NTSB Cited Lack Of Pilot Experience And Inadequate Training In An IFR Accident

The NTSB released the report earlier this month regarding an accident that took place in January, 2014. The Royal Air Freight Cessna 310 was being operated under an FAR part 135 certificate for on-demand cargo flights. The aircraft crashed while executing an instrument approach to Oakland County International Airport, taking the life of its pilot.

According to the NTSB report, the airplane was being flown by a newly hired pilot when it impacted trees and terrain about 1,500 ft. short of the runway during a straight-in ILS approach. Night instrument flight rules conditions prevailed with recorded weather observations that were below the minimum visibility specified for the approach.

The pilot had undergone company training provided by the company's president, who was also the director of operations, and the chief pilot; these two individuals were the only company instructors approved by the FAA to provide Part 135 training in accordance with the company training manual.

However, the majority of the pilot's flight training in the accident airplane make and model was during a flight with a company pilot who was not approved by the FAA to provide Part 135 instruction. Further, although company records stated that the pilot met the training requirements for ground and flight training in accordance with the company training manual, the minimum flight times in the accident airplane make and model were not met and the method of ground instruction was not followed in accordance with the company training manual.

A review of the weather for the pilot's previous company flights showed that he had not flown in actual instrument conditions that were at approach minimums at night, similar to those at the time of the accident. The chief pilot stated that higher approach weather minimum limitations were placed upon the pilot and that company dispatchers watched most new pilots' minimums until they got more experience with the company. However, although the dispatch manager indicated he was aware of weather limitations for the pilot, he stated that the dispatchers had no means of routinely communicating with pilots inflight, and he could not recall when there had been any other pilots with weather limitations.

Furthermore, there was no FAA-approved program or policy within the company operations specifications or other manual for higher approach minimum limitations based upon experience for company pilots of piston engine powered airplanes such as the accident airplane.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable causes of this accident was the pilot's controlled flight into terrain during an instrument landing system approach at night in instrument flight rules conditions. Contributing to the accident were the operator's inadequate training of the pilot, the operator's failure to provide a level of oversight commensurate to the pilot's experience, and the pilot's lack of operational experience in actual night instrument conditions in the make and model of the airplane.

FMI: www.ntsb.gov