FAA gets blamed, too, 2013 Alaska crash

[old cfi]

FAA and pilot both blamed for Alaska crash in 2013. Been awhile since I've seen FAA named.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/cargo-weight-cited-2013-alaska-plane-crash-killed-34634461

 

[3393RP]

What a tragedy. No doubt there has been much grief and pain as a result of this crash.

 

[txflyer]

How do you 'overlook' 420 lbs. of cargo?

I guess if you run a taxi it's hectic but man that seems like a bonehead mistake.

RIP

 

[3393RP]

How do you 'overlook' 420 lbs. of cargo?

I guess if you run a taxi it's hectic but man that seems like a bonehead mistake.

RIP

Bad reporting by the AP. The lodge operator estimated the cargo weight at 300 lbs, the investigation determined the weight was about 420 lbs.

The pilot's wife is suing the lodge because of the mistake...as if it's the lodge's responsibility.

The NTSB report blames the crash on out of CG limits that pitch authority could not overcome.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20130707X14623&ntsbno=DCA13MA121&akey=1

 

[DavidWhite]

Sorry, 120 pounds is not going to cause it to crash.

 

[Turningfinal]

Sorry, 120 pounds is not going to cause it to crash.

120 pounds in the wrong spot (i.e. CG too far aft) definitely could, IMO.

 

[old cfi]

Couple the extra weight and 10 people on board, sure could. There's a reason to do weight and balance!

 

[3393RP]

.

Sorry, 120 pounds is not going to cause it to crash.

.

As I stated earlier, the NTSB said the overloaded condition was not the cause of the crash.

The NTSB report blames the crash on out of CG limits that pitch authority could not overcome.

 

[roncachamp]

How do you 'overlook' 420 lbs. of cargo?

Incompetence?

"Contributing to the accident was the Federal Aviation Administration's failure to require weight and balance documentation for this type of air taxi flight," the report says.

I don't see that "contribution". Even if documentation had been required there'd be no entry for cargo that had been overlooked.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Apparently record keeping is not a strong point up there...

 

[Fearless Tower]

Sorry, 120 pounds is not going to cause it to crash.

Sounds like it was more than 120 lbs. That was just the under-estimate of the grocery supplies from the lodge. Seems like the total overage was more than 120 lbs and the out of CG was the bigger issue.

 

[Dr. O]

In our unsane legal system you can sue for anything.
Filing the suit does not mean there is any merit to the suit.
We have a woman who ran off a tight turn on a snow covered mountain road in Colorado and crashed suing GM because the ABS did not prevent the crash.
This is a side effect of Contingency Fee arrangements where attorneys use gullible clients to grab for the golden ring.
In most civilized countries of the world Contingency Fee is a felony crime - and should be so, here.

 

[Fearless Tower]

In our unsane legal system you can sue for anything.
Filing the suit does not mean there is any merit to the suit.
We have a woman who ran off a tight turn on a snow covered mountain road in Colorado and crashed suing GM because the ABS did not prevent the crash.

The lodge did screw up (probably less than the pilot, but they do have some responsibility in the incorrect load estimate and their poor record keeping doesn't help).

And the lodge likely has deeper pockets than the 135 outfit, so she may very well win. That's how our legal system works.

 

[Stewartb]

grief makes people look for somebody to blame. Psychology 101.

There's more to the story than just weight and sometimes weight can shift, especially as the nose rises.

The low speed, rapid right roll, and pitch down of the airplane is consistent with an aerodynamic stall. The constant pitch rate before the stall is consistent with an aft center of gravity (CG) condition of sufficient magnitude that the elevator pitch down authority was insufficient to overcome the pitching moment generated by the aft CG. Additionally, the flaps setting at the full-down (or landing) position, contrary to procedures contained in the AFM, would have exacerbated the nose-up pitching moment due to the increased downwash on the tail and aft shift of the center of pressure; the additional aerodynamic drag from the fully extended flaps would have altered the airplane's acceleration.

The entire report. http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/GeneratePDF.aspx?id=DCA13MA121&rpt=fi

 

[German guy]

Bad reporting by the AP. The lodge operator estimated the cargo weight at 300 lbs, the investigation determined the weight was about 420 lbs.

The pilot's wife is suing the lodge because of the mistake...as if it's the lodge's responsibility.
[...]

Not familiar with the air taxi business, but I'd be more than surprised if the pilot even had the means to weigh the cargo. Do they even weigh passengers?

 

[Stewartb]

The report states the plane may have been 21# overweight but it was the CG was the issue. That isn't the lodge's responsibility. Flaps were set full which wouldn't have helped but the NTSB said the plane would have crashed even with the flaps set correctly.

The accident pilot was the cousin of a good friend. I've been curious about the accident since it happened. We're all humans and all can make mistakes.
http://www.adn.com/article/20151021...blamed-2013-soldotna-air-taxi-crash-killed-10

 

[petrolero]

However, according to Section A096 of the OpSpec, when determining aircraft weight and balance, the operator should use either the actual measured weights for all passengers, baggage, and cargo or the solicited weights for passengers plus 10 lbs and actual measured weights for baggage and cargo. The operator did not comply with federal regulations that require adherence to the weighing requirements or the takeoff weight limitations in the AFM.​

I guess I'm not understanding why the FAA's lack of requirement for documentation is listed as a contributing factor. They didn't weigh the cargo so the presence or lack of documentation would have made no difference. They'd simply have documented the incorrect cargo weight of 300#. ​

.​

The cause should be fully on the operator. The pilot should have verified how the cargo weight was measured and when. Tough situation since (I assume) the pilot has no means of actually weighing the cargo himself and is not present when it is weighed.​

​

I would say that the lodge bears some responsibility. And with the lower burden of proof required in civil litigation, they'll be paying up for sure.​

.​

Seems like the NTSB is poking the FAA in the eye for some other reason.​

 

[Fearless Tower]

Seems like the NTSB is poking the FAA in the eye for some other reason.

I think the reason may be that they sense a conflict of interest in the oversight because it is pointed out that the POI used to be an employee of Rediske.

 

[3393RP]

I agree with petrolero. If the FAA had required single engine air taxi W&B calculations as a condition of flight, who's to say it would have been done correctly? The NTSB is making a large leap of faith.

Inaction by the Federal Aviation Administration also contributed to the crash, the NTSB concluded. The FAA doesn’t require documentation of the weight-and-balance configuration for air taxi and commuter services operating single-engine planes, even though it's a requirement for multi-engine aircraft. The NTSB has been urging the FAA to change that since 1989.

“It seems likely that if the FAA had taken the recommended action in the 26 years since the NTSB first recommended it, the accident in Soldotna would have been prevented,” the NTSB said in an Aug. 21 safety recommendation to the FAA.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I agree with petrolero. If the FAA had required single engine air taxi W&B calculations as a condition of flight, who's to say it would have been done correctly? The NTSB is making a large leap of faith.

I'd guess one of two things...either the airplane would have been out of CG even without the miscalculation, or else they figure requiring a weight and balance would also require procedures for determining actual weight.

Or both.

 

[petrolero]

I'd guess one of two things...either the airplane would have been out of CG even without the miscalculation, or else they figure requiring a weight and balance would also require procedures for determining actual weight.

Or both.

That's the real problem as I see it... the FAA already required actual measurement of cargo weights - it's stated clearly in the OpSpec. But how can the PIC, who ends up responsible for it, realistically accomplish or supervise the weighing of cargo that is packed by others before he arrives?

The NTSB missed the real contributing problem, I think. Perhaps the PIC in this case could have done more digging and querying to find out how the cargo was weighed, as is his responsibility. But there are no requirements or procedures laid out in the OpSpec as far as I've heard (which isn't far at all, I admit).

Maybe others on here who fly these kinds of missions can enlighten me on the subject.

 

[Stewartb]

It isn't unusual for the NTSB to "suggest" the FAA should make more rules. Don't read too much into it. The lawsuit is the pilot's wife suing the lodge. That may be more a deflection of liability than anything else. Drag another party to the table. It has little to do with anything regarding the accident.

I'm just a private guy and I have a battery-powered digital scale. Most 135 outfits I'm familiar with have better ones than me. And use them. If I'm putting my family on a 135 flight I'd expect that operator to exercise due care.

 

[AKBill]

My family and some friends charted a local 135 flight to a remote forest service cabin.

The operator weighed all cargo and asked everyone their weight. I'm sure they did their job. They used a piston Otter to drop us off at the cabin and picked us up in a turbine Otter. Both on anphib floats.

They didn't weigh things on the was back, brought back lots of empty beer cans and garbage that we could not be burned.

I think the 135 operators here do a great job and follow the regulations, sorry to hear about this accident. Very sad