plane crash investigation

AP Online 11/09/00, 1:49p (Copyright © 2000, AP Online)

MONTEZUMA, Ohio (AP) - A skydiving plane that crashed in 1999, killing six people, went down after running out of fuel, investigators say.

The single-engine Cessna set out from the Lakefield Airport with 30 gallons of fuel and took off three more times without refueling, the National Transportation Safety Board said.

After the crash, investigators found only eight ounces of fuel in a selected tank, the NTSB said. Tests showed no leaks, and all fuel- system parts had been operating, the agency added.

'Probable cause was the pilot's failure to refuel the airplane,' the NTSB said.

The plane went down in a field near the airport, killing the pilot and five skydivers from the Grand Lake Skydiving School. Several witnesses reported hearing smooth engine noise, then a brief sputtering followed by loss of engine power, the NTSB said.

Robert Tangeman, operator of the skydiving club, told the NTSB that the pilot, Preston Parrish II, 30, was hired on the day of the accident. Tangeman said he briefed the pilot on refueling procedures and how to measure fuel in the tanks.

In other words, completely and utterly avoidable. How sad.

Blue 11111 Princess Squiffy

How very very true

commercial or private

Just a personal observation. Kallend has so many posts one must wonder if Kallend is simply immersed in this as some get in politics or has little else to do??

comming from a jumper that was at the DZ that day, on every load that plane/pilot flew that day (EXCEPT THE CRASH) yes it was avoidable, as is EVERY empty fuel tank...

it really did stink, the pilot was new to our DZ, it was his first day flying... he was breifed on fueling polices, ETC, it was a very busy day at the DZ that day, and with Both planes painted alike, you saw a plane at the fuel tanks, and didn't really pay much attention to which... (we do know!!) we simply got a little complacent, and didn't pay attention to things like that (Jumpers that is)...just assuming the pilot followed the check list, and that all would be great!!!!....that was just not the case.. new pilot... didn't check the Fuel gauges... then when the engine stalled..... the pilot for whatever reason didn't get the nose down for a glide...... there was really nothing but bean fields to land in...??

so please take our tragic crash as a wake-up call.... ask questions about last time fueled??? how much fuel you have? and small planes such as Cessna.... scan those fuel tanks when you get into the plane... if in doubt...ask the pilot if he checked!!!! the life you save may be your own !!!

blue skies The above message is 'MY OPINION' and nothing more ( no claim to be fact!)

D something or other & S/L JM,SCR #14280, SCS# 8041

BLUE SKIES!!!

As with every fatality, there is a lesson. I am not a pilot and have limited knowledge of the controls and gauges in a cockpit. I can show you the altimeter, horizon, etc. and I know their basic purposes, but essentially, I have no functional knowledge. I guess we (jumpers) often regard our pilots with the same omnipotence that we do riggers, doctors and even mechanics. They have a working knowledge of a complex system that many of us don't have. We are unfortunately at the mercy of these 'experts' in many ways. Just as I complete a gear check at many intervals prior to exiting the plane, I expect that the pilot flying me and my friends to altitude has done the same, prior to each take off. I certainly don't know what all those checks should be, and it is frustrating to have this aspect of the jump almost totally in someone's hands.

I'm lucky enough to be at a twin otter DZ but I am often a fair distance in feet and bodies from the control panel. It is not entirely practical to scramble back to the pilot and check the fuel gauge. Maybe it would be good practice to establish that the jumper directly behind the pilot assumes this extra check for all involved.

On another note, why were you not on that load?

Blue 11111 Princess Suiffy

'A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention in human history, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila.' - Pundit Mitch Radcliffe

Going by the cold hard numbers instead of gut instinct usually turns out to be better in any area of aviation. According to NTSB the plane was also out of CG range (to the rear) which may account for the flat spin described by witnesses - again, going by the numbers would have produced a better outcome.

According to the FARs, they are supposed to be accurate when the tank is empty. There is no other requirement AFAIK.

First of all, as somebody else said, don't always believe the fuel gauges - they are historically inaccurate in many aircraft.. Most light aircraft have an alternate means of checking the amount of fuel in the tanks to verify what the gauges are hopefully showing.. I, personally, believe it should be a function of manifest to back up the pilot on when they need to fuel.. That is, remind the pilot every other load, every third load, whatever.. Of course, how often would depend on how much fuel they normally take each time and typical fuel burn..

I, personally, would not be offended if somebody asked me if we had sufficient fuel for a given load - it's their ass in the airplane too.. In my professional flying, I have never had anybody ask me any such thing - but I do keep an eye on fuel status when I am a passenger in a jump plane.. I know how easy things are to forget in a fast paced environment - even the most important things.. Most jump pilots don't use checklists like we do in the corporate and airline flying worlds..

What kind of plane was it?

Agreed.

Supposed to be doesn't mean is. I trust fuel gauges about as much as I trust a Northstar Altimeter.

C205 - see http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/IAD/lnarr_99A043.htm

for full details.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/IAD/lnarr_99A043.htm

for the full report.