Sixteen months ago, a Pilatus PC-12/45, N128CM, crashed in Butte, Montana. The fourteen persons on board were all fatally injured. Initial reports from witnesses indicate that the airplane was flying approximately 300 feet above ground level when the airplane rolled, pitched down and impacted the ground.
There were nine seats for thirteen passengers. Standing room only and obviously some were not properly restrained. According to the NTSB, “[The] evidence indicates that the accident was not survivable. However, the NTSB notes that, if the accident had been less severe and the impact had been survivable, any unrestrained occupants or occupants sharing a single restraint system would have been at a much greater risk of injury or death.”
And IF they had stayed home they would not have been injured. And IF the NTSB had better investigated prior mishaps the aircraft might not of crashed.
But, instead, the NTSB chose to scrape the bottom of the barrel and use this preliminary accident report as justification to issue a series of safety recommendations that better fit its agenda – or perhaps they didn’t see any other problems.
The recommendation letter spends nine full pages agonizing over prior similar recommendations rejected by the FAA, but fails to note that after sixteen months the “Safety Board” still hasn’t issued a factual report or determined a probable cause of this mishap. Can’t pass up an opportunity to further an agenda just because the facts aren’t in, yet.
Quite predictably, the sheep (except one) followed the herder chair, and issued recommendations to the FAA that regulations should require seats and belts for every occupant and that infants be restrained in a child seat. (Doh? You mean they get paid to do this?)
Apparently it never dawned on them that another few regulations wouldn’t make much difference to people who put thirteen passengers in a nine passenger aircraft.
Nor did they seem to notice that the outcome would have been the same even if their recommendations had been implemented in the event they used as justification for the recommendations.
Perhaps they should consider timely determining why the aircraft crashed rather than arranging a soft landing for the passengers.
At just about the point in these recommendations at which adults start wondering where they found these people who sit on the board, a wonderful bit of logic and good thinking tries to fight through the smoke and manure. Printed here – with pleasure – in its entirety:
Vice Chairman Christopher A. Hart Dissenting Statement
I believe that sending a recommendation to the FAA about requiring separate seats and restraints for passengers under 2 is a futile effort because we have made that recommendation before, without success, and we have no reason to believe that this approach will achieve a better result this time.
In filing this dissent, let me note at the outset that it is indisputable as a matter of basic physics that a properly restrained child in an airplane is safer than an unrestrained child, and our goal should be to do whatever we can to help assure that every person in an airplane is restrained, irrespective of age. Given that our previous approach has been unsuccessful, I would like to suggest an alternate approach to reach that goal.
The different approach I would like to suggest relates to the fact that infant car seats have improved tremendously since the FAA first promulgated its regulatory exception that allows passengers under the age of 2 not to be restrained – indeed, car seats for children that age may not even have existed when the exception was first created. Given these car seat improvements, perhaps it is time to revisit whether there is still a scientific basis for an exception for children under 2. Thus, I think we should recommend that the FAA revisit, in light of current infant car seat technology, whether there is a scientific basis for excepting children under age 2 from the restraint requirements . . . and if there is no scientific basis for the exception, then the exception is arbitrary, by definition, and SHOULD BE RESCINDED.
One advantage of this approach would be to shift the argument away from the FAA’s “diversion” response. Irrespective of whether, as the FAA contends, eliminating the age 2 exception would cause diversion of more traffic to the (less safe) highways, the question still remains as to why the FAA drew the line for the exception at the age of 2. If there is diversion to the highways for not wanting to buy an extra seat for a 1 year old, there is no reason why that same diversion argument would not also apply to 5 year olds or 10 year olds. Given that we will not resolve the diversion debate with this process, we can at least try to shift the debate to finding out why they chose the age of 2 for the exception.
If we decide to pursue this “scientific basis” recommendation, I would also suggest applying the recommendation not only to Parts 121, and 135, but also to Part 91, because there is no difference between those Parts insofar as the physics of restraining children is concerned.
Thank you, Chris Hart. At least someone in Washington seems to understand that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
One other thing worth pointing out – Chairman Hersman holds a commercial drivers license with passenger, school bus, and air brake endorsements. She successfully completed a motorcycle basic rider course and holds a motorcycle endorsement. She is a certified Child Passenger Safety Technician. Peter says this may be her level of incompetence.
Would someone please donate a ten dollar “discovery flight” so the lady could become an expert about airplanes as well as safety seats. On the other hand, maybe aviation is better off without her help.
