Changes Stem From Pilatus PC-12 Accident In March 2009

The NTSB has issues a set of three safety recommendations to the FAA concerning seat belts and restraints in general aviation aircraft. The action comes from the investigation of an accident in March, 2009, in which a Pilatus PC-12/45, (N128CM), was diverting to Bert Mooney Airport (BTM), Butte, Montana, when it descended and impacted the ground near the approach end of runway 33 at BTM. The airplane was owned by Eagle Cap Leasing of Enterprise, Oregon, and was operating as a personal flight under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. The pilot and the 13 airplane passengers were killed, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. The flight departed Oroville Municipal Airport, Oroville, California, at 1210 on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan with a destination of Gallatin Field, Bozeman, Montana. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.

According to the letter making the recommendations, the airplane was configured with two pilot seats and eight passenger seats. Two of the passenger seats faced aft, and the other six passenger seats faced forward. All of the pilot and passenger seats were equipped with lap and shoulder harness restraints.

Among the 13 passengers were six adults and seven children (ages 1 through 9 years). Because the flight was a single-pilot operation, eight seats in the cabin and one seat in the cockpit were available to the 13 passengers. Thus, the number of passengers exceeded the number of available seats. Except for the pilot and the occupant of the right front seat, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was unable to determine the original seating position for the occupants, but the bodies of four children, ages 3 to 9 years, were found farthest from the impact site, indicating that these children were likely thrown from the airplane because they were unrestrained or improperly restrained. The investigation of this accident is ongoing, and 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.

Pilatus PC-12 File Photo

The NTSB now recommends that the Federal Aviation Administration:

• Amend 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 to require separate seats and restraints for every occupant.
• Amend 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 to require each person who is less than 2 years of age to be restrained in a separate seat position by an appropriate child restraint system during takeoff, landing, and turbulence.
• Amend 14 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 121 and 135 to require each person who is less than 2 years of age to be restrained in a separate seat position by an appropriate child restraint system during takeoff, landing, and turbulence.

The board was not unanimous in its recommendation. Vice Chair Christopher A. Hart wrote in his dissenting statement 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.

NTSB Vice Chair Hart

"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" (emphasis his).

FMI: www.ntsb.gov, www.faa.gov