Update on Catalina Baron crash

[MauleSkinner]

Just be careful with that, too - Because the NTSB has apparently only recently started to learn about root cause analysis, and most of the reports say "The NTSB finds that the probable cause of this crash is the pilot's failure to ..." it's FAR too easy to look at an accident report and say "Well that's just stupid, I would never do that!" and move on, thinking you're impervious to that particular type of accident.

In reality, we need to think deeper. WHY did the pilot do that? What was the decisionmaking process? What information was available? What internal and external pressures may have caused the pilot to make that decision?

yup…Like most anything in learning to fly, you can learn to do it right or you can learn to do it wrong.

 

[woywoyboy]

If the airport manager had called the deputy and advised them there's a plane trying to use the closed runway, I wonder if the Avalon deputy would have responded? Maybe he was eating a Dunkin' and having a double caf coffee and would run out. Maybe he would have told the mgr he was on his own.

Not taking anything away from the rest of your post, but in a very real sense the KAVX manager is definitely on his own in a case like this. It's a rough, winding, forty-five minute drive from Avalon (the town) to KAVX; I'd guess the lone deputy on the island would think that by the time they get there the plane will be long gone — and there's probably no legal basis to try to stop the plane taking off anyway. As you note later, maybe the Conservancy could come up with something that puts legal oomph into the situation — something an LA County deputy could actually act on, or something that has physical application — but they're not there yet.

 

[geezer]

Closed per the manager, but he went home. Catalina Island.

Local airport, KCGS, College Park, MD, had a curfew at sundown. Owner and manager is the Maryland National Capital Parks, and the Park Police headquarters then was 2 blocks away.

Homecoming football game had a large fly in attendance, and the owner of a 6 seat twin, Beech, I think, partied beyond the curfew, and his hosts brought him and his fellow graduates to the airport. An officer, tasked with seeing there were no violations of curfew noticed headlights on the access road, and drove over to see that no departure occurred. There was a discussion, and the pilot agreed to remain until next day, his host agreed to put them up, and all left the airport.

An hour later, the pilot returned, quickly fired up his engines, taxied to the runway and initiated a departure.

The previous Police officer arrived, drove onto the opposite end of the runway, with siren and lights on, and accelerated down to meet the plane. They met a quarter of the way down the runway, and he claimed it hit his long whip antenna as it passed over him.

Charges and counter charges flew in both directions, but the police request to the FAA for enforcement against the pilots license was an eye opener for the airport owners, and policeman. If there had been damaging contact with the airborne aircraft, the total liability would have been on the police interference with an aircraft in flight. Consider what the result would have been if the plane had been just 3 feet in the air, and solidly impacted the hood and windshield of that police car. After repeated discussions with the FAA, the officer recanted his claim of impact with his antenna.

The Commission posted a ban on police cars on the runway, and posted it at the police station, and airport office.

All the airport could do was issue a lifetime ban on the pilot flying into KCGS, which they did.

Some details may be poorly remembered, but the story was supplied by the MNCP Police Commissioner, a pilot, close friend, and corporate partner. A true inside source.

 

[Stevel]

Closed per the manager, but he went home. Catalina Island.

Local airport, KCGS, College Park, MD, had a curfew at sundown. Owner and manager is the Maryland National Capital Parks, and the Park Police headquarters then was 2 blocks away.

Homecoming football game had a large fly in attendance, and the owner of a 6 seat twin, Beech, I think, partied beyond the curfew, and his hosts brought him and his fellow graduates to the airport. An officer, tasked with seeing there were no violations of curfew noticed headlights on the access road, and drove over to see that no departure occurred. There was a discussion, and the pilot agreed to remain until next day, his host agreed to put them up, and all left the airport.

An hour later, the pilot returned, quickly fired up his engines, taxied to the runway and initiated a departure.

The previous Police officer arrived, drove onto the opposite end of the runway, with siren and lights on, and accelerated down to meet the plane. They met a quarter of the way down the runway, and he claimed it hit his long whip antenna as it passed over him.

Charges and counter charges flew in both directions, but the police request to the FAA for enforcement against the pilots license was an eye opener for the airport owners, and policeman. If there had been damaging contact with the airborne aircraft, the total liability would have been on the police interference with an aircraft in flight. Consider what the result would have been if the plane had been just 3 feet in the air, and solidly impacted the hood and windshield of that police car. After repeated discussions with the FAA, the officer recanted his claim of impact with his antenna.

The Commission posted a ban on police cars on the runway, and posted it at the police station, and airport office.

All the airport could do was issue a lifetime ban on the pilot flying into KCGS, which they did.

Some details may be poorly remembered, but the story was supplied by the MNCP Police Commissioner, a pilot, close friend, and corporate partner. A true inside source.

I was going to post an analytical response to Barrett that explained exactly this. I'm glad that you had a real example instead. If I owned an airport, I would be very worried about having a manager that thinks that way and I would be actively working to replace him.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Not taking anything away from the rest of your post, but in a very real sense the KAVX manager is definitely on his own in a case like this. It's a rough, winding, forty-five minute drive from Avalon (the town) to KAVX; I'd guess the lone deputy on the island would think that by the time they get there the plane will be long gone — and there's probably no legal basis to try to stop the plane taking off anyway. As you note later, maybe the Conservancy could come up with something that puts legal oomph into the situation — something an LA County deputy could actually act on, or something that has physical application — but they're not there yet.

I don’t think anything needs fixing on the airport side of management. Operations are already “prohibited” at night. It’s not as safe after dark as other airports. Don’t drink battery acid, smoking is bad for you, and all that jazz.

 

[Barrett50]

Not taking anything away from the rest of your post, but in a very real sense the KAVX manager is definitely on his own in a case like this. It's a rough, winding, forty-five minute drive from Avalon (the town) to KAVX; I'd guess the lone deputy on the island would think that by the time they get there the plane will be long gone — and there's probably no legal basis to try to stop the plane taking off anyway. As you note later, maybe the Conservancy could come up with something that puts legal oomph into the situation — something an LA County deputy could actually act on, or something that has physical application — but they're not there yet.

I know. I've been there many times. I've driven the road from the airport to the town in a small jitney(in the late 80s), and it's a mega-hassle. We'll see if operational changes are made by the Conservancy.

What I see in my crystal ball is the conservancy deciding that a runway on the island has just become too great of a white albatross and should be permanently closed, which will effectively prevent any more 5 fatal accidents.

 

[Barrett50]

So, College Park MD(strange, I've been there) is publicly owned, and open to the public. MY Personal airport is PRIVATELY OWNED, open to the public. I can and will enforce trespass on private property. By hunters, drivers, walkers, MC riders, and - operators of aircraft. I've run off hunters, drivers, walkers, and MC riders with great success. I'm quite sure, without any reservation that I can and will enforce trespass on private property to an aircraft owner/renter/operator. As for the popo driving directly at an aircraft in takeoff on a publicly owned, public airport, that was stupid, and the popo acted without regard to safety, and also without due process. The aircraft operator was not breaking any 'laws', so technically LEO(Law Enforcement Officer) had no prob cause to try to stop the airplane. If a person is on my private property, they have permission granted by the offer of landing and taking off. Just like parking your car in the Piggly Wiggly parking lot, and shopping in the Piggly Wiggly for ham. Once a person has been notified that access has been revoked, and trespass has begun, then a law is being broken and will - be - enforced. By Johnny Law if it comes to that. But - I'm kind of an ass. I don't want five people dying at my place when they are breaking the law.(unlike College Park)

 

[Barrett50]

I was going to post an analytical response to Barrett that explained exactly this. I'm glad that you had a real example instead. If I owned an airport, I would be very worried about having a manager that thinks that way and I would be actively working to replace him.

Would welcome opinions with a valid law degree in hand. Sans law degree I will give the opinion all the attention it deserves.

 

[TCABM]

Would welcome opinions with a valid law degree in hand. Sans law degree I will give the opinion all the attention it deserves.

Q: what are your state statutes as they relate to detaining individuals. In lay language, does your state law allow private citizens to prevent someone from leaving a place that person no longer wants to be?

 

[Barrett50]

Q: what are your state statutes as they relate to detaining individuals. In lay language, does your state law allow private citizens to prevent someone from leaving a place that person no longer wants to be?

They can leave, just not by aircraft. The runway has been closed. Ergo, the Piggly Wiggly parking lot has been closed. Leave by other means, but leave. The person is not being restricted from departing a place they no longer want to be. But - unless they want to disassemble, and trailer the plane, it stays where it is until the runway is once again open for business. AND - when it is open for business, I MAY or MAY NOT allow that person back on the private property to remove their airplane by air. No one is 'detained', unless a LEO says so by actions subsequent to trespass.

 

[Mikey52]

No but you have taken and posess someone else's property. That could create its own legal problems.

Say I have my property posted, and I find someone driving there. I say you are trespassing and have to leave, but you can't take your car. Don't think it would go over well in front of a judge.

And you say you're open to the public.

 

[TCABM]

They can leave, just not by aircraft...

What statute in your state provides enforcement authority?

 

[Barrett50]

No but you have taken and posess someone else's property. That could create its own legal problems.

Say I have my property posted, and I find someone driving there. I say you are trespassing and have to leave, but you can't take your car. Don't think it would go over well in front of a judge.

And you say you're open to the public.

You're making things up now. They can leave, and they can take their property. Just not on the runway. I said it's unsafe, I'm the airport manager, owner of the property, and I have to answer to the deceased relatives that I have authorized a flight in unsafe conditions. Now, if the popo show up, and they demand I allow the owner/renter/operator to take their property along with them, and the popo says I must allow them to leave by air, then it's on the county which has overridden the property owner, manager and now I will not stand in the way. The popo has now ordered the property open for aircraft operations, and it's now the county that will be explaining to the deceased relatives why he/she overrode my closure of the runway.

I have a couple of sawzall if they want help removing the plane by trailer. I have NOT 'taken possession' of anything.

 

[Barrett50]

What statute in your state provides enforcement authority?

Private property rights are enforced on a federal, state, local, and native reservation rights. This has been fought more than once and the property owner wins about 99% of the time.

Keep trying folks, you might eventually find some corner, obscure, non-related AH-HAH! case.

Edit to add: Has anyone else besides me seen a plane on the ramp with a chain and lock wrapped around the prop? The chain and lock do not define 'possession', they just want to be paid before the plane leaves the ramp. I guess, in worst case someone could torch the chain off, and leave, but then one is damaging another persons property.

 

[Ed Haywood]

You're making things up now. They can leave, and they can take their property. Just not on the runway. I said it's unsafe, I'm the airport manager, owner of the property, and I have to answer to the deceased relatives that I have authorized a flight in unsafe conditions.

The question is whether you can use force to prevent them from taking off, or take potentially dangerous action such as attempting to block a moving aircraft. Either course exposes you to significant legal risk, both civil and criminal.

 

[Flying Keys]

I was wondering, but I don't know much about the Baron.

Yes! I was thinking about the same one when I saw the gear was still down. FWIW, it wasn't just the props - The (diesel) DA42 has electronically controlled engines, dual ECUs on both sides. Checklist for starting off external power says you may start ONE engine off of external power, not both. That accident, they started both from external power, and the battery voltage wasn't even enough to excite the alternator field sufficiently to charge. Pulled the gear up, instant dual engine failure because all four ECUs went offline when the voltage dropped. And yes, all of the diesel TwinStars now have a separate additional backup battery system for the ECUs.

Just be careful with that, too - Because the NTSB has apparently only recently started to learn about root cause analysis, and most of the reports say "The NTSB finds that the probable cause of this crash is the pilot's failure to ..." it's FAR too easy to look at an accident report and say "Well that's just stupid, I would never do that!" and move on, thinking you're impervious to that particular type of accident.

In reality, we need to think deeper. WHY did the pilot do that? What was the decisionmaking process? What information was available? What internal and external pressures may have caused the pilot to make that decision?

Those of us who do RCA routinely do make the effort. Unfortunately, we don’t always have insight to the information or access to ask the “five why’s.”