# Twin engine King Air crash



## tompalm (Jun 22, 2019)

The local news is reporting that the passengers or skydivers might have been tourist from the mainland.  Not much other news tonight. 

By HNN Staff | June 21, 2019 at 6:57 PM HST - Updated June 21 at 9:32 PM 
HONOLULU, Hawaii (HawaiiNewsNow) - Nine people were killed Friday night when a twin-engine skydiving aircraft crashed on Oahu’s North Shore and then erupted in flames, authorities confirmed. 

It appeared to have crashed on takeoff, though authorities stressed that’s still under investigation.


#BREAKING Multiple agencies are responding to a deadly plane crash at Dillingham Airfield. Nine people were confirmed dead after a twin-engine skydiving aircraft went down at around 6:30 p.m. STORY: https://bit.ly/2FtlfGa #HINews #HNN

Posted by Hawaii News Now on Saturday, June 22, 2019
“We saw big smoke. We saw big fire, firemen trying to put it out. Crazy,” said witness Justin Kepa.

“It was probably shooting 15 feet in the air.”


Authorities with the Honolulu Fire Department said the first reports of the downed craft came in about 6:30 p.m. When firefighters arrived, they found the wreckage of the craft fully engulfed in flames.

Photos from the area showed smoke from the fire could be seen from miles away.


----------



## Kapolei (Jun 22, 2019)

Local news reporting 6 employees, 3 customers.... I would have to think they work there for the benefit of sunset jump like this was suppose to be. Really sad accident.  Will have to wait for the investigation.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jun 23, 2019)

Kapolei said:


> Local news reporting 6 employees, 3 customers.... I would have to think they work there for the benefit of sunset jump like this was suppose to be. Really sad accident.  Will have to wait for the investigation.



The numbers could be consistent with three tandem jumps (where a non-jumper [presumably the tourist] is attached to an experienced jumper) - so six people - plus a pilot and maybe a couple photographers who often jump alongside the tandems to provide photos/video. Just speculation of course on the numbers.


----------



## tompalm (Jun 23, 2019)

11 people were onboard and it is now reported the worst accident in Hawaii in years. During 1977, I logged 110 hours in a King Air and don’t remember much about that aircraft except how small it was. It  sure seems like 11 people would make it over loaded and more difficult to control with an engine failure.


----------



## Kapolei (Jun 23, 2019)

I remember seeing someone do a full loop over the airfield in a King Air at the Reno Air Races in the late 80’s. It sure doesn’t look like that aircraft would fly well fully loaded at a slow speed.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jun 23, 2019)

tompalm said:


> 11 people were onboard and it is now reported the worst accident in Hawaii in years. During 1977, I logged 110 hours in a King Air and don’t remember much about that aircraft except how small it was. It  sure seems like 11 people would make it over loaded and more difficult to control with an engine failure.



It would depend on which model King Air this was - the King Air 90 would typically seat two in the cockpit and six in the cabin using a club seating arrangement, a seat facing the door, and a seat atop the toilet. The larger King Air 100-200 series can carry up to about 12 depending on the seating config. But jump operations typically remove all the seats except the pilot seat and cram as many people in with jump gear as will fit within weight limitations. Jump operations have a long reputation for overloading their planes, but many have cleaned up their act in recent years with more oversight. IF the accident plane was a 90-series and was fully-loaded with fuel, it could have been near or over limits. The NTSB will find out the facts.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jun 23, 2019)

Kapolei said:


> I remember seeing someone do a full loop over the airfield in a King Air at the Reno Air Races in the late 80’s. It sure doesn’t look like that aircraft would fly well fully loaded at a slow speed.



Are you sure it was a King Air at Reno? I was at the races back then as well, and one of the stars of the airshow held between the various race heats was the great Robert A. "Bob" Hoover who used to do a full aerobatic routine in a Rockwell Shrike Commander twin engine business aircraft as well as a Sabreliner business jet. I don't recall Bob doing anything in a King Air. In any event, almost any aircraft can be rolled and looped in the right hands. Tex Johnston once rolled a Boeing 707 and currently, airshow pilot David Martin of Texas does an airshow aerobatic routine in a Beechcraft Baron twin - even several maneuvers with both props feathered.


----------



## tompalm (Jun 23, 2019)

From the local newspaper today. In 2016, the pilot was not qualified to fly the aircraft and did not do preflight planning. That was in California.  But it seems like more oversight is needed everywhere. 
————————— 

National Transportation Safety Board investigators today are slated to launch their onsite inquiry into the crash of a twin-engine plane that killed 11 people Friday at Dillingham Airfield in Mokuleia.

The Oahu Parachute Center plane was the same aircraft involved in a mishap three years ago in Byron, Calif.

The Beechcraft King Air BE 65-A90 crashed Friday at 6:24 p.m. soon after takeoff. Witnesses saw billowing black smoke and the wreckage engulfed in flames at the airfield’s fence line, away from the runway.

On July 23, 2016, the same plane was flying over a parachute jumpsite with 15 people on board when it stalled and spun, according to an NTSB report.



*RELATED*
>> NTSB report: Recurring safety issues noted in skydiving aircraft crashes


The pilot managed to gain control of the aircraft to “a wings-level attitude” but the plane stalled and spun again. All jumpers on board successfully exited the aircraft during the second spin and no injuries were reported.

After about nine rotations, the pilot recovered the aircraft but shortly thereafter, the plane stalled and rotated downward again. The pilot eventually gained control and flew back to the airport.

Once the aircraft landed, a witness observed the plane’s right horizontal stabilizer and elevator missing. The airplane parts were subsequently recovered in a field a few miles south of the airport. Investigators determined the stabilizer and elevator were “overstressed during the airplane’s left spin recovery, the report said.

The NTSB blamed the mishap on pilot error due to failure to adhere to proper “spin recovery procedures.”

NTSB spokesman Keith Holloway said in addition to Friday’s crash scene, examination of air traffic control communications, weather conditions, radar data, pilot history including medical history, and the aircraft’s maintenance history will be part of the investigation.

Holloway said during a phone interview from Washington, D.C., that it will take 18 to 24 months to determine probable cause of the crash.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jun 23, 2019)

tompalm said:


> The Beechcraft King Air BE 65-A90 crashed Friday at 6:24 p.m. soon after takeoff. Witnesses saw billowing black smoke and the wreckage engulfed in flames at the airfield’s fence line, away from the runway.



The A90 version is one of the older versions of the King Air 90 series, built between 1966 and 1968; in 1968 production switched to the B90 variant with slightly larger engines and improved useful load. Hard to tell if he was overloaded with 11 on board, but the NTSB will find out. 



tompalm said:


> From the local newspaper today. In 2016, the pilot was not qualified to fly the aircraft and did not do preflight planning. That was in California.
> 
> *RELATED*
> >> NTSB report: Recurring safety issues noted in skydiving aircraft crashes


As I read the article you linked, I think the reference to "the pilot was unqualified to operate the plane and did not conduct appropriate pre-flight planning," was in reference to the 1981 Beech D-18 crash off Ford Island in Pearl Harbor.


----------



## tompalm (Jun 23, 2019)

JIMinNC said:


> The A90 version is one of the older versions of the King Air 90 series, built between 1966 and 1968; in 1968 production switched to the B90 variant with slightly larger engines and improved useful load. Hard to tell if he was overloaded with 11 on board, but the NTSB will find out.
> 
> 
> As I read the article you linked, I think the reference to "the pilot was unqualified to operate the plane and did not conduct appropriate pre-flight planning," was in reference to the 1981 Beech D-18 crash off Ford Island in Pearl Harbor.



It says in 2016 and reports on that incident. The Pearl Harbor accident was years before that. Maybe you are right and the newspaper is mixing it up.  But in either case, more oversight is needed.

The accident in Kauai that happened three years ago was in a single engine aircraft that lost an engine and the pilot did not maintain flying speed. Maybe there was no place to set the aircraft down and the end result would have been the same. But, I have seen too many accidents where the aircraft stalled after engine failure and came straight down. The FAA should be giving more check rides to qualified pilots, especially those pilots that carry more than three passengers.


----------



## Kapolei (Jun 23, 2019)

My memory could be off on Reno.  Google isn’t helping here.  
I got my pilot’s license back in those days.  It’s been many many years since I have flown a plane.
But the internet has certainly helped me learn a lot in recent years.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jun 23, 2019)

tompalm said:


> It says in 2016 and reports on that incident. The Pearl Harbor accident was years before that. Maybe you are right and the newspaper is mixing it up.  But in either case, more oversight is needed.


Not that relevant either way, but here is the quote from the article that I was referencing. To me it sounds like that last paragraph is referring to the 1981 accident...FWIW



> In the second crash, 11 members of a skydiving team, including the pilot, were killed when their twin-engine Beechcraft Delta 18 crashed into Pearl Harbor on Dec. 5, 1981. The group was supposed to parachute into Aloha Stadium before a University of Hawaii football game, but poor conditions forced them to cancel the jump.
> 
> The plane went into a dive and hit the reef off Ford Island. Four of the skydivers attempted to parachute out of the plane but only one survived.
> 
> An NTSB report cited the 20-year-old pilot’s failure to maintain air speed as the probably cause. The report also noted the pilot was unqualified to operate the plane and did not conduct appropriate pre-flight planning, and that the Beechcraft was not properly loaded.


----------



## taterhed (Jun 24, 2019)

I'm very attuned to these jump-plane accidents these days....my son is a pro-class skydiver right now.

Let me just say this:  Professionals can skydive safely.  But, only if they are supported by a professional aircraft and pilot.
Many of the operators are simply NOT professional these days.  IMO.


Below, the pictures show what an A90  King Air looks like. 

The main problem is this:  Weight and Balance.
As you might notice, there are only benches in the back of the plane.  Additionally, most experienced jumpers do not like/use the restraint systems (seatbelts) in the aircraft.   The hooks/latches can become tangled on straps and gear and cause problems.  Plus, it's incredibly tight in there.  And...if there is a problem, they want to be able to get out of the plane....which may not be possible if strapped/caught in the restraints.

Here's the rub:  If all that weight (bodies) moves backward (to the tail) at any time.....the plane will likely crash due to a bad center-of-gravity (CG).  These planes are just barely in CG (or weight-and-balance) when fully loaded on a warm day.  Like a teeter-totter from Hell, they are tail-heavy.

Jumpers sitting next to the pilot have been known to bump controls as well....a very bad situation if not closely guarded.
Some planes have benches (below) some pads on the floors.  Some have co-pilot seat installed, some not.
The group you see below (sitting on the floor) died when their pilot (not IFR rated in a VFR only airplane) crashed into the ground in dense fog.

RIP.  So sad.


----------



## tompalm (Jun 24, 2019)

taterhed said:


> I'm very attuned to these jump-plane accidents these days....my son is a pro-class skydiver right now.
> 
> Let me just say this:  Professionals can skydive safely.  But, only if they are supported by a professional aircraft and pilot.
> Many of the operators are simply NOT professional these days.  IMO.
> ...



Are there any statistics about how many skydivers are killed in an airplane accident vs how many die from skydiving.  From what I have read during the past 40 years, most of them die during an airplane crash. Any pilot carrying passengers for hire is supposed to have advance qualifications or experience, but it seems like a lot of companies are not following the requirements that have been set up by the FAA. From every witness statement on TV, this was an engine failure and immediately after that the aircraft rolled over and it all happened during daylight VFR conditions. An engine failure should not end up like this.  I hope that you are asking a lot of questions to the company that is flying your son around.


----------



## chellej (Jun 24, 2019)

My Daughter & Son in Law each did a tandem dive when we were on Oahu in April.  She didn't tell me until after the fact.  It makes me sick to think about this.


----------



## Kapolei (Jun 25, 2019)

tompalm said:


> Are there any statistics about how many skydivers are killed in an airplane accident vs how many die from skydiving.  From what I have read during the past 40 years, most of them die during an airplane crash. Any pilot carrying passengers for hire is supposed to have advance qualifications or experience, but it seems like a lot of companies are not following the requirements that have been set up by the FAA. From every witness statement on TV, this was an engine failure and immediately after that the aircraft rolled over and it all happened during daylight VFR conditions. An engine failure should not end up like this.  I hope that you are asking a lot of questions to the company that is flying your son around.




Apparently the standards are different if they were using a King Air on a tourist flight instead of for skydiving.  Maybe a commercial pilot could chime in here.

The other thing I noticed was this shop was offering $20 fun jump specials on Saturdays if all 13 slots are filled.    I guess that is the ticket for those already certified with equipment.  If you do the math, that is a couple hundred bucks to put a complex aircraft in the air with a pilot.  Sounds like it is on the very low budget end of flight operations.


----------



## WalnutBaron (Jun 25, 2019)

KCRA News in Sacramento is reporting today that the plane was owned by Skydive Sacramento, which has its office in Lincoln, California. Apparently, the same company had an issue three years ago when a group of skydivers were literally told to jump out of a plane that was falling apart. Video from the story showed pieces of the plane falling at the same time the skydivers were falling and releasing their parachutes.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jun 25, 2019)

Kapolei said:


> Apparently the standards are different if they were using a King Air on a tourist flight instead of for skydiving.  Maybe a commercial pilot could chime in here.
> 
> The other thing I noticed was this shop was offering $20 fun jump specials on Saturdays if all 13 slots are filled.    I guess that is the ticket for those already certified with equipment.  If you do the math, that is a couple hundred bucks to put a complex aircraft in the air with a pilot.  Sounds like it is on the very low budget end of flight operations.



Both commercial local sightseeing flights (within a 25 mile radius) and commercial parachute operations are covered under Part 91 of the FAA regulations, so the requirements for commercial aircraft certification/maintenance and pilot certification are similar if not identical, I believe. Pilots need to have an FAA commercial pilot license and the aircraft need inspections every 100 hours instead of annually (the annual requirement is for non-commercial use aircraft). Some air tour operations wind up being covered under Part 135 of the FAA regs, those are the regs that cover charter operations. I'm not 100% sure what would cause an air tour company to need to be regulated under Part 135 instead of Part 91, but Part 135 has more stringent pilot requirements and maintenance requirements. One thing that may trigger the need to be regulated under part 135 is if the tours go beyond 25 miles from the point of origin, and there may be be other factors.

As far as the economics of the operation, an operation like the Hawaii jump operator probably makes most of their money from tandem jumps (where a non-certified jumper/tourist jumps attached to an experienced skydiver) or jump instruction. A tandem jump usually costs $250-$300, then they have ad-ons for photos/video. A full jump certification course can cost $1500 to $2000 or more. So the $20 fun jumps are certainly not the core revenue stream for an operation like this. If a load of jumpers included two or three tandems, each 15-20 minute hop with 10-12 jumpers could generate close to $1000 or more of revenue. One reason commercial jump operations like turbine powered aircraft like a King Air is they can climb to altitude quickly, reducing the cycle time between jump runs and allowing more jump runs per day.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jun 25, 2019)

WalnutBaron said:


> KCRA News in Sacramento is reporting today that the plane was owned by Skydive Sacramento, which has its office in Lincoln, California. Apparently, the same company had an issue three years ago when a group of skydivers were literally told to jump out of a plane that was falling apart. Video from the story showed pieces of the plane falling at the same time the skydivers were falling and releasing their parachutes.



My understanding of the California incident (it was reported on the news that the Hawaii aircraft was the same airframe involved in the California incident) was that for some reason - maybe improper weight and balance or poor pilot technique - the California aircraft entered a spin and was overstressed during the spin recovery because the pilot did not follow proper spin recovery procedures. As a result, one of the two horizontal stabilizers/elevators separated from the aircraft. Those were the parts that were videoed falling with the skydivers. Despite the structural damage, the pilot was able to land the plane successfully.


----------



## tompalm (Jun 25, 2019)

It is sad that loss of life has to occur before change happens, but after reading what the NTSB says, I think change is coming.

——————-

From today’s Star Advertiser newspaper

The National Transportation Safety Board is urging the Federal Aviation Administration to increase regulations for aircraft that operate parachuting services in the wake of Friday’s fatal skydiving plane crash in Mokuleia.

“Are we trying to put the FAA on notice for this? Yes,” said Jennifer Homendy, board member of the NTSB. “We identified several safety concerns in 2008 with respect to parachute jump operations. Accidents continue to happen.”

The federal agency held its second briefing following Friday’s Dillingham Airfield crash, which killed all 11 people on board, and it asked that the FAA categorize parachuting service operators so that their planes are required to undergo more extensive maintenance and inspections.

They are currently exempt from safety regulations that operators of other paid aircraft-based services must follow.

“Many times manufacturers will issue special bulletins advising operators to make certain repairs or changes to their aircraft — they aren’t required to comply to those,” Homendy said during Monday’s briefing.

NTSB spokesman Eric Weiss said that in addition to the bulletins, operators of parachuting services have different regulations for “pilot requirements, the requirements for oversight, oversight to training, weight and balance — there are many differences.”

Aircraft operators are categorized by the FAA depending on the type of service they are providing, and they fall into three parts under the 14 Code of Federations Regulations: Part 91, Part 135 and Part 121.

Part 91 operators are under the most lax requirements and don’t have to comply with manufacturer bulletins and other regulations. Part 121 is the strictest category, but Parts 135 and 121 are both stricter than Part 91 operators and apply to paid services.

“If you take money for a flight, that’s the Part 135 flight,” Weiss said. “However, if those people paying for those are parachutists, it goes down to Part 91.”

The NTSB recommended in 2008 that the FAA place parachuting operators into a category that’s stricter than the regulations found in Part 91, though the FAA declined to make those changes.

When asked why, Homendy said, “I think that’s a great question for the FAA. We would like them to follow through with those, but they have not.”

Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman, said in a statement that safety is the agency’s top priority.

“The FAA takes NTSB recommendations very seriously, and implemented a number of changes to address recommendations the NTSB made about parachuting operations,” the statement said.

In its 2008 safety recommendation letter to the FAA, the NTSB noted that there were 32 accidents in the U.S. involving parachuting operations from 1980 to 2008, which led to 172 deaths. Friday’s crash was the deadliest civilian aircraft accident in the U.S. since 2011.

The NTSB released a special investigation report that year that analyzed some of the accidents and reported problems that included maintenance issues, noncompliance with airplane weight and balance limitations, failure to maintain airspeed while flying and inadequate execution of emergency procedures, problems the agency said “likely could have been detected by FAA inspectors had adequate direct surveillance visits been performed.”

Tony Skinner, who said he was previously a pilot with Oahu Parachute Center, the operator of the plane that crashed Friday, said that the pilot, Jerome Renck, wasn’t really given much training on the plane.

Skinner said he was just shown how to start the plane, take off, taxi and land. The training also included how to configure the plane for jump runs, where the plane must climb to a certain altitude where the skydivers will jump from.

“It’s not really training,” Skinner said, but more like “familiarization.”

“It’s a complex plane,” he said. “Unfortunately, Part 91 (the FAA regulation) doesn’t have any kind of stringent rules and regulations concerning flying.”

He added, “There’s no training in emergency procedures.”

Most pilots with the company don’t have a lot of flying time, said Skinner, who now works for Hawaii Life Flight, which provides air medical transportation.

U.S. Rep. Ed Case has been outspoken in calling for changes to regulations for recreational aircraft in Hawaii, and also spoke out after the April helicopter crash in Kailua, which killed three people and landed in the middle of a neighborhood.

Case’s concerns revolve around issues of both safety and disruption caused by recreational aircraft.

“It seems inescapable to me at this point that the safety and community disruption regulation is completely insufficient,” he said. “That not only impacts the people that take those aircraft up … but folks on the ground.”

Case also said that because recreational aircraft fly over residential areas, if one crashes it could potentially hurt people not in the aircraft.

“Should we be regulating more rigidly for whether these aircraft can transit over occupied areas? Should we be regulating more rigidly for time of day operations?” he asked. “It increasingly seems like the Wild West in the air over Hawaii, and that’s a very very dangerous and unacceptable situation for us.”


----------



## tompalm (Jun 25, 2019)

If you didn’t read the link above, it is worth a look. Just amazing the FAA didn’t do anything after the special investigation report in 2008. Maybe the accident in Kauai three years ago, this one and others would have been prevented. The NTSB is not going to let the FAA slide any longer. Change is coming. 

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR0801.pdf


----------



## tompalm (Jun 25, 2019)

Some data attached from the report.


----------



## tompalm (Jun 25, 2019)




----------



## JIMinNC (Jun 25, 2019)

Regulating parachute flights under Part 135, as the article seems to encourage/suggest, would seem to be overkill. Part 135 is designed for charter operations, meaning they are usually taking paying passengers from Point A to Point B, maybe in both good and bad weather, thus the more stringent pilot and aircraft requirements. I suspect having to have their aircraft comply with Part 135 would put many, if not most, jump operators out of business, and the rules, maintenance, and training requirements Part 135 would impose on these operators are not particularly relevant to jump operations. These flights rarely go more than a couple miles from the launch point, only fly in basically good weather, and are a totally different type of operation than a 135 operator. Many of the larger air tour operators are operating under Part 135 as a charter operator, and they are required to if any of their tours go farther than 25 miles from the starting point, but those operations tend to look a lot more like charters (they just land from the same place they left from). A jump operation is a different beast, and Part 91 regs should be adequate for a parachute center to safely operate their aircraft - if the current regs are followed and enforced.

In my opinion, the safety issue here is not that Part 91 doesn't have enough requirements, but is caused more by these issues:
1) There is pressure on the pilot from the jump operator to pack as many jumpers in the plane as possible, increasing the occurrence of overweight situations that degrade aircraft performance and handling.
2) These are not highly desirable pilot jobs, so the pay is low and it tends to be a time-building job for aspiring pilots.
3) There is no special FAA rating or certification needed to fly jumpers other than a standard commercial pilot license, so operations-specific training is somewhat lacking.

There is definitely room for improvement, but better oversight and enforcement of existing Part 91 regs should be adequate, with the possible exception being that perhaps some sort of new parachute-specific rating or training could be developed to ensure that all pilots flying jumpers have been trained properly.


----------



## Kapolei (Jun 25, 2019)

There may be no way of finding out if the jumpers were strapped in.  Perhaps there will be clues.  2000 lbs of payload not tied down may have rendered the control inputs useless.   I would not be quick to blame the pilot.  I appreciate that people have dedicated their lives to this kind of forensics.


----------



## taterhed (Jun 27, 2019)

Mmmmmm.
The pilot is, quite literally, the 'Captain of the ship.'

The PIC is not only in complete charge of the operation from pre-flight planning, loading, takeoff to landing, but is also responsible for all aspects of flight safety.
The cargo/jumpers are the responsibility of the pilot and any company employees that have a role, task, briefing or observation of the operation.

Really, if the jumpers were not secured as briefed/designated in the manner specified by the operator/pilot of the service, then the pilot and other employees are truly responsible for it.
I absolutely blame the pilot.

If it's not safe.....don't fly it.
I certainly understand the value of the 'hop and pop' rides for young jumpers and the 'easy money' it brings to operators trying to make a buck on tandems. _* BUT....it also encourages pilots/operators to load up airplanes with extra bodies, last minute and with minimal weight and balance work.*_  If you were there to see, you'd also note that the hop/pops often go in last and out first.  There are some safety issues there...W&B issues too....  but, they don't like crowding the tandems and this often ends up putting 'extra bodies' at the very back end of the cargo area.  I'm not saying that all jump-ops are unsafe.  Quite the contrary. But, there is a lot of temptation and very little 'real' oversight going on...from what I've seen.  


I think OTR trucking faces these same kind of problems in a different, but also dangerous, way:

Incentivised to make more money: drive faster, longer, harder, smarter (contradiction sic). More miles, more money.
Move more cargo, spend less time inspecting/reviewing/maintaining
Less inspections, more automatic compliance etc....
When high demand and a shortage of experienced operators hits the market, safety is the first casualty,  IMHO.


----------



## tompalm (Jun 27, 2019)

taterhed said:


> Mmmmmm.
> The pilot is, quite literally, the 'Captain of the ship.'
> 
> The PIC is not only in complete charge of the operation from pre-flight planning, loading, takeoff to landing, but is also responsible for all aspects of flight safety.
> ...



I totally agree that it is the pilot’s responsibility. I was a Navy Aviation Safety Officer for 15 years and the ALPA Safety Chairman for eight years as part of a ground job.  During those periods, I read every accident reports and investigation I could get my hands on and I am still reading as much as possible today after being retired for 10 years.  When a twin engine aircraft has an engine failure and rolls over, it is due to failure to maintain control.  All witness statements on TV reported that happening. Of course the official NTSB report is not out yet, but there is a 99 percent chance of that is what happened. Every accident report I have ever seen has labeled that as pilot error. If the aircraft was overloaded with no weight and balance, that will be listed as pilot error. I spent three years as a Navy flight instructor and initiated a simulated engine failure at least twice each day and sometimes six per day giving the student a low and high altitude engine failure that they had to recover from. All military pilots and commercial pilots have to demonstrate their ability to recover from an engine failure at least once per year after they get checked out. If they don’t get it right, they fail the checkride and have to do it again. Keeping the wings level and maintaining airspeed is critical. Sometimes there is no way to survive and an aircraft will go down into the trees or hazardous terrain while maintaining airspeed with the wings level. If the weight shifts and there is an aft CG problem, the aircraft will show a steep nose up before stalling.  All the data and witness statements are not in yet, but everything is pointing toward another accident caused by an engine failure and loss of control. Pilots carrying passengers for hire need more checkrides and training. Maybe part 91 operations can continue, but change is needed. There have been too many accidents that the passengers should have survived. Maintenance malpractice is a whole other issue and why the engine fails needs more attention also. But sometimes, the best maintenance will not stop an old engine from failing. At the end of this investigation, the NTSB should blame the FAA for not requiring higher standards or more training. The pilot didn’t do anything illegal and was put into a bad situation. I hope the focus is on the FAA and not the pilot.


----------



## taterhed (Jun 27, 2019)

Kapolei said:


> There may be no way of finding out if the jumpers were strapped in.  Perhaps there will be clues.  2000 lbs of payload not tied down may have rendered the control inputs useless.   I would not be quick to blame the pilot.  I appreciate that people have dedicated their lives to this kind of forensics.



FWIW:  

A King Air (x90 series) has about 3000 lbs of useful load.  About 2000 of that is cargo. 11 occupants at 170 lbs each (very low number with jump gear) is 1900 pounds. Parachute rigs weight 20-30 pounds EACH.

This plane was clearly at or near max takeoff weight, in a warm/hot environment.
A King Air stalls dirty at ~75 kts, 95 kts clean.  Takeoff speed is about 100. 

The minimum control speed, with the critical (worst) engine out speed is about 90kts (might be a little higher/lower for this specific plane).  This is Vmca if you want to know.  When you leave the ground and start flying, if you're below 90 kts, airborne (flying) and loose an engine, you don't have sufficient aerodynamic control (flight controls) to keep the airplane flying straight. It gets worse from there.
Usually, if you deteriorate below Vmca, the aircraft enters an uncommanded roll into the dead engine and....well, it usually rolls upside down and crashes pretty quickly.

So, immagine driving down the highway.....with 11 people in the bed of your tiny asian pick-up truck, slightly tail heavy, and you blow a tire. It starts to turn and swerve off the road.  If you veer out of your lane, you crash.  If you loose more than 10 kts speed, you crash.  Kinda get the idea?????  

If the pilot got airborne a little early or got a little slow because the airplane 'pitched up' a little on takeoff (tail-heavy), and then lost an engine.....well, that was all she wrote.

I'm sorry, RIP.  But if you read any of the reports above or google some others, you'll see poor oversight, minimal training, skimpy or shoddy maintenance, high-use, overloaded, poorly loaded airplanes.....that crash.  

Folks, don't go on low-budget operations (skydive or sight-seeing) and this includes low-budget boats tours airlines etc.....
you get what you pay for...


----------



## taterhed (Jun 27, 2019)

tompalm said:


> I totally agree that it is the pilot’s responsibility. I was a Navy Aviation Safety Officer for 15 years and the ALPA Safety Chairman for eight years as part of a ground job.  During those periods, I read every accident reports and investigation I could get my hands on and I am still reading as much as possible today after being retired for 10 years.  When a twin engine aircraft has an engine failure and rolls over, it is due to failure to maintain control.  All witness statements on TV reported that happening. Of course the official NTSB report is not out yet, but there is a 99 percent chance of that is what happened. Every accident report I have ever seen has labeled that as pilot error. If the aircraft was overloaded with no weight and balance, that will be listed as pilot error. I spent three years as a Navy flight instructor and initiated a simulated engine failure at least twice each day and sometimes six per day giving the student a low and high altitude engine failure that they had to recover from. All military pilots and commercial pilots have to demonstrate their ability to recover from an engine failure at least once per year after they get checked out. If they don’t get it right, they fail the checkride and have to do it again. Keeping the wings level and maintaining airspeed is critical. Sometimes there is no way to survive and an aircraft will go down into the trees or hazardous terrain while maintaining airspeed with the wings level. If the weight shifts and there is an aft CG problem, the aircraft will show a steep nose up before stalling.  All the data and witness statements are not in yet, but everything is pointing toward another accident caused by an engine failure and loss of control. Pilots carrying passengers for hire need more checkrides and training. Maybe part 91 operations can continue, but change is needed. There have been too many accidents that the passengers should have survived. Maintenance malpractice is a whole other issue and why the engine fails needs more attention also. But sometimes, the best maintenance will not stop an old engine from failing.



Very well said.

And that, folks, is why there is no substitution for quality training and standardization.
You don't have to be a military pilot to be a good (or great) pilot, but it certainly is a good start.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jun 27, 2019)

tompalm said:


> I totally agree that it is the pilot’s responsibility. I was a Navy Aviation Safety Officer for 15 years and the ALPA Safety Chairman for eight years as part of a ground job.  During those periods, I read every accident reports and investigation I could get my hands on and I am still reading as much as possible today after being retired for 10 years.  When a twin engine aircraft has an engine failure and rolls over, it is due to failure to maintain control.  All witness statements on TV reported that happening. Of course the official NTSB report is not out yet, but there is a 99 percent chance of that is what happened. Every accident report I have ever seen has labeled that as pilot error. If the aircraft was overloaded with no weight and balance, that will be listed as pilot error. I spent three years as a Navy flight instructor and initiated a simulated engine failure at least twice each day and sometimes six per day giving the student a low and high altitude engine failure that they had to recover from. All military pilots and commercial pilots have to demonstrate their ability to recover from an engine failure at least once per year after they get checked out. If they don’t get it right, they fail the checkride and have to do it again. Keeping the wings level and maintaining airspeed is critical. Sometimes there is no way to survive and an aircraft will go down into the trees or hazardous terrain while maintaining airspeed with the wings level. If the weight shifts and there is an aft CG problem, the aircraft will show a steep nose up before stalling.  All the data and witness statements are not in yet, but everything is pointing toward another accident caused by an engine failure and loss of control. Pilots carrying passengers for hire need more checkrides and training. Maybe part 91 operations can continue, but change is needed. There have been too many accidents that the passengers should have survived. Maintenance malpractice is a whole other issue and why the engine fails needs more attention also. But sometimes, the best maintenance will not stop an old engine from failing. At the end of this investigation, the NTSB should blame the FAA for not requiring higher standards or more training. The pilot didn’t do anything illegal and was put into a bad situation. I hope the focus is on the FAA and not the pilot.



As you note and have experienced first hand, all multi-engine pilots are trained and must demonstrate proficiency on a regular basis in properly dealing with an engine failure in all modes of flight. But as you know, that training and those check rides are rarely, if ever, done in situations where the aircraft is loaded at or above max gross weight or with improper CG loading. It's one thing to demonstrate proper recovery in the more controlled environment of a instruction flight or check ride, but to accomplish the same thing with other parameters near or even outside the edges of the loading envelope could be difficult or impossible for even the best test pilots. The problem is, I suspect most of these jump aircraft accidents are in planes operating at the edge or outside of the weight & balance envelope, and the reasons that happens are less about the skill of the pilots than how they are being asked to operate.

I agree with taterhed that the pressure from the jump operations to carry more people often causes pilots to made bad decisions, since they are trying to keep their employer happy. Ultimately, responsibility for the bad decision rests with the pilot, but the pilot may not truly be the root cause. Jump operators are also experts in parachute operations and may not have as much expertise in aircraft operations as does a charter operator or other company whose main business is flying airplanes. But as I noted above, I don't think applying Part 135 pilot and maintenance standards to jump operators would fix the issue, since those rules are focused on an entirely different type of aviation operation. I agree that more oversight of the operators is warranted, but even then, an FAA inspector can't be on site every day, so what is to stop the operator from still pushing more jumpers into the planes when the FAA isn't there? These are small companies without the operations staff of an airline. 

I think it's a culture of safety issue - building a culture in the jump world that discourages pushing the envelope. I do a lot of work in and around the airshow business. Over the years, a lot of airshow pilots have died in airshow accidents. I've lost friends in this business. But it's so much better than it used to be, because the FAA and the industry association, the International Council of Airshows, have worked hard to build a culture within the airshow industry that encourages training, mentoring, and puts safety at the forefront. The effort has built a culture where pilots are comfortable confronting other pilots who they see doing something dangerous without adequate safety margins. Does that prevent all airshow accidents, no, but it's so much better than it used to be before safety was as ingrained in our culture as it is today.


----------



## taterhed (Jun 28, 2019)

Again, well said.  135 would be a disaster and the end of amateur jumping IMO.

But, the climate, culture and OBSERVATION of these operations needs to change.
hang on folks....with the pilot shortages, it's only going to get worse.


----------



## tompalm (Jun 30, 2019)

Another King Air crash.  10 people onboard. But this was a charter and a lot newer aircraft. Looks like the same type of accident with an engine failure and rollover.  

https://fox40.com/2019/06/30/ten-dead-in-private-plane-crash-at-airport-north-of-dallas/


----------



## daventrina (Jul 1, 2019)

If ... you are below minimum single engine speed and loose an engine ... it is not going to be good


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 1, 2019)

tompalm said:


> Another King Air crash.  10 people onboard. But this was a charter and a lot newer aircraft. Looks like the same type of accident with an engine failure and rollover.
> 
> https://fox40.com/2019/06/30/ten-dead-in-private-plane-crash-at-airport-north-of-dallas/


It had been reported elsewhere that the pilot was alone. I regret the mis-statement. May their families and close friends find peace.

Jim


----------



## JIMinNC (Jul 1, 2019)

Passepartout said:


> The pilot was alone. The other fatalities were on the ground - presumably in the hangar the aircraft dove into.



The AP story and the Dallas Morning News says two crew and eight passengers aboard.


----------



## tompalm (Jul 10, 2019)

From today’s paper. Two extra passengers loaded at the last minute and the aircraft might have been overloaded. This article didn’t say anything about an engine failing, but other witness statements heard it popping and winding down. 

If he had an aft CG, he didn’t have a chance. 

*Skydiving plane was upside down when it hit the ground at Dillingham Airfield, NTSB report finds*

By Allison Schaefers and Rosemarie Bernardo 

DENNIS ODA / DODA@STARADVERTISER.COM

A skydiving plane operated by Oahu Parachute Center crashed June 21 at Dillingham Airfield, killing all 11 aboard. Pictured is the wreckage of the plane the day after the crash.

The skydiving plane that crashed June 21 at Dillingham Airfield, killing all 11 aboard, seemed to be fine as it taxied down the runway to take off, but at about 150 to 200 feet in the air, it began turning, then hit the ground nose first and burst into flames.

That’s according to a parachute instructor at the Oahu Parachute Center, the company that operated the plane. The instructor witnessed the crash, and his comments were part of a preliminary report released Tuesday by the National Transportation Safety Board.

“He could hear the engines during the initial ground roll and stated that the sound was normal, consistent with the engines operating at high power,” the report said.

When the plane came into his view as it headed toward him, the aircraft was at an altitude of 150 to 200 feet and appeared to be turning. “He could see its belly, with the top of the cabin facing the ocean to the north. The airplane then struck the ground in a nose-down attitude, and a fireball erupted.”

A surveillance video at the southeast corner of the airfield showed the Beechcraft 65-A90 plane was upside down at a 45-degree angle to the ground just before impact, the report said.

The NTSB did not speculate on the cause of the crash. That will take up to two years to determine, but NTSB investigators are looking into weather and runway conditions, pilot’s logbook and training records as well as weight and balance of the aircraft.

Robert Katz, a Dallas-based flight instructor and 38-year pilot who tracks nationwide plane crashes, said the plane may have been overloaded.

The NTSB report said two people boarded the twin-engine aircraft at the last minute for a total of 11.

The NTSB has said the plane can carry up to 13 people, but Katz said 11 could have been too many if the combined weight of the people and their equipment exceeded guidelines or wasn’t properly balanced.

“For an airplane to be inverted, it’s possible that there was engine failure, but I doubt it. It was probably so tail-heavy that it stalled and rolled over, and it was so low to the ground that there was no hope of recovery,” he said.

Katz said weight and balance issues were part of the reason that the same plane experienced “aircraft structural failure” in a skydiving-related mishap over a California parachute jump site on July 23, 2016.

On June 21 the pilot, three tandem parachute instructors and their three customers, two camera operators plus the two solo jumpers who decided to join the flight at the last minute died after the aircraft crashed at 6:22 p.m.

The Honolulu Medical Examiner’s Office has identified the 11 crash victims as Larry Lemaster, 50, James Lisenbee, 48, Jerome Renck, 42, Daniel Herndon, 35, Casey Williamson, 29, Michael Martin, 32, and Jordan Tehero, 23, of Hawaii; Joshua Drablos, 27, a U.S. military member from Virginia stationed in Hawaii; Ashley Weikel, 26, and Bryan Weikel, 27, of Colorado Springs, Colo.; and Nikolas Glebov, 28, of St. Paul, Minn.

U.S. Rep. Ed Case (D-Hawaii) said Tuesday that he will introduce a bill in the next month or so related to the Dillingham crash and an April 29 incident where a tour helicopter crashed into a Kailua neighborhood, killing three people.

Case said the bill will focus on “time, place and manner of operations, not specially on the safety side.” He said that he plans to meet with senior leadership from the Federal Aviation Administration in the next few weeks to urge them to increase safety regulations to comply fully with the NTSB’s 2008 Special Investigation Report on the Safety of Parachute Jump Operations.

Immediately following the Dillingham incident, which was the worst U.S. civilian aircraft crash since 2011, the NTSB again urged the FAA, which adopted only a portion of the 2008 recommendations, to categorize parachuting service operators in a way that requires their planes to undergo more extensive maintenance and inspections. In its 2008 safety recommendation letter to the FAA, the NTSB noted that there were 32 accidents in the U.S. involving parachuting operations from 1980 to 2008, which led to 172 deaths.

Case said the cause could prove to be “any number of things, but any number of things could relate to each and all of the areas where NTSB made specific recommendations to FAA that weren’t followed.”

He noted several takeaways from NTSB’s preliminary report. First, the crash didn’t appear to be weather-related. Second, two people jumped onto the plane at the last minute, which could have contributed to weight and balance issues. Third, the aircraft did not have an FAA-issued certificate of operation, which Case said was not required in this case but in his view should have been.

Meanwhile, KHON-TV reported that the state Department of Transportation issued the Oahu Parachute Center a cease and desist order in April, concerning business and aircraft registration issues. According to the television station, the company was told Monday to vacate its facility at Dillingham Airfield.

Shelly Kunishige, Transportation Department spokeswoman, declined to confirm Tuesday whether the department issued the notice or whether the company left the facility.

“I am not authorized to comment on the situation at this time,” Kunishige said.

Multiple calls Tuesday to Oahu Parachute went straight to voicemail, and the mailbox for voice messages was full.


----------



## tompalm (Jul 11, 2019)

The state of Hawaii and the FAA failed to do their job and there was no oversight of an illegal operation. The company should have been shut down a long time ago. 

*Company in fatal Mokuleia plane crash didn’t have permit for skydiving*

By Allison Schaefers 

DENNIS ODA / JUNE 22

Oahu Parachute Center did not have registrations on file with the state Department of Labor and Industrial Relations for unemployment, workers’ compensation, prepaid health care or temporary disability insurance, according to a DLIR spokesman. That means its workers who were among the 11 people killed in last month’s Mokuleia crash weren’t covered by the workers’ comp statutes that provide death benefits for those killed on the job.

The company whose skydiving plane crashed June 21 at Dillingham Airfield killing all 11 aboard, had a permit to conduct parachute rigging at the state airport, not skydiving operations.

At the time of the fatal crash in Mokuleia, which was the nation’s worst civilian air crash since 2011, the state Department of Transportation did not have a permit on file for George Rivera’s skydiving operation, Oahu Parachute Center LLC, or an aircraft registration for the downed Beechcraft 65-A90.

According to public records, Rivera’s permissions from the state to operate at Dillingham Airfield were limited to a revocable permit issued to his other business, Hawaii Parachute Center LLC, to conduct parachute rigging activities. However, DOT did not attempt to revoke that permit or evict Rivera and his operations from the airfield until June 26 — five days after the crash.

DOT spokeswoman Shelly Kunishige issued a news release at the close of business Wednesday with links to several public documents that the Honolulu Star-Advertiser previously requested. Kunishige, who did not answer her phone after issuing the news release, had said earlier that the “state could not release additional information.”

Gov. David Ige’s office did not respond to a request for comment from the Star-Advertiser.

Rivera’s revocable permit for rigging operations dates back to an effective date of Jan. 1, 2010. However, according to state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) records, the company was organized Nov. 26, 2008. The state’s agreement with Hawaii Parachute Center LLC, which wasn’t signed until Sept. 8, 2010, required the company to provide a security deposit of roughly $1,180 and pay about $393 per month to rent a parachute loft.

On June 5, some 17 days before the crash, the state sent Rivera an application for a revocable permit to lease airfield space for skydiving operations for Oahu Parachute Center, which DCCA records show was registered June 29, 2017.

But that application, which had more stringent requirements than the revocable permit for Rivera’s rigging operation, was never signed. If Rivera had signed the permit for a skydiving operation, monthly rent would have been about $7,059 and the security deposit would have been about $21,177. The state also was requiring commercial general liability insurance naming “the state as additional insured, with a combined single limit coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury and damage to property per occurrence.”

Rivera did not return a call from the Star-Advertiser seeking information about the skydiving operation’s lack of permits and the company’s insurance status.

Rivera’s issues with DOT appear to go back to April 16 when DOT sent him a cease-and-desist letter saying that officials had discovered that Hawaii Parachute Center was “not in good standing” with the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and that Oahu Parachute Center was not a registered tenant of the airfield. DOT gave Hawaii Parachute Center LLC until May 15 to provide proof of tax clearance certificates from the county and the state and to provide proof that DCCA had issued a “certificate of good standing.”

DCCA spokesman William Nhieu said Wednesday that at the time DOT sent the cease-and-desist letter to Hawaii Parachute Center, the business was not in good standing because it had not filed annual reports for 2017 and 2018. The company filed the reports on May 13, which ironically resulted in DCCA’s issuance of a certificate of good standing Wednesday certifying that Hawaii Parachute Center “is duly authorized to transact business.”

“We’re the paperwork processors,” Nhieu said. “It’s up to the entity that requires them to be in good standing to gauge it.”

It’s unclear how the lack of oversight will impact the crash aftermath. Among the dead are six people who worked at Oahu Parachute Center, including the pilot, three tandem parachute instructors and two camera operators. Three tourists and two solo jumpers, who decided to join the flight at the last minute, also were killed when the aircraft crashed at 6:22 p.m.

The Honolulu Medical Examiner’s Office has identified the 11 crash victims as Larry Lemaster, 50, James Lisenbee, 48, Jerome Renck, 42, Daniel Herndon, 35, Casey Williamson, 29, Michael Martin, 32, and Jordan Tehero, 23, of Hawaii; Joshua Drablos, 27, a U.S. military member from Virginia stationed in Hawaii; Ashley Weikel, 26, and Bryan Weikel, 27, of Colorado Springs, Colo.; and Nikolas Glebov, 28, of St. Paul, Minn.

It’s uncertain if the Oahu Parachute Center workers killed in the crash were employees of the business or independent contractors, a status that would not have triggered the same reporting or benefit requirements.

What is known is that Oahu Parachute Center did not have any registrations on file with the state Department of Labor and Industrial Relations for unemployment, workers’ compensation, prepaid health care or temporary disability insurance, according to DLIR spokesman William Kunstman. That means that the Oahu Parachute Center workers who were killed weren’t covered by the workers’ comp statutes that provide death benefits of about $280,000 for those killed on the job if their injuries weren’t caused intentionally or from intoxication.

U.S. Rep. Ed Case (D-Hawaii) said Tuesday that airspace and the safety and details of aircraft operations typically are the responsibility of the federal government. However, Case said the county and state have roles to play in ensuring that operators who are running aviation businesses are in full compliance with their requirements.

Case, who is pushing for stricter aviation regulations, said he doesn’t want to “indict every single operator throughout Hawaii” and that he knows some that are “good solid people who try to comply with the laws.”

But, he said, “too many are fly-by-night operators” and when they cut corners from a business regulatory standpoint likely “will cut corners with safety.”

Case said he plans to meet with senior leadership from the Federal Aviation Administration to urge them to increase safety regulations to comply fully with the NTSB’s 2008 Special Investigation Report on the Safety of Parachute Jump Operations. In the wake of the crash, the NTSB also urged the FAA, which only adopted a portion of the 2008 recommendations, to categorize parachuting service operators in a way that requires their planes to undergo more extensive maintenance and inspections.

Robert Katz, a Dallas-based flight instructor and 38-year pilot who tracks plane crashes nationwide, said he too wants to see greater regulation of his industry.

“Right now, it’s the fox guarding the chickens,” Katz said. “The FAA doesn’t budget resources and manpower to ensure compliance — most things are still on an honor system and that’s easy to abuse.”

Based on the NTSB preliminary report and his own experience, Katz said he expects that the plane in the Dillingham crash may have been overloaded, an avoidable cause. The NTSB has said the plane can carry up to 13 people, but Katz said 11 could have been too many if the combined weight of the people and their equipment exceeded guidelines or wasn’t properly balanced.

NTSB issued its preliminary report on the crash Monday, but isn’t expected to determine a cause for the crash for another 18 to 24 months. NTSB investigators are looking into weather and runway conditions, the pilot’s logbook and training records as well as weight and balance of the aircraft.

NTSB’S preliminary report quoted eyewitness accounts from a parachute instructor at the Oahu Parachute Center,. The instructor told the NTSB that the plane seemed to be fine as it taxied down the runway to take off, but at about 150 to 200 feet in the air, it began turning, then hit the ground nose first and burst into flames.

“He could hear the engines during the initial ground roll and stated that the sound was normal, consistent with the engines operating at high power,” the report said.

When the plane came into his view as it headed toward him, the aircraft was at an altitude of 150 to 200 feet and appeared to be turning. “He could see its belly, with the top of the cabin facing the ocean to the north. The airplane then struck the ground in a nose-down attitude, and a fireball erupted,” the report said.

A surveillance video at the southeast corner of the airfield showed the Beechcraft 65-A90 plane was upside down at a 45-degree angle to the ground just before impact, the report said.


----------



## taterhed (Jul 12, 2019)

So sad.

This was no secret.....people knew this was happening.  It's just inconceivable to think nobody had a clue......
I hope this triggers a little better oversight on these type operations.
RIP


----------



## tompalm (Jul 15, 2019)

Skydiving is not dangerous. It is the plane ride that is dangerous. Nine people on a single engine plane sounds like too many people. 
——————————-

HELSINKI >> Swedish officials said a small plane carrying parachutists crashed in northern Sweden soon after takeoff on Sunday and all nine people on board were killed.

The accident took place a little after 2 p.m. local time on Storsandskar island. Swedish media quoted witnesses reporting that some of the parachutists were seen trying to jump off the plane just before the crash.

Swedish airport authority Swedavia said the crashed aircraft was a GippsAero GA8 Airvan, an Australian-made single-engine plane popular with parachutists, that took off from Umea Airport. The cause of the crash is not yet known.

“I can confirm that all those aboard the plane have died,” Region Vasterbotten municipality spokeswoman Gabriella Bandling said.

One witness told Swedish broadcaster SVT she heard a loud noise from above before she saw the plane going straight down and crashing into the island.

Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven expressed “great sadness” over the accident in a statement to Swedish news agency TT.

He sent condolences to the families of the victims and said the government would stay in close touch with officials probing the crash “as it is important to investigate the cause.”

(The fatal accident comes less than a month after a similar accident on Oahu. On June 21, a Beechcraft 65-A90 aircraft with 11 people on board crashed soon after takeoff from Dillingham Airfield in Mokuleia. All people on board were killed. The state Department of Transportation later revealed that the plane’s operator, Oahu Parachute Center LLC, did not have a permit on file for the skydiving operation or an aircraft registration for the lane. The accident was the worst U.S. civilian aircraft crash since 2011.)


----------

