Nig.CARs).”
“In a letter conveying the sanction, the Director General of the Regulatory Authority, Capt. Muhtar Usman, said the action of Aero Contractors Airline in allowing the use of a ladder to disembark passengers from a Boeing 737 – 500 aircraft in a non-emergency situation is contrary to its approved aircraft handling manual.”
“Therefore this is a violation of Part 9.2.4.2(b) of Nig.CARs which part attracts a civil penalty. All relevant agencies made useful submissions during the course of the investigation. In view of the safety implications of your action you are hereby sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of Part 20.2.3(15) of the Nig.CARs.”
“Although the incident did not result in any mishap, the aircraft is airworthy and the Crew well qualified to operate the flight. However, it is viewed as a breach and resultantly a fine running into millions of naira have been clamped on the airline to serve as deterrence and to forestall any similar infraction by any other airline operator.”
“In addition, the Captain of the flight was similarly fined for failing to comply with the provisions contained in the aircraft manual. The Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority ,NCAA, therefore wishes to reiterate its earlier warning that all airlines should endeavor to adhere strictly to Civil Aviation Regulations.”
Source: http://ynaija.com
Drones may be a hot holiday gift this year but they're not a toy, as two recent South Florida incidents point out.
NBC 6 Investigators have learned that one crashed at a South Florida airport and another recently violated tightly controlled airspace.
The unmanned aircraft aren't supposed to be anywhere near North Perry Airport in Broward, or any other one but NBC 6 has learned one actually crashed onto the taxi way. It's a real concern for the Broward Aviation Department and pilots flying out of the airport.
Drones may be a hot holiday gift this year but they're not a toy, as two recent South Florida incidents point out.
NBC 6 Investigators have learned that one crashed at a South Florida airport and another recently violated tightly controlled airspace.
The unmanned aircraft aren't supposed to be anywhere near North Perry Airport in Broward, or any other one but NBC 6 has learned one actually crashed onto the taxi way. It's a real concern for the Broward Aviation Department and pilots flying out of the airport.
These days unmanned aircraft are everywhere and that's exactly what the fear is.
"There's going to be hundreds of thousands of drones, many of them recreational, given out as gifts," said Michael Nonnemacher, with Broward Aviation.
That means more drones in the hands of those unfamiliar with flight rules. In South Florida, the director of operations for two airports in Broward said an unmanned aircraft was recovered after it not only flew into North Perry's airspace, it came onto the airport and eventually tumbled on to a taxiway.
"This was found crashed on the airport. Imagine this impacting the front of an aircraft, the front of a propeller or going into an engine which it could destroy instantly. And that's really where the threat is," Nonnemacher said.
Drones are supposed to stay at least five miles from all airports and fly no higher than 400 feet but Broward Aviation officials said recently another drone came on or near the airport property at North Perry. It got away before they could track it back to its operator.
"Well I think it's terrible. I think the drone operators need to operate safely out here. If they are operating near an airport that's illegal," said Lisa Landsman, with South Beach Helicopters. "We operate tours and charters out here and we operate safely but these drone operators are not following the law."
The FAA's new rules require operators to register their unmanned aircraft, something aimed at getting operators to learn the rules before they take off.
"The number of close calls that we have had continues to increase," Nonnemacher said.
Now if you don't register your unmanned aircraft later could come a hefty $27,000 fine. That aside, the fact that a drone would actually crash onto the taxiway where there are helicopters, banner planes and a variety of aircraft is making aviators nervous when so many of the drones are under the Christmas tree.
Story and video: http://www.nbcmiami.com
No passengers required medical attention when an international flight Wednesday made an emergency landing at the Corpus Christi International Airport.
A Delta airlines flight, which departed Monterrey, Mexico, bound for Atlanta, was experiencing problems with the air conditioning.
The problem caused about six people to feel ill, said Kim Bridger, CCIA spokesperson.
Initially, a call came in for a pressurization problem in the main cabin of the CRJ-900 aircraft, she said.
The airport's public safety division, including peace officers, firefighters and emergency medical services, met the plane on the runway when it landed and helped bring affected passengers into air-conditioned spaces, she said.
The plane contained 71 passengers and four crew members, including a pilot.
The crew was able to remedy the air conditioning problem and left the airport about two hours later, Bridger said.
Source: http://www.caller.com
CORPUS CHRISTI (Kiii News) - A plane made an emergency evacuation just after 2:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Corpus Christi International Airport.
Firefighters and first responders were called to the airport as Delta connector plane requested an emergency evacuation.
The plane had lost cabin pressure and had to circle for a while to burn off fuel so they could land.
Once on the ground, the plane was pulled into the gate and evacuated.
One person was reportedly unconscious but eventually woke.
None of the passengers were taken away by EMS crews.
Story and video: http://www.kiiitv.com
In 2017, Alaska Airlines will phase out its five Boeing 737-400 “combi" planes that move cargo and passengers primarily around Alaska.
The five combi planes have flown around the state -- Seattle is the only stop they make Outside -- since 2007. Each has space for 72 passengers in the back half of the plane and 6,000 pounds of cargo in the front. These planes were introduced to the fleet to replace several 737-200s, offering the ability to carry 20 percent more cargo and passengers.
They will be replaced with three Boeing 737-700s, which will be converted from all-passenger planes to freighters. It’s part of a broader plan to phase out all 26 of the 737-400s in the Alaska Airlines fleet and move toward more fuel-efficient planes.
The work to retrofit those three 700s will start in February. The change is meant to improve the airline’s cargo service in Alaska.
“It will allow us to offer a cargo schedule that better serves the cargo needs of the communities we serve in the state of Alaska,” said spokeswoman Halley Knigge.
She said, however, that the change isn’t driven by heightened demand for air cargo services within the state.
Alaska Airlines Senior Vice President of Communications Joe Sprague told the Associated Press earlier this year that the move is “an opportunity for us to step up our game from a cargo standpoint.”
These flights currently operate among Anchorage, Ketchikan, Kotzebue, Bethel, Juneau, Sitka, Nome and Seattle. Combi flights between cities in the southern part of the state are more frequent than those to cities like Kotzebue and Nome.
Knigge said because the transition is still far off, it’s not yet clear how schedules and passenger service might be affected.
Source: http://www.adn.com
Pratt & Whitney, an engine supplier for Airbus’s revamped A320neo jetliner, rebutted a report by JPMorgan Chase & Co. analysts that the power plants may not meet performance benchmarks because of possible modifications.
An engine supplier for Airbus Group’s revamped A320neo jetliner, due for its first delivery this month, rebutted a report by JPMorgan Chase & Co. analysts that the power plants may not meet performance benchmarks because of possible modifications.
“Our engines are currently meeting the fuel-efficiency commitments we have made to our customers, they will upon entry into service and thereafter,” said Jay DeFrank, a spokesman for United Technologies’ Pratt & Whitney division.
The company’s response underscored the importance of fuel-economy metrics in Pratt’s competition with General Electric to power narrow-body jets, the biggest and most lucrative segment of the global airline fleet. Pratt has promised a 15 percent fuel savings on its so-called geared-turbofan engine, whose development has required an investment of about $10 billion.
United Technologies said Dec. 10 that uneven cooling in the engine may cause bowing and result in some parts rubbing together. Running air through the unit for three minutes would eliminate the issue, according to Chief Executive Officer Greg Hayes, who said software and engineering fixes were being developed.
JPMorgan analysts including David Perry and Seth Seifman said changing the software to prolong cooling times automatically may cost an airline its takeoff slot at airports where departure times are crucial, while shortening engineering modifications such as shortening the compressor blades could erode the promised savings in fuel use, “although the margin of shortfall might be modest.”
“Both solutions have an economic cost,” the JPMorgan analysts said in a note that cited “industry contacts.”
While Pratt’s setbacks may not have a major impact on deliveries, airlines could seek compensation if certain targets aren’t met, and the company may face a cost to fix the glitch, the analysts said. It’s not clear whether the cause relates to production quality or a more serious design flaw, they said.
More-efficient engines are a central selling point for the neo, the updated version of Airbus’s top-selling A320 family. The neo is Airbus’s entry in the single-aisle segment with Boeing’s new Max, the overhauled narrow-body that also features new engines.
Airbus has said it’s in discussions with the first A320neo customers on their “delivery milestones,” and that the plane has been certified by both the European Aviation Safety Agency and U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. Spokesman Justin Dubon said Wednesday that he couldn’t comment on any specific engine issues.
Hayes said in his Dec. 10 comments that a new process for the engine planned for February will put “some additional robustness into the bearing housing,” together with some other changes.
“You hope you’ve covered all the bases in the test phase,” said Robert Mann, a former American Airlines executive who is now president of aviation consultant R.W. Mann & Co. “But sometimes in seeking ultimate performance you get caught out by one or more of the variables. Pretty much every engine has had issues.”
Pratt’s model, which incorporates a gear to achieve significant reductions in fuel burn, emissions and noise, competes with an engine from a GE-Safran venture to power the neo. Pratt’s PW1100G has a 28 percent market share on ordered A320neos, with the rival Leap on 31 percent and the rest of operators undecided, JPMorgan said.
Qatar Airways, long slated to be the first A320neo customer, has already balked at taking the first jet amid concern that getting engines to the right temperature will have an effect on its timetable, while India’s Indigo, due to be the third recipient, said this week that Airbus had warned it of a delay in handovers related to unspecified “industrial reasons.”
Deutsche Lufthansa, now scheduled to get the first A320neo, said Tuesday it expects to receive a plane this month — allowing Airbus to meet its delivery target — but that the handover won’t be announced because of the holiday season. The media will be notified only once a second aircraft arrives early in the new year, spokesman Thomas Jachnow said.
Source: http://www.seattletimes.com
The National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident.
Additional Participating Entities:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Salt Lake City, Utah
Mexican Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil
Aerolineas Ejecutivas
Aviation Accident Factual Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf
Docket And Docket Items - National Transportation Safety Board: https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms
NTSB Identification: CEN16LA067
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 129: Foreign operation of Aerolineas Ejecutivas S A De CV
Accident occurred Wednesday, December 23, 2015 in Telluride, CO
Aircraft: HAWKER 400, registration: XA-MEX
Injuries: 7 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On December 23, 2015, about 1415 mountain standard time, a Hawker Beechcraft 400XP airplane, XA-MEX, collided with a snowplow while landing at the Telluride Regional Airport (KTEX) Telluride, Colorado. The pilot, co-pilot, five passengers, and the snowplow operator were not injured and the airplane was substantially damaged during the accident. The airplane was registered to and operated by Aerolineas Ejecutivas, Toluca, Mexico, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 129 as an air taxi flight. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time. The flight departed Monterrey, Mexico, with a planned stop in El Paso, Texas, en route to Telluride, Colorado.
Prior to departure from Monterrey, the crew obtained preflight information, including Notice to Airmen (NOTAMs ) for the planned route of flight. The NOTAMs for KTEX noted several runway closure times; however, none of the closures were valid for the period during which the flight would arrive at KTEX.
The flight departed El Paso at 1220 MST and the flight crew discussed the weather conditions at their destination airport, including concern that the weather maybe below minimums and may not allow for a landing. The Montrose Regional Airport (KMTJ), Montrose, Colorado, was discussed as an alternate destination. As the flight neared their destination, the crew was in contact with a Denver en-route/center controller. The crew also listened to the Telluride's airport automated weather station.
At 1348, the controller asked the pilots to advise him when they had the weather and NOTAMS for KTEX, adding that another airplane just attempted an approach into KTEX, but had to execute a missed approach. The pilot reported that they received the weather information and planned to make the approach. The controller responded by giving the flight a heading, saying this would be for the descent and sequence into the airport.
At 1350, the airport operator entered a NOTAM via computer closing the runway (effective 1350) for snow removal, and the airport operator proceeded onto the runway.
At 1358, the controller cleared the accident airplane for the approach to the airport. The pilot then canceled his flight plan at 1402 with the airport in sight. The crew did not change radio frequency to the airport's common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) for traffic advisories.
During the landing, the crew did not see the snowplow on the runway until it was too late to avoid a collision.
PILOT INFORMATION
The pilot sitting in the left seat held a Mexican Airline Transport License with a rating for airplane multi-engine land. The pilot held a class one medical certificate issued on July 09, 2015, with no restrictions or limitations. The pilot had 8,238 hours total flight time, with 1,412 in the accident make and model.
The pilot sitting in the right seat held a Mexican Airline Transport License with a rating for airplane multi-engine land. His class one medical certificate was issued on December 16, 2015, with no restrictions or limitations. The pilot had 7,113 hours total flight time, with 1,919 in the accident make and model.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
The accident airplane was a Hawker Beechcraft 400XP (BE40), which is a low wing, twin-engine business jet, powered by two Pratt & Whitney JT15D turbofan engines. The airplane was under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program, with the last inspection dated July 25, 2015. At the time of the accident, the airplane had accumulated 5,744.25 flight hours.
AIRPORT INFORMATION
The Telluride Regional Airport (KTEX) is a public-use, non towered airport, located 5 miles west of Telluride, Colorado. The airport has a single asphalt runway 9/27, that is 7,111 ft long by 100 ft wide. Pilots are to use the CTAF for communications. There is an Automated Weather Observation Station (AWOS) station located on the airfield for weather information. The AWOS recording typically has a reminder for pilots about noise abatement procedures. Due to the surrounding terrain, runway 27 is recommended for takeoff, and 09 for landing.
Authorized airport personnel manage the NOTAMs online via the FAA NOTAM Manager.
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
At 1415, the Telluride AWOS recorded; wind 010 degrees at 3 knots, 1 and ¾ mile visibility with light snow, broken clouds at 1,100 ft, and overcast sky at 2,200 ft, temperature 23 degrees Fahrenheit (F), dew point 18 F, and a barometric pressure of 29.50 inches of mercury.
COMMUNICATIONS
After departing El Paso, Texas, the crew was in radio contract with Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) controllers along their route of flight. After the crew changed from the Albuquerque Center controller to the Denver Center controller, the crew asked and received the latest weather for KTEX. The flight changed section controllers a couple times, before contacting the final sector controller responsible for the KTEX airport.
The controller's workload was described as heavy, working multiple air traffic arrival and departures from other airports in the sector, including Montrose and Aspen.
Prior to XA-MEX approach to KTEX, the controller was in contact with a Beechcraft KingAir (call sign Foothills (FH) 122), who made an approach to the Telluride airport. About 1313, the controller asked FH122 to let him know when he had the weather and NOTAMs, adding that the weather was down [below minimum] at times. The pilot reported that he had the weather and NOTAMs, and the weather appeared good enough for an approach. About 1330, the controller cleared FH122 for the localizer-DME runway 9 approach to KTEX. Shortly afterwards the pilot acknowledged a handoff to the advisory frequency and said he would report landing. About 1340, the pilot (FH122) reported a missed approach to the controller. The controller advised the pilot to fly the published missed approach procedure, before working a clearance to the Montrose airport.
During a follow-up telephone conversation with the NTSB Investigator in Charge, the pilot of FH122 stated that he had talked on CTAF to a lady at the airport and the weather did not look that good. He then decided to do a missed approach before getting to the runway.
After the accident, the accident airplane's cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was shipped to the vehicle recorder lab in Washington, DC for download. A CVR group was convened and the recording was auditioned by a CVR group consisting of representatives from the NTSB, FAA, Mexican Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil (DGAC), and a technical representative from the operator. Excerpts of communications are listed in the CVR Specialist Factual Report, which is located in the official docket for this investigation.
WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION
The airplane's right wing collided with the rear of the snow removal equipment, about halfway down the runway. The impact separated the right wing from the fuselage near the wing root. The airplane same to rest just off the snow covered runway surface. Minor damage was reported to the snow removal equipment.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Denver center controller (sector 12) position was initially staffed with a radar controller and a radar-associate controller. Facility Operating Procedure requires controllers to issue appropriate NOTAMs to pilots. The facility added that in the past, they received a phone call from an airport operator notifying them of an upcoming NOTAM that closed the airport or a runway; however, currently, airport operators enter NOTAMs directly into the system and they do not receive the telephone calls.
When a NOTAM is entered into the Aeronautical Information System Replacement system (AISR), center automatically receives the NOTAM in the En Route Information Display System (ERIDS) at the controller's position. However, the controller is not alerted of a new NOTAM, and if the controller is on a different page on ERIDS, the NOTAM will not be visible.
One minute prior to XA-MEX being cleared for the approach, the radar associate controller moved over to the radar position. There was not a record of a position relief briefing and it was not known if a relief checklist was used.
A review of information contained in the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM),
4-1-9, Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers,
c. Recommended Traffic Advisory Practices
1. Pilots of inbound traffic should monitor and communicate as appropriate on the designated CTAF from 10 miles to landing. Pilots of departing aircraft should monitor/communicate on the appropriate frequency from start-up, during taxi, and until 10 miles from the airport unless the CFRs or local procedures require otherwise.
4-1-10. IFR Approaches/Ground Vehicle Operations
a. IFR Approaches. When operating in accordance with an IFR clearance and ATC approves a change to the advisory frequency, make an expeditious change to the CTAF and employ the recommended traffic advisory procedures.
b. Ground Vehicle Operation. Airport ground vehicles equipped with radios should monitor the CTAF frequency when operating on the airport movement area and remain clear of runways/taxiways being used by aircraft. Radio transmissions from ground vehicles should be confined to safety-related matters.
The airport manager reported that the snowplow was equipped with radios; the snowplow operator and the customer service representative inside the airport terminal both monitor the advisory frequency on the radio. He added that they also review a flight tracker program and reservations for potential inbound aircraft. He added that reservations are not required, nor will the flight tracker program show all traffic, but it does give them an idea of potential arrivals and departures. XA-MEX was not on the flight tracker and did not have a reservation at the airport.
NTSB Identification: CEN16LA067
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 129: Foreign operation of Aerolineas Ejecutivas
Accident occurred Wednesday, December 23, 2015 in Telluride, CO
Aircraft: HAWKER 400, registration: XA-MEX
Injuries: 7 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 23, 2015, about 1415 mountain standard time, a Hawker 400 airplane, XA-MEX, collided with snow removal equipment while landing at the Telluride Regional Airport (KTEX) Telluride, Colorado. The pilot, co-pilot, and five passengers were not injured and the airplane was substantially damaged during the accident. The airplane was registered to and operated by Aerolineas Ejecutivas, Toluca, Mexico, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 129 as an air taxi flight. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time.
The initial report indicated that air traffic control cleared the airplane for the approach to the airport. The pilot then cancelled his instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan when the airport was in sight. During the landing, the airplane's right wing collided with a snowplow that was on the runway, which separated the wing from the fuselage. The non-towered airport's runway was reportedly closed by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), prior to the airplane's arrival.
The airplane was retained for further examination.
http://www.sanmiguelcountyco.gov
San Miguel County Sheriff
Telluride Plane Crash News Release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Plane Crash on Telluride Airport Runway
Seven on Board; No Injuries
Contact: San Miguel County Sheriff Bill Masters 970-729-2025
or Pubic Information Officer Susan Lilly 970-729-2028
December 23, 2015 -- (Telluride, CO) – A small twin-engine aircraft carrying seven people crashed as it landed and struck a snowplow on a closed runway at Telluride Airport Wednesday afternoon.
There were no reported injuries but the incident triggered a multi-agency response including multiple San Miguel Sheriff’s Office Deputies and more than a dozen Telluride Fire Protection District Fire, EMS and HAZMAT personnel.
The Hawker Beechjet 400, registered out of Mexico, originated out of El Paso, Texas with five passengers and two crewmembers on board when it landed at 2:15pm (MT), struck a snowplow, and slid off the runway.
Airport officials told Sheriff Deputies the runway was closed for snow removal maintenance at the time of the landing, and airport FBO (Fixed Base Operator) reportedly did not receive any radio communication from the pilot prior to the aircraft’s landing.
An airport employee told Sheriff’s Deputies he was driving the snowplow when it was struck from behind and said he never saw the plane coming. He estimated the speed of the aircraft to be around 100mph at the time of impact. He too was uninjured.
Broken snow showers were in the area at the time of the crash, but visibility was at least 7 miles, and wind was not believed to be a factor.
San Miguel County Sheriff Bill Masters said, “We had rapid response from multiple agencies to ensure scene safety and initiate any appropriate interventions needed. We were pleased all occupants walked away uninjured.”
Telluride Fire Protection District Chief John Bennett said, “This is what we all train for, and we were glad we didn’t have a more critical situation two days before Christmas.”
The National Transportation Safety Administration (NTSB) will be investigating the incident.
TELLURIDE, Colo. — A small twin-engine plane landing in Telluride crashed into a snow plow at Telluride Airport Wednesday afternoon, according to the San Miguel County Sheriff’s Office.
The Hawker Beechjet 400, registered out of Mexico, originated out of El Paso, Texas with five passengers and two crewmembers on board when it landed at 2:15 p.m., struck a snowplow and slid off the runway, according to the Sheriff’s Office.
The occupants were Mexican citizens traveling to Telluride for vacation, the Sheriff’s Office said.
Airport officials told Sheriff Deputies the runway was closed for snow removal maintenance at the time of the landing and the airport operator reportedly did not receive any radio communication from the pilot prior to the aircraft’s landing.
An airport employee told Sheriff’s Deputies he was driving the snowplow when it was struck from behind and said he never saw the plane coming. He estimated the speed of the aircraft to be around 100 mph at the time of impact.
There were no reported injuries from anyone on the plane or the plow driver.
Broken snow showers were in the area at the time of the crash, but visibility was at least 7 miles, and wind was not believed to be a factor.
“We had rapid response from multiple agencies to ensure scene safety and initiate any appropriate interventions needed,” San Miguel County Sheriff Bill Masters said. “We were pleased all occupants walked away uninjured.”
The multi-agency response included multiple San Miguel Sheriff’s Office Deputies and more than a dozen Telluride Fire Protection District Fire, EMS and HAZMAT personnel.
The National Transportation Safety Administration (NTSB) will be investigating the incident.
Source: http://kdvr.com
TELLURIDE – The pilot who struck a closed snowplow from behind when a twin-engine aircraft landed on a snowy runway at Telluride Regional Airport Wednesday afternoon did not radio the fixed base operator before it happened, according to the San Miguel County Sheriff's Office.
Seven people – five passengers and two crew members – were aboard the Raytheon Hawker 400XP when it landed, struck the snowplow and slid off the runway.
The plane was registered out of Mexico, according to the San Miguel County Sheriff's Office, and originated out of El Paso. The people aboard were headed to Telluride for a vacation.
Deputies say the snowplow operator – who also wasn't hurt – didn't see the plane coming. He told investigators the aircraft was going around 100 miles per hour at the time of impact.
The runway was closed at the time. The fixed base operator reportedly did not receive any radio communications from the pilot before he landed the plane.
The San Miguel County Sheriff's Office says it was snowing at the time of the crash, but that visibility was at least seven miles.
The crash prompted a large response from firefighters, EMS and HazMat personnel.
The National Transportation Safety Board will investigate the incident.
Story and video: http://www.9news.com
TELLURIDE, Colo. - A small plane attempting to land in Telluride crashed into a snowplow.
The twin-engine plane hit the plow on a runway at Telluride Regional Airport on Wednesday afternoon.
None of the seven people aboard the Hawker Beechjet 400 were hurt. An airport employee driving the plow estimates the plane’s speed to have been 100 mph at the time of impact, the San Miguel Sheriff's Office said. He, too, was unhurt.
The plane hit the plow from behind, and then slid off the runway.
Crews shut down the runway before the crash because of snow removal and maintenance. Airport operators said they did not receive radio communication from the plane prior to landing.
The aircraft is registered out of Mexico. Wednesday’s flight originated out of El Paso, Texas.
Snow showers were falling at time of the crash but officials estimate visibility was at least 7 miles.
The NTSB will investigate.
Story: http://www.thedenverchannel.com
TELLURIDE, Colo. (CBS4)– A small plane crashed at the Telluride Airport on Wednesday afternoon. The airport was closed for snow removal at the time of the crash.
There were five passengers and two crew members on board the plane that was flying to Telluride from El Paso, Texas. The Hawker Beechjet aircraft is registered out of Mexico.
The airport was closed for snow removal when the plane landed and collided with a snowplow on the runway. The San Miguel Sheriff said the pilot did not radio the airport before landing.
The passengers were traveling to Telluride for vacation.
Story and video: http://denver.cbslocal.com
Single Plane Crash at Telluride Airport: NO injuries, 5 passengers, 2 crew traveling to Telluride for vacation; flight from El Paso, TX. Hawker Beechjet aircraft registered out of Mexico. Fixed Base Operator (FBO) states airport was closed for snow removal; reportedly pilot did not radio airport base before landing aircraft. Telluride Fire Protection District has rescue engine, hazmat technicians, fire and EMS on scene.
2 Cheap Cars is looking to sell its stake in Kiwi Regional Airlines.
The car reseller said today it wants to sell its 10.4 percent holding in the airline, and that it "never intended to be a long-term investor."
When it first invested last December, the company said it was "joining a consortium", with chief executive Eugene Williams appointed to the airline's board.
Companies Office documents show the company initially owned 23 percent of the airline, but its shareholding was diluted in July, August and again earlier this month when Kiwi Regional Airlines issued more shares.
"When we first got involved the airline didn't have any other investors," Williams said.
"Now with CAA certification, an aircraft and a growing passenger list it is a great time for others to come on board."
Kiwi Regional Airlines was set up by Ewan Wilson in December 2014, after Air New Zealand announced it was abandoning services from Auckland to Kaitaia and Whakatane, Wellington to Whangarei, Taupo and Westport, and the Palmerston North to Nelson service in April 2015.
In July this year, 2 Cheap Cars sent out a press release stating it had purchased a Saab 340A aircraft "through its subsidiary, Kiwi Regional Airlines."
At the time, Wilson said Kiwi Regional Airlines "categorically" owned the aircraft, and at the next shareholder meeting, there would be a "clarification of who speaks for the company."
The airline said it received its air operator certificate from the Civil Aviation Authority on October 23 and began flying four days later, with direct flights between Dunedin and Queenstown, Dunedin and Nelson, and Nelson and Hamilton.
This month it said it would start flying directly from Nelson to Tauranga twice a week.
At the end of November, one month after flights began, the company cancelled its Dunedin-Queenstown route due to "a combination of several weather-related cancellations and low passenger bookings making it unsustainable for this service to continue."
Source: http://www.3news.co.nz
Date: 22-DEC-15
Time: 15:00:00Z
Regis#: N524RC
Aircraft Make: TITAN
Aircraft Model: TORNADO
Event Type: Incident
Highest Injury: None
Damage: Unknown
Activity: Personal
Operation: 91
FAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA Houston FSDO-09
City: SANTA FE
State: Texas
AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, SANTE FE, TX.
http://registry.faa.gov/N524RC
Apple products are a big seller on China’s eBay-equivalent website Taobao, but what about actual apples?
People’s Daily Online (via The Daily Mail) is reporting that there’s been a rise of listings on the website of flight attendants supposedly kissing apples and selling them to interested customers.
The apples, some of which claim to have been kissed by 500 air hostesses, are priced anywhere between 8.80 Yuan and 128.90 Yuan, or roughly $1.88 to $27.53 at today’s exchange rate. The average price is around 15.9 Yuan to 69.9 Yuan or $3.40 to $14.93.
The apples come either in little custom cardboard boxes with information and pictures about the stewardesses who allegedly kissed the fruit or else in larger boxes with two apples, a toy, and Ferrero Rocher candies.
Tech Insider found at least four sellers on Taobao with at least a dozen listings between them. The majority of the listings appear to come from China’s Sichuan Southwest Vocational College of Civil Aviation, according to the watermark on the images.
“We are the Sichuan Southwest Vocational College of Civil Aviation Innovation and Entrepreneurship team,” one seller who went by the name Meng Ling told The Daily Mail. “The income from this ‘air hostess kiss’ campaign will be used to set up an University Student Innovation and Entrepreneurial fund to help more students realize their career dreams. Another portion of the income will be donated to an old people’s home.”
It’s not the first time that the Sichuan Southwest Vocational College of Civil Aviation has garnered international attention. Earlier this year, the school was featured on Getty Images for having twenty pairs of twins studying at the school in its program.
And last year, the same aviation school made headlines for having its flight attendants learn kung fu to ‘protect the skies.’
Read more here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk
DUFRESNE INC: http://registry.faa.gov/N610ED
NTSB Identification: CEN14FA009
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, October 18, 2013 in Derby, KS
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/19/2015
Aircraft: CESSNA 500, registration: N610ED
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
After climbing to and leveling at 15,000 feet, the airplane departed controlled flight, descended rapidly in a nose-down vertical dive, and impacted terrain; an explosion and postaccident fire occurred. Evidence at the accident site revealed that most of the wreckage was located in or near a single impact crater; however, the outer portion of the left wing impacted the ground about 1/2 mile from the main wreckage.
Following the previous flight, the pilot reported to a maintenance person in another state that he had several malfunctioning flight instruments, including the autopilot, the horizontal situation indicator, and the artificial horizon gyros. The pilot, who was not a mechanic, had maintenance personnel replace the right side artificial horizon gyro but did not have any other maintenance performed at that time. The pilot was approved under an FAA exemption to operate the airplane as a single pilot; however, the exemption required that all equipment must be operational, including a fully functioning autopilot, flight director, and gyroscopic flight instruments. Despite the malfunctioning instruments, the pilot chose to take off and fly in instrument meteorological conditions.
At the time of the loss of control, the airplane had just entered an area with supercooled large water droplets and severe icing, which would have affected the airplane's flying characteristics. At the same time, the air traffic controller provided the pilot with a radio frequency change, a change in assigned altitude, and a slight routing change. It is likely that these instructions increased the pilot's workload as the airplane began to rapidly accumulate structural icing. Because of the malfunctioning instruments, it is likely that the pilot became disoriented while attempting to maneuver and maintain control of the airplane as the ice accumulated, which led to a loss of control.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The airplane's encounter with severe icing conditions, which resulted in structural icing, and the pilot's increased workload and subsequent disorientation while maneuvering in instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions with malfunctioning flight instruments, which led to the subsequent loss of airplane control. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's decision to takeoff in IFR conditions and fly a single-pilot operation without a functioning autopilot and with malfunctioning flight instruments.
HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On October 18, 2013, at 1017 central daylight time, N610ED, a Cessna 500, Citation, multi-engine turbojet airplane, collided with terrain during an uncontrolled descent near Derby, Kansas. The pilot and passenger were fatally injured, and the airplane was destroyed. The airplane was registered to and operated by Dufresne, Inc.; Murrieta, California. Day visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed on the surface; however, instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) likely prevailed at altitude at the time of the accident. An instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 business flight. The airplane departed Wichita Mid-Continent Airport (ICT), Wichita, Kansas, at 1007 and was destined for New Braunfels Regional Airport (BAZ), New Braunfels, Texas.
During climb to cruise, after leveling at 15,000 feet, the airplane departed controlled flight, descended rapidly and impacted terrain. Several witnesses described seeing the airplane below the clouds in a nose-down vertical dive and trailing either white smoke or black smoke. One of the witnesses reported the nose-down airplane was "spinning very fast". Many of the witnesses reported an immediate explosion with a fireball about 500 feet high followed by a column of black smoke. Evidence at the accident scene showed evidence of a postimpact fire with most of the wreckage located in or near a single impact crater. Several witnesses reported that after they heard or saw the explosion and fire they saw airborne debris tumbling and falling to the ground about one half mile west from the main wreckage.
PERSONNEL INFORMATION
The pilot, age 49, held a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single engine and multiengine land, and instrument airplane. His private pilot certificate in airplane single engine land was initially issued on March 6, 2000, his private pilot rating in airplane multiengine land was issued on May 17, 2000, and his rating in instrument airplane was issued on January 7, 2006. On January 20, 2006, he was issued a commercial pilot certificate in airplane multi-engine land, and on February 6, 2006, he was issued a restricted type rating for CE-500 with a limitation "SIC privileges only". On December 13, 2008, he was issued an unrestricted type rating for CE-500.
The pilot also held an FAA second-class medical certificate, issued on July 3, 2012, with a restriction "must have available glasses for near vision".
A review of the pilot's three logbooks showed entries beginning on January 21, 1999, with the last entry in logbook number three on October 11, 2013. The logbooks showed that his total pilot experience was then 2,605 hours, with about 2,366 hours in multi-engine airplanes, and a total of 239 hours of instrument flying experience. He had logged at total of 1,172 hours of pilot experience in Cessna 500 and 550 airplanes which included 658 hours of second-in-command experience.
The pilot completed a satisfactory CE-500 pilot proficiency check on October 4, 2012. One month later on November 10, 2012, he completed a satisfactory proficiency check for a single pilot exemption in CE-500 airplanes. Pilot logbook entries showed that since November 17, 2012, he had flown about 206 hours in CE-500 airplanes with all of that experience logged as a "single pilot", and without another pilot crewmember in the cockpit.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
The Cessna 500, Citation, serial number (s/n) 500-0241, was a multi-engine business turbojet airplane. The transport category airplane was originally issued a standard airworthiness certificate on June 12, 1975. It was powered by two Pratt & Whitney Canada JT-15D-1A turbofan engines, s/n 76522 and s/n 76209, each capable of producing 2,200 pounds of thrust. At the time of the accident the airplane was maintained on an approved aircraft inspection program (AAIP) and its most recent airframe inspection was completed on September 24, 2012, at an airplane total time of 7,560.9 hours. On that date the left and right engines had then accumulated a total of 7,212.8 hours and 10,435.2 hours, respectively.
Based on a postaccident review of invoices, correspondence, pilot logbook entries, and other documents, the total flight time from September 24, 2012, to the accident date was estimated as an additional 249 hours.
The airplane's type-certificate data sheet (TCDS) showed a maximum takeoff weight limitation of 11,500 pounds and showed the airplane was certified with seats for two pilots and a maximum of seven passengers. The limitations in the TCDS also required a minimum crew of a pilot and co-pilot for all flights.
The airplane could be operated with only one pilot if the pilot had been approved under an FAA exemption which included completion of an FAA approved single-pilot training program. That exemption for single pilot operation also stated that all required equipment must be operational including a fully functioning autopilot, flight director, and gyroscopic flight instruments.
An aviation maintenance person in another state reported that the pilot had telephoned him on the day before the accident. The pilot stated that he had just arrived at ICT and on his inbound flight he had several failure flags on the horizontal situation indicator (HSI) and artificial horizon (AH) gyro instruments, and that the right side (co-pilot side) AH gyro was "sideways". The pilot also stated that several times on the same inbound flight to ICT he had uncommanded drops in N1, N2, and ITT readings on one engine and those repeated changes in the engine power setting required re-trimming the aircraft.
Maintenance records and interviews with maintenance persons at ICT showed that the pilot got their assistance to replace the co-pilot's AH gyro instrument. However, the pilot did not mention to them the problems with the malfunctioning autopilot, the malfunctioning pilot's flight instruments, or the malfunctioning engine. No evidence could be found that the pilot ever attempted to fix those problems.
FAA registry documents show that the airplane was purchased by the current owner on March 14, 2005, and that since 1975 the airplane had been registered to 16 different owners.
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
ICT was located 13 miles northwest from the accident site at an elevation of 1,333 feet mean sea level (msl). At 0953 the surface weather observation site at ICT reported wind from 010 degrees at 10 knots, 10 miles visibility, light rain, a broken ceiling at 4,400 feet above ground level (agl), overcast skies at 6,500 feet agl, temperature of 7 degrees Celsius (C), dew point temperature of 3 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 30.15 inches of Mercury.
McConnell Air Force Base (IAB) was located 6 miles north-northwest of the accident site, at an elevation of 1,371 feet msl. At 0958 the surface weather observation site at IAB reported wind from 020 degrees at 10 knots, 10 miles visibility, light rain, few clouds at 900 feet agl, temperature of 6 degrees C, dew point temperature of 4 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 30.15 inches of Mercury.
The observations from IAB and ICT indicated light rain at the surface at the time of the accident with cloud ceilings lowering over time. Pilot reports in the area indicated light to moderate icing conditions above 6,000 feet msl at the accident time.
AIRMETs Sierra and Zulu issued at 0945 (1445 UCT), and valid at the accident time, forecasted IFR conditions for the accident site with ceilings below 1,000 feet and visibilities below 3 miles with precipitation and mist, and moderate icing conditions between the freezing level and FL180.
Current Icing Potential (CIP) is produced by the NWS' Aviation Weather Center and is intended to be supplemental to other icing advisories (e.g. AIRMETs and SIGMETs). The CIP indicated a 40 to 80 percent probability of icing at the accident altitude around the time of the accident. The high likelihood of icing indicated by CIP matched the weather environment described in the upper air sounding, weather radar, and PIREP sections.
In addition to the CIP showing that icing was likely at 13,000, 14,000 and 15,000 feet at 1000, the CIP also characterized the icing as moderate to heavy around the accident site. Similar icing probabilities and severity were also indicated by CIP above 10,000 feet msl near the accident site around the accident time.
Pilot reports (PIREPs) indicated a large area of light to moderate icing conditions throughout the atmosphere around the accident site. One report of moderate icing came from a large Boeing KC-135E as it was taking off from IAB, and this report along with the ice pellet and snow reports indicate that more severe icing was possible at the flight altitude of the accident flight around the accident time.
The closest NWS WSR-88D with dual-polarization weather radar data was at ICT. That radar showed values of dual-pol data at the accident site which indicated it was likely that the precipitation in and around the accident site at the accident time was a mix between ice crystals, dry snow, and supercooled liquid water. Of note, just to the northeast of ICT and near the accident flight track there was an increase of dBZ values between 1015 and 1020 with dBZ values going from around 15 dBZ at 1015 (1515 UCT) to near 35 dBZ at 1020 There was no or very little change in the Zdr or CC values, likely indicating that there was a large increase in hydrometeors (ice crystals, dry snow, and supercooled liquid water) during the time between 1015 and 1020 CDT around and to the northwest of accident site.
The freezing level was located at 7,231 feet msl. The precipitable water value was 0.64 inches.
The 1000 CDT NAM sounding indicated several layers of conditional instability which supported mid-level clouds from 7,000 feet through 19,000 feet. The 1000 CDT sounding was also close to saturation between -4 degrees C and -20 degrees C, between 9,000 and 19,000 feet msl, which would have likely supported the growth of snow crystals and super cooled liquid water droplets. The icing analysis from RAOB indicated high probability of clear, mixed, and rime icing conditions from 9,000 to at least 18,000 feet. With the soundings remaining between 0 degrees C and -12 degrees C for such a long extent as 9,000 feet, Supercooled Large Drop (SLD) icing would also be likely.
The Area Forecast, valid at the accident time, forecasted an overcast ceiling at 5,000 feet with the tops of the clouds to 25,000 feet msl.
It was unknown what weather information the pilot had, since there was no record he had received preflight weather information from an official source.
COMMUNICATIONS AND RADAR
Following is a timeline of selected communications between the pilot of N610ED and FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC). A summary of the FAA ATC radar contacts is included.
1007 N610ED departed ICT to the north on runway 1R and had normal radio contacts with the departure controller until climbing to 15,000 feet.
1010:08 Radar showed N610ED was at an altitude of 7,000 feet
1010:36 Radar showed N610ED was at an altitude of 8,000 feet and began a turn to the right
1010:59 Radar showed N610ED was at an altitude of 8,900 feet
1011:27 Radar showed N610ED was at an altitude of 10,000 feet
Radar data showed N610ED was on a meandering course of about 165 degrees beginning about 1012 until 1014:41
1012:08 Radar showed N610ED was at an altitude of 11,000 feet
1012:50 Radar showed N610ED was at an altitude of 12,000 feet
1013:26 Radar showed N610ED was at an altitude of 13,000 feet
1013:55 Radar showed N610ED was at an altitude of 14,000 feet
1014:41 Radar showed N610ED was at an altitude of 14,600 feet and beginning a turn to the right
1014:49 N610ED reported to the controller that he was "… leveling at one five thousand"
1014:54 The controller cleared N610ED to "… climb and maintain flight level two three zero cleared direct millsap"
1015:00 N610ED responded "… millsap direct uh zero echo delta"
No further communications were received from N610ED
A direct course to the Millsap VORTAC was then about 184 degrees at a distance of about 295 nautical miles. Radar data showed N610ED continued its right turn to a course of about 240 degrees and climbed to 15, 200. It then entered a left turn to a course of about 170 degrees and began a meandering descent to 14,600, followed by a climb to 15,200 feet.
1016:19 Radar showed N610ED was at an altitude of 15,200 feet when it began a descending left turn to a course of about 090 degrees
1016:51 The last radar contact showed N610ED was at an altitude of 10,100 feet
Radar contact was then lost. The controller repeatedly attempted to contact N610ED over the next 15 minutes; however, no further radio transmissions were received.
FLIGHT RECORDERS
The airplane was not equipped with a flight data recorder (FDR) or cockpit voice recorder (CVR), and neither was required by the FAA.
WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION
The wreckage was located in a bean field about 13 miles southeast from ICT and about 6 miles south southeast from IAB.
Ground scars and other evidence at the scene showed the airplane impacted terrain in a near vertical nose-down attitude creating a crater approximately 15 feet deep and 30 feet wide. The elevation of the main impact crater was estimated as 1,320 feet msl. The wreckage was extensively fragmented. Portions of the terrain surface and some wreckage components on the surface showed evidence of a postimpact fire.
Most of the airplane, including the landing gear, engines, and the other heavier portions of the wreckage were buried in the impact crater. Dirt was ejected from the crater mostly toward the southeast with the center line of that debris path oriented to about 125 degrees. Small fragmented pieces of wreckage were found within 50 to 100 feet from the south through northeast. Other small pieces of wreckage were found within about 300 feet to the east through southeast.
The outer portion of the left wing had separated and came to rest in a harvested corn field about 3,100 feet west at 264 degrees from the main wreckage. The left aileron had separated and came to rest in a harvested corn field about 1,950 feet west at 276 degrees from the main wreckage. The left aileron and the portion of the left wing were photo documented and transported to the location where the main wreckage was being laid out.
As the crater was excavated and the wreckage parts were recovered from the crater they were laid out at the scene. The fragmented and frequently obliterated wreckage parts observed included: both wings, both ailerons, the elevator, the rudder, the tail surfaces, the radome, the fuselage, the nose gear, the left and right landing gear, and both engines. During the wreckage lay-out at the accident scene, all major components of the airplane were accounted for.
The left engine s/n could not be determined at the scene. Its installed position was determined by its location in the impact crater and the fan trim servo located with opposite engine. The fan case, outer bypass duct, intermediate case and accessory gearbox were obliterated. Only separate portions of housings were recovered. The low pressure fan hub had separated from the engine and was recovered separately. All blades were sheared at their roots. The high pressure impeller was separated from the engine, and the impeller shroud was recovered separately. The gas generator case and engine tail cone were deformed by impact.
The right engine s/n could not be determined at the scene. Its installed position was determined its location in the impact crater and the fan trim servo located with engine. The fan case, outer bypass duct, intermediate case and accessory gearbox were obliterated. Fractured portions of housings were recovered. The low pressure fan hub fractured from main engine and was recovered separately. All blades were sheared at their roots. The high pressure impeller was separated from the engine, and the impeller shroud was recovered separately. The gas generator case and engine tail cone were deformed by impact. The separated high pressure turbine was recovered separately. All blades were sheared at their roots.
MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Autopsies were performed on the pilot and the passenger by the Regional Forensic Science Center - Sedgwick County, Kansas; in Wichita, Kansas.
Forensic toxicology was not performed.
TESTS AND RESEARCH
Main Wreckage and Engines
The wreckage was moved to another location and examined. The major components of the airplane were again laid out and confirmed that all major components of the airplane were accounted for. The fragmented parts of the engines were removed and examined separately.
The left engine fan case, outer bypass duct, intermediate case, and accessory gearbox were obliterated. Fractured portions of the housings were recovered. The low pressure fan hub was fractured from the main engine and located separately. All of the fan blades were sheared at their roots. The high pressure impeller was fractured from the main engine, and the impeller shroud was recovered separately. The gas generator case was severely deformed by impact. The tail cone was deformed, preventing access to the low pressure turbines. The severe impact damage precluded a formal disassembly. The gas generator and turbine support cases were sectioned as practicable for access.
Strong circumferential rubbing and deformation were displayed by the low pressure fan, high pressure compressor and shroud, high pressure turbine stator, shroud, and turbine, second stage low pressure turbine stator, shroud and turbine, and the 3rd stage low pressure turbine stator, shroud and turbine, due to their making contact with their adjacent components under impact loads and engine structural housing deformation.
The left engine low compressor case was obliterated, with only fragments recovered. The low compressor inlet case was obliterated, with only fragments recovered. The intermediate case was obliterated, with only fragments recovered. The accessory gearbox was obliterated, with only fragments recovered. The oil to fuel heater, fuel control unit pneumatic section, high pressure fuel pump, and the flow divider were recovered separately, with impact damage. The outer bypass duct displayed severe impact deformation. The gas generator case displayed severe impact deformation. The inner bypass duct displayed severe impact deformation. The exhaust duct displayed severe impact deformation. The automatic fuel shut off valve (N2 over speed shut off valve) was in the normal un-triggered position.
The right engine fan case, outer bypass duct, intermediate case and accessory gearbox were obliterated. Fractured portions of the housings only were recovered. The low pressure fan hub was fractured from the main engine and was located separately. All of the fan blades were sheared at their roots. The high pressure impeller was partially fractured from main engine, and the impeller shroud was recovered separately. The gas generator case was severely deformed and torn by impact. The high pressure turbine was recovered separately. All of the blades were sheared at their roots. The tail cone was deformed preventing access to the low pressure turbines. The severe impact damage precluded formal disassembly. The gas generator and turbine support cases were sectioned as practicable for access. Strong circumferential rubbing and deformation were displayed by the low pressure fan, high pressure compressor and shroud, high pressure turbine stator, shroud, and turbine, second stage low pressure turbine stator, shroud and turbine, and the 3rd stage low pressure turbine stator, shroud and turbine, due to their making contact with their adjacent components under impact loads and engine structural housing deformation.
The right engine low compressor case was obliterated, with only fragments recovered. The low compressor inlet case was obliterated, with only fragments recovered. The intermediate case was obliterated, with only fragments recovered. The accessory gearbox was obliterated, with only fragments recovered. The oil to fuel heater, fuel control unit pneumatic section, high pressure fuel pump, and the flow divider were recovered separately, with impact damage. The outer bypass duct displayed severe impact deformation. The gas generator case displayed severe impact deformation. The inner bypass duct displayed severe impact deformation. The exhaust duct displayed severe impact deformation. The automatic fuel shut off valve (N2 over speed shut off valve) was in the normal un-triggered position.
Both the left and right engines displayed similar contact signatures to their internal components characteristic of the engines producing similar power in the time of impact, likely in a middle to high power range.
Follow-up Examination of the Left Wing
A portion of the separated left outboard wing which included the fracture location at the inboard end was examined with federal oversight at the Cessna Material and Process Engineering Lab in Wichita, Kansas. The purpose of the examination was to identify and characterize the fractures of the various structural elements of the left outboard wing structure, as well as documenting several areas of repairs of the structure near the separation location.
The examination found that the left wing had separated from the aircraft at approximately WS 161 to 171.5, with torn and crumpled wing skin and deformation and fracture of internal structural components (stringers and spar assemblies). The microscopic examination of features of 23 different fracture surfaces associated with the wing structure between WS 161 and 208 were all indicative of ductile overload fracture.
The examination also showed that the wing exhibited repairs at several locations between WS 161 and WS 208, consisting of spliced-in forward portions of ribs at WS 171.5 and WS 192 and a replacement lower aux spar cap between WS 177.5 and WS 199.5. The repairs showed that many of the rivets were improperly installed, there were several double drilled fastener holes, unapproved materials were used, and internal parts did not have protective primer applied. In addition, the application of fuel tank sealant was excessive and sloppy in the internal areas of the wing structure.
The examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
According to the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-15B; Chapter 10 on page 10-24: "The very nature of flight in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) means operating in visible moisture such as clouds. At the right temperatures, this moisture can freeze on the aircraft, causing increased weight, degraded performance, and unpredictable aerodynamic characteristics. Understanding avoidance and early recognition followed by prompt action are the keys to avoiding this potentially hazardous situation … Structural icing is a condition that can only get worse. Therefore, during an inadvertent icing encounter, it is important the pilot act to prevent additional ice accumulation. Regardless of the level of anti-ice or deice protection offered by the aircraft, the first course of action should be to leave the area of visible moisture. This might mean descending to an altitude below the cloud bases, climbing to an altitude that is above the cloud tops, or turning to a different course. If this is not possible, then the pilot must move to an altitude where the temperature is above freezing. Pilots should report icing conditions to ATC and request new routing or altitude if icing will be a hazard."
Chapter 11 on page 11-2: Inadvertent Icing Encounter "Because icing is unpredictable in nature, pilots may find themselves in icing conditions even though they have done everything practicable to avoid it … The effects of ice on aircraft are cumulative—thrust is reduced, drag increases, lift lessens, and weight increases. The results are an increase in stall speed and a deterioration of aircraft performance. In extreme cases, two to three inches of ice can form on the leading edge of the airfoil in less than 5 minutes. It takes only 1/2 inch of ice to reduce the lifting power of some aircraft by 50 percent and increases the frictional drag by an equal percentage. A pilot can expect icing when flying in visible precipitation, such as rain or cloud droplets, and the temperature is between +02 and –10° Celsius. When icing is detected, a pilot should … leave the area of precipitation or go to an altitude where the temperature is above freezing … Proper preflight action includes obtaining (weather) information".
Chapter 5 on page 5-25: "An autopilot is a mechanical means to control an aircraft using electrical, hydraulic, or digital systems (and) can control three axes of the aircraft: roll, pitch, and yaw ... The autopilot should be utilized to reduce workload, which affords the pilot more time to monitor the flight (and) decreases the chances of entry into an unusual attitude ... "
Chapter 7 on page 7-36 "When operating in IMC and in a partial panel configuration, the pilot should avoid abrupt changes to the control yoke. Reacting abruptly to altitude changes can lead to large pitch changes and thus a larger divergence from the initial altitude … overcontrolling causes the pilot to move from a nose-high attitude to a nose-low attitude and … small changes to pitch are required to insure prompt corrective actions are taken to return the aircraft to its original altitude with less confusion … during instrument flight with limited instrumentation, it is imperative that only small and precise control inputs are made. Once a needle movement is indicated denoting a deviation in altitude, the pilot needs to make small control inputs to stop the deviation. Rapid control movements only compound the deviation by causing an oscillation effect. This type of oscillation can quickly cause the pilot to become disoriented and begin to fixate on the altitude. Fixation on the altimeter can lead to a loss of directional control as well as airspeed control".
According to the FAA "Aeronautical Information Manual"; section 8-1-5, Illusions Leading to Spatial Disorientation: "Various complex motions and forces and certain visual scenes encountered in flight can create illusions of motion and position. Spatial disorientation from these illusions can be prevented only by visual reference to reliable, fixed points on the ground or to flight instruments ...A rapid acceleration … can create the illusion of being in a nose up attitude. The disoriented pilot will push the aircraft into a nose low, or dive attitude. A rapid deceleration by a quick reduction of the throttles can have the opposite effect, with the disoriented pilot pulling the aircraft into a nose up, or stall attitude .. An abrupt change from climb to straight and level flight can create the illusion of tumbling backwards. The disoriented pilot will push the aircraft abruptly into a nose low attitude, possibly intensifying this illusion".
NTSB Identification: CEN14FA009
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, October 18, 2013 in Derby, KS
Aircraft: CESSNA 500, registration: N610ED
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On October 18, 2013, about 1017 central daylight time, N610ED, a Cessna 500, Citation, multi-engine turbofan airplane, was destroyed during impact with terrain near Derby, Kansas. The pilot and passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by Dufresne, Inc.; Murrieta, California. Day visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed at the time of the accident and an instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 business flight. The airplane departed Wichita Mid-Continent Airport (ICT), Wichita, Kansas, about 1007 and was destined for New Braunfels Regional Airport (BAZ), New Braunfels, Texas.
Preliminary data from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control showed normal operations during climb before the pilot contacted the FAA Kansas City Air Route Traffic Control Center at 1514 and reported leveling at 15,000 feet. The controller cleared the pilot to proceed direct to Millsap, Texas and climb to 23,000 feet. Over the next minute, the aircraft made an abrupt right turn followed by an abrupt left turn. Radar data showed the airplane descended to 14,600 feet before resuming climb and reaching 15,200 feet at 1516:20. The aircraft then made an abrupt descending left turn and radar and radio contact was lost.
Several witnesses reported seeing the airplane below the clouds in a nose down vertical dive. One witness reported that after impact he saw a fireball about 500 feet high followed by a column of smoke. Evidence at the accident scene showed evidence of a postimpact fire with most of the wreckage located in or near a single impact crater. The outboard portion of the left wing and the left aileron was located about 3,000 feet west of the main wreckage.
At 1038, the closest official surface weather observation site at McConnell Air Force Base (IAB), Wichita, Kansas, reported a northeast wind at 12 knots, light rain, and a broken ceiling at 1,700 feet above ground level. Satellite imagery indicated abundant cloud cover with the cloud cover top near 21,000 feet mean sea level (msl). Pilot reports in the area indicated light to moderate icing conditions above 6,000 feet msl at the accident time.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
The National Transportation Safety Board is searching for clues that will help determine why a private jet crashed near Derby Friday, killing a California evangelist and his pilot.
Investigators from the NTSB, the Federal Aviation Administration and Cessna spent their Saturday in the soybean field southeast of Derby where a 1975 Cessna 500 Citation I crashed, locating debris and documenting the crash site.
"The wreckage is highly fragmented," Tom Latson, the NTSB investigator in charge of the crash, said. "The airplane was destroyed. There is evidence of a fire."
It will take careful study of all that debris, witness reports and other factors to determine why the plane crashed, Latson said. The crash killed 72-year-old Pastor Ed Dufresne and his 49-year-old pilot Mitchell Morgan, both of Murrieta, Calif.
The crash investigation is taking place away from the crash site as well.
"There's another air traffic control investigator from the NTSB that is also looking at all the radar, will be interviewing the controllers, will be listening to the radio tapes," Latson said.
Most of the debris investigators were looking at was located within a few hundred feet of the impact crater. However, some parts of the plane were found about a mile away.
"We also found part of one wing and part of one aileron almost a mile further west from the main wreckage impact crater," Latson said.
That is consistent with what Chase Chambers told KAKE News he witnessed Friday morning. He said he saw the wing and plane falling separately, with a white smoke trail coming from the plane.
The debris will be removed from the field beginning about noon Sunday and will be taken to Dallas. Latson said close inspection of those parts will likely be the only way to determine what went wrong.
"I don't know yet, but I don't expect to find a cockpit voice recorder or a flight data recorder on the aircraft, nor do I think those are required on this aircraft," Latson said.
A preliminary report on the investigation should be released in about a week. The full investigation and the determination of what likely caused the crash could take up to a year to complete.
Story and Video: http://www.kake.com
