Dynamic International Airways has made significant progress in reducing its customer financial liabilities since filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, according to a status update Friday.
However, the High Point charter airline has cut its work force by nearly one-third and continues to face legal attempts to force it into liquidation.
Dynamic also reported it has a new chief executive in Ray Lawlor, who has more than 30 years of aviation industry experience. He also serves as senior vice president of cargo sales and marketing for Swift Air LLC.
The company has eliminated 60 of 192 jobs since filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection July 19. It has plans to add eight pilots and 22 flight attendants as part of expanding services through a new flight strategy that began Friday.
Dynamic reported trimming its customer liability debt from $7.98 million to $1.96 million as of Friday. It projects reducing the debt to $323,659 by mid-October.
At the time of the bankruptcy filing, Dynamic’s fleet featured six Boeing 767s serving routes that include New York and Ontario, Calif. International service is to Georgetown, Guyana; Guayaquil, Ecuador; Saipan in Northern Mariana Islands; and Changchun and Nanchang, China. The aircraft can carry 235 passengers using 21 lie-flat business-class seats and 214 economy-class seats.
The airline has ended the Ecuador service because of permitting issue with the Ecuadorian government. It is planning to reduce its service to Guyana from five flights weekly to just one beginning in early October.
Dynamic said its focus will be on an aircraft, crew, maintenance and insurance strategy, known as ACMI, in which it gains business from a third-party vendor that sells flight tickets.
An ACMI carrier receives a flat rate per flight hour. Dynamic said it has agreed to one ACMI contract with Swift Travel Services for flights between Port Au Prince, Haiti, and Santiago, Chile. It is negotiating for a second such contract for flights from Miami to Havana and Santa Clara, Cuba.
Dynamic’s bare-bones filing came after Dynamic lost a legal fight in U.S. District Court for the Middle District.
PMC Aviation LLC of Greensboro is owed $1.19 million, representing an arbitration judgment reached in April that Dynamic disputes. Dynamic says its filing was prompted by recent arbitration judgments against the company that it is challenging under the International Commercial Arbitration Act.
PMC claims in its motion for liquidation that Dynamic “is suffering from millions of dollars of continuing losses. ... The debtor has been grossly mismanaged.”
Dynamic lists between 200 and 999 creditors, assets between $10 million and $50 million, and liabilities between $50 million and $100 million. The company projects funds will be available for distribution to unsecured creditors.
PMC’s motion is being opposed by unsecured creditor Worldwide Flight Services Inc. of Jamaica, N.Y., which is owed $123,773.
Dynamic’s largest unsecured creditor is Air India Inc. at $10.5 million from another arbitration award that Dynamic disputes. B.K.P. Enterprises & Expim International of Greensboro, was awarded a combined $3.49 million arbitration judgment in December that Dynamic also disputes.
Original article can be found here ➤ http://www.journalnow.com
Monday, September 18, 2017
Zenair STOL CH 701, N61KW, Pragway US Inc: Incident occurred September 18, 2017 in Clearwater Beach, Pinellas County, Florida
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Tampa, Florida
Aircraft force landed on a beach.
Pragway US Inc: http://registry.faa.gov/N61KW
Date: 18-SEP-17
Time: 16:50:00Z
Regis#: N61KW
Aircraft Make: CZECH
Aircraft Model: ZENAIR CH701
Event Type: INCIDENT
Highest Injury: NONE
Aircraft Missing: No
Damage: UNKNOWN
Activity: UNKNOWN
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
City: CLEARWATER
State: FLORIDA
CLEARWATER (FOX 13) - A small kit-built plane made an emergency landing along the white sands of Clearwater Beach this afternoon.
The Czech Sport Aircraft Zenith STOL CH 701 single-engine plane, described as "experimental" by police, experienced mechanical problems and was forced to land on the beach along Sand Key.
Two people were on board. Neither were hurt.
Police said the FAA had been notified.
"Not every day you see a plane on the beach at Sand Key," Clearwater police tweeted.
The FAA database shows the plane is registered to a company called U.S., based out of Delaware.
Original article can be found here ➤ http://www.fox13news.com
Aircraft force landed on a beach.
Pragway US Inc: http://registry.faa.gov/N61KW
Date: 18-SEP-17
Time: 16:50:00Z
Regis#: N61KW
Aircraft Make: CZECH
Aircraft Model: ZENAIR CH701
Event Type: INCIDENT
Highest Injury: NONE
Aircraft Missing: No
Damage: UNKNOWN
Activity: UNKNOWN
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
City: CLEARWATER
State: FLORIDA
CLEARWATER (FOX 13) - A small kit-built plane made an emergency landing along the white sands of Clearwater Beach this afternoon.
The Czech Sport Aircraft Zenith STOL CH 701 single-engine plane, described as "experimental" by police, experienced mechanical problems and was forced to land on the beach along Sand Key.
Two people were on board. Neither were hurt.
Police said the FAA had been notified.
"Not every day you see a plane on the beach at Sand Key," Clearwater police tweeted.
The FAA database shows the plane is registered to a company called U.S., based out of Delaware.
Original article can be found here ➤ http://www.fox13news.com
Navy proposes drone take-off and landing ban near installations
There's a variety of drones with videos cameras available for purchase on the Internet for as little as $50, which makes them more accessible than ever for amateur hobbyists and professional videographers alike to soar over the city and record a bird's-eye view of the waterfront.
But Naval Base Kitsap officials are concerned some drone pilots might have something in mind other than sightseeing, NBK Commanding Officer Capt. Alan Schrader said.
"It's an issue of national security," Schrader said. "These drones can be used for a whole series of nefarious activities."
Schrader and NBK Community Planning Liaison Officer Lynn Wall presented a proposed ordinance before the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners on Monday that would prohibit the launching and landing of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, near the base's five military installations.
NBK officials said drone flights continue over Navy installations despite Federal Aviation Administration regulations that prohibit such action, but they would not disclose any specific incidents.
The base's security concerns from drone overflight include "unauthorized surveillance, unauthorized access to or disclosure of classified or otherwise lawfully protected information; disruption of or damage to a communication system; interference or disruption of a Navy mission; or in worst cases UAS (unmanned aircraft systems) may be used for delivery or carriage of weapons, explosives, or other hazardous materials for criminal activities," according to a list of talking points released by the Navy.
Although the county does not have the jurisdiction to directly govern drone flight itself in the proposed buffer zones, NBK officials said an indirect approach to prohibit drone take-offs and landings in the buffer-zone areas would effectively do so and would legally fall under the county's purview.
"It's not saying you can't fly, but technically you can't launch or land, so you're not flying in that area," Wall said.
The ban would extend 3,000 feet from the fence lines of each installation, including the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center at Keyport, Naval Hospital Bremerton and the fuel depot at Manchester.
NBK officials and the county are seeking to coordinate efforts with the city of Bremerton to develop a uniform ordinance so the law would be the same across the city and county jurisdictions.
The proposed buffer around PSNS would encompass the downtown Bremerton area and the waterfront. It would run south across the Sinclair Inlet almost to Port Orchard and north to 11th Street. To the west, it would run to Highway 3 and encompass Navy Yard City and then span east with a boundary of almost the entire length of the Manette bridge.
"Obviously this is going to have an impact on a number of individuals, the folks who are private citizens who live in whatever radius is selected," Schrader said, in addition to those who wish to operate drones in the open public lands that fall within the barrier.
In a special circumstance, the buffer zones wouldn't be the final say on using a drone to film footage in the area. The county discussed developing an exemption that would allow the use of a drone to film a special event, such as a wedding or a party, with an approved application and "reminders and restrictions that they will not be able to go over across the base lines," Kitsap County Sheriff Gary Simpson said.
All types of unmanned aircraft would fall under the take-off and landing ban within the buffer zones.
"The simplicity of enforcement is if it's all [of them], it's anything and everything," Simpson said. "If it's it's defined as 'this, this and this,' then it's always up for interpretation."
The proposal did not identify what sort of penalty violators of the buffer zone would face if they were caught operating a drone in the banned area, ranging from whether it could be a civil fine to a misdemeanor violation that could result in jail time.
"There has to be some kind of balance there," Simpson said. "If we don't make it serious enough, then it will just be laughed upon."
NBK's proposal is modeled after a similar ordinance passed in St. Marys, Georgia, near the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, in December 2016.
County officials will be writing a draft ordinance in the next week, considering enforcement mechanisms and developing a community outreach effort for a public conversation on the proposed buffer areas.
Original article can be found here ➤ http://www.kitsapsun.com
But Naval Base Kitsap officials are concerned some drone pilots might have something in mind other than sightseeing, NBK Commanding Officer Capt. Alan Schrader said.
"It's an issue of national security," Schrader said. "These drones can be used for a whole series of nefarious activities."
Schrader and NBK Community Planning Liaison Officer Lynn Wall presented a proposed ordinance before the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners on Monday that would prohibit the launching and landing of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, near the base's five military installations.
NBK officials said drone flights continue over Navy installations despite Federal Aviation Administration regulations that prohibit such action, but they would not disclose any specific incidents.
The base's security concerns from drone overflight include "unauthorized surveillance, unauthorized access to or disclosure of classified or otherwise lawfully protected information; disruption of or damage to a communication system; interference or disruption of a Navy mission; or in worst cases UAS (unmanned aircraft systems) may be used for delivery or carriage of weapons, explosives, or other hazardous materials for criminal activities," according to a list of talking points released by the Navy.
Although the county does not have the jurisdiction to directly govern drone flight itself in the proposed buffer zones, NBK officials said an indirect approach to prohibit drone take-offs and landings in the buffer-zone areas would effectively do so and would legally fall under the county's purview.
"It's not saying you can't fly, but technically you can't launch or land, so you're not flying in that area," Wall said.
The ban would extend 3,000 feet from the fence lines of each installation, including the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center at Keyport, Naval Hospital Bremerton and the fuel depot at Manchester.
NBK officials and the county are seeking to coordinate efforts with the city of Bremerton to develop a uniform ordinance so the law would be the same across the city and county jurisdictions.
The proposed buffer around PSNS would encompass the downtown Bremerton area and the waterfront. It would run south across the Sinclair Inlet almost to Port Orchard and north to 11th Street. To the west, it would run to Highway 3 and encompass Navy Yard City and then span east with a boundary of almost the entire length of the Manette bridge.
"Obviously this is going to have an impact on a number of individuals, the folks who are private citizens who live in whatever radius is selected," Schrader said, in addition to those who wish to operate drones in the open public lands that fall within the barrier.
In a special circumstance, the buffer zones wouldn't be the final say on using a drone to film footage in the area. The county discussed developing an exemption that would allow the use of a drone to film a special event, such as a wedding or a party, with an approved application and "reminders and restrictions that they will not be able to go over across the base lines," Kitsap County Sheriff Gary Simpson said.
All types of unmanned aircraft would fall under the take-off and landing ban within the buffer zones.
"The simplicity of enforcement is if it's all [of them], it's anything and everything," Simpson said. "If it's it's defined as 'this, this and this,' then it's always up for interpretation."
The proposal did not identify what sort of penalty violators of the buffer zone would face if they were caught operating a drone in the banned area, ranging from whether it could be a civil fine to a misdemeanor violation that could result in jail time.
"There has to be some kind of balance there," Simpson said. "If we don't make it serious enough, then it will just be laughed upon."
NBK's proposal is modeled after a similar ordinance passed in St. Marys, Georgia, near the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, in December 2016.
County officials will be writing a draft ordinance in the next week, considering enforcement mechanisms and developing a community outreach effort for a public conversation on the proposed buffer areas.
Original article can be found here ➤ http://www.kitsapsun.com
Yeager Airport (KCRW) to host 70th Anniversary Air Show
CHARLESTON, WV (WCHS/WVAH) — Charleston's Yeager Airport and the West Virginia Air National Guard's 130th Airlift Wing will celebrate their 70th anniversary with an air show Sept. 30 and Oct. 1.
According to the Charleston Convention and Visitors Bureau, the event will feature flying demonstrations, aircraft displays and tours and rides on a World War II-era aircraft.
The event will feature several examples of aircraft associated with the airport during its early years, including a Curtiss C-46 Commando transport plane. The Curtiss C-46 Commando was the first aircraft assigned to the West Virginia Air Guard's 130th Airlift Wing. It will also feature an American Airlines DC-3, the first commercial aircraft to operate at the Kanawha Airport during its 1947 debut.
Part of the "Rise Above" traveling exhibit detailing the history of the Tuskegee Airman will feature a World War II-era P-51 fighter plane. The Tuskegee Airman were the first two squadrons of black fighter pilots allowed to serve in the U.S. military.
Other aircraft featured in the show will include a World War II-era B-17 Flying Fortress and B-25 Mitchell bombers and a C-47 Sktrain transport from the Yankee Air Museum in Michigan. Also scheduled to appear are a World War I-era Curtiss JN-4 Jenny biplane, a Stinson L-5 "Flying Jeep" single engine observation plane, a T-6 Texan fighter pilot training aircraft and a World War II-era Grumman TMB Avenger torpedo bomber.
The event is free and open to the public. It begins at 9 a.m. Saturday.
Original article can be found here ➤ http://wvah.com
Ameren Illinois utilizing drones for quicker fixes
Ameren Illinois customers will no longer simply see employees and trucks when the company is repairing downed lines. They also may see a high-tech drone hovering above.
Ameren demonstrated the capabilities of its new drones Friday at its facility on West Lafayette Avenue. The company’s drone program launched roughly two years ago and now is active throughout the state, including in Morgan County.
“We can use drones to decrease the time of an outage if there is an outage, especially in an off-road area,” said Riley Adams, manager of electric initiatives for Ameren Illinois. “In the past, we would send several people to walk through there and see what’s wrong. That takes hours sometimes. It could be a line by a tree way down there. If we have a drone with a pilot locally that understood what they were looking at, we could go down to that area in 15 minutes and find out what’s wrong.”
Each of Ameren’s drones is assigned to a “pilot.” Instead of workers driving around until they find the problem, a pilot can fly a drone along power lines, taking photos and videos, if necessary. Once the problem is identified, workers can plot the quickest route to get there.
This came in handy a couple months ago in Beardstown, when workers had to troubleshoot a damaged line in a swamp, said Kyle Maxwell, supervisor of electric operations for Ameren Illinois.
Walking the area is not possible and a boat is used to patrol the lines, Maxwell said.
Using a drone, the area was quickly mapped out and the problem identified within 5 minutes. Workers then got to work and got the power going again, he said.
“Before, we’d be idling down the line using a boat motor and using binoculars to find the problem,” Maxwell said. “Labor intensive and not the safest way to do it.”
Safety is a big plus when it comes to drones, Adams said.
“When we send people walking down a line like that, there’s a lot of hazards,” Adams said. “There’s creeks, there’s beehives, there’s wires down, and it’s a hazard for employees. This eliminates those hazards. We can identify the safest way to get down there, identify what the problem is, what tools we need and get down there a lot quicker.”
Ameren’s drone pilots must get a remote pilot certificate through the Federal Aviation Administration and take a two-day training course at Southern Illinois University Carbondale’s aviation school. Then they return home for further training through Ameren’s internal training program.
Aside from the obvious uses during storms and power outages, Maxwell said the drones will have a large role in day-to-day operations. For example, drones can be used for pole inspections, saving engineers time.
Maxwell also anticipates the company soon will be able to attach thermal cameras to the drones to help detect gas leaks.
The use of drones comes at no additional cost to Ameren customers, Adams said. The new technology will roll out across the state as new pilots are trained.
“We’re a 100-year-old company,” Adams said. “You don’t want to stay sitting in the past. You want to look to the future and see what’s out there. Once it gets fully developed, it’s going to be a benefit for the customer.”
Original article ➤ http://www.myjournalcourier.com
Sexual assaults on airliners a growing problem
You expect for safety to be the top priority every time you board a flight, but there are growing concerns about sexual assaults against passengers on commercial airlines. A local woman who says she was sexually assaulted on a flight last year has launched campaign to raise awareness about the issue in hopes of getting the government and airlines to take notice and address it.
Allison Dvaladze travels regularly for work and says nothing seemed out of the ordinary on her flight to Uganda in February 2016. As she started to fall asleep, though, she says the passenger next to her grabbed her crotch. “I was disoriented, yelled and hit his hand and almost immediately he grabbed me again.” Allison says she fought him off, but he grabbed her and second and third time before she was able to get out of her seat and contact the flight crew. “The crew was very supportive. They were very understanding. What came out to me right away, what became apparent, was that they don’t have training in how to handle the situation. One of the things they asked me right away was, "What do you want us to do?' And my response was, 'What are you supposed to do?' ”
That experience led Allison to share her story and start a Facebook page for her campaign: “Protect Airline Passengers From Sexual Assault Now.” The page began as a place to share articles about similar cases. Allison began getting messages from around the world from people who say they’d also been sexually assaulted on commercial flights.
The problem of sexual assaults on flights is one not commonly talked about, but reports are growing more frequent.
(You can read about those incidents here. And here. Also here. And here. )
“It never occurred to me while flying on a plane that these things happen,” Allison noted, which is why she reached out to U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. “When someone like Allison calls and says something happened to me and you think, 'That’s not right.' "
Murray’s office sent letters signed by 22 other senators to the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Justice, highlighting Allison’s story and urging the need for standards, training and protocol when it comes to addressing, reporting and preventing sexual assaults on flights. “I think the most important thing is that if you are getting on an airplane, you know that if something bad happens to you, sexual assault in this case, it will be reported so it won’t happen again,” says Murray.
Currently, there are no federal requirements for airlines to train cabin crews on how to handle sexual assaults, and no federal agency tracks the issue. The FBI records only airline sexual assaults that have been reported and investigated. Those numbers have increased from 40 in 2015 to 57 in 2016. The Department of Transportation tracks airline complaints in a monthly report. It includes complaints about things like lost baggage and delayed flights. However, there is no category to cover sexual assaults. Any complaints related to that issue would most likely fall under the category “other” and the subcategory “others not categorized above.”
KOMO News reached out to 14 airlines to ask how they track sexual assaults and train their crews to handle them: American, Delta, United, Alaska, British Airways, JetBlue, Southwest, Spirit, Lufthansa, Air Canada, Hawaiian, Emirates, Korean Air & All Nippon Airways. Seven airlines either either didn’t respond or refused to comment. Of those that did, Hawaiian, American and Southwest airlines confirmed they keep records of reported assaults, but do not release them. Only Hawaiian and Alaska Airlines specifically mentioned assault or sexual assault in their response about flight crew training. The more common response is that airline crews are taught how to respond to “unruly” or “disruptive” passengers by separating them and notifying the captain. (You can see all the airlines responses at the bottom of this story.)
Allison points out: “Responding to a disruptive passenger and responding to a victim of sexual assault are two entirely different issues that require totally different responses.”
The Association Of Flight Attendants represents 50,000 people worldwide. The union and its President Sara Nelson support expanding training to include how to respond to sexual assaults. “We find that sexual assault is a unique crime that needs to be identified as a unique crime and that everyone at the airline needs to understand it’s happening and that it needs to be reported.” Earlier this year, the AFA sent a seven-question survey out to its membership about sexual assaults on flights. From the nearly 2,000 responses they learned:
-- 1 in 5 flight attendants has experienced a report of a mid-flight sexual assault between passengers
-- Law enforcement was contacted or met the plane only 40 percent of the time
-- 56 percent respondents report no knowledge of any written guidance or training on dealing with sexual assaults available through their airline
"Across the board, our members told us even when the written guidelines are there in their manual, they are not aware of them, so there needs to be a heightened awareness for the flight crew, for responders on the ground,” Nelson says. If a flight attendant does report a sexual assault to the pilot, the pilot would then report it to controllers on the ground, who is then supposed to contact law enforcement to meet the plane. “If anyone of those people along the line either become too busy, makes a judgment call about whether or not law enforcement should be called, that can fail then to be reported and responded to.”
In Allison’s case, she eventually learned the flight crew never filed a report, and after pressing the airline for more information, she received a final response: “We actually have no record of anything on your flight, so we consider this a closed issue.”
There are many theories about why mid-flight sexual assaults are being reported more often. Dvaladze, Murray and Nelson all mention the shrinking size of seats as something providing more opportunity for would-be offenders. With airlines attempting to get more people on flights, passengers are put closer together. A passenger-advocacy group “Flyers Rights” is currently suing the FAA over the shrinking sizes of airline seats, claiming it can also be a health hazard. The group's research says seat sizes have reduced from an average of 18.5 inches in the early 2000s to just 17 inches, and sometimes even less. Nelson says this change also make it more difficult for flight attendants to keep a clear line of sight on all passengers and spot potential red flags.
There is a growing effort to address mid-flight sexual assaults. In a written response to Sen. Murray’s letter last fall, the Department Of Justice says it is working with several other government agencies to identify and develop best practices to address sexual assaults on commercial flights. Murray is also among 20 U.S. lawmakers who are co-sponsoring the “SAFE Act,” or “Stopping Assault While Flying Enforcement” Act, which was introduced in July. Murray says the goal is “to require training for employees to know what to do, to require reporting, which currently doesn’t happen which is surprising, and to require consistency so all airlines are following the same regulations.”
Murray credits people like Allison who are willing to share their story to bring attention to a serious problem: “It’s those personal stories that really make a difference that bring it to attention, people willing to stand up, tell a story that’s not fun, to tell that can make changes for everyone.” Allison hopes it encourages others to step up, “If you see someone who’s trying to make a different, make a change, support them, encourage them, they’re doing something not just for them, but for everybody.”
KOMO News reached out to 14 airlines for this story. These are their responses:
Southwest Airlines:
We take the protections of our Customers very seriously, and Safety is at the forefront of everything we do at Southwest Airlines. Our Flight Attendants are trained to take care of a wide range of sensitive Customer issues.
Our Crews are trained on self-defense tactics for various types of assaults. Depending on the situation, our protocols do include separating individuals and providing the proper notifications.
We do not release this information. (regarding tracking sexual assaults)
Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants receive self-defense training that prepares them to handle various types of assault. The flight Crew is immediately notified if an assault occurs and necessary training and resources are used to protect everyone onboard.
Delta Airlines:
Delta takes reports of harassment very seriously. When we become aware of incidents onboard, we always investigate so appropriate action may be taken, coordinating with local law enforcement when requested by the customer and crew. Our crews are trained for situational awareness. If an incident results in harassment of any kind toward another customer, flight attendants will immediately find another seat for the customer and conduct an investigation.
Alaska Airlines:
Yes, this is part of recurrent training. (regarding whether crew is trained on how to prevent, identify, react to sexual assaults)
Alaska has a robust training curriculum supporting threat management. The objectives cover how to identify, remain safe and manage multiple scenarios (e.g. disruptive passengers, suspicious behaviors, including assault.) The training content covers de-escalation techniques, personal protective measures. Alaska is proud of the mock-up training equipment we use to ensure our Flight Attendants have realistic learning environment to role play and build their skills in these rare circumstances.
Alaska’s Inflight Training team works closely with multiple agencies including the TSA’s Federal Air Marshall Service and local law enforcement to maintain a level of expertise in line with current events.
Hawaiian Airlines:
We take allegations of any abuse in flight very seriously. For physical abuse allegations, including sexual assault, our flight attendants are trained, on a range of scenarios, to protect the passengers and crew and keep them safe. In the event of an allegation of any physical assault in flight including sexual assault, the crew would immediately separate the parties and simultaneously report the matter to the Captain. The crew are also required to prepare and submit a written incident report within 24 hours of landing. The ground security coordinator who meets the plane with the local law enforcement officers is also required to submit an incident report. As part of our standard protocol, for flights involving reported allegations of any physical abuse including sexual assault, local law enforcement officers are called ahead to meet the plane.
Lufthansa Airline:
Our crews are fundamentally trained to deal with "unruly" passengers. Statistics are not maintained. The relevant reports are handed over to the authorities.
American Airlines:
If our crews – flight attendants and/or pilots – discover or are told about any alleged illegal misconduct that may occur on the aircraft, law enforcement is contacted and will meet the aircraft upon arrival. In all cases of misconduct between two passengers, we will immediately separate them, and request law enforcement meet the aircraft.
Spirit Airlines: No Response
Emirates Airlines: No comment
JetBlue: No Comment
Air Canada: No Response
United Airlines: No Response
British Airways: No Response
All Nippon Airways: No Comment
Korean Airlines: No Response
Airlines For America (trade association & lobbying group):
The safety and security of our passengers and crewmembers are our highest priority. Airlines have processes and procedures in place for crewmembers to report observed and/or reported criminal activity that occurs on board the aircraft to the FAA and appropriate law enforcement authorities, who are responsible for recording such incidents and pursuing the arrest and prosecution of offenders.
Original article can be found here ➤ http://komonews.com
Allison Dvaladze travels regularly for work and says nothing seemed out of the ordinary on her flight to Uganda in February 2016. As she started to fall asleep, though, she says the passenger next to her grabbed her crotch. “I was disoriented, yelled and hit his hand and almost immediately he grabbed me again.” Allison says she fought him off, but he grabbed her and second and third time before she was able to get out of her seat and contact the flight crew. “The crew was very supportive. They were very understanding. What came out to me right away, what became apparent, was that they don’t have training in how to handle the situation. One of the things they asked me right away was, "What do you want us to do?' And my response was, 'What are you supposed to do?' ”
That experience led Allison to share her story and start a Facebook page for her campaign: “Protect Airline Passengers From Sexual Assault Now.” The page began as a place to share articles about similar cases. Allison began getting messages from around the world from people who say they’d also been sexually assaulted on commercial flights.
The problem of sexual assaults on flights is one not commonly talked about, but reports are growing more frequent.
(You can read about those incidents here. And here. Also here. And here. )
“It never occurred to me while flying on a plane that these things happen,” Allison noted, which is why she reached out to U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. “When someone like Allison calls and says something happened to me and you think, 'That’s not right.' "
Murray’s office sent letters signed by 22 other senators to the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Justice, highlighting Allison’s story and urging the need for standards, training and protocol when it comes to addressing, reporting and preventing sexual assaults on flights. “I think the most important thing is that if you are getting on an airplane, you know that if something bad happens to you, sexual assault in this case, it will be reported so it won’t happen again,” says Murray.
Currently, there are no federal requirements for airlines to train cabin crews on how to handle sexual assaults, and no federal agency tracks the issue. The FBI records only airline sexual assaults that have been reported and investigated. Those numbers have increased from 40 in 2015 to 57 in 2016. The Department of Transportation tracks airline complaints in a monthly report. It includes complaints about things like lost baggage and delayed flights. However, there is no category to cover sexual assaults. Any complaints related to that issue would most likely fall under the category “other” and the subcategory “others not categorized above.”
KOMO News reached out to 14 airlines to ask how they track sexual assaults and train their crews to handle them: American, Delta, United, Alaska, British Airways, JetBlue, Southwest, Spirit, Lufthansa, Air Canada, Hawaiian, Emirates, Korean Air & All Nippon Airways. Seven airlines either either didn’t respond or refused to comment. Of those that did, Hawaiian, American and Southwest airlines confirmed they keep records of reported assaults, but do not release them. Only Hawaiian and Alaska Airlines specifically mentioned assault or sexual assault in their response about flight crew training. The more common response is that airline crews are taught how to respond to “unruly” or “disruptive” passengers by separating them and notifying the captain. (You can see all the airlines responses at the bottom of this story.)
Allison points out: “Responding to a disruptive passenger and responding to a victim of sexual assault are two entirely different issues that require totally different responses.”
The Association Of Flight Attendants represents 50,000 people worldwide. The union and its President Sara Nelson support expanding training to include how to respond to sexual assaults. “We find that sexual assault is a unique crime that needs to be identified as a unique crime and that everyone at the airline needs to understand it’s happening and that it needs to be reported.” Earlier this year, the AFA sent a seven-question survey out to its membership about sexual assaults on flights. From the nearly 2,000 responses they learned:
-- 1 in 5 flight attendants has experienced a report of a mid-flight sexual assault between passengers
-- Law enforcement was contacted or met the plane only 40 percent of the time
-- 56 percent respondents report no knowledge of any written guidance or training on dealing with sexual assaults available through their airline
"Across the board, our members told us even when the written guidelines are there in their manual, they are not aware of them, so there needs to be a heightened awareness for the flight crew, for responders on the ground,” Nelson says. If a flight attendant does report a sexual assault to the pilot, the pilot would then report it to controllers on the ground, who is then supposed to contact law enforcement to meet the plane. “If anyone of those people along the line either become too busy, makes a judgment call about whether or not law enforcement should be called, that can fail then to be reported and responded to.”
In Allison’s case, she eventually learned the flight crew never filed a report, and after pressing the airline for more information, she received a final response: “We actually have no record of anything on your flight, so we consider this a closed issue.”
There are many theories about why mid-flight sexual assaults are being reported more often. Dvaladze, Murray and Nelson all mention the shrinking size of seats as something providing more opportunity for would-be offenders. With airlines attempting to get more people on flights, passengers are put closer together. A passenger-advocacy group “Flyers Rights” is currently suing the FAA over the shrinking sizes of airline seats, claiming it can also be a health hazard. The group's research says seat sizes have reduced from an average of 18.5 inches in the early 2000s to just 17 inches, and sometimes even less. Nelson says this change also make it more difficult for flight attendants to keep a clear line of sight on all passengers and spot potential red flags.
There is a growing effort to address mid-flight sexual assaults. In a written response to Sen. Murray’s letter last fall, the Department Of Justice says it is working with several other government agencies to identify and develop best practices to address sexual assaults on commercial flights. Murray is also among 20 U.S. lawmakers who are co-sponsoring the “SAFE Act,” or “Stopping Assault While Flying Enforcement” Act, which was introduced in July. Murray says the goal is “to require training for employees to know what to do, to require reporting, which currently doesn’t happen which is surprising, and to require consistency so all airlines are following the same regulations.”
Murray credits people like Allison who are willing to share their story to bring attention to a serious problem: “It’s those personal stories that really make a difference that bring it to attention, people willing to stand up, tell a story that’s not fun, to tell that can make changes for everyone.” Allison hopes it encourages others to step up, “If you see someone who’s trying to make a different, make a change, support them, encourage them, they’re doing something not just for them, but for everybody.”
KOMO News reached out to 14 airlines for this story. These are their responses:
Southwest Airlines:
We take the protections of our Customers very seriously, and Safety is at the forefront of everything we do at Southwest Airlines. Our Flight Attendants are trained to take care of a wide range of sensitive Customer issues.
Our Crews are trained on self-defense tactics for various types of assaults. Depending on the situation, our protocols do include separating individuals and providing the proper notifications.
We do not release this information. (regarding tracking sexual assaults)
Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants receive self-defense training that prepares them to handle various types of assault. The flight Crew is immediately notified if an assault occurs and necessary training and resources are used to protect everyone onboard.
Delta Airlines:
Delta takes reports of harassment very seriously. When we become aware of incidents onboard, we always investigate so appropriate action may be taken, coordinating with local law enforcement when requested by the customer and crew. Our crews are trained for situational awareness. If an incident results in harassment of any kind toward another customer, flight attendants will immediately find another seat for the customer and conduct an investigation.
Alaska Airlines:
Yes, this is part of recurrent training. (regarding whether crew is trained on how to prevent, identify, react to sexual assaults)
Alaska has a robust training curriculum supporting threat management. The objectives cover how to identify, remain safe and manage multiple scenarios (e.g. disruptive passengers, suspicious behaviors, including assault.) The training content covers de-escalation techniques, personal protective measures. Alaska is proud of the mock-up training equipment we use to ensure our Flight Attendants have realistic learning environment to role play and build their skills in these rare circumstances.
Alaska’s Inflight Training team works closely with multiple agencies including the TSA’s Federal Air Marshall Service and local law enforcement to maintain a level of expertise in line with current events.
Hawaiian Airlines:
We take allegations of any abuse in flight very seriously. For physical abuse allegations, including sexual assault, our flight attendants are trained, on a range of scenarios, to protect the passengers and crew and keep them safe. In the event of an allegation of any physical assault in flight including sexual assault, the crew would immediately separate the parties and simultaneously report the matter to the Captain. The crew are also required to prepare and submit a written incident report within 24 hours of landing. The ground security coordinator who meets the plane with the local law enforcement officers is also required to submit an incident report. As part of our standard protocol, for flights involving reported allegations of any physical abuse including sexual assault, local law enforcement officers are called ahead to meet the plane.
Lufthansa Airline:
Our crews are fundamentally trained to deal with "unruly" passengers. Statistics are not maintained. The relevant reports are handed over to the authorities.
American Airlines:
If our crews – flight attendants and/or pilots – discover or are told about any alleged illegal misconduct that may occur on the aircraft, law enforcement is contacted and will meet the aircraft upon arrival. In all cases of misconduct between two passengers, we will immediately separate them, and request law enforcement meet the aircraft.
Spirit Airlines: No Response
Emirates Airlines: No comment
JetBlue: No Comment
Air Canada: No Response
United Airlines: No Response
British Airways: No Response
All Nippon Airways: No Comment
Korean Airlines: No Response
Airlines For America (trade association & lobbying group):
The safety and security of our passengers and crewmembers are our highest priority. Airlines have processes and procedures in place for crewmembers to report observed and/or reported criminal activity that occurs on board the aircraft to the FAA and appropriate law enforcement authorities, who are responsible for recording such incidents and pursuing the arrest and prosecution of offenders.
Original article can be found here ➤ http://komonews.com
Rotorway Exec 162F, N123XZ, registered to North Indiana Rotor LLC and operated by a private individual: Accidents occurred September 16, 2017 (and) February 26, 2015 in Plymouth, Marshall County, Indiana
The National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident.
Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Des Plaines, Illinois
Aviation Accident Factual Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf
Investigation Docket National Transportation Safety Board: https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms
North Indiana Rotor LLC: http://registry.faa.gov/N123XZ
Location: Plymouth, IN
Accident Number: CEN17LA365
Date & Time: 09/16/2017, 1715 EDT
Registration: N123XZ
Aircraft: GADDIS MICHAEL EXEC 162 F
Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal
On September 16, 2017, about 1715 eastern daylight time, an amateur-built Exec 162-F helicopter, N123XZ, performed a forced landing to a field near Plymouth, Indiana. The pilot and passenger were not injured, and the helicopter was substantially damaged. The helicopter was registered to North Indiana Rotor LLC and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which operated without a flight plan. The local flight departed from Plymouth Municipal Airport (C65), Plymouth, Indiana.
The pilot reported that while approaching the airport, the helicopter's engine rpm increased, and the rotor rpm decayed. Unable to maintain altitude, the pilot conducted an autorotation to a field. The helicopter landed hard, the skids bent, and the tail boom buckled, resulting in substantial damage.
An examination of the helicopter by the responding Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that the helicopter had a Pro Drive system driving the main rotor blades. The main rotor drive belt/cog belt began losing teeth resulting in a failure of the belt to drive the main rotor blades. The Goodyear Falcon PD belt had recently been installed, about 3.5 hours prior to the accident.
Pilot Information
Certificate: Flight Instructor; Commercial
Age: 49, Male
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Left
Other Aircraft Rating(s): Helicopter
Restraint Used: 3-point
Instrument Rating(s): None
Second Pilot Present: No
Instructor Rating(s): Helicopter
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 2 Without Waivers/Limitations
Last FAA Medical Exam: 04/04/2017
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 06/16/2017
Flight Time: 393 hours (Total, all aircraft), 250 hours (Total, this make and model), 346 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 26 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 11 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 2 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)
On September 16, 2017, about 1515 eastern standard time, an amateur-built Exec 162-F helicopter, N123XZ, performed a forced landing to a field near Plymouth, Indiana. The pilot and passenger were not injured, and the helicopter was substantially damaged. The helicopter was registered to North Indiana Rotor LLC and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which operated without a flight plan. The local flight departed from Plymouth Municipal Airport (C65), Plymouth, Indiana.
Initial information collected by the responding Federal Aviation Administration inspector, reported that while approaching the airport, the helicopter's engine lost power. The pilot conducted a forced landing to a field. The helicopter was substantially damaged during the landing.
The helicopter was retained for further examination.
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Manufacturer: GADDIS MICHAEL
Registration: N123XZ
Model/Series: EXEC 162 F NO SERIES
Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Amateur Built: Yes
Operator: Private Individual
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Meteorological Information and Flight Plan
Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: KOXI, 683 ft msl
Observation Time: 1715 EDT
Distance from Accident Site: 17 Nautical Miles
Temperature/Dew Point: 28°C / 15°C
Lowest Cloud Condition: Scattered / 6000 ft agl
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 4 knots, 200°
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility: 10 Miles
Altimeter Setting: 30.06 inches Hg
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Departure Point: PLYMOUTH, IN (C65)
Destination: PLYMOUTH, IN (C65)
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 41.345833, -86.291944 (est)
Prior accident occurred February 26, 2015 in Plymouth, Indiana
Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; South Bend; Indiana
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: Plymouth, IN
Accident Number: CEN15CA155
Date & Time: 02/26/2015, 1804 EST
Registration: N123XZ
Aircraft: GADDIS MICHAEL EXEC 162 F
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Powerplant sys/comp malf/fail
Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal
Analysis
The pilot reported that while in cruise flight the engine RPM of the helicopter suddenly increased to the point where the rev limiter activated. At this point the helicopter was about 700 ft above ground level and the pilot performed an autorotation to a baseball field. During the forced landing, the helicopter sustained substantial damage to its fuselage. Subsequent examination of the helicopter revealed that the main drive belt that transmitted engine power to the rotor system had failed.
Probable Cause and Findings
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The failure of the helicopter's main drive belt resulting in the pilot performing a forced landing, during which the helicopter's fuselage was substantially damage.
Findings
Aircraft
Engine/transmission coupling - Failure (Cause)
Factual Information
History of Flight
Enroute-cruise
Powerplant sys/comp malf/fail (Defining event)
Autorotation
Collision with terr/obj (non-CFIT)
Pilot Information
Certificate: Private
Age: 46
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Left
Other Aircraft Rating(s): Helicopter
Restraint Used:
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: 01/09/2014
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 12/04/2014
Flight Time: 169.4 hours (Total, all aircraft), 58.2 hours (Total, this make and model), 124 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 15.7 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 3.2 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 0.4 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Manufacturer: GADDIS MICHAEL
Registration: N123XZ
Model/Series: EXEC 162 F NO SERIES
Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Year of Manufacture:
Amateur Built: Yes
Airworthiness Certificate: Experimental
Serial Number: 6377
Landing Gear Type: Skid
Seats: 2
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 07/14/2014, Condition
Certified Max Gross Wt.:
Time Since Last Inspection: 8.5 Hours
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time:
Engine Manufacturer: Rotorway
ELT: Not installed
Engine Model/Series: 162f
Registered Owner: NORTH INDIANA ROTOR LLC
Rated Power: 150 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: OXI
Observation Time: 2355 UTC
Distance from Accident Site: 17 Nautical Miles
Direction from Accident Site: 270°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Clear
Temperature/Dew Point: -12°C / -21°C
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility: 10 Miles
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 6 knots, 360°
Visibility (RVR):
Altimeter Setting: 30.29 inches Hg
Visibility (RVV):
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: Plymouth, IN
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Destination: Plymouth, IN (C65)
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time: EST
Type of Airspace: Class G
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 41.365000, -86.300278 The National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident.
Additional Participating
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Des Plaines, Illinois
Aviation Accident Preliminary Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf
North Indiana Rotor LLC: http://registry.faa.gov/N123XZ
Location: Plymouth, IN
Accident Number: CEN17LA365
Date & Time: 09/16/2017, 1715 EDT
Registration: N123XZ
Aircraft: GADDIS MICHAEL EXEC 162 F
Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal
On September 16, 2017, about 1515 eastern standard time, an amateur-built Exec 162-F helicopter, N123XZ, performed a forced landing to a field near Plymouth, Indiana. The pilot and passenger were not injured, and the helicopter was substantially damaged. The helicopter was registered to North Indiana Rotor LLC and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which operated without a flight plan. The local flight departed from Plymouth Municipal Airport (C65), Plymouth, Indiana.
Initial information collected by the responding Federal Aviation Administration inspector, reported that while approaching the airport, the helicopter's engine lost power. The pilot conducted a forced landing to a field. The helicopter was substantially damaged during the landing.
The helicopter was retained for further examination.
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Manufacturer: GADDIS MICHAEL
Registration: N123XZ
Model/Series: EXEC 162 F NO SERIES
Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Amateur Built: Yes
Operator: Private Individual
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Meteorological Information and Flight Plan
Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: KOXI, 683 ft msl
Observation Time: 1715 EDT
Distance from Accident Site: 17 Nautical Miles
Temperature/Dew Point: 28°C / 15°C
Lowest Cloud Condition: Scattered / 6000 ft agl
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 4 knots, 200°
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility: 10 Miles
Altimeter Setting: 30.06 inches Hg
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Departure Point: PLYMOUTH, IN (C65)
Destination: PLYMOUTH, IN (C65)
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 41.345833, -86.291944 (est)
Prior accident occurred February 26, 2015 in Plymouth, Indiana
Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; South Bend; Indiana
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: Plymouth, IN
Accident Number: CEN15CA155
Date & Time: 02/26/2015, 1804 EST
Registration: N123XZ
Aircraft: GADDIS MICHAEL EXEC 162 F
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Powerplant sys/comp malf/fail
Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal
Analysis
The pilot reported that while in cruise flight the engine RPM of the helicopter suddenly increased to the point where the rev limiter activated. At this point the helicopter was about 700 ft above ground level and the pilot performed an autorotation to a baseball field. During the forced landing, the helicopter sustained substantial damage to its fuselage. Subsequent examination of the helicopter revealed that the main drive belt that transmitted engine power to the rotor system had failed.
Probable Cause and Findings
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The failure of the helicopter's main drive belt resulting in the pilot performing a forced landing, during which the helicopter's fuselage was substantially damage.
Findings
Aircraft
Engine/transmission coupling - Failure (Cause)
Factual Information
History of Flight
Enroute-cruise
Powerplant sys/comp malf/fail (Defining event)
Autorotation
Collision with terr/obj (non-CFIT)
Pilot Information
Certificate: Private
Age: 46
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Left
Other Aircraft Rating(s): Helicopter
Restraint Used:
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: 01/09/2014
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 12/04/2014
Flight Time: 169.4 hours (Total, all aircraft), 58.2 hours (Total, this make and model), 124 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 15.7 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 3.2 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 0.4 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Manufacturer: GADDIS MICHAEL
Registration: N123XZ
Model/Series: EXEC 162 F NO SERIES
Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Year of Manufacture:
Amateur Built: Yes
Airworthiness Certificate: Experimental
Serial Number: 6377
Landing Gear Type: Skid
Seats: 2
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 07/14/2014, Condition
Certified Max Gross Wt.:
Time Since Last Inspection: 8.5 Hours
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time:
Engine Manufacturer: Rotorway
ELT: Not installed
Engine Model/Series: 162f
Registered Owner: NORTH INDIANA ROTOR LLC
Rated Power: 150 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: OXI
Observation Time: 2355 UTC
Distance from Accident Site: 17 Nautical Miles
Direction from Accident Site: 270°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Clear
Temperature/Dew Point: -12°C / -21°C
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility: 10 Miles
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 6 knots, 360°
Visibility (RVR):
Altimeter Setting: 30.29 inches Hg
Visibility (RVV):
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: Plymouth, IN
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Destination: Plymouth, IN (C65)
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time: EST
Type of Airspace: Class G
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 41.365000, -86.300278
Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Des Plaines, Illinois
Aviation Accident Factual Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf
Investigation Docket National Transportation Safety Board: https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms
North Indiana Rotor LLC: http://registry.faa.gov/N123XZ
Accident Number: CEN17LA365
Date & Time: 09/16/2017, 1715 EDT
Registration: N123XZ
Aircraft: GADDIS MICHAEL EXEC 162 F
Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal
On September 16, 2017, about 1715 eastern daylight time, an amateur-built Exec 162-F helicopter, N123XZ, performed a forced landing to a field near Plymouth, Indiana. The pilot and passenger were not injured, and the helicopter was substantially damaged. The helicopter was registered to North Indiana Rotor LLC and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which operated without a flight plan. The local flight departed from Plymouth Municipal Airport (C65), Plymouth, Indiana.
The pilot reported that while approaching the airport, the helicopter's engine rpm increased, and the rotor rpm decayed. Unable to maintain altitude, the pilot conducted an autorotation to a field. The helicopter landed hard, the skids bent, and the tail boom buckled, resulting in substantial damage.
An examination of the helicopter by the responding Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that the helicopter had a Pro Drive system driving the main rotor blades. The main rotor drive belt/cog belt began losing teeth resulting in a failure of the belt to drive the main rotor blades. The Goodyear Falcon PD belt had recently been installed, about 3.5 hours prior to the accident.
Pilot Information
Certificate: Flight Instructor; Commercial
Age: 49, Male
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Left
Other Aircraft Rating(s): Helicopter
Restraint Used: 3-point
Instrument Rating(s): None
Second Pilot Present: No
Instructor Rating(s): Helicopter
Toxicology Performed: No
Medical Certification: Class 2 Without Waivers/Limitations
Last FAA Medical Exam: 04/04/2017
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 06/16/2017
Flight Time: 393 hours (Total, all aircraft), 250 hours (Total, this make and model), 346 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 26 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 11 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 2 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)
On September 16, 2017, about 1515 eastern standard time, an amateur-built Exec 162-F helicopter, N123XZ, performed a forced landing to a field near Plymouth, Indiana. The pilot and passenger were not injured, and the helicopter was substantially damaged. The helicopter was registered to North Indiana Rotor LLC and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which operated without a flight plan. The local flight departed from Plymouth Municipal Airport (C65), Plymouth, Indiana.
Initial information collected by the responding Federal Aviation Administration inspector, reported that while approaching the airport, the helicopter's engine lost power. The pilot conducted a forced landing to a field. The helicopter was substantially damaged during the landing.
The helicopter was retained for further examination.
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Manufacturer: GADDIS MICHAEL
Registration: N123XZ
Model/Series: EXEC 162 F NO SERIES
Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Amateur Built: Yes
Operator: Private Individual
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Meteorological Information and Flight Plan
Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: KOXI, 683 ft msl
Observation Time: 1715 EDT
Distance from Accident Site: 17 Nautical Miles
Temperature/Dew Point: 28°C / 15°C
Lowest Cloud Condition: Scattered / 6000 ft agl
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 4 knots, 200°
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility: 10 Miles
Altimeter Setting: 30.06 inches Hg
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Departure Point: PLYMOUTH, IN (C65)
Destination: PLYMOUTH, IN (C65)
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 41.345833, -86.291944 (est)
Prior accident occurred February 26, 2015 in Plymouth, Indiana
Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; South Bend; Indiana
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
Accident Number: CEN15CA155
Date & Time: 02/26/2015, 1804 EST
Registration: N123XZ
Aircraft: GADDIS MICHAEL EXEC 162 F
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Powerplant sys/comp malf/fail
Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal
Analysis
The pilot reported that while in cruise flight the engine RPM of the helicopter suddenly increased to the point where the rev limiter activated. At this point the helicopter was about 700 ft above ground level and the pilot performed an autorotation to a baseball field. During the forced landing, the helicopter sustained substantial damage to its fuselage. Subsequent examination of the helicopter revealed that the main drive belt that transmitted engine power to the rotor system had failed.
Probable Cause and Findings
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The failure of the helicopter's main drive belt resulting in the pilot performing a forced landing, during which the helicopter's fuselage was substantially damage.
Findings
Aircraft
Engine/transmission coupling - Failure (Cause)
Factual Information
History of Flight
Enroute-cruise
Powerplant sys/comp malf/fail (Defining event)
Autorotation
Collision with terr/obj (non-CFIT)
Pilot Information
Certificate: Private
Age: 46
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Left
Other Aircraft Rating(s): Helicopter
Restraint Used:
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: 01/09/2014
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 12/04/2014
Flight Time: 169.4 hours (Total, all aircraft), 58.2 hours (Total, this make and model), 124 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 15.7 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 3.2 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 0.4 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Manufacturer: GADDIS MICHAEL
Registration: N123XZ
Model/Series: EXEC 162 F NO SERIES
Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Year of Manufacture:
Amateur Built: Yes
Airworthiness Certificate: Experimental
Serial Number: 6377
Landing Gear Type: Skid
Seats: 2
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 07/14/2014, Condition
Certified Max Gross Wt.:
Time Since Last Inspection: 8.5 Hours
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time:
Engine Manufacturer: Rotorway
ELT: Not installed
Engine Model/Series: 162f
Registered Owner: NORTH INDIANA ROTOR LLC
Rated Power: 150 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: OXI
Observation Time: 2355 UTC
Distance from Accident Site: 17 Nautical Miles
Direction from Accident Site: 270°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Clear
Temperature/Dew Point: -12°C / -21°C
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility: 10 Miles
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 6 knots, 360°
Visibility (RVR):
Altimeter Setting: 30.29 inches Hg
Visibility (RVV):
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: Plymouth, IN
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Destination: Plymouth, IN (C65)
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time: EST
Type of Airspace: Class G
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 41.365000, -86.300278 The National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident.
Additional Participating
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Des Plaines, Illinois
Aviation Accident Preliminary Report - National Transportation Safety Board: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdf
North Indiana Rotor LLC: http://registry.faa.gov/N123XZ
Accident Number: CEN17LA365
Date & Time: 09/16/2017, 1715 EDT
Registration: N123XZ
Aircraft: GADDIS MICHAEL EXEC 162 F
Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal
On September 16, 2017, about 1515 eastern standard time, an amateur-built Exec 162-F helicopter, N123XZ, performed a forced landing to a field near Plymouth, Indiana. The pilot and passenger were not injured, and the helicopter was substantially damaged. The helicopter was registered to North Indiana Rotor LLC and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which operated without a flight plan. The local flight departed from Plymouth Municipal Airport (C65), Plymouth, Indiana.
Initial information collected by the responding Federal Aviation Administration inspector, reported that while approaching the airport, the helicopter's engine lost power. The pilot conducted a forced landing to a field. The helicopter was substantially damaged during the landing.
The helicopter was retained for further examination.
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Manufacturer: GADDIS MICHAEL
Registration: N123XZ
Model/Series: EXEC 162 F NO SERIES
Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Amateur Built: Yes
Operator: Private Individual
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Meteorological Information and Flight Plan
Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: KOXI, 683 ft msl
Observation Time: 1715 EDT
Distance from Accident Site: 17 Nautical Miles
Temperature/Dew Point: 28°C / 15°C
Lowest Cloud Condition: Scattered / 6000 ft agl
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 4 knots, 200°
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility: 10 Miles
Altimeter Setting: 30.06 inches Hg
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Departure Point: PLYMOUTH, IN (C65)
Destination: PLYMOUTH, IN (C65)
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 41.345833, -86.291944 (est)
Prior accident occurred February 26, 2015 in Plymouth, Indiana
Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; South Bend; Indiana
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
Accident Number: CEN15CA155
Date & Time: 02/26/2015, 1804 EST
Registration: N123XZ
Aircraft: GADDIS MICHAEL EXEC 162 F
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Defining Event: Powerplant sys/comp malf/fail
Injuries: 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal
Analysis
The pilot reported that while in cruise flight the engine RPM of the helicopter suddenly increased to the point where the rev limiter activated. At this point the helicopter was about 700 ft above ground level and the pilot performed an autorotation to a baseball field. During the forced landing, the helicopter sustained substantial damage to its fuselage. Subsequent examination of the helicopter revealed that the main drive belt that transmitted engine power to the rotor system had failed.
Probable Cause and Findings
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The failure of the helicopter's main drive belt resulting in the pilot performing a forced landing, during which the helicopter's fuselage was substantially damage.
Findings
Aircraft
Engine/transmission coupling - Failure (Cause)
Factual Information
History of Flight
Enroute-cruise
Powerplant sys/comp malf/fail (Defining event)
Autorotation
Collision with terr/obj (non-CFIT)
Pilot Information
Certificate: Private
Age: 46
Airplane Rating(s): None
Seat Occupied: Left
Other Aircraft Rating(s): Helicopter
Restraint Used:
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: 01/09/2014
Occupational Pilot: No
Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 12/04/2014
Flight Time: 169.4 hours (Total, all aircraft), 58.2 hours (Total, this make and model), 124 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 15.7 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 3.2 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft), 0.4 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Manufacturer: GADDIS MICHAEL
Registration: N123XZ
Model/Series: EXEC 162 F NO SERIES
Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Year of Manufacture:
Amateur Built: Yes
Airworthiness Certificate: Experimental
Serial Number: 6377
Landing Gear Type: Skid
Seats: 2
Date/Type of Last Inspection: 07/14/2014, Condition
Certified Max Gross Wt.:
Time Since Last Inspection: 8.5 Hours
Engines: 1 Reciprocating
Airframe Total Time:
Engine Manufacturer: Rotorway
ELT: Not installed
Engine Model/Series: 162f
Registered Owner: NORTH INDIANA ROTOR LLC
Rated Power: 150 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: OXI
Observation Time: 2355 UTC
Distance from Accident Site: 17 Nautical Miles
Direction from Accident Site: 270°
Lowest Cloud Condition: Clear
Temperature/Dew Point: -12°C / -21°C
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility: 10 Miles
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 6 knots, 360°
Visibility (RVR):
Altimeter Setting: 30.29 inches Hg
Visibility (RVV):
Precipitation and Obscuration: No Obscuration; No Precipitation
Departure Point: Plymouth, IN
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Destination: Plymouth, IN (C65)
Type of Clearance: None
Departure Time: EST
Type of Airspace: Class G
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: 1 None
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 41.365000, -86.300278
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
