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

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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top