Before departure for a positioning flight in Brooklyn, Iowa, the pilot was told that an observer/passenger would be joining him for the flight. The Cessna 206, which was typically used in skydiving operations, had its right cabin door removed, and a fabric roll-up jump door had been installed, which was not closed during the flight.
The pilot reported that the passenger sat behind him on the right side of the airplane and that he heard him attach his seatbelt. During the flight, the passenger moved forward in the cabin, which resulted in the his reserve parachute inadvertently deploying and the passenger being pulled through the open jump door.
The passenger hit the doorframe, and the parachute became entangled with the empennage, which resulted in a loss of control and a subsequent aerodynamic stall. The parachute eventually separated from the empennage, and the pilot was able to regain control of the airplane and land it without further incident.
A post-accident examination revealed that the passenger had inadvertently attached his seatbelt to the handle that released the reserve parachute. When the passenger moved, the reserve parachute deployed.
The pilot did not conduct a safety briefing before the flight, however, the improper routing of the seatbelt may not have been identified even if he had conducted a safety briefing. Additionally, if the jump door had been closed, it is likely that the passenger would not have been pulled out of the airplane and killed.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the improper routing of the seatbelt, which resulted in the inadvertent deployment of the reserve parachute, and the open jump door, which allowed the passenger to be pulled from the airplane.
NTSB Identification: CEN13LA500
This August 2013 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Look at the uninformed victim bashers go! Did you fellas know it’s against federal law to operate an aircraft without a door EXCEPT when parachuting operations are taking place? Of course you didn’t. Who cares about facts, right? They gave this poor schlub, who had NO intention of jumping, a parachute so they could skirt the law. They’re deservedly getting sued.
Mike, parachute jumping isn’t the only activity where the aircraft can be operated without the door.
From the NTSB report:
“A review of the airplane operating limitations, “Limitations for the Operation of an Aircraft with a Door Removed” – stated that “when operations other than intentional parachute jumping and skydiving are conducted, a suitable guardrail or equivalent safety device must be provided for the doorway.”
The pilot reported that a “roll-up door” was installed on the airplane but was not in use at the time of the accident flight because of the warm temperatures and because one of the devices used to fasten the corner of the door to the airframe was broken, preventing them from properly securing the door.”
Hmmm, an airplane not operated in accordance with the operating limitations, which is… And the reason they didn’t use a door? It was broken. No passenger briefing… Where does it end? And you think they shouldn’t be sued? What a laugh.
Hey Mike, No argument about the operating limitations for that particular airplane and they were wrong in not following them, however, your comment stated: “Did you fellas know it’s against federal law to operate an aircraft without a door EXCEPT when parachuting operations are taking place?” That statement covers ALL aircraft and that was what my comment to you was about. My Cessna 180 had an operation limitation with the door removed for aerial photography. Again, no argument that they were wrong in not operating according to the operating limitations for that aircraft but so was the passenger for pulling the wrong strap. By the way, are you an attorney?
That’s fine about the all aircraft thing, but the fact of the matter is, had they been operating the aircraft in accordance with the operating limitations this would not have happened. And the door was broken? I mean come on, if you don’t think these people deserve to get sued you’re crazy. And not giving a passenger briefing IS a violation of federal law, you and I both know that.
So what’s your solution here? “Gee, ma’am, we’re sorry we broke the law multiple times and your husband died. Have a great day”?
Also, by the way, of all the parties you mentioned, do you know how many of them were sued? Zero. None. So you make this bombastic declaration not only about the lawsuit but about who will be sued, and you were wrong every step of the way.
I beg your pardon, Sir. They were all sued. Cessna & Continental settled. The flight instructor is a old long time friend of mine and he was sued and it cost him in the neighborhood of 10 grand to defend himself.
Ah, no wonder you’ve gotten yourself all worked up over this. Well, maybe your buddy should have followed the law, no? Would have saved himself $10k.
Also, you said the “engine, propeller, wheel and brake manufacturer” were all sued. Do you want to admit that didn’t happen or would you like to prove it? I buy Cessna being sued, but not Continental. Show some proof. Newspaper reports said it was the school, the owner and the pilot.
And by the way, what they did IS against federal law:
91.107 (a)(3)(ii):
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator—
(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:
(ii) Use the floor of the aircraft as a seat, provided that the person is on board for the purpose of engaging in sport parachuting; or
———————————–
He had no intention of parachuting. And none of the news reports mention anyone else being sued other than the pilot, the school, and the owner. That’s it.
Good day.
My buddy who was this drunk’s flight instructor is also the airport manager. You have basically called me a liar with your comments so I’m going to follow a wise person’s advise and not argue with a “you know what”. What I said was the truth and who says my buddy didn’t follow the law. You have made an accusation that you have no knowledge of and that is completely untrue. Have a Good Day unless you have made other plans………me, I’m out of here and I’ll leave it to you to make the last “intelligent” post.
I haven’t basically called you a liar, I have absolutely called you a liar. And apparently I’m right since you won’t even attempt to refute it. Have a great day.
And lets not forget the judge’s part in this ridiculous mess. Any judge worth his weight in manure would throw such ridiculous suits out of his court.
True tort reform will continue to be unattainable
as long as those reforming are also the ones
suing. It’ll be GAs death knell.
So the judge should throw the lawsuit out in spite of the law? That’s an interesting argument.
Kudos to the pilot for regaining control of the aircraft. Superior piloting, however, is not an excuse for poor judgment.
Though it is entertaining to blame attorneys and the legal system for all of aviation’s ills, many accidents have a clear fault behind them. In this case the NTSB accident report highlights two areas of operator/pilot negligence that clearly contributed to this fatal accident. 1) Had the jump company and pilot followed procedures for assuring the jump door was closed the accident would not have occurred. 2) The pilot also failed to follow requirements in the FARs to conduct a safety brief (The required topics include explicit instructions on how to use safety belts):
“A review of the airplane operating limitations, “Limitations for the Operation of an Aircraft with a
Door Removed” – stated that “when operations other than intentional parachute jumping and skydiving
are conducted, a suitable guardrail or equivalent safety device must be provided for the doorway.”
The pilot reported that a “roll-up door” was installed on the airplane but was not in use at the time
of the accident flight because of the warm temperatures and because one of the devices used to fasten
the corner of the door to the airframe was broken, preventing them from properly securing the door.”
It’s not just aviation that will continue to suffer. It’s all of us. These ridiculous and frivolous lawsuets abound in this country because we lack limits on the awards granted in these cases. This just gives incentive to lawyers to pursue a shotgun approach and involve any and all possible, ( even impossible ) contributors in a suit. The only winners are the lawyers. We all lose because we end up paying more for products because the manufacturers regain their losses by raising prices. A truly vicious circle. And our lawmakers, ( most of whom are lawyers ) don’t do a thing about it. I can’t imagine why not, can you?
It would help a lot if the results of the NTSB probably cause was admissible in court. What a crock!!!!!
I typed PROBABLE and spell check changed it to PROBABLY. 🙁
I forgot several other defendants in my previous comment, but you get the idea.
Wow! What incredible bad luck. Will the lawyers sue the jump group, the seat belt manufacturer, the pilot, the parachute manufacturer, Cessna…..there has to be somebody else at fault besides the deceased who made the error. Fortunately the pilot had the skills and cool headiness to not loose control of the aircraft under those conditions.
Hey John, Don’t forget the engine, propeller, wheel and brake manufacturer as well as the ones you mentioned. These type lawsuits are ridiculous and lawyers who do these belong in prison. I know of a case where a student pilot came out to the airport on a foggy night, broke the lock on the hangar, rolled out a Cessna 150 and crashed in the woods just outside the airport. They sued the city that owned the hangar, the lock manufacturer, Cessna, Continental, McCauley, and his flight instructor. The flight instructor said it cost him over $10,000 to defend his part in the suit and his lawyer said “Thank God you hadn’t signed him off for night solo.” Until something is done about these types of ridiculous law suits, aviation will only continue to suffer with high costs.
Unlikely any reasonable/realistic tort reform will ever be done as long as the majority of legislators/congressman are lawyers. Ridiculous lawsuits have resulted in higher costs for virtually every product and service including but not limited to aviation.