Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Info on BE-1900 Crashes

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

heywatchthis

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Posts
199
Error found in plane manual
[SIZE=-1]By EMILY C. DOOLEY[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]STAFF WRITER[/SIZE]
Just eight months after the Federal Aviation Administration announced a completed review of maintenance manuals for Beechcraft 1900s, the plane's manufacturer has issued a correction because of a backward illustration.

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/images/plane19.jpg
[FONT=ms sans serif, sans serif, arial, helvetica]http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/images/bullet2.gif The tail section of the Colgan Air plane that crashed off Cape Cod is loaded onto a flat-bed trailer in South Yarmouth on Aug. 28, 2003.
(File photo by Vincent DeWitt)
[/FONT]

This is the latest in a series of manual revisions that Raytheon Aircraft Co. has issued since two Beechcraft 1900Ds crashed in 2003, one in Charlotte, N.C., and one on Cape Cod, killing 23 people.

In both crashes, errors were found in Raytheon's maintenance manuals during the crash investigation. And in the Cape Cod case, a backward illustration was cited as a factor in the crash.
Last month, Raytheon sent out a safety notice explaining that an illustration in the maintenance manual for installing a rudder trim forward cable was backward.
The rudder trim is on the tail of the airplane and acts almost like power steering. Using the bad illustration as guidance would reverse the gear, meaning a plane would turn left when the pilot intended a right turn.
According to Raytheon, the error was discovered during a check after maintenance.

The FAA will continue to monitor revisions, FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette said.
Twenty-one people were killed in Charlotte in January 2003; two pilots were killed off Cape Cod in August 2003. Both planes had recently undergone maintenance.

After the two crashes, the FAA began to review maintenance procedures for the Beechcraft 1900, 1900C and 1900D aircraft, Duquette said. The National Transportation Safety Board later made the same recommendation.
A March 2005 FAA letter about the completed examination of flight safety entries mentions the same manual version that is under revision once more.
''I can't believe they found another one after all they went through,'' said John Goglia, a former NTSB member who investigated both Beechcraft crashes.

Raytheon spokesman Mike Turner could not provide the number of revisions that have been made after the crashes because he said they were not tracked.
At least seven corrections
But as of February 2004, there had been seven corrections and one change made as a result of the crashes.

''The safety of our aircraft is our utmost concern and we continuously review our manuals and procedures for improvement,'' he wrote in a prepared statement. ''Aircraft maintenance manuals are constantly changing based on input from operators in the field, product improvements and new FAA requirements.''

Turner declined to answer further questions because of pending litigation.
As of December, there were 255 Beechcraft 1900, 1900C and 1900D aircraft registered with the FAA. Colgan, a US Airways express carrier, locally flies trips between LaGuardia and Hyannis and Nantucket, carrying a maximum of 1,330 passengers weekly in and out of the area. Seasonal flights to Boston are also available.

Meanwhile, a federal judge last month dismissed Colgan Air from two lawsuits brought by the family and loved ones of pilot Scott Knabe and first officer Steven Dean.

The two reported a control problem after takeoff and crashed off Point Gammon. Skipped maintenance steps, a faulty manual and lack of pilot checks contributed to the crash, according to the NTSB.
Dean's wife, Yisel Dean, filed suit in January claiming wrongful death, negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, gross negligence and unfair or deceptive acts and practices. Knabe's girlfriend, Lisa Weiler, filed a similar suit; both have been combined into one case.

Gross negligence claimed
The claim against Colgan was for gross negligence. It was denied because Dean asked for punitive damages, which are allowed in Texas where the pilot lived but not in Massachusetts where he worked and was entitled to workers' compensation, District Judge Patti B. Saris said.

Negligence, breach of warranty and unfair and deceptive practices still stand against the plane's manufacturer, Raytheon Co., and assorted subsidiaries. Turner declined to comment on the lawsuit.

''The opinion was thorough and conclusive and definitively decided that issue, however the case goes on because there are several defendants still in the case, including the manufacturer of the aircraft and the providers of the maintenance manuals with erroneous maintenance instructions,'' said attorney Mary Schiavo who represents Dean and Weiler. ''We will very vigorously press on.''

A jury trial has been set for September 2006, according to court documents.

In another lawsuit, Colgan was not so fortunate. The airline, which flew 667,960 passengers last year, sued Raytheon for damages it incurred for the loss of its airplane and associated costs. In the suit, Colgan attorneys cited the faulty manuals as reasons for the litigation. Raytheon countered that Colgan's maintenance crews and pilots were to blame.
A federal judge dismissed the case last week.

Colgan spokeswoman Mary Finnigan did not return calls seeking comment.

Emily C. Dooley can be reached at [email protected]. (Published: December 19, 2005)
 
It's too bad the real culprit gets off the hook here...At least their claim against Raytheon was dismissed as well.

RIP Scott and Steve!
 
chperplt said:
It's too bad the real culprit gets off the hook here...At least their claim against Raytheon was dismissed as well.

RIP Scott and Steve!


Hey you got your old user name back! I flew with Jeff Helgeson today by the way. Kinda odd flying with a dude i have seen on this site long before i even knew about AAY. Anyhow, he slapped me twice, once for each cowboy thing i tried to do. Second slap was a backhand that actually knocked the chew out of my mouth, which subsequently landed all over the six pack. I'm like, bra.... a foul is only a foul if the ref blows his whistle. Anyhow, the rest of the day was awkward silence. Out
 
No violations, the place was excellent for the resume and experience.
 
Beech came out with a communique for the ops check of the rudder trim. Since then I've done a couple on Skyway's 1900's.

question for the pilots though, even if the cable drum was wound backwards, resulting in reversed rudder trim operation, wouldn't you realize something was wrong with the trim way before it causes one to become a lawn dart
 
sbn340mech said:
Beech came out with a communique for the ops check of the rudder trim. Since then I've done a couple on Skyway's 1900's.

question for the pilots though, even if the cable drum was wound backwards, resulting in reversed rudder trim operation, wouldn't you realize something was wrong with the trim way before it causes one to become a lawn dart

I always wondered this too. It was the elevator trim not the rudder that was backwards?? At less then 1000 AGL and feeling that you had a runaway trim, and seeing the thing pitch towards the water, hearing and seeing it accelerate, the last thing i would want to do is trim it the opposite way i have known to trim an airplane my whole life. Especially with all that adrenalin and fear, and being that close to the ground. Now that we know it was backwords, it's easy to say you would just trim the other way. That is if i understand this accident correctly. I was actually waiting for this plane in ALB that day, they were ferrying it to me to fly next. Pretty erie.
 
bra said:
I was actually waiting for this plane in ALB that day, they were ferrying it to me to fly next. Pretty erie.

Actually, they were not flying the airplane up to you. They (DR) told you that, just like they told Steve and Scott that.

The airplane was on it's way to ALB MX. ALB MX was to remove, replace, and repair what HYA MX did over the previous weekend. The airplane was not airworthy, nor would it have been for a few days had it arrived in ALB in one piece.
 
chperplt said:
Actually, they were not flying the airplane up to you. They (DR) told you that, just like they told Steve and Scott that.

The airplane was on it's way to ALB MX. ALB MX was to remove, replace, and repair what HYA MX did over the previous weekend. The airplane was not airworthy, nor would it have been for a few days had it arrived in ALB in one piece.

Now that's scary! Was it on a ferry flight then? All I remember reading about it was a repositioning flight.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top