NTSB report on fatal Alaska Supercub crash - 2023

edo2000

edo2000

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
487
Location
Central Colorado
Display Name
edo2000
Crash killed 'Buzzy' Petola. Mr. Petola was the Alaska director of Bureau of Indian Affairs as well as serving in other prominent public service positions. He was the husband of Alaska's only member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mary Petola. At the time of the crash, he was flying for an Alaska hunting guide service. Apparently it was a very gusty day and a short bush strip. Also a very big load of moose meat, with moose antlers tied to one wing strut.

I guess the congresswoman is in the process of suing the guide service for causing him to perform the dangerous flight...?

www.alaskasnewssource.com

NTSB: Plane overloaded with moose meat, antlers during takeoff in crash that killed former Rep. Mary Peltola’s husband

A crash that killed former Rep. Mary Peltola’s husband, Eugene, in rural Alaska during a 2023 hunting trip was caused by the plane being overloaded with moose meat and antlers that hung on one side of the small aircraft, according to the final report by the National Transportation Safety Board.
www.alaskasnewssource.com www.alaskasnewssource.com
 
Racerx said:
He was PIC and the family is suing the operator for negligence because the PIC loaded and flew a plane that was over weight.

I really hate people.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm sure he had hauled many similar loads before. Stuff can happen when bush flying. Pretty sure this guy wouldn't approve of his wife going after his colleagues at the guide/flight service. I could be wrong.
 
It’s hard to second guess people’s behavior when they are in profound grief.
 
She lost her spouse. She has several children. Her partner is gone. I can’t imagine what that would be like. Maybe there’s some substance to her claim. I sure don’t know. I doubt anyone else here does, either. She’s a smart lady. I wish her the best. This lawsuit has no bearing on that. Her business is none of mine.
 
I have a different take…wonder why Aviation insurance rates are so high? Poor decisions and baseless lawsuits are factors taken into consideration in rates…
 
Stewartb said:
This lawsuit has no bearing on that. Her business is none of mine.
Click to expand...
I second the post above. Her business will now impact all of GA. All those lawsuits being settled (because it's cheaper than being in court for years, also less negative PR) will drive costs up for everyone.
We really need "loser pays all legal costs" legislation.
 
Last edited:
Warlock said:
I have a different take…wonder why Aviation insurance rates are so high? Poor decisions and baseless lawsuits are factors taken into consideration in rates…
Click to expand...
I lived through the eighty’s and the death of Cessna and GA.
 
Can someone explain to me how the plane- fully loaded with fuel and cargo- could be 117 lbs overweight at takeoff, and be 180 lbs overweight upon landing after burning off fuel?
 
Warlock said:
I have a different take…wonder why Aviation insurance rates are so high? Poor decisions and baseless lawsuits are factors taken into consideration in rates…
Click to expand...
You clearly must have inside knowledge of the investigation in order to label it baseless. And you must have inside knowledge of the guide business insurance industry to know how business insurance settlements factor into aviation insurance rates. Please share what you know, because we all know news articles aren’t worth the bandwidth they consume.
 
tobnpr said:
Can someone explain to me how the plane- fully loaded with fuel and cargo- could be 117 lbs overweight at takeoff, and be 180 lbs overweight upon landing after burning off fuel?
Click to expand...
New math. :biggrin:
 
I know nothing about the accident plane - does it have different max weights for takeoff and landing?
 
Stewartb said:
She lost her spouse. She has several children. Her partner is gone. I can’t imagine what that would be like. Maybe there’s some substance to her claim. I sure don’t know. I doubt anyone else here does, either. She’s a smart lady. I wish her the best. This lawsuit has no bearing on that. Her business is none of mine.
Click to expand...
I doubt that she or her lawyer know whether there’s any substance to it, either.
 
AV8R_87 said:
I know nothing about the accident plane - does it have different max weights for takeoff and landing?
Click to expand...
No. The NTSB report showed the plane was 117# over gross with zero fuel, than added expected landing weight would have been 180# over with fuel. Neither the landing weight or no-fuel takeoff weight are important.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I doubt that she or her lawyer know whether there’s any substance to it, either.
Click to expand...
Clearly you’re either psychic or just a cynic. If you go in a smoking hole would you want people to talk about your wife like this? I’m all about learning from accidents. Beating up the spouse over something we’re not privy to is bad form.
 
I’m betting the insurance limits on that plane are set pretty low. Otherwise I don’t think you could afford them being it’s a bush plane.
 
Stewartb said:
Clearly you’re either psychic or just a cynic. If you go in a smoking hole would you want people to talk about your wife like this? I’m all about learning from accidents. Beating up the spouse over something we’re not privy to is bad form.
Click to expand...
I’m a cynic, but I’m not beating up on anyone any more than you are. I’m simply stating my opinion.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’m a cynic, but I’m not beating up on anyone any more than you are. I’m simply stating my opinion.
Click to expand...
If you read the article, she has a financial dispute with the guide service. Nothing in the narrative says anything about an aircraft failure or an action against Piper. It’s a dispute with her husband’s employer. I have no idea what his employment terms were, but I’ll bet his wife does. Clearly she’s familiar with the financial dispute. You guys automatically assume this is an aircraft issue. I see nothing in the article or NTSB reports to substantiate that. Was the husband PIC? Absolutely he was. Was he pressured to fly long hours and over gross? Good question. Expected to? Absolutely.

What’s interesting is the absence of language about “pilot’s failure to maintain control” but is all about the weight. That’s unusual. Pilots are ultimately responsible for the W&B but air guide pilots don’t always load their own planes. To me, as a Cub owner and pilot? The weight and antlers weren’t a big deal. Heavy in gusty winds probably was. At the time of the accident Mary Peltola was Alaska’s US House representative. Did the NTSB compose their report differently because of her position? THAT’s interesting to me.

In any case, I still feel sympathy for her and her family.
 
Last edited:
I don't know much about law, but whatever is wrong is almost certainly the fault of widows and orphans. Don't worry though, I read a really good idea on how to solve at least half the problem.
 
Stewartb said:
If you read the article, she has a financial dispute with the guide service. Nothing in the narrative says anything about an aircraft failure or an action against Piper. It’s a dispute with her husband’s employer. I have no idea what his employment terms were, but I’ll bet his wife does. Clearly she’s familiar with the financial dispute. You guys automatically assume this is an aircraft issue. I see nothing in the article or NTSB reports to substantiate that. Was the husband PIC? Absolutely he was. Was he pressured to fly long hours and over gross? Good question. Expected to? Absolutely.

What’s interesting is the absence of language about “pilot’s failure to maintain control” but is all about the weight. That’s unusual. Pilots are ultimately responsible for the W&B but air guide pilots don’t always load their own planes. To me, as a Cub owner and pilot? The weight and antlers weren’t a big deal. Heavy in gusty winds probably was. At the time of the accident Mary Peltola was Alaska’s US House representative. Did the NTSB compose their report differently because of her position? THAT’s interesting to me.

In any case, I still feel sympathy for her and her family.
Click to expand...
You make assumptions about what others say without any substantiation, so why is it a problem when others do it?
 
My comments are based on information provided, but your point is taken. This isn’t a discussion board as much as a pilot bitching and posturing board. I don’t belong here. Thanks for reminding me.
 
Did anyone look into the claims before calling them baseless and blaming the widow for driving up insurance rates for GA?

The primary claim is that the pilot's employment contact stated the employer would provide an insurance policy that would pay out in the event of the pilot's death or injury. The employer failed to add the pilot to the company's insurance policy and therefore the family didn't receive the insurance payout specified in the employment contact.

The claims the employer knew about contributory factors to the crash like flying overweight and flying antlers without a permit are relevant to the specific insurance policy and whether the employer knew of the potentially dangerous situation and took concrete steps to stop or mitigate the situation: if the employer knew he was flying antlers without a permit and didn't tell him to stop doing that, the insurance policy would have paid out based on the injuries to/death of the employee. There are other types of policies with different burdens, but the one the employer and employee agreed to in his contract puts the responsibility on the employer to stop unsafe or illegal actions once they become aware of them.

This is basic contact law and workers' comp law, the same as any other industry. If you wish the law or this specific employment contract were something other than what it is, that's a valid opinion, but an employer and an employee agreed to this contract and the employee (via their estate) is suing to hold the employer to their side of the contract.
 
MirroredClouds said:
Did anyone look into the claims before calling them baseless and blaming the widow for driving up insurance rates for GA?

The primary claim is that the pilot's employment contact stated the employer would provide an insurance policy that would pay out in the event of the pilot's death or injury. The employer failed to add the pilot to the company's insurance policy and therefore the family didn't receive the insurance payout specified in the employment contact.

The claims the employer knew about contributory factors to the crash like flying overweight and flying antlers without a permit are relevant to the specific insurance policy and whether the employer knew of the potentially dangerous situation and took concrete steps to stop or mitigate the situation: if the employer knew he was flying antlers without a permit and didn't tell him to stop doing that, the insurance policy would have paid out based on the injuries to/death of the employee. There are other types of policies with different burdens, but the one the employer and employee agreed to in his contract puts the responsibility on the employer to stop unsafe or illegal actions once they become aware of them.

This is basic contact law and workers' comp law, the same as any other industry. If you wish the law or this specific employment contract were something other than what it is, that's a valid opinion, but an employer and an employee agreed to this contract and the employee (via their estate) is suing to hold the employer to their side of the contract.
Click to expand...

As long as widow isn't suing Piper or Lycoming or Slick or some other.deep pocket aircraft parts manufacturer have at it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I doubt that she or her lawyer know whether there’s any substance to it, either.
Click to expand...

I knew and flew with Buzzy and met his wife a couple times. Her lawsuit is a contractual dispute with the employer over a life insurance policy, and it definitely has substance.

But by all means, keep slandering good people that are in mourning.

The “experts” are really out in force on this one.
 
Lindberg said:
Indeed:

It's ok to just acknowledge when you're wrong.
Click to expand...
Ok, I don’t realize one could slander the court system, so yes, I was wrong.

But if, as @DavidWhite indicated, the court system is in mourning, it probably shouldn’t be involved in this case, making my statement all the more true.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Ok, I don’t realize one could slander the court system, so yes, I was wrong.

But if, as @DavidWhite indicated, the court system is in mourning, it probably shouldn’t be involved in this case, making my statement all the more true.
Click to expand...

Or, you could just shut the **** up about something you are utterly clueless about.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Good thing that’s not relevant to my statement, I guess.
Click to expand...

Saying that Mrs. Peltola and her lawyer have no clue whether or not they have a substantiative claim or not was your statement, and that statement is false.

Mrs. Peltola is a huge advocate for general aviation, and her late husband Mr. Peltola was a very accomplished pilot, as is her ex-husband. She is not engaging in a frivolous lawsuit as you allege.
 
DavidWhite said:
Saying that Mrs. Peltola and her lawyer have no clue whether or not they have a substantiative claim or not was your statement, and that statement is false.

Mrs. Peltola is a huge advocate for general aviation, and her late husband Mr. Peltola was a very accomplished pilot, as is her ex-husband. She is not engaging in a frivolous lawsuit as you allege.
Click to expand...
You are clearly very clueless about what I’m saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top