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

Unusual NTSB report

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

Lazy8

Registered Parrot Head
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Posts
789
Here's a good read from the nation's second busiest GA airport...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060608X00714&key=1


The pilot took off on the wrong runway. After flying around the airport for about 30 minutes, he was given clearance to land. He landed on the wrong runway. Tower personnel noticed the airplane making "doughnuts" (taxiing in circles). Sheriff's deputies found the pilot was found wandering around the tarmac. They said he appeared to be intoxicated. He was transported by ambulance to a nearby hospital. A sheriff's deputy who interviewed the pilot said his eyes were "red, watery, and bloodshot." He also detected a "strong odor of alcohol on his breath." The pilot said he did not start drinking until after he had landed. Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage. The pilot said it was dark when he landed, and he was "taxiing too fast, over controlling, and not watching where he was going." Outside and near the hangar, a displaced refuse dumpster bore scratches and paint transfer marks similar in color as that of the airplane.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control while taxiing from landing, resulting in a collision with a refuse dumpster. A contributing factor was his physical impairment by alcohol.
 
Last edited:
Stupid, if proved he was flying drunk he should be put in jail.
 
The statement was made tongue in cheek...but yes, the NTSB does frequently cite failure to file a flight plan, and invariably cites failure of the pilot to maintain directional control...sometimes to the point of absurdity in their description. Pilot failed to maintain directional control after losing wing in flight. Pilot failed to control airplane so as to prevent ground contact after experiencing massive coronary. Pilot failed to maintain aircraft control after flesh stripped from bones by rogue fire ants in flight...
 
I found one awhile back that is much weirder:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001207X04364&ntsbno=NYC95LA207&akey=1

The pilot had an argument with two people. Using a handgun, he shot both of them, wounding one and killing the other. He then stole an airplane, and while taxiing for takeoff, he exchanged gunfire with a person on the ground. About 20 minutes after takeoff, the airplane collided with trees in a wooded area. There were no known witnesses to the accident; however, there were indications that the airplane was descending when it crashed. Also, there was evidence that the engine was providing power during impact. No evidence of a mechanical failure or malfunction was found with the airplane. The wing flaps were retracted. There was no determination of whether or not the pilot and/or airplane were struck by gunfire. The occurrence was the subject of a criminal investigation by the Pennsylvania State Police.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
Failure of the pilot to maintain control of the airplane, which resulted in an in-flight collision with trees.
 
None of you will top this one:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X18632&key=1

THE PRIVATE PILOT AND A PILOT RATED PASSENGER WERE GOING TO PRACTICE SIMULATED INSTRUMENT FLIGHT. WITNESSES OBSERVED THE AIRPLANE'S RIGHT WING FAIL IN A DIVE AND CRASH. EXAMINATION OF THE WRECKAGE AND BODIES REVEALED THAT BOTH OCCUPANTS WERE PARTIALLY CLOTHED AND THE FRONT RIGHT SEAT WAS IN THE FULL AFT RECLINING POSITION. NEITHER BODY SHOWED EVIDENCE OF SEATBELTS OR SHOULDER HARNESSES BEING WORN. EXAMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS' CLOTHING REVEALED NO EVIDENCE OF RIPPING OR DISTRESS TO THE ZIPPERS AND BELTS.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
THE PILOT IN COMMAND'S IMPROPER INFLIGHT DECISION TO DIVERT HER ATTENTION TO OTHER ACTIVITIES NOT RELATED TO THE CONDUCT OF THE FLIGHT. CONTRIBUTING TO THE ACCIDENT WAS THE EXCEEDING OF THE DESIGN LIMITS OF THE AIRPLANE LEADING TO A WING FAILURE.
 
Hmmmmm

Does this count as dumpster diving?


Here's a good read from the nation's second busiest GA airport...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060608X00714&key=1


The pilot took off on the wrong runway. After flying around the airport for about 30 minutes, he was given clearance to land. He landed on the wrong runway. Tower personnel noticed the airplane making "doughnuts" (taxiing in circles). Sheriff's deputies found the pilot was found wandering around the tarmac. They said he appeared to be intoxicated. He was transported by ambulance to a nearby hospital. A sheriff's deputy who interviewed the pilot said his eyes were "red, watery, and bloodshot." He also detected a "strong odor of alcohol on his breath." The pilot said he did not start drinking until after he had landed. Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage. The pilot said it was dark when he landed, and he was "taxiing too fast, over controlling, and not watching where he was going." Outside and near the hangar, a displaced refuse dumpster bore scratches and paint transfer marks similar in color as that of the airplane.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control while taxiing from landing, resulting in a collision with a refuse dumpster. A contributing factor was his physical impairment by alcohol.
 
ACK, you are right. No one will top that one. Darwin Award Nominee!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top