Monday, June 12, 2017

Incident occurred June 12, 2017 at O'Hare International Airport (KORD), Chicago, Illinois

CHICAGO (CBS) — A Southwest Airlines flight made an emergency landing at O’Hare International Airport, shortly after taking off from Midway on Monday.

The pilot on Flight 1914, en route from Midway to Windsor Locks, (Hartford) Conn., reported a mechanical issue, possibly a problem with an engine.

The plane landed around 2:30 p.m. at O’Hare and there were no reports of any injuries.

Passenger Jasmine Cain said the engine failed about 15 minutes into the flight and praised the pilot for his actions landing the plane safely.

A flight recording indicates that pilot declared an emergency and reported to air traffic control that the plane “lost an engine.’

In a statement, Southwest spokesman, Dan Landson said: “The crew of Southwest Airlines Flight 1914 from Chicago Midway to Hartford safely diverted the aircraft to Chicago O’Hare International Airport shortly after takeoff due to reported issues with one of the aircraft engines.

“We are in the process of sending another aircraft to O’Hare to get our 139 customers to Hartford this evening.

“The original aircraft is being taken out of service for a maintenance review.”

Cessna 172M Skyhawk, C-GBMH: Accident occurred June 11, 2017 in North Vancouver, British Columbia

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/C-GBMH


Pilot Octavio Hernandez poses with his son.





The pilot of a small Cessna plane that lost power and crashed in an industrial area of North Vancouver Sunday said he feels lucky to be reunited with his wife and young son.

“When I looked at all those kids playing in the parks (below), of course I thought about my son,” Octavio Hernandez told CTV Vancouver on Monday, but added he felt confident in the moments before the crash that the incident wouldn’t be fatal.

“You know you’re going to hit and you’re just hoping it’s not going to be a horrible outcome,” he said. “Something told me it was not going to end up bad.”

But veteran investigators with the Transportation Safety Board say they're amazed the four passengers of the aircraft survived after the plane made a forced landing in an industrial area of the waterfront near McKeen Ave around 4 p.m.

The plane crashed into a guardrail along with other structures near a bridge. The TSB said the small craft simply ran out of fuel: right-wing tank was empty and the left-wing tank only had a small amount of fuel.

The Cessna was on its return trip from Tofino back to Langley when the engine cut out and the aircraft began descending at roughly 100 km/h.

“Immediately, I just started looking at the possible causes of the engine failure,” said Hernandez, who started flying in B.C. as a pastime in 2010. “I just couldn’t find what (the problem was).”

The pilot attempted to restart the engine three times before declaring a state of emergency with the air traffic controller.

Hernandez said he considered a few options including a highway and a park, but decided against landing on either because there were people below. That’s when he noticed an empty parking lot and aimed the plane towards it.

“I already knew it was going to be hard for all of us, but my main goal was not landing on…some people,” he said. “I didn’t want to put other people at risk.”

Hernandez said he followed all the necessary safety procedures before leaving Tofino.

“Everything looked perfect,” during the pre-flight walk around, Hernandez said, including the aircraft’s fuel capacity.

The plane left Tofino with 20 gallons of fuel, which would normally allow it fly for about another 2.5 hours, the pilot said.

The engine failure occurred just over an hour later, leaving Hernandez unsure of what caused the incident.

“There are many different probabilities that could cause an engine failure,” he said “I’m really interested to know what caused the problem.”

Three of the passengers walked away unscathed and a fourth suffered what a broken arm while trying to protect his girlfriend from the impact of the landing.

One of the plane’s wings was resting on telephone cable and guide wires, instead of power lines, which emergency crews were initially concerned about.

“It’s very fortunate, it could’ve been a lot worse,” assistant fire chief Jim Bonneville said.

"There didn't appear to be any fuel leaking. It's resting on what appeared to be power lines at first, but they're just guide wires for the pole and some cable lines as well."

He said the plane appeared to have landed hard on its wheels and then "nosed in" with a propeller into the gravel. One wing rested on wires, another on the ground.

Witness Claire Alter told CTV News what she noticed most is that the plane wasn't making any noise.

"I was just walking my daughter and I looked up at the sky because I saw a plane, a very small plane, and I happened to notice there was no sound from it," she said.

The TSB says its investigation is now complete and no more information will be released.

Meanwhile, Hernandez said the experience won’t keep him from pursuing his ultimate goal of becoming a commercial bush pilot.

“I love flying and that’s always been my dream,” he said. “I see this as a lesson and, hopefully, it’s the first one and the last one.”

Story and video:  http://bc.ctvnews.ca

Clyde Shelton, noted aviator, NASA pioneer, dies


Clyde Harold Shelton passed away Saturday (June 10, 2017) after a brief illness comfortably in the arms of his beloved wife of 62 years, Mrs. Sara West Shelton.

Mr. Shelton was born in Taft on March 7, 1931. He worked hard early, operating a paper route at the age of 12 to support his mother and younger sister. He graduated from Central High School in 1949 and went to work at Kraft Foods until joining the United States Air Force in 1951 where he trained as a crew chief on the T-23 and F86 aircraft. During his service, Mr. Shelton developed an insatiable interest in aviation and vowed to one day buy his own aircraft.

Following his honorable discharge in 1955, Mr. Shelton finished his business degree at Indiana Tech. He soloed and began earning his pilot’s credentials at Wilkes Field in Fayetteville where he did buy that aircraft and began flight instructing both in Fayetteville and Huntsville, Ala., in 1963.

Mr. Shelton, still actively flying until Nov. 30, 2016, ended his aviation career having given well over 20,000 hours of flight instruction. He graduated over 1,000 students, and as an FAA flight examiner and beginning in 1987, he administered a United States’ record 10,379 checkride flights.

His personal logbook documents 38,971 actual flight hours with ratings as an airline transport pilot, single and multi-engine instrument instructor and Cessna Citation jet.

Mr. Shelton actually had two careers. A charter member of NASA, the Marshall Space Flight Center, he and his colleagues made aerospace history during our nation’s space race. He was there from the beginning working with Dr. Werner Von Braun on all the launch vehicles from the Redstone Rocket to the Saturn V Moon Rocket, finishing after 38 years with the Shuttle program in 1993.

The patriarch of three generations of pilots, Clyde instructed his wife, Sara, in 1966; his son, Scott, now a Boeing 747 captain for Delta Airlines on his 16th birthday; and his grandson, Nevada, currently a captain in the United States Army flying the Blackhawk helicopter on his 16th birthday, as well.

Clyde Shelton’s legacy is firmly established in those lives he touched. He was a genuine aviation professional. He was a man whose integrity, character, food nature and sincere interest in his students defined him as a man of competent humility.

For his extraordinary and endearing contributions to aviation, Mr. Shelton was elected into the Tennessee Aviation Hall of Fame in 2010 and the Alabama Aviation Hall of Fame in 2016.

Clyde will be missed by all he touched during his long historical career, but most importantly by his wife, Sara; his sons, Steve and Scott (Gwen); grandchildren, Ashley Davis (Johnny), Chase (Ashley), Nevada, Whitney (Marcus), Richard (Chelsea) and Cooper.

Additionally, he will be missed by his great-grandchildren, Emma Grace, Anna Elizabeth, Abby, Walker, Ryder, Gunner, Ronin, and especially by his sister, Jodeen Steelman, and his brother-in-law, Ron (Dianah) West.

Mr. Shelton was preceded in death by his parents, Thomas Hamilton and Louella Shelton, and his brother, Thomas Owen Shelton.

Visitation with the family will be held Wednesday, June 14, at 1 p.m. until time of service at 4 p.m. at Higgins Funeral Home with Bro. John Hathcock officiating. There will also be a very special funeral send off at the Madison County Executive Airport in Meridianville, Ala. A reception will be held at 11 a.m., followed by services and a fly over honoring Mr. Shelton at 1 p.m.

Higgins Funeral Home is serving the family.

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

Airbus A330-200, China Eastern Airlines, B-6099, flight MU-736: Incident occurred June 11, 2017 in Sydney, Australia




Images of a gaping hole on the engine cowling of a China Eastern Airlines Airbus A330-200 hit Chinese social media on Monday, following the plane’s emergency landing in Australia.

The crew of the flight from Sydney to Shanghai reported problems with the plane’s left engine shortly after takeoff on Sunday night.

The plane returned to Sydney airport and landed safely, with no reported injuries. Pictures posted by passengers on Chinese social media showed that a large section of the cowling on the jet’s Rolls-Royce Trent 772 engine had been either burned or torn away.

China Eastern confirmed the incident on its own social-media account, and praised the crew for acting decisively and ensuring the safety of those on board.

A Rolls-Royce spokesperson said the company was aware of the incident and “working closely with our customer and relevant partners to understand the cause of the issue.”

Airbus didn’t immediately respond to questions.

The Airbus A330-200 typically carries around 250 passengers. China Eastern didn’t say how many people were on Sunday’s flight.

In February, a China Eastern flight from London to Shanghai was forced to divert to an airport in Russia after experiencing engine trouble.

Source:  https://blogs.wsj.com

Investigators examining the cause of a gaping hole in the left engine casing of a China Eastern Airlines flight are yet to recover all the debris from the A330-200.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau yesterday began its formal investigation into Sunday night’s incident on flight MU736 as it took off from Sydney to fly to Shanghai.

Although some debris was retrieved from the runway, more is believed to have been fallen off in the local area as the plane circled Sydney on its return to the airport.

In a notice on the investigation website, the ATSB warned any aircraft debris “was unsafe to handle and should be reported to local police”.

Debris from the plane will play a crucial role in the ATSB investigation centred on “the engine malfunction” of the Airbus aircraft.

The investigation will also look at aircraft maintenance records, engine damage and debris, and data from the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder.

A similar incident occurred just a month ago in Cairo, involving an Egypt Air A330-200.

The aircraft have Rolls Royce Trent 772 engines, which have previously experienced an issue with air intake cowls due to acoustic panel collapse, and cracking due to acoustic vibration.

In Sunday night’s incident, the pilot became aware of a fault with the left engine and radioed Air Traffic Control.

After dumping fuel, flight MU736 returned to land at Sydney Airport without incident.

Aviation expert Byron Bailey said the China Eastern Airlines’ pilot made the right decision.

“The aircraft could not have continued to Shanghai as one engine could only reach 20,000-feet and would therefore burn up fuel quickly,” said Mr Bailey.

Last year China Eastern carried 569,235 passengers to and from Australia, representing 24.3 percent increase on the previous year.

Rolls Royce spokeswoman Erin Atan said they were working closely with China Eastern and “relevant partners to understand the cause of the issue”.

Australian Federation of Air Pilots safety and technical officer Marcus Diamond said it was likely Rolls Royce would need to issue a “fix” for the Trent 772 engine based on Sunday night’s incident, and the one in Cairo last month.

“They definitely will be looking at what they call certification,” said Mr Diamond.

“They’ll have to fix it, to provide assurances for other operators of this aircraft.”

He said to some extent, the aviation industry was still learning how carbon fibre responded to different situations.

“Because they’re making aircraft lighter and lighter, with more and more light materials, they’re not as sturdy,” Mr Diamond said.

“They’re still built to certification standards and are able to lift more payload, but they’re not made of aluminium and rivets and we’re still learning how this sort of stuff responds.”

No-one on board the China Eastern flight was hurt in Sunday night’s incident, and all 221 passengers were rebooked on other flights to reach their destination.


Read more here: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au

A disintegrating fan or a loose engine part are considered the most likely causes of a gaping hole in the left engine covering of a China Eastern Airlines' A330 in Sydney.

The pilot became aware of an engine fault within seconds of takeoff from Sydney at 8.30 Sunday night, and radioed Air Traffic Control.

Passengers on board flight MU736 to Shanghai, reported hearing a loud bang then a burning smell sparking some concern.

The giant tear in the engine cowling that could be seen from the plane only served to heighten the alarm.

Air Traffic Controllers warned other aircraft landing in Sydney of the "engine loss" and raced to get a runway inspection completed.

In just over an hour, the A330 was safely back on the ground, and the 221 passengers deboarded.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau yesterday began an investigation, focusing on the Rolls Royce Trent 772 engine.

Airbus spokesman Ted Porter said they would assist investigators where required.

"We are in contact with the airline and Rolls-Royce and will support the investigation of this engine issue," said Mr Porter.

It was the second incident resulting in damage to an A330's left engine cowling in a month, following on from a strikingly similar occurrence involving an Egypt Air plane in Cairo.

Aviation expert, Byron Bailey, a former Boeing 777 pilot, said it looked to him like "the fan blade detached from the large fan at the front of the engine and caused a penetration of the cowling".

"The interesting common denominator of the China Airlines A330, Egypt Air A330 one month ago in Cairo, and the magnificently handled Qantas A380 engine blow-up in Singapore years ago appears to be the very efficient Trent 700 engine," said Mr. Bailey.

"I guess Rolls Royce, the manufacturer of the Trent series of engines, will be now be rapidly finding out the cause of this engine " blow-up" and issuing instructions to airlines if any action such as immediate inspection is required."

Fellow aviation expert, Trevor Jensen, said if the engine had recently undergone work, a loose part may have caused the damage to the cowling.

"It is very unusual," said Mr. Jensen.

China Eastern Airlines' General Manager for the Oceania region, Kathy Zhang, said the A330 remained under investigation at Sydney Airport.

"All passengers and crew members were landed safely. They were then arranged accommodation by China Eastern Airlines," said Ms. Zhang.

"Today the passengers have been arranged to fly to their destinations on either China Eastern flights or other airlines."

Story and photo gallery:  https://www.northernstar.com.au

Grumman AA-5B Tiger, N74262: Incident occurred June 12, 2017 in Naples, Collier County, Florida

Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; South Florida

http://registry.faa.gov/N74262

Aircraft force landed on a highway.  

Date: 12-JUN-17
Time: 14:30:00Z
Regis#: N74262
Aircraft Make: GRUMMAN
Aircraft Model: AA5B
Event Type: INCIDENT
Highest Injury: NONE
Aircraft Missing: No
Damage: NONE
Activity: UNKNOWN
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
City: NAPLES
State: FLORIDA





A single-engine airplane made an emergency landing on the Alligator Alley section of Interstate 75 Monday morning near the Collier-Broward County line after the pilot said he lost power in the plane, a Florida Highway Patrol spokesman said.

The landing happened at about 10 a.m. Ken Watson, a regional recruiter for the FHP, confirmed that the pilot's name is William James McKay, 49, a Maitland resident. McKay declined to be interviewed Monday morning.

McKay had been flying from Key West to Okeechobee Monday morning, with a final destination of Orlando. Maitland is an Orlando suburb.

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










COLLIER COUNTY, Fla. - A small plane made an emergency landing Monday morning on Interstate 75 in Collier County, just west of the Broward County line.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the pilot of the Grumman American AA5B lost power and made an emergency landing on the stretch of I-75 known as Alligator Alley about 10:30 a.m.

A view from Sky 10 showed the plane in the grass median.

No injuries were reported.

A check of the plane's registration shows that it belongs to Seminole County resident William McKay.

The FAA is investigating.

Story and video:  https://www.local10.com

Cessna 172M Skyhawk, registered to a corporation and operated by the pilot as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 flight, N13306: Accident occurred June 12, 2017 in Suffolk, New York

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

Additional Participating Entity:

Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Farmingdale, New York

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


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

 
http://registry.faa.gov/N13306


Location: Suffolk, NY
Accident Number: ERA17LA203
Date & Time: 06/12/2017, 0615 EDT
Registration: N13306
Aircraft: CESSNA 172
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Collision during takeoff/land
Injuries: 1 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal 

On June 12, 2017, about 0615 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172M, N13306, was substantially damaged during a forced landing to a golf course near Suffolk, New York. The private pilot was not injured. The airplane was registered to a corporation and operated by the pilot as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight. The flight originated from Brookhaven Airport (HWV), Shirley, New York, and was destined for Bayport Aerodrome (23N), Bayport, New York.

According to the pilot, the purpose of the flight was to purchase fuel at HWV and then return to 23N. While en route to 23N, he heard a "loud pop" and the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot checked the fuel selector and mixture, and then searched for a place to perform a forced landing. He declared an emergency, unsuccessfully attempted to restart the engine, and turned toward a golf course. During the landing, the airplane struck a tree, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing.

According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness records, the airplane was manufactured in 1973 and was originally equipped with a Lycoming O-320 engine. According to the maintenance records, the engine's most recent overhaul was completed on April 9, 2011. The maintenance log entry detailing the overhaul of the engine stated in-part, "Engine assembled and overhauled per Lycoming maintenance manual." The entry noted that several individual engine components were "overhauled" including the crankshaft and crankshaft gear. Airworthiness approval tags (FAA Form 8130-3) that documented the overhaul of the crankshaft and crankshaft gear noted in the remarks section, "Inspected and/or repaired per Lycoming SB 475 C excluding paragraph 6." The entry also noted the installation of several new parts to the engine, though the installation of a new crankshaft gear bolt and lockplate were not specifically called out. The entry further noted, "All ADs and SBs have been complied with thru 2011-6m." The entry did not explicitly state the final crankshaft gear bolt torque, note and verify the installation and bending of the lockplate against the bolt head, or that the inspections and rework required by Lycoming Service Bulletin Number 475C had been accomplished. At the time the engine was installed on the airplane it accumulated 4,337 hours of total time.

The most engine's recent 100-hour inspection was performed on June 15, 2016. At that time, the engine had accumulated 4,520.5 hours of total time, and 183.5 hours since major overhaul. There was a note in the engine maintenance log dated June 5, 2017, that indicated the engine had 216.5 hours since major overhaul. No other remarks were made next to that date.

Following the accident, the airplane was recovered from the accident site to a local maintenance facility. Fuel was plumbed to the engine and three unsuccessful attempts were made to start the engine. The left magneto was removed from the accessory drive section of the engine and the propeller was turned by hand. No rotation of the left magneto drive gear was noted. Then, the right magneto was removed and the propeller was again rotated by hand with no movement on the right magneto drive gear. Additional inspection revealed that the crankshaft drive gear was displaced from the aft end of the crankshaft. Further disassembly revealed that the crankshaft drive gear retention bolt had backed out about 0.25 inch but had some threads engaged in the crankshaft. The crankshaft gear bolt was removed, and the lockplate was in place and bent around the bolt, as stated in the manufacturer's service bulletin.

The dowel pin was confirmed to be part number STD-1065. Measurement of the remaining portions of the dowel pin found in the drive gear were measured at 0.245-inch, 0.241-inch, 0.240-inch, and 0.234-inch, which were all below the minimum diameter per the manufacturer's service bulletin of 0.3095-inch to 0.3100-inch diameter. In addition, no thread damage was noted on the bolt or the threaded portion of the aft crankshaft counterbore.

The crankshaft drive gear retention bolt was only marked with an "SL GR 8." According to the manufacturer's mandatory service bulletin, the crankshaft gear bolt "must be identified with 4 digit part number on head of bolt," which should have been 2246 for the accident airplane installation.

The crankshaft gear and its attaching hardware were forwarded to the NTSB Materials Laboratory for detailed examination.

According to the Materials Laboratory Factual Report, typically the crankshaft gear was mounted inside a counterbored pilot hole in the aft end of the crankshaft. The gear was pressed against the face of the recess by a bolt that engaged a threaded hole in the end of the crankshaft. A lockplate was installed between the bolt and the gear with ears that fold down against the side of the gear and up against the head of the bolt. The gear was rotationally aligned to the crankshaft by an alignment dowel. The alignment dowel from the accident engine was fractured, one end of the dowel retained inside the alignment hole in the gear, while the other end remained press-fit and retained in the end of the crankshaft.

The piece of the alignment dowel was extracted from the crankshaft gear hole with a punch and the fracture surface cleaned using standard laboratory procedures. The fracture surface, exhibited a flat appearance with multiple curved crack arrest marks progressing across the fracture. Multiple crack origin areas were observed on approximately opposite sides of the fracture. One crack from the origin area on the right covered about 80% of the fracture surface while the crack from the other origin area on the left side covered about 20% of the fracture. The dowel surface exhibited wear marks. On one side of the dowel, the wear had removed approximately 0.015 inch of material while the wear mark on the other side was comparatively superficial. Taken together, the features were consistent with a fatigue fracture of the alignment dowel that initially progressed under unidirectional bending and transitioned to reverse bending.

The pilot flange outer diameter exhibited rubbing damage along its interface with the crankshaft counterbore recess. Rub marks were also seen on the counterbore face of the pilot flange segments and at the interface between the lockplate and the gear. The tab on the locking plate was bent, but the bend was not aligned with the locking tab's plastic hinge.

Lycoming Engines provided guidance in the form of Service Bulletin No. 475C, which detailed procedure for attaching the crankshaft gear to the crankshaft during overhaul, following a propeller strike, or any other time when removal of the crankshaft gear was required. According to the bulletin, "Damage to the crankshaft gear and the counter-bored recess in the rear of the crankshaft, as well as badly worn or broken gear alignment dowels are the result of improper assembly techniques or the reuse of worn or damaged parts during reassembly. Since a failure of the gear or the gear attaching parts would result in complete engine stoppage, the proper inspection and reassembly of these parts is very important. The procedures described in the following steps are mandatory."

After aligning the crankshaft gear with the crankshaft utilizing the alignment dowel, paragraph 6 of the bulletin directed technicians to utilize a new bolt and lockplate, then tighten the bolt to 125 in.-lbs. of torque. The next step ensured proper seating of the gear by directing, "…with a hammer and brass drift, tap lightly around the pilot flange of the gear and listen for sharp solid sounds from the hammer blows that would indicate that the gear is seated against the crankshaft. As a check on the seating against the crankshaft, attempt to insert a pointed .001 inch thick feeler gage or shim stock between the gear and crankshaft at each of the three scallops. The .001 feeler gage, or any smaller feeler gage, must NOT fit between the two surfaces at any location (.001 feeler gage is used as an indicator, however, there must be no clearance between crankshaft and gear.)" Finally, the 5/16-inch bolt would be tightened to 204 in.-lbs. of torque, and the clearance between the outer diameter of the gear flange and the counter-bored pilot (inner diameter) of the crankshaft should measure no greater than 0.0005-inch at any point.

Upon completion of the installation the bulletin specified, "A logbook entry, specifying the final bolt torque, verifying that the lockplate was properly bent in place against the bolt head and that the inspections and rework required by Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 475C were accomplished, should be made and signed by an authorized inspection representative."

Pilot Information

Certificate: Private
Age: 37, Male
Airplane Rating(s): Single-engine Land
Seat Occupied: Unknown
Other Aircraft Rating(s): None
Restraint Used: Unknown
Instrument Rating(s): None
Second Pilot Present: No
Instructor Rating(s): None
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 3
Last FAA Medical Exam: 08/01/2012
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent:
Flight Time:

Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Make: CESSNA
Registration: N13306
Model/Series: 172 M
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Year of Manufacture:
Amateur Built: No
Airworthiness Certificate: Normal
Serial Number: 17262654
Landing Gear Type: Tricycle
Seats: 4
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 06/05/2017, 100 Hour
Certified Max Gross Wt.: 2299 lbs
Time Since Last Inspection:
Engines:  1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time: 4746.2 Hours at time of accident
Engine Manufacturer: LYCOMING
ELT:
Engine Model/Series: O-320 SERIES
Registered Owner: YWP AIR INC
Rated Power: hp
Operator: YWP AIR INC
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None 

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: ISP, 84 ft msl
Distance from Accident Site: 7 Nautical Miles
Observation Time: 0556 EDT
Direction from Accident Site: 291°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Few / 25000 ft agl
Visibility:  8 Miles
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility (RVR):
Wind Speed/Gusts: 4 knots /
Turbulence Type Forecast/Actual: /
Wind Direction: 240°
Turbulence Severity Forecast/Actual: /
Altimeter Setting: 30.02 inches Hg
Temperature/Dew Point: 20°C / 18°C
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: SHIRLEY, NY (HWV)
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Destination: BAYPORT, NY (23N)
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time:
Type of Airspace:

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: 40.750556, -72.948333 (est)

NTSB Identification: ERA17LA203 
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, June 12, 2017 in Suffolk, NY
Aircraft: CESSNA 172, registration: N13306
Injuries: 1 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 June 12, 2017, about 0615 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172M, N13306, was substantially damaged during a forced landing to a golf course near Suffolk, New York. The private pilot incurred minor injuries. The airplane was registered to a corporation and operated by the pilot as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight. The flight originated from Brookhaven Airport (HWV), Shirley, New York, and was destined for Bayport Aerodrome (23N), Bayport, New York.

According to the pilot, the purpose of the flight was to purchase fuel at HWV and then return to 23N. While en route to 23N, he heard a "loud pop" and the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot checked the fuel selector and mixture, and then searched for a place to perform a forced landing. He declared an emergency, unsuccessfully attempted to restart the engine, and turned toward a golf course. During the landing, the airplane struck a tree, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing.

According to a Federal Aviation Administration inspector, no debris or water was noted following an examination of the fuel in the airplane and the fuel tank where the fuel was purchased. An external fuel tank was connected to the engine in an attempt to operate the engine, however, it would not start. The left and right magnetos were removed, and when the propeller was rotated by hand, both magneto drive gears would not rotate.

The engine was retained for further examination.




BELLPORT, Long Island (WABC) -- The pilot of a small plane made an emergency landing on the Bellport Country Club in Bellport, Long Island Monday morning.

Police say the pilot of a 1973 Cessna 172M airplane notified MacArthur Airport Tower that he was experiencing engine failure.

The pilot chose to make an emergency landing near the 12th hole on the golf course of the country club at about 6:15 a.m., according to police.

The plane clipped a tree, causing minor damage to one of the plane's wings and landed safely.

The pilot refused medical attention and no one on the ground was injured. The FAA was notified and responded.


Story and video:  http://abc7ny.com



A single-engine Cessna made an emergency landing on the golf course at the Bellport Country Club after suffering a midair engine failure at about 6:15 a.m. Monday, June 12, 2017, officials said.

A description on the Bellport Country Club golf course website calls it “a hole that nightmares are made of.”

Not so for the pilot who landed his single-engine Cessna in the 12th hole rough Monday morning — managing to miss the green-side bunkers and the left-side water hazard — after suffering what the Federal Aviation Administration described as a in-flight engine failure over Great South Bay.

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

Velocity XL-RG-5, N735D, Net Trek Inc: Incident occurred June 11, 2017 at Middle Peninsula Regional Airport (KFYJ), West Point, King William County, Virginia

Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Richmond

Net Trek Inc: http://registry.faa.gov/N735D

Aircraft on takeoff, went off the end of the runway into a marsh.

Date: 11-JUN-17
Time: 17:35:00Z
Regis#: N735D
Aircraft Make: VELOCITY
Aircraft Model: XLRG
Event Type: INCIDENT
Highest Injury: NONE
Aircraft Missing: No
Damage: UNKNOWN
Activity: UNKNOWN
Flight Phase: TAKEOFF (TOF)
City: WEST POINT
State: VIRGINIA

Piper PA-25-260, N8578L: Accident occurred June 11, 2017 in Hood River County, Oregon

Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Portland, Oregon

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


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

http://registry.faa.gov/N8578L

Location: Hood River, OR
Accident Number: GAA17CA331
Date & Time: 06/11/2017, 1630 PDT
Registration: N8578L
Aircraft: PIPER PA25
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Fuel exhaustion
Injuries: 1 Minor
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Glider Tow

The glider tow pilot reported that, during preflight the fuel indicator read "2/3 full" and he had a "brief discussion" with the previous pilot who had just completed numerous glider tow flights, without refueling. He added that a fuel "dipstick" was not available, and a visual check of the fuel quantity was not complete during preflight. He further added that on the 10th glider tow flight, which was about 2 hours of flight time, he noted a "low fuel indication in flight just prior to glider release." Subsequently, the glider released and during the return to the airport, about 2 nautical miles from the runway, about 1,900 above ground, the engine lost power.

The pilot reported that due to the quartering headwind aloft he did not believe he could make the runway, so he attempted to land on an open pasture, but struck trees and impacted terrain about "50 yards short of [the] pasture."

The fuselage, elevator, and both wings sustained substantial damage.

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

Pilot Information

Certificate: Commercial
Age: 55, Male
Airplane Rating(s): Single-engine Land
Seat Occupied: Single
Other Aircraft Rating(s): None
Restraint Used: Unknown
Instrument Rating(s): Airplane
Second Pilot Present: No
Instructor Rating(s): None
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 2 With Waivers/Limitations
Last FAA Medical Exam: 09/15/2016
Occupational Pilot: Yes
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 06/30/2016
Flight Time:  (Estimated) 317.6 hours (Total, all aircraft), 7.7 hours (Total, this make and model), 255.9 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 18.7 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 9.7 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 2 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)

Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Make: PIPER
Registration: N8578L
Model/Series: PA25 260
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Year of Manufacture: 1969
Amateur Built: No
Airworthiness Certificate: Normal
Serial Number: 25-5004
Landing Gear Type: Tailwheel
Seats: 1
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 06/09/2017, Annual
Certified Max Gross Wt.: 2900 lbs
Time Since Last Inspection:
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time: 13229.8 Hours as of last inspection
Engine Manufacturer: LYCOMING
ELT: Not installed
Engine Model/Series: O-540-G1A5
Registered Owner: HOOD RIVER SOARING
Rated Power: 260 hp
Operator: HOOD RIVER SOARING
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: K4S2, 638 ft msl
Distance from Accident Site: 1 Nautical Miles
Observation Time: 2335 UTC
Direction from Accident Site: 140°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Scattered / 11000 ft agl
Visibility:  10 Miles
Lowest Ceiling: 
Visibility (RVR): 
Wind Speed/Gusts: 7 knots / 15 knots
Turbulence Type Forecast/Actual: / None
Wind Direction: 280°
Turbulence Severity Forecast/Actual: / N/A
Altimeter Setting: 29.91 inches Hg
Temperature/Dew Point: 20°C / 8°C
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: Hood River, OR (4S2)
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Destination: Hood River, OR (4S2)
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time: 1630 PDT
Type of Airspace: Class G

Airport Information

Airport: KEN JERNSTEDT AIRFIELD (4S2)
Runway Surface Type: N/A
Airport Elevation: 638 ft
Runway Surface Condition: Dry
Runway Used: N/A
IFR Approach: None
Runway Length/Width:
VFR Approach/Landing: Forced Landing

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 1 Minor
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 1 Minor

Latitude, Longitude:  45.665000, -121.521111 (est)

NTSB Identification: GAA17CA331

14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, June 11, 2017 in Hood River, OR
Aircraft: PIPER PA25, registration: N8578L
Injuries: 1 Minor.

NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.

The glider tow pilot reported that, during preflight the fuel indicator read "2/3 full" and he had a "brief discussion" with the previous pilot who had just completed numerous glider tow flights, without refueling. He added that a fuel "dipstick" was not available, and a visual check of the fuel quantity was not complete during preflight. He further added that on the 10th glider tow flight, which was about 2 hours of flight time, he noted a "low fuel indication in flight just prior to glider release." Subsequently, the glider released and during the return to the airport, about 2 nautical miles from the runway, about 1,900 above ground, the engine lost power.

The pilot reported that due to the quartering headwind aloft he did not believe he could make the runway, so he attempted to land on an open pasture, but struck trees and impacted terrain about "50 yards short of [the] pasture."

The fuselage, elevator, and both wings sustained substantial damage.

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

Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP, N33FM, GRWW Aviation LLC: Accident occurred June 11, 2017 at Portage County Airport (KPOV), Ravenna, Ohio

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

NTSB Identification: GAA17CA337
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, June 11, 2017 in Ravenna, OH
Probable Cause Approval Date: 09/07/2017
Aircraft: CESSNA 172, registration: N33FM
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.

The flight instructor reported that, during an instructional flight, while on short final, he told the student pilot to “pitch down” to maintain airspeed. He added that the student did not respond and that he again instructed the student to “pitch down now” while simultaneously pressing forward on the yoke. He further added that, as he pushed forward on the yoke, the student “pulled [back] with equal force on the yoke.” Subsequently, the flight instructor pushed forward on the yoke “with greater force” than the previous attempt and stated, “my plane,” to the student, but “continued to wrestle the controls with the student” as the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall. The airplane then impacted the runway threshold hard, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane veered off the runway to the right.

The student pilot reported that this was his first flight with this flight instructor but that he had accumulated about 82 hours of dual instruction previously. He added that, during the second landing of the day, while on final approach, “the instructor had me pull the power and told me nose down.” He further added that he “felt we were getting low and I told the instructor I wanted to increase power but the instructor told me to ‘nose down.’” The student pilot reported that the instructor again stated multiple times to “nose down,” but he “did not believe there was enough room to continue nose down.” The student pilot reported that the flight instructor subsequently took the flight controls and nosed the airplane down and that the airplane impacted the runway threshold hard and veered off the runway.

The fuselage and firewall sustained substantial damage.

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

During postaccident correspondence with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the flight instructor reported that he could not recall if, during preflight, he and the student pilot discussed the positive transfer of the flight controls.

Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 61-115, “Positive Exchange of Flight Controls Program,” dated March 10, 1995, stated, in part:

During flight training, there must always be a clear understanding between students and flight instructors of who has control of the aircraft. Prior to flight, a briefing should be conducted that includes the procedure for the exchange of flight controls. A positive three-step process in the exchange of flight controls between pilots is a proven procedure and one that is strongly recommended.

When an instructor is teaching a maneuver to a student, the instructor will normally demonstrate the maneuver first, then have the student follow along on the controls during a demonstration and, finally, the student will perform the maneuver with the instructor following along on the controls. When the flight instructor wishes the student to take control of the aircraft, he/she says to the student, “You have the flight controls.” The student acknowledges immediately by saying, “I have the flight controls.” The flight instructor again says, “You have the flight controls.” During this procedure, a visual check is recommended to see that the other person actually has the flight controls. When returning the controls to the instructor, the student should follow the same procedure the instructor used when giving control to the student. The student should stay on the controls and keep flying the aircraft until the instructor says, “I have the flight controls.” There should never be any doubt as to who is flying the aircraft.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The flight instructor's failure to perform a go-around during final approach, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and a hard landing. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor's failure to brief the student pilot on the positive transfer of aircraft control during preflight.

Additional Participating Entity:

Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Cleveland, Ohio

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

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

Van Bortel Aircraft Inc: http://registry.faa.gov/N33FM

NTSB Identification: GAA17CA337
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, June 11, 2017 in Ravenna, OH
Aircraft: CESSNA 172, registration: N33FM
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.

The flight instructor reported that, during an instructional flight, while on short final, he told the student pilot to "pitch down" to maintain airspeed. He added that the student did not respond and he again instructed the student to "pitch down now" while simultaneously pressing forward on the yoke. He further added that as he pushed forward on the yoke, the student "pulled [back] with equal force on the yoke." Subsequently, the flight instructor pushed forward on the yoke "with greater force" than the previous attempt and stated, "my plane" to the student, but "continued to wrestle the controls with the student" as the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall and impacted the runway threshold hard. After the airplane impacted the runway threshold, the nose gear collapsed and the airplane veered off the runway to the right.

The student pilot reported that this was his first flight ever with this flight instructor, but he had accumulated about 82 hours of dual instruction previously. He added that, during the second landing of the day, while on final approach "the instructor had me pull the power and told me nose down." He further added that he "felt we were getting low and I told the instructor I wanted to increase power but the instructor told me to "nose down." The student pilot reported that the instructor again stated multiple times to "nose down," but he "did not believe there was enough room to continue nose down." Subsequently, the student pilot reported that the flight instructor took the flight controls and nosed the airplane down, but the airplane impacted the runway threshold hard and veered off the runway. 

The fuselage and firewall sustained substantial damage.

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

During postaccident correspondence with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the flight instructor reported that he could not recall during preflight that he and the student pilot discussed the positive transfer of the flight controls.

The Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 61-115, Positive Exchange of Flight Controls Program, dated March 10th, 1995, stated in part: 

During flight training, there must always be a clear understanding between students and flight instructors of who has control of the aircraft. Prior to flight, a briefing should be conducted that includes the procedure for the exchange of flight controls. A positive three-step process in the exchange of flight controls between pilots is a proven procedure and one that is strongly recommended.

When an instructor is teaching a maneuver to a student, the instructor will normally demonstrate the maneuver first, then have the student follow along on the controls during a demonstration and, finally, the student will perform the maneuver with the instructor following along on the controls. When the flight instructor wishes the student to take control of the aircraft, he/she says to the student, "You have the flight controls." The student acknowledges immediately by saying, "I have the flight controls." The flight instructor again says, "You have the flight controls." During this procedure, a visual check is recommended to see that the other person actually has the flight controls. When returning the controls to the instructor, the student should follow the same procedure the instructor used when giving control to the student. The student should stay on the controls and keep flying the aircraft until the instructor says, "I have the flight controls." There should never be any doubt as to who is flying the aircraft.