Beech 1900 down, let this be a lesson to you all.

Inverted

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,339
Location
Walnut Creek CA
Display Name

Display name:
Inverted
Ace Air lost 2 pilots and a Beech 1900 last week up in AK.

http://www.adn.com/2013/03/08/2817433/commercial-cargo-plane-down-in.html

Here is the NTSB prelim:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130308X64149&key=1

NTSB Identification: ANC13FA030
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Friday, March 08, 2013 in Aleknagik, AK
Aircraft: BEECH 1900C, registration: N116AX
Injuries: 2 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On March 8, 2013, about 0814 Alaska standard time, a twin-engine turboprop Beech 1900C airplane, N116AX, was destroyed when it impacted rising terrain about 10 miles east of Aleknagik, Alaska. The airplane was operated as Flight 51, by Alaska Central Express, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, as an on-demand cargo flight under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135. The airline transport certificated captain and the commercial certificated first officer sustained fatal injuries. Instrument meteorological conditions were reported in the area at the time of the accident, and the airplane was operating on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan. The flight had originally departed Anchorage about 0544, and made a scheduled stop at King Salmon, Alaska, before continuing on to the next scheduled stop, Dillingham, Alaska.

According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) personnel, as the airplane approached Dillingham, the flight crew requested the RNAV GPS 19 instrument approach to the Dillingham Airport about 0757 from controllers at the Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The ARTCC specialist on duty subsequently granted the request by issuing the clearance, with instructions to proceed direct to the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) to begin the approach, and to maintain an altitude of 2,000 feet or above. A short time later the flight crew requested to enter a holding pattern at the IAF so that they could contact the Flight Service Station (FSS) for a runway conditions report, and the ARTCC specialist granted that request. The ARTCC specialist then made several attempts to contact the aircraft, but was unsuccessful and subsequently lost radar track on the aircraft.

When the airplane failed to arrive at the Dillingham Airport, ARTCC personnel initiated a radio search to see if the airplane had diverted to another airport. Unable to locate the airplane, the FAA issued an alert notice (ALNOT) at 0835. Search personnel from the Alaska State Troopers, Alaska Air National Guard, and the U.S. Coast Guard, along with several volunteer pilots, were dispatched to conduct an extensive search effort.

Rescue personnel aboard an Air National Guard C-130 airplane tracked 406 MHz emergency locater transmitter (ELT) signal to an area of mountainous terrain about 20 miles north of Dillingham, but poor weather prohibited searchers from reaching the site until the next morning. Once the crew of a HH-60G helicopter from the Air National Guard's 210th Air Rescue Squadron, Anchorage, Alaska, reached the steep, snow and ice-covered site, they confirmed that both pilots sustained fatal injuries.

The closest official weather observation station is at the Dillingham Airport. At 0745, an aviation routine weather report (METAR) reported, in part: Wind from 100 degrees (true) at 17 knots with gusts to 30 knots; visibility, 7 statute miles in light rain; clouds and sky condition, 1,500 feet overcast; temperature, 34 degrees F; dew point, 34 degrees F; altimeter, 29.09 inHg.

On March 9, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge, along with an additional NTSB air safety investigator, and an FAA operations inspector from the Anchorage Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), examined the airplane wreckage at the accident site. A comprehensive wreckage examination and layout is pending following recovery efforts.

Here is the approach plate :
PADLRNAV19_zps636893ae.png


If that doesn't give you chills I don't know what will. Always know where you are, at all times. When ATC gives you a clearance, or a vector and altitude you should always make sure it makes sense. Several years ago a plane was vectored right into a mountain in Southern California. It can happen to any of us, so let the deaths of these two pilots be a reminder.
 
Over the last weekend I went to a saftey seminar. Jim Sweeney Spoke about using the ipod in the cockpit and how you can see your airplane over charts like sectionals and I believe he said plates as this too. But not real sure.

But the ipod seems to be a good tool for the cockpit. Not sure if it would have helped here, but just thought I would mention it.

Fly Smart
 
maybe a question for roncachamp, but is that clearance technically incorrect or merely (dangerously) misleading? I could see an argument for "at or above 2000ft" not alleviating the pilot's responsibility for maintaining the approach plate altitudes until the plate allows a descent to 2000ft. At least that's the argument I would be preparing if I were a controllers' union rep.
 
Over the last weekend I went to a saftey seminar. Jim Sweeney Spoke about using the ipod in the cockpit and how you can see your airplane over charts like sectionals and I believe he said plates as this too. But not real sure.

But the ipod seems to be a good tool for the cockpit. Not sure if it would have helped here, but just thought I would mention it.

The approach plate should have been sufficient as a tool.
 
Flying is an unforgiving B.

Good lesson for all of us. This one would have been avoidable using the plate. Being vectored into a mountain is tougher, unless you fly with the chart on your lap. Both might have been helped by synthetic vision.
 
I get the point but no TAWS in the airplane? Seems like it was a requirement for turbine airplanes with more than 6 seats.
 
maybe a question for roncachamp, but is that clearance technically incorrect or merely (dangerously) misleading? I could see an argument for "at or above 2000ft" not alleviating the pilot's responsibility for maintaining the approach plate altitudes until the plate allows a descent to 2000ft. At least that's the argument I would be preparing if I were a controllers' union rep.

The preliminary report says, "maintain an altitude of 2,000 feet or above." If they were already within a TAA when the approach clearance was issued there was no reason to even mention altitude.
 
Several years ago a plane was vectored right into a mountain in Southern California.
Which one was that?

If you are referring to the AZ flight school Seminole, that wasn't a matter of being vectored into the mountain as it was the improper use of abbreviated call signs and no one caught that the wrong airplane was descending.
 
I get the point but no TAWS in the airplane? Seems like it was a requirement for turbine airplanes with more than 6 seats.

If I may be allowed to speculate regarding a possible way around the requirement...

The reg reads "configured with" 6 or more seats.

If this aircraft was only for freight, maybe the owner/operator never bothered to install TAWS.
 
Over the last weekend I went to a saftey seminar. Jim Sweeney Spoke about using the ipod in the cockpit and how you can see your airplane over charts like sectionals and I believe he said plates as this too. But not real sure.

http://foreflight.com/ipad/

Nothing is a perfect tool, but there are some pretty good advantages to having that kind of tool in the cockpit, especially for maintaining situational awareness in IMC when you don't have something like synthetic vision or a big moving map in the panel.

Sometimes it seems like every pilot in the terminal is fiddling with an iPad... pretty popular the last couple years.
 
It might also say something about passenger operations. The Commander had a TAWS in it, the Cheyenne did not.

Very sad. Having terrain awareness/SV and being aware of how to use it might have saved them. Then again, maybe not. We studied a 747 that did similar, and the last words on the CVR were "Terrain... Terrain... Pull Up... Pull Up... What's it doing that for?!" *crash*

The 530 does a good job there, and SV would help more.
 
VFR chart snippet with IAF indicated.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=59.2598304...8&zoom=2&plan=A.PA.PAKN:F.PA.RAGES:F.PA.ZEDAG

Edit: Didn't mean to imply that they were cleared to RAGES, could have been direct to the IAF on the initial clearance, we don't know. Either way the outbound leg to the hold certainly intersects rising terrain :(

This is a quick trip from King Salmon to Dillingham in a twin turboprop. Foreflight shows ATC cleared routes to generally be at 6000.
 
Last edited:
Over the last weekend I went to a saftey seminar. Jim Sweeney Spoke about using the ipod in the cockpit and how you can see your airplane over charts like sectionals and I believe he said plates as this too. But not real sure.

But the ipod seems to be a good tool for the cockpit. Not sure if it would have helped here, but just thought I would mention it.

Fly Smart

Once upon a time Seattle Center had me at an altitude that would have run me into the Cascade mountains. I questioned it, he gave me a higher altitude, and all was well. IMHO the crew in this instance dropped the ball.

Bob Gardner
 
http://foreflight.com/ipad/

Nothing is a perfect tool, but there are some pretty good advantages to having that kind of tool in the cockpit, especially for maintaining situational awareness in IMC when you don't have something like synthetic vision or a big moving map in the panel.

Sometimes it seems like every pilot in the terminal is fiddling with an iPad... pretty popular the last couple years.

This.

And there are numerous other tools, both portable and panel-mount, that shoulda/coulda/woulda prevented this: Garmin 530W/430W (or the non-W versions with the terrain option added), 650/750, Aera, 396/496, etc.

It'll be interesting to see what the plane was equipped with. Crazy how some of us little guys are better equipped than the big ones sometimes.

More info, picture, map, etc. here: http://avherald.com/h?article=45ee9215&opt=0

Edit: FlightAware link: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AER51/history/20130308/1615Z/PAKN/PADL

And can I just say that I *hate* FlightAware's "estimating" feature? :mad:
 
Last edited:
I for one will learn from this, at my early flying career I usually take ATC for gospel when they talk. But I only fly VFR with 10sm+ vis. I'll always double check from now on.
 
Once upon a time Seattle Center had me at an altitude that would have run me into the Cascade mountains. I questioned it, he gave me a higher altitude, and all was well. IMHO the crew in this instance dropped the ball.

Bob Gardner

I think ATC and the crew both dropped the ball, the difference is the crew died for it.
 
I learned during my IR training to question ATC when something seemed wrong or if they seemed to have forgotten about me. Numerous times they'd be vectoring me towards a radial and I'd fly right through it waiting for them to clear me to intercept. Even got told once to do a left 270-degree turn towards the VOR on a missed. I asked if they really want me to go left and they said, "Confirmed 31X, turn left to heading...errr...correction right to heading 350." Controllers are humans, too, and we humans all make mistakes.

Even during IMC you are still PIC. It is YOUR plane and YOUR flight. You are responsible for where your plane goes and how it comes back to Terra Firma. Short of ramming the tower the controller is likely to survive any screw up, PIC may not. So be aware of the big picture, ask questions and challenge when they don't seem to be on their "A" game.
 
Which one was that?

If you are referring to the AZ flight school Seminole, that wasn't a matter of being vectored into the mountain as it was the improper use of abbreviated call signs and no one caught that the wrong airplane was descending.

Not the Pan Am flight academy one. This was farther north. I'll have to pull it up. I wanted to say it was a 310.
 
VFR chart snippet with IAF indicated.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=59.2598304...8&zoom=2&plan=A.PA.PAKN:F.PA.RAGES:F.PA.ZEDAG

Edit: Didn't mean to imply that they were cleared to RAGES, could have been direct to the IAF on the initial clearance, we don't know. Either way the outbound leg to the hold certainly intersects rising terrain :(

This is a quick trip from King Salmon to Dillingham in a twin turboprop. Foreflight shows ATC cleared routes to generally be at 6000.

ATC gave them direct the IAF at or above 2,000. There's no way that would have worked from any direction.
 
ATC gave them direct the IAF at or above 2,000. There's no way that would have worked from any direction.

It would have worked if they had maintained the specified altitudes on the approach plate. (Note that the MEA on the closest Vway, V462 is 3000) Being a chickens**t, if I am IMC and get a clearance of "at or above" I 1.) Check the appropriate chart/plate. 2.) Keep a suitable altitude buffer above charted obstacles considering the machine's speed and available drag tools for descent.

Another point that bugs me here is that I am assuming (yeah yeah I know) that these guys had flown this route before since they were on a scheduled freight run. My guess? Loss of situational awareness and abrogation of their duties as pilots. Fatigue was probably a factor as well given the grueling lives the freightdogs lead.
 
Last edited:
Ya no kidding it would have worked out if they followed the approach. They were off airway and were given an altitude that put them right into a mountain. The whole point of me posting this was to being to light the fact that ATC can make mistakes. A simple clarification call would have saved them.
 
The preliminary report says, "maintain an altitude of 2,000 feet or above." If they were already within a TAA when the approach clearance was issued there was no reason to even mention altitude.

Oh, please. What about assigning an altitude at or above the MEA for a route? (In this case a TAA is functionally a feeder route).

Or, is "at or above 2,000" okay for feeder routes into Aspen, Colorado?
 
Which one was that?

If you are referring to the AZ flight school Seminole, that wasn't a matter of being vectored into the mountain as it was the improper use of abbreviated call signs and no one caught that the wrong airplane was descending.

Maybe the VNY to SMO accident where they were forgotten during a shift change and flew into the mountains near Altadena, CA. A C182 in the 1980s as I recall.
 
VFR chart snippet with IAF indicated.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=59.2598304...8&zoom=2&plan=A.PA.PAKN:F.PA.RAGES:F.PA.ZEDAG

Edit: Didn't mean to imply that they were cleared to RAGES, could have been direct to the IAF on the initial clearance, we don't know. Either way the outbound leg to the hold certainly intersects rising terrain :(

This is a quick trip from King Salmon to Dillingham in a twin turboprop. Foreflight shows ATC cleared routes to generally be at 6000.


Here is perhaps a better view of the likely flight path indicating flight into rising terrain NW of the holding fix.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=59.0186943...ZEDAG:G.59.32015874876182,-158.26560974206853
 
It would have worked fine if they hadn't gone below the altitude in the TAA.

They were assigned "at or above 2,000" and were level at 2,000 when they entered the TAA. Were they supposed to climb to the TAA altitude without further clearance?

If so, could you provide a cite?
 
They were assigned "at or above 2,000" and were level at 2,000 when they entered the TAA. Were they supposed to climb to the TAA altitude without further clearance?

They shouldn't have chosen to descend below the TAA altitude.
 
They shouldn't have chosen to descend below the TAA altitude.

I'm confused.....regardless of what the pilots did...are you seriously trying to say that this was a perfectly valid and acceptable clearance?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
I'm confused.....regardless of what the pilots did...are you seriously trying to say that this was a perfectly valid and acceptable clearance?

No. I already said there was no need to issue an altitude at all if they were within the TAA. "At or above 2000" did not require them to descend to 2000.
 
How many of us brief the MSA as part of the chart review while heading to the IAF? I will admit that I sometimes forget, but this is a reminder to do it in the future.
 
Back
Top