Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Piper PA-32RT-300, N30245: Accident occurred November 11, 2016 in Plattsmouth, Cass County, Nebraska

http://registry.faa.gov/N30245

FAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA Lincoln FSDO-65

AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED, PLATTSMOUTH, NEBRASKA. 

Date: 11-NOV-16
Time: 00:00:00Z
Regis#: N30245
Aircraft Make: PIPER
Aircraft Model: PA32RT
Event Type: Accident
Highest Injury: None
Damage: Substantial
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
City: PLATTSMOUTH
State: Nebraska

The Airplane Factory (PTY) Ltd Sling, Hayes Aero LLC, N951MW: Accident occurred November 14, 2016 in Lapeer County, Michigan

HAYES AERO LLC:   http://registry.faa.gov/N951MW

FAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA East Michigan FSDO-23

AIRCRAFT, AIRPLANE FACTORY LTD SLING, LIGHT SPORT, ON LANDING STRUCK A DEER, LAPEER, MICHIGAN. 

Date: 14-NOV-16
Time: 22:30:00Z
Regis#: N951MW
Event Type: Accident
Highest Injury: None
Damage: Substantial
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
City: LAPEER
State: Michigan

Paradigm Air, Boeing 757-236, N757SS: Incident occurred November 15, 2016 in Stillwater, Payne County, Oklahoma

JULIET ROMEO AVIATION LLC:   http://registry.faa.gov/N757SS

FAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA Oklahoma City FSDO-15

N757SS PARADIGM AIR OPERATION FLIGHT PMM757 BOEING 757 AIRCRAFT, ON TAXI WENT OFF THE TAXIWAY INTO THE GRASS AND STRUCK TAXIWAY LIGHTS, NO INJURIES, UNKNOWN AIRCRAFT DAMAGE, STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA. 

Date: 15-NOV-16
Time: 23:43:00Z
Regis#: N757SS
Aircraft Make: BOEING
Aircraft Model: 757
Event Type: Incident
Damage: Unknown
Activity: On Demand
Flight Phase: TAXI (TXI)
Flight Number: PMM757
City: STILLWATER
State: Oklahoma

Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP, N456SP: Incident occurred January 03, 2018 at Bowman Field Airport (KLOU), Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky -and- Accident occurred November 04, 2016 at Stuart Powell Field Airport (KDVK), Danville, Boyle County, Kentucky

Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Louisville, Kentucky

Aircraft on landing, veered off left side of runway and struck a runway light.

http://registry.faa.gov/N456SP

Date: 03-JAN-18
Time: 20:03:00Z
Regis#: N456SP
Aircraft Make: CESSNA
Aircraft Model: 172S
Event Type: INCIDENT
Highest Injury: NONE
Aircraft Missing: No
Damage: UNKNOWN
Activity: UNKNOWN
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
Operation: 91
City: LOUISVILLE
State: KENTUCKY

Additional Participating Entity: 
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Louisville, Kentucky

Aviation Accident Final Report - National Transportation Safety Board:https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf

Investigation Docket - National Transportation Safety Board: https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms

Aviation Accident Data Summary / National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf

Location: Danville, KY
Accident Number: GAA17CA069
Date & Time: 11/04/2016, 1600 EDT
Registration: N456SP
Aircraft: CESSNA 172
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Hard landing
Injuries: 1 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Instructional

Analysis 


The solo student pilot reported that, while on final approach following a cross-country flight, he experienced what felt like a down draft or wind shear. The airplane touched down hard on the runway, bounced, and on the second touchdown, the nosewheel impacted the surface first. The student pilot taxied the airplane to the ramp without further incident.

Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed substantial damage to the firewall.

The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about 5 minutes before the accident, the wind was 040° at 5 knots. The airplane landed on runway 30. 

Probable Cause and Findings

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

The student pilot's improper landing flare, which resulted in a hard landing. 

Findings

Aircraft 


Personnel issues
Aircraft control - Student pilot (Cause)
Decision making/judgment - Student pilot (Cause)

Environmental issues
Crosswind - Effect on equipment

Factual Information


History of Flight


Landing

Hard landing (Defining event) 

Student Pilot Information

Certificate: Student
Age: 53, Male
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Left
Other Aircraft Rating(s): None
Restraint Used: 3-point
Instrument Rating(s): None
Second Pilot Present: No
Instructor Rating(s): None
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 3 Without Waivers/Limitations
Last FAA Medical Exam: 09/14/2016
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 
Flight Time: (Estimated) 58 hours (Total, all aircraft), 58 hours (Total, this make and model), 3 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 10 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 7 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft)

Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Manufacturer: CESSNA
Registration: N456SP
Model/Series: 172 S
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Year of Manufacture: 1999
Amateur Built: No
Airworthiness Certificate: Normal
Serial Number: 172S8320
Landing Gear Type: Tricycle
Seats: 4
Date/Type of Last Inspection: Unknown
Certified Max Gross Wt.: 2300 lbs
Time Since Last Inspection:
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time:
Engine Manufacturer: Lycoming
ELT:
Engine Model/Series: IO-360-L2A
Registered Owner: RECORDS SERVICES INC.
Rated Power:
Operator: Mike Pratt
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Operator Does Business As: Louisville Aviation
Operator Designator Code:

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: KDVK, 1024 ft msl
Observation Time: 1955 UTC
Distance from Accident Site: 0 Nautical Miles
Direction from Accident Site: 305°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Scattered / 4000 ft agl
Temperature/Dew Point: 16°C / 6°C
Lowest Ceiling:
Visibility:  10 Miles
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 5 knots, 40°
Visibility (RVR):
Altimeter Setting: 30.32 inches Hg
Visibility (RVV):
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: LOUISVILLE, KY (LOU)
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Destination: Danville, KY (DVK)
Type of Clearance: VFR
Departure Time: 1500 EDT
Type of Airspace: Class G

Airport Information

Airport: STUART POWELL FIELD (DVK)
Runway Surface Type: Asphalt
Airport Elevation: 1022 ft
Runway Surface Condition: Dry
Runway Used: 30
IFR Approach: None
Runway Length/Width: 5000 ft / 75 ft
VFR Approach/Landing: Full Stop; Traffic Pattern

Wreckage and Impact Information


Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 1 None
Latitude, Longitude: 37.573611, -84.762222 (est)

Robinson R22 Beta II, N306RL: Accident occurred November 15, 2016 at Brandywine Airport (KOQN), West Chester, Chester County, Pennsylvania

The National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident. 

Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Aviation Accident Factual Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf

http://registry.faa.gov/N306RL

Aviation Accident Factual Report - National Transportation Safety Board 

Location: West Chester, PA
Accident Number: ERA17LA046
Date & Time: 11/15/2016, 1500 EST
Registration: N306RL
Aircraft: ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY R22
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Hard landing
Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Instructional

On November 15, 2016, about 1500 eastern standard time, a Robinson R22, N306RL, was substantially damaged during a practice autorotation landing at Brandywine Airport (OQN), West Chester, Pennsylvania. The flight instructor and a student pilot were not injured. The helicopter was privately owned and operated under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as an instructional flight. Day, visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time, and no flight plan was filed. The local flight departed OQN about 1430.

The flight instructor reported that he was demonstrating straight-in autorotation landings to a power recovery using the runway. The wind was generally from the north, but shearing from the northeast to the northwest, horizontally. During an autorotation to runway 9/27, he began to flare about 40 feet above the ground. At 20 feet, a large gust with a horizontal wind shear caused the helicopter to drift to the right and lose tail rotor effectiveness. He corrected the drift and heading with flight control inputs, returned to the runway, and continued the flare. During the last portion of the flare, a vertical wind shear was encountered, and the helicopter climbed, uncommanded, about 20 feet. At that point, "all wind stopped," and the helicopter descended. He attempted a power recovery; however, the helicopter landed hard on the skids, with some sideward motion. The helicopter bounced, the left skid broke, and the aircraft rolled and came to rest on its left side. The two pilots egressed the helicopter and were met by first responders.

An inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration responded to the accident site and examined the wreckage. Structural damage to the airframe was confirmed The main rotor blades were deformed from impact forces and the tail boom was partially separated. He determined that the helicopter was operated within the aircraft's weight and balance limitations at the time of the accident; however, it was operated at the forward center of gravity limit. The pilots weighed about 200 pounds each, which placed the helicopter near the upper weight limit. His examination of the wreckage did not reveal evidence of a mechanical failure or malfunction. He reported that the surface wind at the time of the accident varied between 330 and 350 degrees at 11 to 14 knots.

The flight instructor did not report any preaccident mechanical malfunction or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. 

Flight Instructor Information

Certificate: Flight Instructor; Commercial
Age: 45, Male
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Left
Other Aircraft Rating(s): Helicopter
Restraint Used: 3-point
Instrument Rating(s): Helicopter
Second Pilot Present: Yes
Instructor Rating(s): Helicopter
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 2 With Waivers/Limitations
Last FAA Medical Exam: 06/07/2016
Occupational Pilot: Yes
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 09/15/2015
Flight Time:  5554 hours (Total, all aircraft), 5372 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 150 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 50 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft) 

Student Pilot Information

Certificate: Student
Age: 41, Male
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Right
Other Aircraft Rating(s): None
Restraint Used: 3-point
Instrument Rating(s): None
Second Pilot Present: Yes
Instructor Rating(s): None
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 3 None
Last FAA Medical Exam:
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent:
Flight Time:  42 hours (Total, all aircraft), 42 hours (Total, this make and model), 12 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 4 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft) 

Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Manufacturer: ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY
Registration: N306RL
Model/Series: R22 Mariner
Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Year of Manufacture: 1998
Amateur Built: No
Airworthiness Certificate: Normal
Serial Number: 2833M
Landing Gear Type: Skid;
Seats: 2
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 09/20/2016, Annual
Certified Max Gross Wt.: 1369 lbs
Time Since Last Inspection: 50 Hours
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time: 3121 Hours at time of accident
Engine Manufacturer: LYCOMING
ELT: Not installed
Engine Model/Series: O-360-J2A
Registered Owner: THREE IF BY AIR INC
Rated Power: 145 hp
Operator: On file
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None 

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: MQS, 660 ft msl
Observation Time: 1455 EST
Distance from Accident Site: 13 Nautical Miles
Direction from Accident Site: 270°
Lowest Cloud Condition:
Temperature/Dew Point: 14°C / -4°C
Lowest Ceiling: Broken / 10000 ft agl
Visibility:  10 Miles
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 9 knots, 300°
Visibility (RVR):
Altimeter Setting: 29.81 inches Hg
Visibility (RVV):
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: West Chester, PA (OQN)
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Destination: West Chester, PA (OQN)
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time: 1430 EST
Type of Airspace: Class G 

Airport Information

Airport: Brandywine Airport (OQN)
Runway Surface Type: Asphalt
Airport Elevation: 462 ft
Runway Surface Condition: Dry
Runway Used: 27
IFR Approach: None
Runway Length/Width: 3347 ft / 50 ft
VFR Approach/Landing: Simulated Forced Landing 

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 2 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 39.990000, -75.581944 (est)

NTSB Identification: ERA17LA046
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, November 15, 2016 in West Chester, PA
Aircraft: ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY R22, registration: N306RL
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

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

On November 15, 2016, about 1547 eastern standard time, a Robinson R22, N306RL, was substantially damaged during a practice autorotation landing at Brandywine Airport (OQN), West Chester, Pennsylvania. The commercial pilot and one passenger were not injured. The helicopter was operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Day, visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time, and no flight plan was filed. The local flight departed OQN about 1530.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the pilot was practicing a crosswind straight-in autorotation. During the flare to level off, a gust of wind was encountered. A left pedal input was initiated to correct for the wind. The wind gust resulted in a climb of about 30 feet. The helicopter then descended rapidly while drifting to the right. The helicopter landed hard, bounced, and departed the runway surface. The helicopter came to rest on its left side in a grassy area and the pilot and passenger exited the cockpit.

An inspector with the FAA responded to the accident site and examined the wreckage. Structural damage was confirmed; the main rotor blades were deformed from impact forces and the tail boom was partially separated.

The wreckage was retained for further examination.




WEST CHESTER, Pa. (WPVI) -- A helicopter had a hard landing at the Brandywine Airport Tuesday afternoon, according to Chester County officials.

The incident was reported at around 3:30 p.m. at the airport located at 1205 Ward Avenue in West Chester.

Chopper 6 over the scene showed a truck towing the wrecked helicopter from the scene.

There are no reported injuries.

Hawker 800XP, N983CE: Incident occurred November 15, 2016 in Missoula County, Montana

SDY LEASING LLC:   http://registry.faa.gov/N983CE

FAA Flight Standards District Office: FAA Helena FSDO-05

AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, SUSTAINED BIRDSTRIKE DAMAGE TO THE RIGHT WING, LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT, MISSOULA, MONTANA  

Date: 15-NOV-16
Time: 18:34:00Z
Regis#: N983CE
Aircraft Make: RAYTHEON
Aircraft Model: HAWKER
Event Type: Incident
Highest Injury: None
Damage: Unknown
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
City: MISSOULA
State: Montana

Intoxication charge against SkyWest pilot is dismissed

A criminal intoxication charge against a pilot who was about to fly a commercial aircraft out of Rapid City last month has been dismissed in part because the Rapid City Police Department failed to test the pilot’s blood for several hours.

Police officers handling the case apparently did not know the legal blood-alcohol limit for operating a plane, which led them to initially forgo a blood test even after the pilot asked for one. By the time police realized the mistake and obtained a blood sample, four hours had passed.

The delayed test did not detect a measurable amount of alcohol, despite an earlier police breath test that indicated a blood-alcohol content of 0.046 percent. The legal limit for operating an aircraft in South Dakota is 0.04, which is lower than the better-known driving limit of 0.08.

On Monday, at the request of the Pennington County State’s Attorney’s Office, a judge dismissed a charge of operating an aircraft while intoxicated that had been filed against pilot Russell Duszak, 39, of Salt Lake City. No explanation for the dismissal was provided during the brief court proceeding at the Pennington County Courthouse in Rapid City.

Afterward, Deputy State’s Attorney Lara Roetzel told the Journal that the delayed blood test thwarted her prosecution.

“His blood was drawn four hours after the initial detection of alcohol in the cockpit of the plane,” Roetzel said of Duszak, who police said smelled of alcohol and had reddened eyes prior to his arrest. “And due to the way that blood dissipates, it ended up reducing it to an amount that was not measurable.”

A breath test, Roetzel added, is not admissible in court. When asked why the blood test was delayed four hours, Roetzel deferred the question to police. Police spokesman Brendyn Medina responded with a lengthy email to the Journal.

Medina wrote that the incident “posed a set of highly unusual circumstances for our officers.”

“Four hours is a long span of time to lapse between the initial PBT (preliminary breath test) of an individual suspected of being under the influence, and the subsequent blood draw,” Medina’s email said, in part. “But, our officers worked diligently in this incident to ensure it was handled in the most proper and professional manner possible under the law, while protecting the safety of the plane’s passengers, and the rights of the pilot.”

Further details of the police department’s actions are contained in their own written reports, which are part of the public court file.

The reports say that a Transportation Security Administration worker noticed the smell of alcohol on Duszak about 8 a.m. Oct. 26 as Duszak passed through a metal detector at Rapid City Regional Airport. The TSA worker reported her observation up the chain of command, and another TSA worker notified Rapid City police Officer Paul Hinzman.

When Hinzman arrived at Duszak’s departure gate, passengers were still waiting to board the 50-seat SkyWest Airlines jet with a passenger list of 45. Duszak, the flight’s co-pilot, was in the cockpit conducting pre-flight procedures.

Hinzman noticed that Duszak’s eyes were slightly red and his breath smelled slightly of alcohol. Additional officers who later came in contact with Duszak reported similar observations.

Hinzman took Duszak to the airport office of Delta Air Lines, which is a SkyWest partner. There, at about 8:30 a.m., Rapid City police Officer Jerred Younie administered a breath test on Duszak and recorded a blood-alcohol content of 0.046 percent.

Rapid City Police Lt. Mark Eisenbraun arrived about 8:45 a.m. and spoke to Duszak.

“I told him it was not our intention to proceed with any state charges however I warned him there would likely be consequences from the airline authorities,” Eisenbraun wrote in his report. “He told me he wanted a blood test. I told him that since we were not charging him with a crime, I had no reason to take a blood sample. I did offer him the use of the local on-call blood technician but I advised him he would be responsible for the testing and storage of the sample. At his request I called dispatch and asked for the blood technician to respond to the airport.”

The police reports do not say whether Duszak actually obtained his own blood-test result. Nor do the reports specifically explain why Eisenbraun declined to order an official blood test, or why Eisenbraun decided against pursuing a criminal charge at that time.

It appears, however, that Eisenbraun may have thought no crime had been committed because he might not have been aware that the legal blood-alcohol limit for operating an aircraft is 0.04 percent, which is lower than the legal limit of 0.08 for driving a vehicle.

Eisenbraun’s written report says that after he spoke to Duszak, Eisenbraun left the airport, which is about eight miles east of Rapid City, and returned to the police station downtown. There, Eisenbraun spoke to Lt. Elias Diaz.

“Lt. Diaz and I consulted additional resources and found the statute SDCL 50-13-17,” Eisenbraun wrote in his report. “This statute prohibits the operation of an airplane with a BAC over .04.”

Eisenbraun contacted Officer Hinzman and told him not to release Duszak. Eisenbraun also sent Officer Younie back to the airport to renew the investigation into Duszak.

Younie received the call from Eisenbraun at 9:46 a.m. Younie found Duszak, who was still at the airport, and asked him to answer more questions and submit to a blood test. Duszak declined to do either, on the advice of a lawyer he’d spoken with by phone.

Meanwhile, Officers Eisenbraun and Diaz had spoken with Roetzel of the Pennington County State’s Attorney’s Office, and they determined there was probable cause to arrest Duszak for operating an aircraft while intoxicated.

Officer Younie arrested Duszak, took him to the Pennington County Jail in Rapid City, and filed paperwork asking for a search warrant to force Duszak’s submission to a blood test. A magistrate judge granted the warrant.

Finally, at 12:38 p.m. — four hours and 38 minutes after the TSA worker smelled alcohol on Duszak’s breath — a blood test was administered.

Duszak posted a $300 bond and left jail sometime that day. SkyWest, which is based in St. George, Utah, placed him on unpaid leave. He remained on unpaid leave as of Monday afternoon, a SkyWest spokeswoman said. The Oct. 26 flight that Duszak was intended to co-pilot from Rapid City to Salt Lake City was delayed two hours until a new crew arrived.

Then, on Monday, during what was supposed to have been Duszak’s initial court appearance, the charge was dismissed because the blood test did not detect a measurable amount of alcohol.

Roetzel, in her interview with the Journal, said an earlier blood test might have produced a measurable amount of alcohol. Even if that amount had been below the 0.04 percent limit, Roetzel said, she could have extrapolated backward to establish Duszak’s likely blood-alcohol content at the time he was sitting in the cockpit. But because the blood test was so delayed and did not detect a measurable amount of alcohol, Roetzel said, there was nothing to extrapolate from.

An additional factor that hindered the prosecution is a quirk in the law. Roetzel said the state’s legal definition of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol allows evidence other than a blood test. But the separate state law defining the operation of a plane while intoxicated allows only blood-alcohol evidence.

Since breath tests are inadmissible in court, Roetzel said, the only way to prove a charge of operating an aircraft while intoxicated is with a blood test. She suggested that state legislators should consider amending the law to allow other evidence in similar future cases.

When the Journal reached Duszak by phone Monday, he declined to comment. Duszak had an attorney, Jay Shultz, of Rapid City, who had barely gotten up from his chair at Monday’s court proceeding before the prosecution moved for dismissal and the judge agreed. In a brief interview outside the courtroom, Shultz said the blood test had indicated a blood-alcohol content of less than 0.015 percent. He declined further comment about the case.

A SkyWest spokeswoman said the company is conducting its own investigation into the matter. Duszak also faces a pending review of his pilot’s certificate by the Federal Aviation Administration, according to FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory.

Timeline of pilot investigation

A timeline of the Oct. 26 investigation into a pilot at the Rapid City Regional airport, according to information in written police reports.

8 a.m.: A Transportation Safety Administration worker notices alcohol on the breath of pilot Russell Duszak and reports it up the TSA chain of command. Another TSA worker notifies Rapid City Police Officer Paul Hinzman, who takes Duszak out of the cockpit during his pre-flight routine.

8:30 a.m.: Rapid City Police Officer Jerred Younie administers a breath test to Duszak, which indicates a blood-alcohol content of 0.046 percent.

8:45 a.m.: Rapid City Police Lt. Mark Eisenbraun arrives at the airport and speaks to Duszak, who asks for a blood test. Eisenbraun tells Duszak he is not being charged with a crime and a blood test is not necessary. Eisenbraun returns to the police station, confers with Lt. Elias Diaz, and they find a state law that says the blood-alcohol limit for operating an aircraft is 0.04 percent.

9:46 a.m.: Eisenbraun sends Officer Younie back to the airport to renew the investigation. Duszak, saying he has since spoken to a lawyer by phone, acts on the advice of that lawyer and declines to answer Younie’s questions or submit to a blood test. Eisenbraun and Diaz inform Younie they have spoken with Deputy State’s Attorney Lara Roetzel and have determined there is probable cause to arrest Duszak. Younie makes the arrest and takes Duszak to the Pennington County Jail. Duszak files paperwork seeking a judge’s warrant to force Duszak to submit to a blood test, and a judge grants the warrant.

12:38 p.m.: Blood is drawn from Duszak. Roetzel later says the test did not detect a measurable amount of alcohol, because the alcohol in Duszak’s blood likely dissipated significantly in the four hours between the breath test and the blood test.

Source:  http://rapidcityjournal.com

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Want to Ride-Share With a Dubious Pilot? The legislative language the authors support would override the Federal Aviation Administration safety regulations

The Wall Street Journal 
Opinion - Letters
Nov. 18, 2016 2:52 p.m. ET

Jonathan Riches and Thomas P. Gross’s “Ride-Sharing for Pilots Is No Flight of Fancy” (op-ed, Nov. 16) suggests the Federal Aviation Administration is barring pilots from using the internet to take advantage of the share economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is part of a campaign to convince people it is now acceptable to allow the public to ride-share with private pilots with potentially little flight time or training for challenging weather conditions. As the U.S. Court of Appeals noted in one of several legal rebukes issued to the authors’ clients, “Pilots communicating to defined and limited groups remain free to invite passengers for common-purpose expense-sharing flights . . . so long as they share a common purpose and do not hold themselves out as offering services to the public.”

Consistent with previous attempts to offer the same service using telephone-based technology, the FAA determined the proposed service cited in the article requires additional safety certifications for both the pilots and their aircraft. It is instructive to look at the legislative language the authors support. It would override the FAA’s safety regulations, something unnecessary if the only issue was internet communication. We doubt the Supreme Court will grant certiorari in this matter because it is neither a novel question of law nor are there any disputes between the lower courts as to the FAA’s interpretation. The National Air Transportation Association will continue to educate lawmakers on how the authors’ clients are simply selling old wine in a new bottle to ultimately undermine the safety of the flying public.

Martin H. Hiller

President

National Air Transportation Assn. Washington

Original article can be found here:  http://www.wsj.com


Ride-Sharing for Pilots Is No Flight of Fancy: Supreme Court decision to review Flytenow v. Federal Aviation Administration could make airplane flight-sharing an option for Americans

The Wall Street Journal
Opinion/Commentary
By JONATHAN RICHES and  THOMAS P. GROSS
November 15, 2016 6:54 p.m. ET

From Uber to Airbnb, the “sharing economy” is revolutionizing industries by letting companies connect directly with consumers. If the Supreme Court decides to review Flytenow v. FAA, Americans could benefit from cost-sharing in the airline industry.

In late 2014 the Federal Aviation Administration banned private pilots from communicating travel plans and sharing flight expenses over the internet. That order shut down Flytenow, a startup that connected pilots and cost-sharing passengers online.

Around the same time, the European Aviation Safety Agency found compelling reasons to allow the very same cost-sharing operations in Europe. On Aug. 26, the agency authorized cost-sharing for general aviation flights in 32 countries. At least two companies similar to Flytenow, called Wingly and Off We Fly, now operate in the European Union.

In American aviation, cost-sharing isn’t a new thing. For over 50 years the FAA has allowed pilots and passengers to communicate about cost-sharing via email and phone as well as by posting notices on airport bulletin boards.

With seed money from Silicon Valley, Flytenow brought that practice into the digital age. And it was working until the FAA shut down the startup. The agency claimed that if a private pilot flying a four-passenger airplane used Flytenow to communicate travel plans and find people to share his expenses, that pilot should be regulated as a commercial flight operation.

Yet the FAA ignored a key difference between commercial and general aviation: Commercial pilots provide services to the public for profit; Flytenow pilots merely share expenses. By regulation, flight-sharing pilots must pay at least a pro rata share of flight expenses, so they can never earn a profit. The FAA’s conclusion also missed that pilots have a First Amendment right to communicate their noncommercial travel plans with others, even over the internet.

The FAA’s job is to ensure safety. Yet its rationale for deeming Flytenow dangerous is based on pre-internet policies. Web-based flight-sharing arrangements, where pilots are screened, and their experience and credentials are displayed for potential passengers, are actually safer than simply posting flight times on an airport bulletin board.

The Goldwater Institute challenged the FAA’s legal interpretation on behalf of Flytenow and the Supreme Court is expected to decide within the next few weeks whether to review the case. Meanwhile, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has passed an amendment to its FAA reauthorization bill that would authorize web-facilitated flight sharing.

The Flytenow case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court and Congress to say consumers and service providers should be free to choose which innovations work for them. If Europe can ensure the safety of these tech innovations, then so can the U.S.

Mr. Riches, director of national litigation at the Goldwater Institute, represents Flytenow before the Supreme Court. Mr. Gross is an attorney and a private pilot.

Original article can be found here:  http://www.wsj.com

Incidents occurred November 15, 2016 at San Diego International Airport - Lindbergh Field (KSAN), California

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - Aircraft equipment malfunctions had public-safety crews hustling to the flight line Tuesday at Lindbergh Field, where two planes made safe precautionary landings over a several-hour period despite the glitches.
   
The first emergency began about 10:45 a.m., when the crew of a Horizon Air dual-propeller commuter plane reported a "system issue'' after taking off from the bayside airport en route to Santa Rosa, Lindbergh Field spokeswoman Rebecca Bloomfield said.
   
The aircraft doubled back and landed without incident about 11:30 a.m., according to Bloomfield. The precise nature of the equipment problem was unclear, she said.
   
In the early afternoon, a Southwest Airlines jetliner heading to San Diego from Los Vegas with 127 passengers aboard reported a problem with a hydraulic system. That aircraft touched down safely at Lindbergh Field about 1:15 p.m., the city Fire-Rescue Department reported.

Story and video:   http://www.cbs8.com

Piper PA-34-200T, N5671V: Fatal accident occurred November 06, 1996 in Lehman Township, Pike County, Pennsylvania

20 years later, plane crash survivor still saying thanks

SALISBURY TWP., Pa. - There are many moments and people we'll never forget in our lives, but for a West Virginia man, a day that changed his life forever is something he can't remember.


Rolf Mielzarek was rendered unconscious after his six-seat aircraft came tumbling down in the Poconos on November 6, 1996. The plane was returning to West Virginia after taking a woman to a doctor's appointment in Boston. The aircraft dropped 10,000 feet. There were only two survivors. Mielzarek, the pilot, was one of them.


Mielzarek said he remembers nothing about the plane's unexpected descent and very little about what came after, but his wife, Lee Anna, remembers the frightening phone call she received that day.


"'Your husband's plane disappeared off the radar,'" she recalled being told. "'We don't know where he is or whether he survived.'"


Mielzarek spent seven weeks at Lehigh Valley Hospital in Salisbury Township, Lehigh County, being treated for the life-threatening injuries he suffered.


"I remember one broken man. Every limb," said Sue McCauley, a nurse at the hospital.


It's the people who cared for him that the Mielzareks will never forget.


"They embraced our family and gave us so much time," said a teary-eyed Lee Anna Mielzarek.


Every November, the Mielzareks return to the Lehigh Valley to say "thank you" to the caretakers who tended to him in 1996.


Rolf Mielzarek is kindly called "The Pilot" among workers at the hospital. Three years ago, he returned to the hospital that saved his life, unexpectedly.


Shortly after his annual thank you visit, Mielzarek was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. He returned to LVH as a patient.


Mielzarek remembers the care he got that day, and 20 years ago, and while he can't remember the wreck that led him to those special people who were there for him, he'll never forget to say thank you.


"As long as I'm able, I'll be here every November, because they are that special," he said.


Story and video:   http://www.wfmz.com




National Transportation Safety Board - Aviation Accident Final Report: http://app.ntsb.gov/pdf


NTSB Identification: NYC97FA013
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Wednesday, November 06, 1996 in LEHMAN TOWNSHIP, PA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 03/31/1998
Aircraft: Piper PA-34-200T, registration: N5671V
Injuries: 2 Fatal, 2 Serious.

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


The airplane was 90 minutes into the flight, level at 10,000 feet mean sea level, on a southwest heading, when air traffic control lost radio and radar contact with the flight. ATC observed primary radar targets only continue in a northerly direction, followed by a northeasterly direction. The cockpit, right wing and engine were found impaled on a tree near the point where radar contact was lost. The left wing and engine were within 200 feet east of the right wing. Debris was scattered northeast of the main wreckage for about 10,500 feet. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the fiberglass nose assembly had failed due to an undetermined reason. Airworthiness directives had been complied with that applied to the forward baggage compartment door.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The failure of the forward fuselage nose assembly for an undetermined reason, which resulted in an in-flight breakup of the airplane.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT 


On November 6, 1996, at 1835 eastern standard time, a Piper PA-34-200T, N5671V, was destroyed during an in-flight break-up over Lehman Township, Pennsylvania. The certificated private pilot and one passenger were seriously injured. Two passengers received fatal injures. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the "mercy flight" that originated at Boston, Massachusetts, about 1701. An Instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for the flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.


The airplane, owned and operated by the pilot, was participating in the AirLifeLine program. The pilot had volunteered his airplane to transport a child for a medical consultation. The flight was conducted at no charge to the family, and the pilot incurred all expenses. The pilot had flown the mother and child, and a friend of their family, from Clarksburg, West Virginia, to Boston, the morning of November 6, 1996. At the conclusion of the medical consultation, the pilot boarded the passengers, and departed Boston for the return trip to Clarksburg. 


After takeoff from Boston, the pilot was issued a climb to 10,000 feet, and cleared direct to Clarksburg. The flight then proceeded uneventful with several frequency changes. At 1826, N5671V was issued a frequency change to the Huguenot sector of the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center. The pilot acknowledged the frequency change and contacted the Huguenot controller, about 1827, and stated, "Good evening New York, Lifeguard five six seven one victor with you at one zero thousand." The Huguenot controller acknowledged N5671V and issued the current altimeter setting.


At 1832.32, the Huguenot controller stated, "Lifeguard five six seven one victor, I lost your transponder sir, recycle." The controller repeated the call, at 1833.10, and stated, "Lifeguard seven one victor, I'm still getting no transponder, I don't even have a primary on you sir." There was no response from N5671V. 


During a post accident interview, the pilot did not recall the accident sequence or events.


Airplane wreckage was found scatter over an area about 2 miles long and 1/2 mile wide, below the area where radar contact with N5671V was lost. 


The accident occurred during the hours of night, approximately 41 degrees, 10 minutes north latitude, and 75 degrees, 59 minutes west longitude.


PILOT INFORMATION


The pilot held a Private Pilot Certificate with ratings for airplane single and multi engine land, and instrument airplane. His most recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Third Class Medical Certificate was issued on October 9, 1995.


According to the pilot, he estimated that he had accumulated about 2,060 hours of total flying experience, of which about 1,300 hours were in this make and model airplane. 


WRECKAGE INFORMATION


The wreckage scatter path was documented on November 7, 8, and 9, 1996. The airplane wreckage was examined at the accident site on November 7, 1996, and at the Lehman Township Municipal Garage on November 7 and 8, 1996, where the wreckage was initially moved. 


The examinations revealed that all major components of the airplane were accounted for within the scatter path. The airplane's main cabin floor, cockpit, right wing, right propeller and engine remained attached, and were impaled on a tree about 40 feet above the ground. Directly below the cockpit on the ground were the center fuselage section, and the remaining interior seats. The left wing and engine were about 200 feet east of the impaled wreckage, at ground level. The left propeller hub and blades were separated from the engine, and about 10 feet from the engine.


The remaining wreckage was scattered along a 2,000 foot wide debris path, that extended to the north over wooded, hilly terrain, for approximately 10,500 feet. The vertical stabilizer and the horizontal stabilator were separated into three components, and located between 1,500 feet and 3,500 feet north of the main wreckage. Debris located 10,500 feet north of the main wreckage included the interior panel of the left rear swing up door, a piece of the left rear main entrance door, pieces of cabin interior fiberglass trim, a sick sack, and exterior fiberglass from the nose section of the fuselage. 


The forward baggage compartment (FBC) door was located about 2,700 feet from the main wreckage. The FBC door remained attached to its hinge, and the hinge was attached to a section of the forward assembly. The hinge was not damaged, and moved freely. The other major pieces of the FBC were located between 2,000 and 5,000 feet from the main wreckage. The locking handle and bars of the FBC door were not located. A vertical slash was observed in the FBC door fiberglass, in the vicinity of missing door locking handle. Black marks, similar to the black paint on the left propeller blade, was observed in the vertical slash.


Control continuity was established from the left aileron to the fuselage wing root separation point. Continuity was also established from the right aileron and rudder to the forward cockpit area. The stabilator balance weight was separated from the stabilator, and located with the cabin wreckage. The upper stabilator cable was separated about 12 inches from the balance arm connection point. The lower cable and connector were separated from the balance arm. The lower cable extended forwarded to the cockpit area.


The manual flap handle was level with the cockpit floor, and the flaps were in the retracted position. The gear handle was in the down position. The right main gear was in the down and locked position. The left gear was found in its respective wheel well and the down lock link was broken. The nose gear strut was partially extended. The lower half of the nose strut and wheel were missing. The stabilator trim cable drum was indicating full up trim; however, both cable ends were separated, and displayed the characteristics of tension overload.


The left horizontal stabilator was separated from the fuselage, and the failed ends were bent down and aft. The right horizontal stabilator was also separated from the fuselage, and the failed ends were bent upward. The leading edges of both stabilators were wrinkled. The right stabilator displayed an indentation on the leading edge, about 10 inches outboard from the fuselage, and about 1/2 inch deep. The left wing was separated from the fuselage, and the outer half of the wing was bent downward. 


The left engine remained attached to the left wing. The spark plugs were of the fine wire type, and gray in color. The flow divider contained fuel and was absent of debris. There was no evidence of a preimpact failure of the engine. The propeller blades remained attached to the hub, which was separated at the engine crankshaft. Propeller blade angles were in the vicinity of a low pitch position.


The right engine remained attached to the right wing. The engine remained in a tilted position for about 18 hours while impaled on the tree. The spark plugs were of the fine wire type. The spark plugs in the numbers 2, 4, and 6 cylinders were light gray in color. The spark plugs in the numbers 1, 3, and 5 cylinders (the down side of the engine) contained a light coat of oil. There was no evidence of a preimpact failure of the engine. The propeller blades remained attached to the hub, which remained attached to the engine. The propeller blades were in a high pitch position, similar to a feathered positioned. The flow divider contained fuel and was absent of debris.


METEOROLOGICAL


A review of the National Weather data revealed that there were no AIRMETS or SIGMETS issued for moderate or severe turbulence, and there were no weather cells in the Lehman Township area. Additionally, there were no reports from airplanes in the area of wind shear, or moderate to severe turbulence. 


TESTS AND RESEARCH


The elevator balance weight and cable sections were sent to the NTSB Materials Laboratory Division for further examination. In the Metallurgist's factual report, he stated:


"...Optical examination of the tab fracture face on the tube revealed features typical of bending overstress separation. In addition, deformation on the separated tab indicated an out of plane twisting component. No indications of preexisting cracking were found on the fracture faces...Almost all filament wires of the cable separation showed fractures that were consistent with tensile overstress..."


On December 9, 1996, a second reconstruction and examination of the wreckage was conducted at the Dawn Aeronautics Facility, Wilmington, Delaware, under the supervision of the Safety Board investigator. The New Piper Aircraft Inc. representatives were also present during the examination


An examination of another Seneca II was conducted by the NTSB investigator. The examination revealed that the rotation of the left propeller blades were several inches out from, and slightly aft of, the open forward baggage compartment door.


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION


Radar Data


Recorded radar data was provided by the New York Air Traffic Control Center. The latitude and longitudes for each radar target was plotted by the NTSB investigator on a geological survey map, with the basic scatter path of the wreckage. The first four latitude/longitude plots were from the airplane's transponder with an altitude return of 10,000 feet. The fifth plot was from the last "beacon only slash" of the target airplane. The remainder of the plots were from primary radar targets only, both weak and strong returns. When plotted on the map, the general magnetic direction of the primary plots extended northeast about 020 degrees.


Radar Dome


The airplane's date of manufacturer was 1977, where it was delivered without a radar dome. The airplane's nose section consisted of fiberglass construction, with fiberglass ribs for structural support. In July 1979, a King KWX-50 radar system was installed, which included a KT-45 receiver-transmitter in the nose baggage compartment and radar antenna. The installation also included a Norton 4011X radome, installed per STC SA-50-GL. 


A review of the STC limitations and conditions revealed:


"This STC approves only the installation of the radome and associated bracketry shown and does not include the radar system..."


Service Difficulty Reports


The FAA Service Difficulty Reports (SDR) related to the forward baggage compartment (FBC) door were reviewed. Eleven occurrences of the FBC door separating in flight were reported. Ten of the occurrences were between 1974 and 1980. Six of the separations occurred in cruise flight, and three separations resulted in windshield strikes, of which one also struck the vertical stabilizer. The ten occurrences did not result in in-flight break-ups.


One occurrence on March 3, 1985, listed several components that separated from the fuselage. The separation of parts resulted in an in-flight break-up. A review of the NTSB Brief of Accident revealed, "...There was evidence that the aircraft suffered an in-flight separation of the fiberglass nose assembly..."


Service Bulletins


Three service bulletins (SB) that dealt with the forward baggage compartment door were issued by Piper Aircraft. The FAA also published airworthiness directives (AD) that required compliance with the Piper SB's. A review of the airplane's maintenance records revealed; AD-79-23-01 was complied with on December 20, 1979; AD-81-10-03 was complied with on August 30, 1981; AD-88-04-05 was complied with on March 17, 1988. These AD's required the modification of the forward baggage compartment door. 


During a telephone interview with the pilot/owner, he stated that the modification of his airplane's FBC door prevented the locking key from being removed from the lock, when the door was unlocked.


The airplane wreckage was released on June 17, 1997, to John W. Cooley, a representative of the owners insurance company.