Plane Crash 9 Killed - Tour Out of Ketchikan

http://www.adn.com/article/20150628/recovery-southeast-alaska-plane-crash-wreckage-could-take-weeks

Pictures and stories,

PA12DRVR wrote:
I've received some accusations of being lily-livered, but what's the point of a personal rule if you don't follow it.

Long way of saying that even the best pilot can be caught by a combination of disorientation, rapid weather changes and the like. Still a tragedy, no matter what.

The one saying from our basic flight school instructors that stuck with me all these years after flight school was, There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are NO old, bold pilots, so people can say what they want, but you and only you know what keeps you safe. I would fly with you any day.

As joe says, this will likely be ultimately logged as "Pilot Error".....and since the pilot hit the starter and was at the controls, perhaps that's the most "factual".

I have less time than did the pilot in Ketchikan, but I'm always concerned with local knowledge when even exceptionally competent pilots are brought in for the summer...particularly if their home location is not as prone to the fog, mists, and winds as is Southeast AK. At my favorite strip (relatively close to Los Anchorage) I won't depart if there (as there often is) a patch of fog over the slough...regardless of what Palmer is reporting for weather, or Sheep Mountain or Eureka or XXX. Since I've been flying into that strip since 1982, I know that if I see that patch of fog, I know that I will likely have to count on flying well South of Palmer to get past the fog (even if there is still plenty of room below it) and that all of my bailout locations will be covered if the takeoff goes bad, so I don't do it. I've received some accusations of being lily-livered, but what's the point of a personal rule if you don't follow it.

Long way of saying that even the best pilot can be caught by a combination of disorientation, rapid weather changes and the like. Still a tragedy, no matter what.

There has never been an in flight structural failure of any Dehavilland Beaver or Otter, that I am aware of. Most/many of the planes have been converted over, to a turbo prop engine, by Viking Air out of Vancouver, the STC holder for this modification. Dehavillands are built like tanks, and look it to me, LOL. This crash will go down as a "pilot error" as do most crashes in Alaska. The mountain they hit didn't move, just the airplane and the pilot was in charge of where it flew. In poor visibility, it is very easy to get disoriented as to your exact location when flying. I have just over 3,000 hours of Alaska flying time, most of it in the bush. In my 20+ years of flying in Alaska, I think I talked to an FAA employee about twice and both of those were when I was on trips to town, Fairbanks or Anchorage. The FAA is pulling out of many remote areas to work out of centers, in the urban areas. Very little actual supervision, by FAA employees, usually from a designated person, that works for the company, not the FAA.

While the tour deaths is a tragic happening, I try to keep things like this in prospective, by remembering that over 4,000 people died in auto accidents in Florida last year. Flight seeing is a great way to see parts of Alaska. Each flight starts new each take off, just because you have flown in an airplane for the last 20 days, your odds of being in a crash are no different than the other people on the plane taking their first flight of their lifetime. But before you get on any flight, look around at the weather, and remember only take offs are optional.

Now there's speculation that the plane was too old (50 something). I don't know the lifespan of an airplane but this does seem old to me and perhaps not proper maintenance.

The pilot was 64 and from here in northern Idaho and worked there as a "summer" pilot. He was a well experienced pilot, both total time and type time. NTSA has begun their investigation and estimated 5 days, which I think is a little short, seeing as how they have not lifted the plane off the mountain yet. Initial report says wings and tail were ripped off but fuselage is fairly intact. Interesting scenario, if those reports are true.

We operated several aircraft under both FAA & Transport Canada regs and as much scrutiny that these agencies provide, things still fall through the cracks. Unfortunately when an aircraft hits a mountain it's rarely an aircraft issue, it often plays out as a poor decision or just plain lack of practical experience in a critical situation.

Either way it does not bring anyone back, as I wrote before, it's just really sad to have happened.

... Eric

PackerBacker wrote:
I worked in the aircraft engine business for over 40 years and absolutely hate to ever hear of any aircraft event like this. I lost some good friends years ago on a tour excursion in New Zealand when the aircraft hit a mountain in weather.

I for one will never jump on any aircraft in any weather. I hate to say but I believe that many of these tour folks should not be in business.

Sad, really sad.

These tour operators are known in the industry as part 135 operators because they operate under FAR 135, Their aircraft are maintained to a higher standard that the private aircraft we see flying by private owners.
These 135 operators are under the microscope of the FAA at all times, but it only takes one mistake by the pilot.

I'm sorry this type of accident happens. but it does.

I worked in the aircraft engine business for over 40 years and absolutely hate to ever hear of any aircraft event like this. I lost some good friends years ago on a tour excursion in New Zealand when the aircraft hit a mountain in weather.

I for one will never jump on any aircraft in any weather. I hate to say but I believe that many of these tour folks should not be in business.

Sad, really sad.