Investigators released new details surrounding the fatal crash of a Beech 95-B55 at Catalina Airport on Oct. 8, revealing that the pilot ignored warnings not to take off after dark.
The thought of taking off at night from an unlit airport where night take-offs are forbidden, after significant maintenance performed on the high performance aircraft, is truly frightening for me.
These words in the attached report are both unusual and specific…
Quote… “…pilot / airplane owner informed the airport manager that he had to go and intended to depart anyway. The airport manager advised him that, while he could not stop him, his departure would be unapproved and at his own risk. …”
This reminds me of the famous aviation warning from the 1930s… **…
"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.” --Captain A. G. Lamplugh, London, circa1930’s
How in the world does a flight instructor not have the proper training and judgment in this situation to call the flight school and tell them we’re spending the night and will possibly need two trips tomorrow to come and pick up everyone? This incident did not have to happen. Stupid. Just stupid.
Call me skeptical, but I’m wondering that perhaps the Airport Manager’s statements might be more intended to mitigate the chance of any liability claims against him. Perhaps he should have left out the lI can’t stop you” part.
Blame it on the pilot. Blame it on the pilot. Blame it on the pilot. How about we wait for the NTSB to fully investigate the accident. Maybe the pilot was fully qualified and current and a night takekoff from a private airport is not illegal. Given what is KNOWN about the flight I would look at the right engine.
Let me offer you the perspective that none of the commenters are offering a final judgement as to the cause of the accident rather commenting on the known or at least presented facts as they stand. Even if it was discovered that a bomb went off and the plane was unflyable after takeoff it shouldn’t preclude assessing all the other factors. I always imaging myself the only survivor of the accident, relating the story to my peers (professional pilots), and consider the parts I would cringe at defending. “Well it wasn’t illegal” would be a cringe moment for me.
Unlit and unprepared for night departures. Departing 22 faces south west, and living in sight of Catalina I know that the departure was into darkness. But the battery thing is new to me, if it could not start the engine wouln’t that indicate something wrong in the charging system? Does that plane have 2 alternators? I’m a SEL pilot. If they just had enough to start it and that battery ran the avionics, could they have lost electronics too? I am aware that some planes with multiple batteries use only one for avionics. If they sucked the battery up just starting after just enough charge to start, what else could there be. I believe accidents are a series of little things seemingly small but adding up to danger.
Agreed. One of the most important lessons I’ve taught my students and mentees over the years is how to fail gracefully and decisively. “Hey, I don’t like the look of that abraded cable and the mechanic can’t check it out now so we aren’t flying today. Let’s adjust our schedules”. “Did you see the forecast for tomorrow’s departure time? It’s total crap but the next day is all sunshine for the trip home. Do you want to hit that Seafood place on the pier?” This not only arms them to make "fly another day’ decisions but also to explain the situation to your pax or folks REALLY wanting you to make the trip.
Because human nature says it’s always too early to know, but never too early to speculate.
In 1977 I landed at Catalina just a few minutes after the sunset and the airport manager came out and scolded me about it and then told me I would have to depart the airport so I did even though it was getting quite dark at the time.
In the past, I’ve landed and taken off quite a few times from the Catalina Airport. One evening, I stayed too long below in the town. It was just barely twilight, but our cab driver refused to drive us back up to the airport. His reasoning was that the airport is so many road twists and switchbacks away, that it would be closed by the time we got there. Every hotel room on the island was occupied. Fortunately, a Hotel manager kindly allowed us to sleep on his lobby couches til dawn. I always used every inch of the Catalina runway to take off. The biggest reason for that is that the runway direction for takeoff from Catalina is most often UPHILL. At the end of the runway, the land simply falls away. Catalina’s runway was literally bulldozed off the top of its original mountain. On approach, you can actually wind up flying below the runway height itself. At both ends of the runway, the drop off is steep. So much so, and so steeply that any planes in front of you taking off can appear to drop down and disappear momentarily until they become airborne, clawing their way over the runway threshold and upwards. I could not imagine trying that on a dark and moonless night when the end of the runway can disappear.
Two wrong decisions. 
From where did you get that significant maintenance was performed on the Beech 95?
Possibly, but not in this case. The battery could have gone bad with a high internal resistance that wouldn’t allow it to charge up very much. Starting up the left engine for the return trip may have used up the minimal charge the battery was able to hold, leaving insufficient charge to start the right. Since they managed to charge up the battery (presumably using the power from the left alternator) enough to eventually start the right engine, that indicates that both the electrical generation and battery charging systems were working. Once the engine is running and the alternator is producing electrical power the avionics would work fine. It would be interesting to find out whether they had engine starting problems at Santa Monica when beginning the rescue flight. Still, a dying battery would have impacted engine starting only; the alternator should be capable of handling normal continuous loads including night-time lights and battery charging.
Not saying this is what happened… but there is a (small) risk of the alternator overcurrent relay tripping during the high RPM takeoff when the electrical load is high and the battery isn’t helping much. That would take the alternator offline, and the bus voltage would quickly sag as the bad battery can’t supply the load. If the pilot doesn’t notice the red warning light illuminate or doesn’t know what to do about it, the avionics and lights would go dim rather quickly. Oct 8 was a couple of days shy of first quarter moon, so moonrise would be at least a few hours after sunset, closer to midnight. A departure from KAVX Rwy 22 with unlit terrain and the dark empty Pacific Ocean ahead would have no discernible horizon for attitude reference.
Again, I ask from ignorance, not from system knowledge. Upon (after) departure the gear is put up. Doesn’t that typically run from battery versus alternator? If that is right, the slight charge on the battery might have started the engine, but not taken up the gear, and that would have sucked any remaining battery life? All these are considerations stirring in my mind as I wait for NTSB findings.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.