Accident Probe: Professionalism
One thing to which I have had a visceral reaction over the years is when popular media describes a certificated pilot who flies for personal reasons as an ‘amateur.’ Over the years, I have accepted such usage, but when given the chance I point out that th
In other words, professionalism is a state of mind, not at all dissimilar from amateurism and has more to do with how one goes about performing tasks than it does with the tasks themselves. Rather than the binary choice of ‘isms’ forced upon us, it is clear to me that professionalism is more antilog than off or on. Of course, defining professionalism in aviation is problematic, but one of its obvious characteristics is to be physically and emotionally well enough to perform cockpit and other tasks. That is true in all cases, but is especially so when taking off in an aircraft which is new to one.
Background
On 23 January 2017, a Beechcraft 300 Super King Air was destroyed when it impacted terrain shortly after take-off from the Tucson (Arizona) International Airport. The 56-yearold airline transport pilot and his passenger were fatally injured. Visual conditions prevailed; the airplane was departing on an IFR flight plan to Sonora, Mexico. A witness about 0.7 mile southwest of the midfield of the departure runway observed the airplane rapidly pitch up during initial climb. At between 100 to 150 feet above the runway, the airplane yawed to the left in a nose-up pitch attitude. The airplane then appeared to slow down. It entered a left roll as the nose dropped and the airplane struck the ground inverted. Another witness, standing near the departure runway’s approach end, described the airplane as ‘yawing from left to right’ whilst climbing. The airplane then rolled left and became inverted, in a manner he described as similar to a barrel roll.
Investigation
The airplane came to rest against an eight-foot-high concrete wall on the ramp adjacent to the airport’s south terminal. The initial impact point was about 4000 feet from the departure end of the runway, and some 650 feet across the ramp to the main wreckage. A post-impact fire erupted. All major structural components of the airplane were located in the wreckage and debris path. Propeller slash marks suggested rotation at or near their rated speed of 1700 rpm at the estimated impact velocity. The blades of both propellers had deep chordwise / rotational scoring on their camber sides. In comparing damage between the propellers, the right propeller had damage suggesting it was operating at a higher blade angle and power than the left propeller. Both engines exhibited rotational scoring signatures indicating they were producing symmetrical power and were most likely operating in their mid- to upper-power range at impact. The engines did not display preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Flight control continuity was established from the cockpit controls to the associated component. The right and left elevator trim actuators corresponded to a 10-degree tab-down position. There were no discrepancies noted that would have prevented or degraded normal operation before impact.
The day before the accident, the airplane was flown from Long Beach, California, to Tucson as a pre-buy and post-maintenance test flight before its owner sold it.The flight was conducted by the seller’s
contract pilot, with the accident pilot and a pilot-rated passenger on board. According to the contract pilot, the accident pilot did not fly the airplane on the flight to Tucson. After the flight, transactions were performed and the airplane’s ownership was transferred. The accident flight apparently was the first one under the airplane’s new ownership. The accident pilot held multiple type ratings, including for the BE300. Between 1979 and 1988, he served on active duty in the US Air Force and later flew in Afghanistan and Iraq as a military contract pilot and as a captain for various companies in Africa and Saudi Arabia. In October 2016, the pilot reported to an employer his total flight experience of 15,100 hours, including 13,000 hours as pilot-in-command.
Given the departure runway and local conditions, the airplane experienced a 12-14 knot right crosswind and a four-knot tailwind, based on sustained winds and a 21-knot right crosswind and a six-knot tailwind based on the peak wind gusts. Toxicology testing revealed the pilot’s use of multiple psychoactive substances including marijuana, venlafaxine, amphetamine, pseudoephedrine, clonazepam and pheniramine.
Probable cause
The NTSB determined the probable cause(s) of this accident to include: “The pilot’s exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack during take-off, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s impairment by the effects of a combination of psychoactive substances.”
According to the NTSB, “The wide variety of psychoactive effects of these medications precludes predicting the specific effects of their use in combination. However, it is likely that the pilot was impaired by the effects of the combination of psychoactive substances he was using and that those effects contributed to his loss of control. The investigation was unable to obtain medical records regarding any underlying neuropsychiatric disease(s); therefore, whether these may have contributed to the accident circumstances could not be determined.”
The NTSB’s report seems to gloss over two areas: One, this apparently was the first time the pilot had flown this particular airplane. Whilst accidents involving recently acquired aircraft is a much larger topic, it deserves attention. Two, the elevator trim was set to a seemingly inappropriate nose-up position and could have resulted in the kind of behaviour witnessed, as could failure to remove the control lock. On paper, most observers would label the accident pilot as a professional. However, true professionals do not endanger others by keeping a disqualifying medical condition hidden or take a smorgasbord of other drugs and then go and fly an airplane.
Disqualifying medications
The FAA has a long-understood list of medications that either disqualify a pilot from obtaining or renewing a medical certificate or require a waiting period after the last dose before flying. Approving a new drug’s use for aeromedical certification purposes typically requires a year to elapse after FDA approval before it will be considered.
Some highlights listed, but you always should consult your AME about any new prescriptions.
• Controlled substances, including medical marijuana
• Psychiatric or psychotropic medications like antidepressants (certain SSRIs may be allowed), antianxiety or antipsychotic drugs, stimulants and tranquilisers
• Seizure medications
• Smoking cessation aids
• Steroids in high doses
• Weight loss medications
Jeb Burnside is the editor-in-chief
of Aviation Safety magazine.
He is an airline transport pilot who owns a Beechcraft Debonair, plus the ‘expensive’
half of an Aeronca 7CCM Champ.
“This is an exciting breakthrough,” said EASA Executive Director Patrick Ky. “This is the first electric aircraft EASA has certified but it will certainly not be the last, as the aviation industry pursues new technologies to reduce noise and emissions and to improve the sustainability of aviation.”
The Velis Electro is a two-seat aircraft intended primarily for pilot training. Slovenia-based Pipistrel is a leading small aircraft designer and manufacturer, specialised in energy-efficient and affordable high-performance aircraft. The Velis Electro joins a product line-up of similar, but conventionally powered, aircraft. The certification, completed in less than three years, was only possible in that time-frame due to close cooperation between Pipistrel and EASA, with the common goal of ensuring the aircraft met the high standard of safety needed for certification.The project also brought important learnings that will support future certifications of electrically powered engines and aircraft.The aircraft is powered by the first certified electrical engine, the E-811-268MVLC, certified by EASA for Pipistrel on 18 May 2020.
“The type certification of the Pipistrel Velis Electro is the first step towards the commercial use of electric aircraft, which is needed to make emission-free aviation feasible. It is considerably quieter than other aeroplanes and produces no combustion gases at all,” said Ivo Boscarol, founder and CEO of Pipistrel Aircraft. “It provides optimism, also to other electric aircraft designers, that the type certification of electric engines and aeroplanes is possible.”
The certification project developed in two streams, firstly the typical certification activities related to the aircraft and in parallel a coordinated flight test programme using a fleet of (non-certified) Alpha-Electros under EASA permit to fly. Having the ability to operate a similar aircraft meant the EASA team, which included members from the launch National Aviation Authorities (France’s DGAC FR and Switzerland’s FOCA), had access to operational data necessary for the certification activity, while highlighting the operational needs to enable electric aviation.
Dominique Roland, Head of the General Aviation Department at EASA said: “For EASA, the type certification of this aircraft marks a significant dual milestone: on 18 May 2020 we type certified its engine as the first electric engine; now we have followed up with the first type certification of a plane flying that engine. This was a truly ground-breaking project which has yielded many learnings for the future certification of electric engines and aircraft, undoubtedly a growth area in coming years in line with the aims of environmental protection. During the course of these projects EASA gained first-hand experience in electric flight, learning more about batteries and their management systems, as well as electrical engine power units. This information has been used to develop the E&HPS Special Condition to further enable electric flight.