2 float planes crash in the water in Ketchikan

[awestover89]

Some updates:

 

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2019/05/15/ntsb-one-sightseeing-plane-descended-before-midair-collision-near-ketchikan-that-killed-5-cruise-passengers-and-pilot/?fbclid=IwAR2xXZRnnbMugur4K7EUabTfS99X0VAj43daIaZ5VcSk6iA_aTCVHvB6MTM

 

It is way too early to say anything definitive, but the fact that the Taquan Air descended just before the collision, and that this was their fifth fatal accident is really concerning. Honestly, I'd expect the cruise lines to be sued as well. How was Taquan still a vendor partner after 5 fatal accidents, including three that happened while flying an official cruise excursion?

 

Nothing is ever 100% safe, but at least if you book one of these tours directly you'll know exactly which flightseeing company you're flying with. Booking through the cruise line directly you just have to have faith that they did their due diligence, and unfortunately with the safety record of Taquan it doesn't sound like we can really trust that...

[poidog81]

It appears Celebrity uses Taquan Air.  I'll be looking for alternatives to our ship booked flight tonight.

[MicCanberra]

I would say they would be grounded for some time in any case.

[poidog81]

Just now, MicCanberra said:

I would say they would be grounded for some time in any case.

 

Nope, Taquan resumed operations today.

[MicCanberra]

What about the  air crash investigations. Seems dodgy to me.

[awestover89]

2 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

What about the  air crash investigations. Seems dodgy to me.

 

Air Crash investigations take several years to complete; if airlines were grounded until the investigation was concluded none could stay in business. The pilot involved will likely be grounded for an extended time, and the aircraft itself will be grounded for the investigation, but the company can resume operations unless/until the investigation finds serious flaws that have to be resolved.

[willde]

1 hour ago, awestover89 said:

Some updates:

 

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2019/05/15/ntsb-one-sightseeing-plane-descended-before-midair-collision-near-ketchikan-that-killed-5-cruise-passengers-and-pilot/?fbclid=IwAR2xXZRnnbMugur4K7EUabTfS99X0VAj43daIaZ5VcSk6iA_aTCVHvB6MTM

 

(...) the fact that the Taquan Air descended just before the collision (...)  is really concerning

 

 

Why??

 

From the news report: "there is no way to make assumptions about the cause of the collision based on that preliminary information"

[Coral]

56 minutes ago, poidog81 said:

It appears Celebrity uses Taquan Air.  I'll be looking for alternatives to our ship booked flight tonight.

Many lines use Taquan Air. They have a huge fleet of planes.

[awestover89]

1 minute ago, willde said:

 

Why??

 

From the news report: "there is no way to make assumptions about the cause of the collision based on that preliminary information"

 

Generally speaking in an air crash, especially with a collision between two planes, if one plane changes something immediately before the crash that change likely was a cause of the crash. 

 

There are lots of things that it could have been: there could have been a mechanical issue, there could have been weather or a down draft, there could have been a bird or another plane or an illegal drone that the aircraft was avoiding, it could be pilot error, or it could be a controlled descent for a better view. We won't know the exact details for a long time, but to me it is concerning when an aircraft moves into the same flight level as another aircraft.

[awestover89]

5 minutes ago, willde said:

 

Why??

 

From the news report: "there is no way to make assumptions about the cause of the collision based on that preliminary information"

 

It is also concerning to me, because it _could_ imply that flight plans with specific flight levels are not mandated for flightseeing in Alaska, or that they are ignored if they are mandated. "See and avoid" has had major problems in the past, so if that is the policy in place, I am even more concerned.

 

Again, we don't know anything for certain as to the cause or mitigating circumstances. That's what the investigation will tell us. But I do find it concerning that one aircraft changed flight levels and collided with another aircraft.

[mapleleaves]

Preliminary report expected in 2 weeks:

https://komonews.com/news/local/alaska-floatplanes-collided-at-3300-feet-before-crashing

 

 

[ultramax12]

I agree, both planes flying in the same direction, Mountain Air was flying at a steady attitude, while Taquan Air descended 500' to the same attitude and then impact occurred. Hopefully the investigation can confirm the cause of the accident. RIP

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by ultramax12

[kennicott]

Yes, this is a heck of a way to begin our 2019 cruise season. We should expect periodic releases of pertinent info from the NTSB, but the final report is proably a year or so away. In fact, the NTSB just released the headings and altitude info from both of the accident aircraft.

 

The NTSB is bringing a 14 member inestigation team in, however, of significance with this team is the inclusion of a Board member, which is rare. My guess is that the extra emphasis on this accident results from the attention the Board has given to Alaska aviation safety over the last couple of decades. Just two years ago they concluded this one--- https://jdasolutions.aero/blog/alaska-aviation-safety/

 

In addition, as I previously mentioned, in 2015 a turbine powered float equipped Otter ran into a mountain in poor weather killing all nine on board. The pilot was an experienced pilot but inexperienced in Southeast Alaska. He elected to fly a questionable route. There were four other aircraft involved with trying to meet a time line imposed by HAL to get their guests back to the ship on a deadline. As one can determine from this NTSB report https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1702.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1NfcwoE0gySIAcp1og8Qiw9YJ_O2AEI795sZAKeupJxXaRU8cDWNsiEAI   that the board was none too pleased.

 

Particularly, when one member suggested this as an additional statement--- "Nonetheless, by analogy here, the big picture would suggest that other participants that are involved in this situation – the cruise ship operators --– should work with the carriers in an effort to create a sightseeing program that eliminates financial incentives to carriers to take more risk. The cruise ship operators make the flight services available to the passengers, so they have a vested interest improving the safety of the sightseeing carriers by eliminating these adverse incentives.

 

Time Pressure. Another issue in this accident was the time pressure that was created by the agreement between the cruise ship operator and the sightseeing carrier that if the carrier returned passengers too late to catch the ship, the carrier would be responsible, at its expense, for timely delivery of the passengers to the cruise ship’s next port of call, which might be several hundred miles away. In this accident the pressure to return the passengers to the ship in time clearly played a key role in the pilot’s decision to take a shorter but obviously more dangerous route back to the ship. They should work with the carriers to develop agreements that eliminate this time pressure. The program would need to be more comprehensive than simply enlarging the time window because the problem, although it might be less frequent, could still occur."

 

The 1994 tragic accident near Juneau had a lot of similarities as well. Seven were killed and three badly injured.---- https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20001206X01412&ntsbno=ANC94FA070&akey=1

 

Today, In this particular case, I bet the board is going to pay particular attention to how the two pilots were, or were not, communicating their locations and intentions over the Common Traffic Advisory

Frequency established for this area of Alaska. This would have been most important as both aircraft were leaving relatively high altitudes in the Misty Fiords Monument of the Tongass National Forest enroute back to their sea level bases near Ketchikan on Revillagigedo Island.    

Edited May 15, 2019 by kennicott
typo

[MicCanberra]

2 hours ago, awestover89 said:

 

Air Crash investigations take several years to complete; if airlines were grounded until the investigation was concluded none could stay in business. The pilot involved will likely be grounded for an extended time, and the aircraft itself will be grounded for the investigation, but the company can resume operations unless/until the investigation finds serious flaws that have to be resolved.

I think in this case it would be prudent to at least ground them for a preliminary report rules out technological or mechanical failure that may apply to other planes.

[willde]

4 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

I think in this case it would be prudent to at least ground them for a preliminary report rules out technological or mechanical failure that may apply to other planes.

 

Extremely unlikely a mid-air collision between two aircraft is the result of a mechanical issue relevant to either aircraft.  No presumptive basis to ground other aircraft of the same types, and implications of doing so would be crippling to life throughout Alaska.

[ultramax12]

Also keep in mind there are 10-surviors that might be able to shed some light on what actually happened to help investigators determine the cause of the accident.

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by ultramax12

[MicCanberra]

1 hour ago, willde said:

 

Extremely unlikely a mid-air collision between two aircraft is the result of a mechanical issue relevant to either aircraft.  No presumptive basis to ground other aircraft of the same types, and implications of doing so would be crippling to life throughout Alaska.

Navigational system issues could be though.

[kennicott]

Navigation systems and accident records-----

 

The reason the NTSB is interested in "transponders" on the accident aircraft is this---"The Airborne Collision Avoidance System II (ACAS II) was introduced in order to reduce the risk of mid-air collisions between aircraft. It serves as a last-resort safety net irrespective of any separation standards. "ACAS II is an aircraft system based on (SSR) transponder signals. ACAS II interrogates the Mode C and Mode S transponders of nearby aircraft (‘intruders’) and from the replies tracks their altitude and range and issues alerts to the pilots, as appropriate. ACAS II will not detect non-transponder-equipped aircraft and will not issue any resolution advice for traffic without altitude reporting transponder."

 

Safety programs, like ACAS, are supported by the Alaska Medallion Foundation. "Taquan Air participated in a voluntary industry effort in Alaska to improve airline safety called the Medallion Foundation awards. Senator Ted Stevens (R, Alaska) was a decorated World War II pilot who later became floatplane qualified, and who was instrumental in establishing and providing congressional support for the Medallion Foundation. By 2009, Taquan was one of seven airlines out of 37 operating in Alaska to receive all five stars in the program. Senator Stevens presented awards to Taquan in 2005 and 2008."

 

It is difficult to compare aircraft accident records unless size and volume are taken into consideration. For instance----Taquan Air Service was Incorporated in August 1977, by 1997 the company appeared on the cover of Alaska Business Monthly. At that point they were flying to 30 destinations, they had hubs in both Ketchikan and Sitka, and were flying to B.C. they had become an international air carrier. Taquan was then the largest floatplane company in the world, and the second largest commuter airline in Alaska, having boarded 243,000 people in 1997.

 

 

[MommyCPA]

My parents, my 3 adult children, and myself flew with Randy Sullivan on his plane that crashed 2 years ago next month.  We had a wonderful trip and found him to be very passionate about his flying and sharing Alaska with us.  He was constantly talking with other pilots in the Misty Fjords area when we toured with him.  He talked about safety a lot with us when we were starting out trip with him as well.  He was extremely experienced and knew the area very well.  He grew up there and was very passionate about the seaplane tours.  He worked knew Michelle well as they shared a dock.  They referred to each other but weren't partners as they each liked to do things their way. 

[MicCanberra]

3 hours ago, kennicott said:

Navigation systems and accident records-----

 

The reason the NTSB is interested in "transponders" on the accident aircraft is this---"The Airborne Collision Avoidance System II (ACAS II) was introduced in order to reduce the risk of mid-air collisions between aircraft. It serves as a last-resort safety net irrespective of any separation standards. "ACAS II is an aircraft system based on (SSR) transponder signals. ACAS II interrogates the Mode C and Mode S transponders of nearby aircraft (‘intruders’) and from the replies tracks their altitude and range and issues alerts to the pilots, as appropriate. ACAS II will not detect non-transponder-equipped aircraft and will not issue any resolution advice for traffic without altitude reporting transponder." 

 

Safety programs, like ACAS, are supported by the Alaska Medallion Foundation. "Taquan Air participated in a voluntary industry effort in Alaska to improve airline safety called the Medallion Foundation awards. Senator Ted Stevens (R, Alaska) was a decorated World War II pilot who later became floatplane qualified, and who was instrumental in establishing and providing congressional support for the Medallion Foundation. By 2009, Taquan was one of seven airlines out of 37 operating in Alaska to receive all five stars in the program. Senator Stevens presented awards to Taquan in 2005 and 2008."

 

It is difficult to compare aircraft accident records unless size and volume are taken into consideration. For instance----Taquan Air Service was Incorporated in August 1977, by 1997 the company appeared on the cover of Alaska Business Monthly. At that point they were flying to 30 destinations, they had hubs in both Ketchikan and Sitka, and were flying to B.C. they had become an international air carrier. Taquan was then the largest floatplane company in the world, and the second largest commuter airline in Alaska, having boarded 243,000 people in 1997.

 

 

So does that mean the system failed or the pilot failed to heed the warnings.

[willde]

4 hours ago, kennicott said:

Navigation systems and accident records-----

 

The reason the NTSB is interested in "transponders" on the accident aircraft is this---"The Airborne Collision Avoidance System II (ACAS II) was introduced in order to reduce the risk of mid-air collisions between aircraft. It serves as a last-resort safety net irrespective of any separation standards. "ACAS II is an aircraft system based on (SSR) transponder signals. ACAS II interrogates the Mode C and Mode S transponders of nearby aircraft (‘intruders’) and from the replies tracks their altitude and range and issues alerts to the pilots, as appropriate. ACAS II will not detect non-transponder-equipped aircraft and will not issue any resolution advice for traffic without altitude reporting transponder."

 

Safety programs, like ACAS, are supported by the Alaska Medallion Foundation. "Taquan Air participated in a voluntary industry effort in Alaska to improve airline safety called the Medallion Foundation awards. Senator Ted Stevens (R, Alaska) was a decorated World War II pilot who later became floatplane qualified, and who was instrumental in establishing and providing congressional support for the Medallion Foundation. By 2009, Taquan was one of seven airlines out of 37 operating in Alaska to receive all five stars in the program. Senator Stevens presented awards to Taquan in 2005 and 2008." 

 

NTSB is certainly interested in knowing the type of transponder equipment, and in what mode it was operating.  I'm not sure whether the latter can be determined in the case of equipment controlled by buttons rather than knobs.  When altitude and position information is transmitted by an aircraft transponder, the availability and utility of that information to surrounding pilots depends upon the receiving equipment present in their aircraft.  Transponders do not record information like the "black box" flight recorders present in larger commercial passenger aircraft.

 

I have no familiarity with the Medallion Foundation efforts, and found this article which provides additional perspective:

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/aviation/2017/05/14/time-to-ask-whether-the-medallion-foundation-saves-pilots-and-passengers-lives/

 

 

21 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

Navigational system issues could be though.

 

"System" in a very broad sense, perhaps; navigation equipment that would be a basis to ground a fleet, unlikely.

 

Transponders and collision avoidance equipment might be loosely considered "navigation" equipment, but play little role to a pilot in locating the position of their own aircraft in "space".  Such is done first visually, supplemented by GPS and an older network of directional radio transmitters.  The highest precision instrument navigation procedures that exist are used for landing under instrument weather conditions, and do not permit aircraft separation of less than perhaps a mile or so.  Such procedures do not exist in the airspace northeast of Ketchikan, where George Inlet is located; and navigation procedures outside of airport traffic areas under instrument weather conditions would also not put aircraft close enough to conflict.  In visual weather conditions, those procedures do not apply to a pilot who is not on an instrument flight plan.

 

Considering this, and that the flights were sightseeing tours, it is highly likely both were operated under visual flight rules.  The collision was most likely due to a combination of operational decisions by each pilot.  It is possible neither was truly "at fault".

 

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by willde

[willde]

32 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

So does that mean the system failed or the pilot failed to heed the warnings.

 

I don't think we know what equipment and capabilities were present in each aircraft, nor the operational status of such.

[kennicott]

45 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

So does that mean the system failed or the pilot failed to heed the warnings.

Well, there are a number of different scenarios here that the NTSB is going to be taking a hard look at. With respect to the transponders, did either aircraft have an ACAS ll system installed? If so, was it turned on and functional? If so, then did the other aircraft have at least one altitude reporting transponder installed, functional and turned on? If the answer to these are all positive, then why wasn't at least one pilot cognizant of the location of the other aircraft? 

 

I previously mentioned that both pilots could have been distracted by something on the ground. That appears unlikely now, since both aircraft were very high and apparently returning directly to base after finishing up on sightseeing at relatively high altitudes. 

 

However, the board is most assuredly going to pay particular attention to the matter of communications, if any, between the two pilots. Were they communicating their locations and intentions over the Common Traffic Advisory frequency established for that area? This would have been most important as both aircraft were leaving the Misty Fiords Monument of the Tongass National Forest en-route back to their sea level bases near Ketchikan on Revillagigedo Island and the level of area flight seeing activity would have been commensurate with the high volume of cruise ship visitors.  

Edited May 16, 2019 by kennicott

[kennicott]

19 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

So does that mean the system failed or the pilot failed to heed the warnings.

New release-----Both aircraft had close to the state of the art avionics: https://www.alaskapublic.org/2019/05/15/ketchikan-planes-in-mid-air-crash-both-had-equipment-designed-to-help-avert-collisions-what-went-wrong/

[kennicott]

ADS-B is a relatively new GPS-based technology pioneered in Alaska.   https://generalaviationnews.com/2014/11/13/can-you-ignore-the-ads-b-2020-mandate/

Edited May 17, 2019 by kennicott