2008 — March 4, Cessna 500 hits Birds and Crashes, near Wiley Post AP, OK City, OK– 5
— 5 NTSB AAR. Crash of Cessna 500…IN-Flight Collision with Large Birds, Oklahoma City
— 5 NTSB. “NTSB to Meet on 2008 Oklahoma City Cessna Bird Strike Crash,” July 20, 2009.
NTSB July 20, 2009 Press Release: “On March 4, 2008, about 3:15 p.m. (CST), a Cessna 500, N113SH, registered to Southwest Orthopedic & Sports Medicine Clinic PC of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and operated by Interstate Helicopters of Bethany, Oklahoma, collided in flight with a flock of large birds and crashed about 2 minutes after takeoff from Wiley Post Airport (PWA) in Oklahoma City. Both pilots and the three passengers were killed and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and postcrash fire.” (“NTSB to Meet on 2008 Oklahoma City Cessna Bird Strike Crash,” 7-20-2009.)
NTSB Investigation Report Executive Summary: “On March 4, 2008, about 1515 central standard time, a Cessna 500, N113SH, registered to Southwest Orthopedic & Sports Medicine Clinic PC of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, entered a steep descent and crashed about 2 minutes after takeoff from Wiley Post Airport (PWA) in Oklahoma City. None of the entities associated with the flight claimed to be its operator. The pilot, the second pilot, and the three passengers were killed, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and postcrash fire. The flight was operated under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 with an instrument flight rules flight plan filed. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. The flight originated from the ramp of Interstate Helicopters (a 14 CFR Part 135 on-demand helicopter operator at PWA) and was en route to Mankato Regional Airport, Mankato, Minnesota, carrying company executives who worked for United Engines and United Holdings, LLC.
“The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was airplane wing-structure damage sustained during impact with one or more large birds (American white pelicans), which resulted in a loss of control of the airplane.
“The safety issues discussed in this report focus on airframe certification standards for bird strikes, inadequate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) enforcement of wildlife hazard assessment requirements for airports located near wildlife attractants, the lack of published information regarding aircraft operational strategies for pilots to minimize bird-strike damage to aircraft, and inadequate FAA detection of and intervention in improper charter operations. Safety recommendations concerning these issues are addressed to the FAA.” (p. vii)
“2.4 Identity of the Operator
“Following the accident, representatives from Interstate Helicopters, Southwest Orthopedic, and United Engines all denied responsibility for operating the flight, and no documented aircraft lease, time-sharing, pilot services, or other agreements were discovered to help determine the identity of the operator or the nature of the flight (commercial or noncommercial). The accident pilot was certificated, trained, and qualified to fly the accident airplane in noncommercial operations as a single pilot. The second pilot was not trained, qualified, or current to fly the accident airplane; however, because the pilot was authorized to fly the accident airplane as a single pilot, the second pilot could occupy a cockpit seat and assist the pilot as directed.
“On September 12, 2008, the FAA initiated an emergency revocation of Interstate Helicopters’ operating certificate based on Interstate Helicopters’ involvement with the accident airplane on the date of the accident. The NTSB concludes that, at the time of the accident, Interstate Helicopters was operating the accident airplane in commercial service contrary to its FAA-issued Part 135 operating certificate, which, at the time, did not authorize operation of the accident airplane or any other fixed-wing aircraft. However, neither the pilot nor the second pilot were trained or qualified to fly the accident airplane in any Part 135 commercial charter operation, and the accident airplane was not maintained in accordance with Part 135 commercial maintenance requirements.
“Although Interstate Helicopters held a valid Part 135 operating certificate, its certificate was for helicopter operations. However, Interstate Helicopters’ actions with regard to the accident flight gave the customer all outward appearances that the flight was a commercial charter flight. When a United Engines representative requested the flight from PWA to MKT, Interstate Helicopters’ owner ensured that an airplane and pilots were provided. Interstate Helicopters’ manager had quoted flat total rates in response to requests for similar flights in the past, and, as evidenced from previous invoices, Interstate Helicopters would likely have been paid directly for the accident flight. Further, the passengers arrived at Interstate Helicopters’ ramp to board the accident airplane and were greeted by Interstate Helicopters’ manager, who assisted with their bags, obtained their weight information, and ensured that the airplane had been cleaned and stocked. From the passengers’ perspective, all of Interstate Helicopters’ actions with regard to the accident flight mirrored the typical services that a Part 135 operator would perform when providing a compliant commercial charter flight, and the president of United Engines stated that he believed that the flight was a charter.
“Although Interstate Helicopters’ owner claimed that he merely “put together” a dry lease arrangement for the customers, there is no evidence that United Engines, after requesting a flight
from Interstate Helicopters, had ever directly paid any airplane owners for the use of an airplane or had separately paid any pilots for their services, as would be expected in a dry lease arrangement. Further, although Interstate Helicopters had billed United Engines for previous flights using invoices that itemized certain costs to appear to conform to the cost-sharing provisions of 14 CFR 91.501(d), it did not do so in a consistent way; some invoices itemized expenses, others billed for a flat amount, and at least one “sales demo” flight transported passengers to multiple cities and billed an hourly rate for the airplane. The NTSB concludes that
Interstate Helicopters repeatedly labeled invoices as “aircraft lease” and “sales demo” flights, effectively disguising the noncompliant charter flights and circumventing the terms of its operating certificate.
“Although Interstate Helicopters was the accident flight’s operator, several individuals — the aircraft owner and his pilot, the accident pilot-in-command, and the customers — had the ability to prevent the operation by choosing not to participate but failed to do so, either because they did not fully understand that the arrangement was improper or they did know but disregarded the rules. Scenarios in which parties either inadvertently or intentionally participate in improper charter operations is not a new concern; FAA AC 91-37A, which advises potential aircraft lease or charter customers to be wary of “devious leases and conditional sales contracts” designed to “[evade] compliance with applicable certification and operating rules,” is a January 16, 1978, update to a document originally issued in 1972. This AC observed more than 30 years ago that “there are some irresponsible companies that may use various ways to confuse the issue concerning who is the actual aircraft operator. For example, the sham ‘dry lease’ has been used, whereby [the customer is] provided with an aircraft on a lease basis, although it is actually serviced and flown by the leasing company.”
“The NTSB is also concerned that some of these practices may be fostered by pilots who are reluctant to question suspicious operations for fear that they may lose their jobs or contract work, aircraft owners or managers who are either ignorant of or complacent about improper operations conducted with their aircraft by lessees, and/or bargain-hunting customers who are aware of the noncompliant nature of a flight but do not fully understand the potential safety and regulatory implications associated with it.
“Given the apparent decades-long existence of operational issues similar to those which were observed in this accident, a combination of measures must be taken to ensure that all participants in each facet of a flight operation—the operators, pilots, aircraft owners and managers, aircraft lessees, and charter customers—are aware of and take responsibility for their respective roles. The following analysis describes how expanded lease disclosure, pilot reporting, and carriage disclosure requirements, as well as improved customer awareness resources and Federal oversight and surveillance, could help prevent improper charter operations.
“2.4.1 Lease Disclosure Requirements
“Postaccident interviews with all the parties who participated in the flight resulted in conflicting accounts of their respective roles. The airplane’s owner stated that he was not sure what a dry lease was and that his pilot handled all the arrangements. The owner’s pilot (a current airline pilot with previous Part 135 charter experience) said that Interstate Helicopters operated the flight. Interstate Helicopters’ owner claimed that the airplane owner’s pilot was responsible for it and that the airplane was dry leased to United Engines. The president of United Engines said that his company did not lease or purchase aircraft block time and that he thought that the flight was a charter. In the wake of the accident, nobody claimed responsibility for operating the flight; without any written agreements, the determination of the operator could only be made after extensive investigative efforts, which included reviewing records of financial transactions.
“The investigation revealed that Interstate Helicopters made available to customers the accident airplane and several others under arrangements that it invoiced as aircraft leases. Some of these airplanes (including the accident airplane) that appeared on Interstate Helicopters’ invoices to the passengers’ company did not meet the FAA definition of a “large” airplane (maximum certificated takeoff weight of more than 12,500 lbs), which means that these airplanes were not subject to the 14 CFR 91.23 truth-in-leasing requirements for disclosing operational control, filing copies of leases with the FAA, and notifying the local FSDO before any flights were conducted. The NTSB concludes that the absence of written lease and FAA notification requirements for airplanes that do not meet the FAA definition of “large” increases the likelihood
that airplane owners, managers, lessees, operators, and customers could either intentionally or inadvertently participate in improper charters involving such airplanes and that it hinders the FAA’s ability to detect and correct such activity.
“A wide variety of airplanes, like the accident airplane, have a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 lbs or less, and a new class of very light jets (VLJs) is emerging. A VLJ is, by convention, a jet airplane with a maximum takeoff weight of less than 10,000 lbs that is approved for single-pilot operation and can typically seat four to eight people. Several manufacturers have VLJs either in production or under development, and an FAA forecast estimates that 4,875 VLJs will enter the U.S. active fleet by 2025. The NTSB is concerned that, as more airplanes that are smaller than “large ,” as defined by FAA regulations, become widely available and are often used in charter operations, these airplanes will be attractive to improper operators seeking to exploit their ability to operate undetected through the use of lease agreements that are not disclosed to the FAA. The NTSB concludes that 14 CFR 91.23 truth-in-leasing regulations, which exclude an expanding class of turbine-powered airplanes, leave aircraft charter customers vulnerable to operators that attempt to circumvent commercial charter regulations. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FAA revise 14 CFR 91.23 truth-in-leasing regulations to include all turbine-powered airplanes.” (pp. 40-43.) ….
“2.5 Federal Aviation Administration Oversight and Surveillance.
“Despite having a qualified inspector workforce and a documented record of inspections and correspondence with Interstate Helicopters, the Oklahoma City FSDO did not prevent Interstate Helicopters from operating what was likely multiple noncompliant charter flights. In the 3 years that preceded the accident, Interstate Helicopters operated at least 19 flights for United Engines using at least nine different airplanes that were not listed in its operations specifications. During that time frame, the FSDO targeted Interstate Helicopters for inspections at least twice—once in January 2007 in response to a complaint and once in November 2007 as part of a required operational control inspection—but still failed to identify the noncompliant operations….One maintenance provider stated that he had not seen an FAA inspector conduct a ramp check at PWA in 8 to 10 years….” (p. 46.)
“3. Conclusions
“3.1 Findings….
- The current airframe certification standards for bird strikes are insufficient because they are not based on bird-strike risks to aircraft derived from analysis of current bird-strike and bird-population data and trends and because they allow for lower levels of bird-strike protection for some structures on the same airplane.
….
- Because an airport’s wildlife hazard management plan is based on a wildlife hazard assessment, Wiley Post Airport’s failure to perform such an assessment as required prevented the determination of what mitigation measures, if any, could have been implemented to reduce the risk of an in-flight collision with American white pelicans.
….
- Although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken measures to increase the aviation community’s awareness of the importance of voluntary wildlife-strike reporting, a wildlife-strike reporting requirement would improve the quality of the data in the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database.
….
- A comprehensive aircraft charter guide that includes both basic information and reliable, up-to-date Federal Aviation Administration information on the certification status of on-demand commercial operators and the aircraft that each is authorized to operate is needed to provide customers with a single-source reference to ensure the legitimacy of their charter service options.
- The level of emphasis that the Oklahoma City Flight Standards District Office placed on conducting surveillance activities at Wiley Post Airport, which included limited inspector visits and a 2-hour on-site inquiry into a complaint about Interstate Helicopters, was insufficient to detect or deter improper charter activity at the airport.
….” (pp. 50-52.)
(NTSB AAR. Crash of Cessna 500, N113SH Following an IN-Flight Collision with Large Birds, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 4, 2008, adopted 7-28-2009.)
Sources
National Transportation Safety Board. Aircraft Accident Report. Crash of Cessna 500, N113SH Following an IN-Flight Collision with Large Birds, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 4, 2008. (NTSB/AAR-09/05). Washington, DC: NTSB, adopted 7-28-2009, 68 pages. Accessed 6-27-2015 at: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0905.pdf
National Transportation Safety Board. “NTSB to Meet on 2008 Oklahoma City Cessna Bird Strike Crash,” Washington, DC: NTSB Press Release, Aviation List, July 20, 2009.