More Passengers Than Seat Belts in Montana Crash—What That Tells Us

As the facts emerge over the crash of a Pilatus PC 12 with 14 people aboard in Butte, Montana, one thing is clear: there were more passengers aboard than there were seats or seat belts. What is not clear, and won’t be for many months, is exactly what caused the crash. However, the simple fact that there were more people on board than legally allowed may give some insight into the pilot and offer an important lesson for all pilots.

Initial speculation around the crash was that the Pilatus...

might have been overloaded, but since a large number of passengers were children, this might not have been the case. Other speculation includes icing; meteorologists say that weather conditions were conducive for forming ice. A recent airworthiness directive for the Pilatus PC 12, requiring that an inspection be performed to check an issue related to the effectiveness of the plane's controls, may also be at issue. Of course, history has shown that the initial speculation on the cause of a crash is often wrong.

The Significance of Too Few Seats
Apparently there were 14 people aboard, yet the Pilatus has only 10 or 11 seats according to different reports. Federal regulations do permit children under the age of 2 to be held in their parents laps, however according to one report, only one of the passengers was under the age of 2. If accurate, then at least two or three children were not legally seated in the aircraft.

I think it’s highly unlikely that having children seated illegally will be found to have any causality for the accident. However, it does speak to some extent to the judgment of the pilot. If it’s true that there were children illegally seated, this would definitely have been known to the pilot, who would have known that he was in violation of federal regulations. After all, the number of passengers and the total weight carried is so fundamental to safe flight that any pilot would have noticed the problem.

That the pilot would knowingly break the rules in this area may suggest that he was willing to break other rules too. In some ways, it reminds me of a local pilot who died while rolling an aircraft which wasn’t certified to be rolled. I’d previously watched that pilot taxi in at high speed, cut the engine, continue the taxi for another 50 feet and then quickly spin the airplane around 180° before bringing the plane to a full stop. A friend of mine witnessed him do the same thing on another occasion; that time his wing tip hit the prop of another airplane, damaging both aircraft. At the time, I dismissed the pilot’s behavior as being somewhat risky, but that it didn’t rise to the level that it endangered him or anyone else. However, after he killed himself rolling an aircraft not certified for aerobatics, I reached a different conclusion: people who exhibit any risky behavior may be predisposed to engage in even riskier behavior in the future.

Likewise, I’ve always been concerned about pilots who knowingly break FAA regulations. Candidly, I’m hard pressed to think of any FARs that seem pointless and should be disregarded. Most that I’ve read make sense and are put in place for the safety of pilots and passengers.

While one can argue the validity of the “slippery slope” argument, I’ve used it in my own aeronautical decision making. I concluded that if I were to knowingly violated one FAR, doing so would make it that much easier for me to violate another FAR at a later date. Rather than go down that road, I have a simple personal rule: Never knowingly violate any FAR. Is that inconvenient at times? Yes, but only occasionally.

For example, one time I quizzed a mechanic about a temporary repair which almost certainly would have allowed me to get an owner’s aircraft back to the home base four hours away. However, when he told me that technically the aircraft didn’t conform to the type certificate, the decision was easy: I caught a commercial flight home and the plane sat there until the correct part arrived.

In this case, the Pilatus PC 12 owner faced a tough decision. He knew that he had too many people, but he probably felt that it would displease the aircraft owner (who was the father and grandfather of 5 of the victims) to make two trips, which would have solved the problem. Given that many of the passengers were small, it may have been easy to rationalize that having too many people on board, while illegal, wouldn’t cause a weight and balance issue.

If you decide that you can break some of the rules, where do you draw the line as to which rules you follow and which you don’t? While it may indeed turn out that this accident wasn’t the result of pilot error, one can’t help but wonder if other rules, perhaps related to icing, were also violated. At funerals, I’ve often heard people say “he was such a good pilot.” The challenge is to be a good pilot on every flight. A good place to start is by following all of the rules all of the time.

Comments

[Smitty]

Good article Max! We should all stick to the regs and the limitations our aircraft. I still ask people how much they weigh before taking them on a flight. Some get offended, but that's too bad.

[Max Trescott]

I think it's critical that pilots never worry about whether someone becomes offended when we ask. I've always explained why I'm asking and people seem to understand. Besides, it's far better for someone to be offended than to get into an accident.

[TheGimliGlider]

Excellent write-up Max. Speaking of weight and balance, two of my most favorite incidents come to mind.

1. Pilot overloads a 4 seater cessna with patient, emergency oxygen equipment and his/her caretakers. Plane stalls shortly after take-off, bursts into flames, killing everyone on board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU

2. This is going to be horrific. Viewer's discretion is advised. In 1975, World Airways sends a Boeing 727 to Vietnam to rescue stranded women and children. Instead the aircraft was swamped by military personnel climbing on the aircraft. There were 260 people aboard a plane which is designed to carry 105. Plane was overloaded by 20,000 pounds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoA02PmueH4

[blueghost27]

I thought of the amount of people in the plane too immediately when they mentioned it was a Pilatus PC 12. The decision making was poor. To have been a fly on the wall as the pilot, the owner, and the passengers were discussing the variables, time, money, costs, pilot, etc.... Making two trips can cost a lot of money and time and I am sure ... there was a discussion about this. I do not think the pilot would have put 14 people in that plane, regardless of the age unless he had made a conscious decision after some discussion with other parties about the costs, the time, the hassle of two flights from CA to MT. We have all had to make that type of decision about timing, cost, hassle. We have all had passengers who are not pilots challange our better judgement because of convenience. The pilot as we all know bears the all the responsbility for what happened on this flight. I think it is a lesson for all of us to remember to not question our own judgement no matter what the hassles, cost, etc. are.

[Kat]

I am concerned about a man and his fiancee consistently taking themselves and 3 children in a fourseat plane and have 2 of them share a seat belt, commenting to the children that they are like 1 person. As someone that knows nothing about the regulations on this am I right to be concerned and what are the avenues to find out the proper guidelines o the children's safety?