Ketchican Misty Fjords Flight Tour Mishap

I started this thread for those interested in discussing the aviation safety and investigation aspects of this terrible tragedy. There are 2 other threads offering appropriate condolences to those affected.

Please limit this thread to the facts you learn from a variety of sources and the upcoming investigations.

The aircraft was a de Havilland Turbine Otter - which means it has a turbine engine - not a piston engine.

I reviewed every the NTSB database for fatal aviation mishap flying anywhere in Alaska under part 135 (air charters) for the last 10 years. There were a total of 3 anywhere in the state that involved scheduled flight seeing tours.

There were 2 in 2007 (also in Misty Fjords) one in 2013 originating in Petersburg and then the latest one yesterday.

There were others involving air taxi and cargo, but not tours.

As a result of the 2007 mishaps (which involved weather) they installed more weather cameras in the misty fjords area. http://avcams.faa.gov/sitelist.php

Here is a link to the 2007 NTSB reports

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/Results.aspx?queryId=9db62d6b-5d93-4ddb-a87b-976371c910f9

I'm not sure if I'd call the death of 9 people a "mishap".

Thanks for starting this thread and for your research.

You have found 3 air accidents in the past 10 years on commercial flightseeing tours in Alaska. What percentage is that, would you think? How many flightseeimg trips have occured in that time period? It must be many thousands.

Sent from my LG-D801 using Forums mobile app

over obsessed vultures

I'm not sure if I'd call the death of 9 people a "mishap".

My background is in naval aviation where we use the term mishap instead of accident. Accident implies that the incident could not have been prevented while mishap is used to set the tone that every incident could have been prevented.. Some countries use mishap to describe less serious incidents.

Thanks for starting this thread and for your research.

 

You have found 3 air accidents in the past 10 years on commercial flightseeing tours in Alaska. What percentage is that, would you think? How many flightseeimg trips have occured in that time period? It must be many thousands.

 

Sent from my LG-D801 using Forums mobile app

Here is a link to the accident statistics from the FAA

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/divisions/alaskan_region/acc_stats/

Thanks for starting this thread and for your research.

 

You have found 3 air accidents in the past 10 years on commercial flightseeing tours in Alaska. What percentage is that, would you think? How many flightseeimg trips have occured in that time period? It must be many thousands.

 

Sent from my LG-D801 using Forums mobile app

Yes, it is quite a few when you think about Denali, Juneau and Ketchikan. The only fatals in the last 10 years, now 4 total, were all in Misty Fjord operations.

I grew up in logging camps in Southeast Alaska, meaning I spent a lot of time in float planes. It's how we got to town and how our stuff got out to us. In the 14 years of that life, I can only think of one fatal air crash that I was aware of.

Nine lives being lost is a horrible thing and of course our hearts go out to the loved ones left behind in grief. But I still believe I'm much safer in an airplane than I am on the highway. I hope this terrible event does not cause people to change their plans out of fear...

http://www.adn.com/article/20140917/plane-crashed-and-killed-10-soldotna-may-have-been-overloaded

Bear viewing but not scheduled.

My background is 33 years of air traffic control, I still would not consider it a mishap. But now I understand your use of the term, thanks.

 

The aircraft was a de Havilland Turbine Otter - which means it has a turbine engine - not a piston engine.

 

Maybe I don't understand your terminology but I'm pretty sure the turbine engine in the Otter has pistons...the engine is turbocharged meaning it has an air pump to force more air in the engine than would normally be sucked in by the pistons. More air means more fuel can be burned, hence more power.

I'll preface this to say I send my condolences to all involved and praying for family and friends of the victims.

If I had to guess, I'd say this ends up as a CFIT accident.

I have 160 hours in the left seat of a Cessna 172 abd Piper Cub so have a little knowledge. VFR can become IFR in Alaska in 30 seconds, so anyone on other threads saying this was a money grab need to stop posting.

It's a tragedy.

...

you got the term correct, the OP expert didn't.

 

you can tell a turbo charged otter by the extended nose.

I came across this and was compelled to create an account here just to set this straight.

Turbine otters are not "turbocharged"—they're powered by a gas turbine engine, not a turbocharged piston engine.

No pistons.

-Fox

Does anyone have info as to whether the other companies in town flew on the same day, in that weather??

Having done a float plane tour last month in Ketchican, we are following this story closely. We flew Carlin Air (wonderful).

Here are the 3 recommendations the NTSB made to the FAA after the 2007 misty fjords accident.

They installed cameras to show real time Misty Fjord weather, started monitoring tour operators to ensure they follow the rules and helped the tour operators develop training to deal with fast changing weather on tour routes.

These aircraft are also equipped with sophisticated GPS systems which can help show nearby terrain to help them avoid CFIT.

We will have to await the final report to see if any of these 2007 issues occurred once again. We should expect a preliminary report in about 3 months and a final in about a year based on past history.

RECOMMENDATON a-08-59

TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: Install and maintain weather cameras at critical areas of air tour routes within the Misty Fjords National Monument and other scenic areas in Southeast Alaska that are frequently traveled by air tour operators.

Date: 6/7/2011

Response: CC# 201100089: The NTSB is pleased to learn that the FAA has installed 10 weather camera facilities along critical air tour routes in southeast Alaska as recommended, including at Kake, Hawk Inlet, Cordova, and Misty Fjords. The FAA’s actions satisfy this recommendation. Accordingly, Safety Recommendation A-08-59 is classified CLOSED -- ACCEPTABLE ACTION.

RECOMMENDATION a-08-60

TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: Develop a permanent mechanism to provide en route and ground-based observations of air tour flights in Southeast Alaska at least once a month during the tour season to ensure operators are adhering to safe flying practices.

From: NTSB

To: FAA

Date: 3/21/2014

Response: We note that, in Fiscal Year 2010, you permanently added en route inspections of air tour operators to FAA Order 1800.56, “National Flight Standards Work Program.” We also note that you used the Surveillance Priority Index (SPI) Tool to establish a special emphasis program ensuring that Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASI) conduct a minimum of 10 unannounced en route inspections and 15 ramp surveillances of air tour operators in southeast Alaska throughout the air tour season. We further note that, as part of the program, ASIs will conduct ground-based surveillance activities (2 per year) of air tour operators in and around the Misty Fjords and Traitor Cove areas and, from the Ketchikan automated flight service station, special emphasis surveillance activities (10 per year) of the Tongass Narrows/Ketchikan Harbor. We are pleased that you have incorporated surveillance activities that are unique and appropriate to the Alaska air tour environment—particularly the remote observations, which we believe sends a message to all air tour operators that the FAA is observing their operations and is not focusing solely on an individual carrier or carriers. Although you are conducting fewer than the monthly inspections we recommended, we believe that the permanent mechanism you have developed will provide en route and ground based observations of air tour flights in southeast Alaska that satisfy the intent of this recommendation. Accordingly, Safety Recommendation A-08-60 is classified CLOSED—ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE ACTION.

RECOMMENDATION A-08-61

TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: Develop, in cooperation with Southeast Alaska commercial air tour operators, aviation psychologists, and meteorologists, among others, a cue-based training program for commercial air tour pilots in Southeast Alaska that specifically addresses hazardous aspects of local weather phenomena and in-flight decision-making.

From: FAA

To: NTSB

Date: 1/4/2012

Response: -From Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator: The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Juneau-based Flight Standards District Office, in cooperation with local operators in Southeast Alaska, the Medallion Foundation, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health/Center for Disease Control, developed a cue-based weather-training program that was incorporated into air tour operator-specific training programs. As of the 2011 Alaska air tour season, all air tour operators in Southeast Alaska have added materials and concepts developed as part of the cue-based training project to their training programs. These include, but are not limited to, training videos, use of basic airplane training devices with wide screen outside view, and photo-realistic instrument panels for each type of tour airplane. These devices include programmable visibility restrictions and deterioration rates, visibility targets, and photo-realistic terrain. Ketchikan, Alaska-based air tour operators' cue-based training programs were approved and implemented prior to the 2010 air tour season. Prior to the 2011 air tour season, the Juneau, Alaska-based air tour operators' cue based training programs were approved and implemented. I believe that the FAA has effectively addressed this safety recommendation, and I consider our actions complete

Here is the complete NTSB report recommendations from the 2007 accident.

http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/RecLetters/A08_59_62.pdf

And perhaps most sobering, the pilot of the 2007 accident aircraft had seven, only seven, hours of Alaska flying time when he was hired. His previous experience of flying in Arizona would have provided little opportunity to learn the fast-changing coastal weather of the Panhandle.

And given the single-pilot nature of small-aircraft tourist flying, as with the Misty Fjord trips and many others sold to cruise passengers, the pilot would have had no chance to learn from flying with other pilots more experienced with making turn-back decision in rapidly changing conditions.

Total flying time since hire in Alaska, 185 hours.

From the report. The Taquan Air accident pilot had been flying commercial air tours in Southeast Alaska since May 9, 2007, his initial hire date. Before being hired by Taquan, the pilot flew de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otters and de Havilland DHC-8 Dash 8 airplanes in Arizona. He reported only 7 hours of Alaska flight time experience at the time he was hired by Taquan Air and had accumulated about 185 hours of flying in Alaska at the time of the accident.

I came across this and was compelled to create an account here just to set this straight.

 

Turbine otters are not "turbocharged"—they're powered by a gas turbine engine, not a turbocharged piston engine.

 

No pistons.

 

-Fox

Thank you for the clarification. I learned something today.

Does anyone have info as to whether the other companies in town flew on the same day, in that weather??

 

Having done a float plane tour last month in Ketchican, we are following this story closely. We flew Carlin Air (wonderful).

I was wondering the same thing. We flew with Island Wings on 5/24/15. There was a marine layer that prevented them from safely getting to the Misty Fjords but they did take us on a flightseeing tour instead (for a discounted price). The winds were calm so it's not that the weather was necessarily unsafe for flying - just unsafe for getting to the fjords.

I would not hesitate to take another float plane trip but I might be more diligent about my research in the future.

Maybe I don't understand your terminology but I'm pretty sure the turbine engine in the Otter has pistons...the engine is turbocharged meaning it has an air pump to force more air in the engine than would normally be sucked in by the pistons. More air means more fuel can be burned, hence more power.

A common term for the power plant on the Otter is a "turboprop". Basically a propeller linked to a gearbox driven by a jet engine. Accurately described by others as a turbine engine. No pistons.

The one we flew on in 07 was a converted 1950 vintage Otter...10 passengers plus the pilot. The engine, according to our ProMech pilot produced about 1000 hp.

Maybe I don't understand your terminology but I'm pretty sure the turbine engine in the Otter has pistons...the engine is turbocharged meaning it has an air pump to force more air in the engine than would normally be sucked in by the pistons. More air means more fuel can be burned, hence more power.

To elaborate a little further than a few other explanations already here, turbine engines come in essentially four forms:

Turbojet: a turbine engine that creates thrust directly with the exhaust of the turbine fan blades. Think early jet airplanes: noisy and fuel-hungry.

Turbofan: a turbine engine that directly turns a big fan. The thrust from the big fan blows around (bypasses) the inner turbine engine "core"; only a small fraction of the total thrust comes from the jet engine exhaust. The big fan is normally enclosed by an outer shroud, which helps control the thrust.

Turboprop: a turbine engine that indirectly turns a propeller (a fan with very few blades) by way of a gearbox. The propeller needs to go through the gearbox to control the speed of the blade tips. The propeller is typically too big to be encased within a shroud. As a result, "reverse thrust" is created via mechanical/hydraulic control of the blade pitch.

Turboshaft: a turbine engine that delivers its thrust via a driveshaft. Turboshaft engines are used in helicopters, as a transmission changes the engine RPM down to both main rotor RPM (perhaps 350 RPM) and tail rotor RPM (perhaps 1200 RPM).

Turbine engines have very few moving parts, are extremely well understood, and extremely reliable. I'll take a turbine over a piston any day.

Does anyone have info as to whether the other companies in town flew on the same day, in that weather??

 

Having done a float plane tour last month in Ketchican, we are following this story closely. We flew Carlin Air (wonderful).

We flew that same day and in fact were one of the four planes being used by Promech to take passengers from Ketchikan to Rudyerd Bay and back. Below is a photo of the accident plane just prior to taking off on it's fateful trip.

Our flight was not bad, but the pilot was also very cautious, making note that he was staying away from the mountains and flying a more circuitous route. Our 30 min. trip was closer to 45 min. We actually had sunshine for brief moments in the air. The weather was worse in Ketchikan than in the fjords. We enjoyed the flight, but once we learned what happened to another plane up at the same time, it was a very sobering experience. Nothing about the flight caused us to question whether or not we should be up there. Of course, at this point we don't know the cause of the accident and it may come down to something else other than weather.

We flew that same day and in fact were one of the four planes being used by Promech to take passengers from Ketchikan to Rudyerd Bay and back. Below is a photo of the accident plane just prior to taking off on it's fateful trip.

 

Our flight was not bad, but the pilot was also very cautious, making note that he was staying away from the mountains and flying a more circuitous route. Our 30 min. trip was closer to 45 min. We actually had sunshine for brief moments in the air. The weather was worse in Ketchikan than in the fjords. We enjoyed the flight, but once we learned what happened to another plane up at the same time, it was a very sobering experience. Nothing about the flight caused us to question whether or not we should be up there. Of course, at this point we don't know the cause of the accident and it may come down to something else other than weather.

 

Thank you for sharing. We had flew earlier in the week and yes after the accident it was very sobering