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

NTSB Final Report on Corporate Airlines 5966

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogue5
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 22

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

Rogue5

Adult Swim junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Posts
882
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 24, 2006 SB-06-03

SAFETY BOARD DETERMINES CAUSE OF FATAL REGIONAL AIRLINE CRASH IN KIRKSVILLE, MISSOURI

Washington, DC -- The National Transportation Safety Board today determined that the cause of an aircraft accident in Kirksville, Missouri was the pilots' failure to follow established procedures and properly conduct a nonprecision instrument approach at night in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). This included their descent below the minimum descent altitude (MDA) before required visual cues were available and their failure to adhere to the established division of duties between the flying and nonflying pilot.

On October 19, 2004, Corporate Airlines flight 5966, a British Aerospace "Jetstream" BAE-J3201, on a scheduled flight from Lambert St. Louis International Airport, in St. Louis to Kirksville, Missouri, struck trees and crashed short of the runway during a night nonprecision instrument approach to Kirksville Regional Airport. The 2 pilots and 11 of the 13 passengers were fatally injured, and 2 passengers received serious injuries. Impact and a post- crash fire destroyed the airplane. Night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and the flight operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan.

"It is imperative that pilots understand and follow proper procedures when flying in demanding conditions," said NTSB Acting Chairman Mark Rosenker. "Pilots are also expected to perform in a professional manner at all times when operating an aircraft."

The Board noted that current regulations permitting pilots to descend below the MDA into a region where obstacle clearance is not assured may result in reduced margins of safety for nonprecision approaches, especially in conditions of low ceilings, reduced visibility, and/or at night. Further, these regulations can have the unintended effect of encouraging some pilots to descend below the MDA in an attempt to acquire visual cues that will permit them to continue the approach, as evident in this case.

The Safety Board indicated that the pilots failed to follow established procedures to effectively monitor the airplane's descent rate and height above terrain during the later stages of the approach and relied too much on minimal external visual cues. Although descent rate and altitude information were readily available through cockpit instruments, both pilots were largely preoccupied with looking for the approach lights, the report noted.

The Board determined that the pilots' failure to establish and maintain a professional demeanor during the flight and fatigue likely contributed to their degraded performance. The pilots' nonessential conversation below 10, 000 feet was contrary to established sterile cockpit regulations (no flight crewmember may engage in any activity during a critical phase of flight which could distract any crewmember from the performance of his or her duties). It reflected a demeanor and cockpit environment that fostered deviation from established standard procedures, crew resource management disciplines, division of labor practices, and professionalism, reducing the margin of safety well below acceptable limits during the accident approach.

According to the Board's report, research shows that fatigue can cause pilots to make risky, impulsive decisions, become fixated on one aspect of a situation, and react slowly to warnings or signs, which could result in an approach being continued despite evidence that it should be discontinued.

Through it's investigation, the Board learned that the less than optimal overnight rest time available, the early reporting time for duty, the length of the duty day, the number of flight legs and the demanding flying conditions were factors that affect any fatigue that the pilots may have experienced. This supports the Board's finding that fatigue likely caused the degraded performance and subsequent decision making. Therefore, the Board concluded that providing pilots with additional fatigue- related training may increase their awareness and use of fatigue avoidance techniques and thus improve safety margins.

Safety Board recommendations to the FAA as a result of the investigation include:

o Directing the principal operations inspectors of all Part 121 and 135 operators to reemphasize the importance of strict compliance with the sterile cockpit rule.

o Requiring all Part 121 and 135 operators to incorporate the constant-angle-of-descent technique into their nonprecision approach procedures and to emphasize the preference for that technique where practicable.

o Revising Part 121 and 135 regulations to prohibit pilots from descending below the minimum descent altitude during nonprecision instrument approaches unless conditions allow for clear visual identification of all obstacles and terrain along the approach path or vertical guidance to the runway is available and being used.

A synopsis of the report, including a complete list of the Conclusions and Recommendations, can be found on the Board's website, www.ntsb.gov.

NTSB Media Contact:
Keith Holloway
(202) 314-6100
[email protected]
 
I think it goes without saying but I wanted to request that no derogatory comments be made on this one (although I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen). The FO on this flight was a very good friend of mine. Thanks all.
 
What would your friend have you learn from this one? It would be an even greater tragedy not to learn something from his death.
 
I think it's great the NTSB spends a good portion of their findings discussing fatigue as a factor, and then essentially dismisses it as an issue by not recommending any changes to the current duty day regs, just "training on fatigue". :rolleyes:
 
Fatigue has been on the NTSB's "Most Wanted" list for years. Nothing ever gets done about it. They have recommended and recommended changes time and time again. I think your disgust with non-action on this issue is vastly misplaced. It should begin and end with the FAA and the ATA.
 
Learning something from this accident is one thing, ridiculing a dead person is entirely another. I think thats what masedogg was alluding to.

I knew Kim the CA; if I recall correctly, he flew the first flight into LAF for Corpex as JZ's FO. I didn't see him in LAF very much, but always enjoyed when he did, especially after he upgraded.

Sad...
 
BoilerUP said:
Learning something from this accident is one thing, ridiculing a dead person is entirely another. I think thats what masedogg was alluding to.

I knew Kim the CA; if I recall correctly, he flew the first flight into LAF for Corpex as JZ's FO. I didn't see him in LAF very much, but always enjoyed when he did, especially after he upgraded.

Sad...


Thanks....that's exactly what I was alluding to. I just didn't want to see any smart a** comments about them being stupid or making poor decisions.
 
How about some "education" of the effects of fatigue for the airlines that schedule 14 hour duty days, with 6-8 legs, in combination with scheduled reduced rest overnights? It's a sham, and they should be ashamed of themselves for saying the pilots need education about fatigue. TRUST ME, they know all about it.

From what I recall about this incident, these guys definitely were against it from the start because of their long duty day, plus the marginal weather, night non-precision approach, no autopilot, etc. Just another day of paying your dues at the regionals, right?

And I'm sorry, when you spend what seems like half your life in the cockpit of a turboprop for a few years, often flying below 10,000', nobody observes sterile cockpit the whole time. It just doesn't happen. It's a different environment than flying a jet that climbs up to 10K in a couple of minutes and then stays there for a couple hours. You gotta tell jokes all the time or else you'll cry.

Masedogg, I am very sorry for the loss of your friend. Just a reminder to us all to call in sick, fatigued, or whatever if you aren't prepared to do that last leg of the night - especially when it's going to be a tough approach.
 
Dude, do you have a copy of the transcript? Thanks in advance dude.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-24-crashinvestigation_x.htm

Investigators of 2004 air crash in Missouri blame pilots

WASHINGTON (AP) — A string of pilot errors caused the deadly crash of a commuter airliner in northeast Missouri, and the crew's non-stop joking and expletive-laden banter in the cockpit didn't help, federal investigators said Tuesday.

The commuter plane crashed as it approached a regional airport in northeastern Missouri, killing at least eight of the 15 people on board, officials said.

The two-man crew and 11 of 13 passengers aboard Corporate Airlines Flight 5966 were killed in the Oct. 19, 2004, accident — the deadliest civilian air crash in the nation that year.

The National Transportation Safety Board said the crew failed to follow established procedures for landing at night without precision instruments and descended too low before they could see the ground clearly.
The pilot, Capt. Kim Sasse, 48, focused too much on looking outside the cockpit window instead of monitoring flight instruments as the plane approached Kirksville Regional Airport, the board said.

Based on a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, investigators also found that Sasse and his co-pilot, Jonathan Palmer, 29, "lacked a professional tone" in the cockpit. A steady stream of quips, laughter and more than 45 expletives distracted the crew from focusing on the flight, investigators said.

"The discipline in that cockpit didn't seem to exist, which really created an environment for mistakes to be made," said NTSB Acting Chairman Mark Rosenker.

"This was extremely disappointing to hear what we heard on that cockpit voice recorder," said Rosenker, who described the recording as one of the most unprofessional he's ever heard.

The NTSB found no mechanical failure or maintenance problems with the twin-engine turboprop and no fault with training procedures at Smyrna, Tenn.-based Corporate Airlines, now called RegionsAir.

The crew had little warning of any problems until the final seconds of the flight that originated in St. Louis. Seconds before it was supposed to land, the plane clipped treetops and stalled before crashing in a field one mile short of the runway.

According to the transcript, Sasse claimed to see the ground and continued descending below 400 feet even though Palmer said he couldn't see anything. The board said Palmer failed to challenge Sasse's observations, defying established rules.

The Kirksville airport is one of about 50 out of 589 airports in the nation that is not equipped with an instrument landing system, which gives pilots more precise guidance about their position off the ground.

The NTSB recommended the Federal Aviation Administration revise its rules to prohibit pilots without precision guidance from descending below a minimum altitude unless they have a clear view of all obstacles on the ground near the runway.

The agency also said the FAA should reemphasize to air carriers the importance of keeping a professional atmosphere in the cockpit, known as the "sterile cockpit rule."

Pilot fatigue also was a factor, said NTSB investigator Malcolm Brenner, as the pilots had been on duty for more than 14 hours at the time of the 7:37 p.m. crash. It was the sixth landing of the day in challenging weather for a crew that reported for duty around 5 a.m.

That's within FAA guidelines, but the NTSB recommended that the FAA upgrade its regulations on how many consecutive hours a flight crew can work to account for the time pilots report for duty, work load and other factors.

Brenner said the United States and France are the only countries that base their aviation hours limits on flight time, while most other countries base them on duty time or a combination of duty and flight time.

Visibility was limited on the night of the accident, but Sasse expressed frustration that they would "go all this (expletive) way" without being able to land.

"Well, let's try it," said Palmer.

"Yeah, we'll try it," Sasse responded.

The plane was less than 300 feet off the ground before Sasse spotted the approach lights of the airport. Less than 10 seconds later, the crew spoke the final words recorded during the flight.

Sasse: "No."

Palmer: "Trees."

Sasse: "No, stop." (Sound of impact.)

Sasse: "Oh, my God." (Sounds of numerous impacts.)

Palmer: "Holy (expletive)."

The 19-seat Jetstream 32 was not equipped with an updated system that warns pilots when they fly too low, though it had an older version of the terrain warning system that met regulations at the time. Corporate Airlines operated the flight under contract with American Airlines' commuter service.

Passengers included doctors and other medical professionals en route to a conference at the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine. The survivors, Wendy Bonham, 44, and Dr. John Krogh, 68, escaped from the wreckage with broken bones and some burns. They had worked together at the college's Orem, Utah, campus.

The crash has spawned a number of lawsuits, including one that alleges the pilots had been on duty longer than the 14-hour limitation set by American Airlines, though less than the FAA standard of 16 hours.
American Airlines has declined to comment on pending litigation
 
Fatigue related training???

The FAA needs to just change the rules and change the # of legs regionals are doing.

We have all been there and the best pilot isn't worth anything when they are tired.

Get on the ball FAA before more happens like this. The experience level is going down at the regionals and no one is happy. I think there will be more accidents in the future.
 
masedogg19 said:
I think it goes without saying but I wanted to request that no derogatory comments be made on this one (although I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen). The FO on this flight was a very good friend of mine. Thanks all.
That's almost an attractive nusiance.
 
Very similar to the Hibbing, MN crash.

Lessons here are that professionalism, procedures, and acknowledgement that night, non-precision IMC are really f&ckin' dangerous, can go a long way to keeping yo' azz out of trouble.
 
Fasten your seat belt Corpex

The lawyers will have a field day with this one......Corpex better have lots of insurance, money or both. I don't buy the comment that because a turbo prop crew might stay below 10,000' feet that there is likely to be more conversation. While that might be true for cruise........I don't know any crews that don't "tighten-up" when weather is marginal and they have to do a real instrument approach!! Especially when flying at night, in weather on a non-precision approach. THe Capt on this crew failed for several reasons, first the weather (and don't tell me the Capt doesn't set the tone).....second, the type of approach and finally a new FO........as I understand it this was the FO's first trip after IOE.....
I would love to hear the approach briefing that was given!!!!
I am sure they were both great people....but there is many lessons here.....
 
It sucks but this was pilot error all the way. Who were the pilots and what was their experience?

edited for sexist remarks...Lequip, you're hereby warned to stop that kind of junk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...deleted
 
mesaba2425 said:
Dude, do you have a copy of the transcript? Thanks in advance dude.
Fellow pilots died. PAX died. Learn from it, but don't joke about it.

Not cool.

-JP
 
Lequip said:
It sucks but this was pilot error all the way.
That's a narrow view.

This is a fatigue issue all the way.
The pilot error would not have occurred were it not for the FAA's arcane rest rules, and the ridiculous "exemption" for aircraft with 30 seats or fewer than let them use Part 135 duty and rest rules. I see that didn't make it into the report either. *sigh*
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top