Ketchikan

The accident flight was the pilot’s second passenger sightseeing flight of the day that overflew remote inland fjords, coastal waterways, and mountainous, tree-covered terrain in the Misty Fjords National Monument. Limited information was available about the airplane’s flight track due to radar limitations, and the flight tracking information from the airplane only provided data in 1-minute intervals. The data indicated that the airplane was on the return leg of the flight and in the final minutes of flight, the pilot was flying on the right side of a valley. The airplane impacted mountainous terrain at 1,750 ft mean sea level (msl), about 250 ft below the summit. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of pre accident failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. Damage to the propeller indicated that it was rotating and under power at the time of the accident. The orientation and distribution of the wreckage indicated that the airplane impacted a tree in a left-wing-low attitude, likely as the pilot was attempting to maneuver away from terrain. Review of weather information for the day of the accident revealed a conditionally unstable environment below 6,000 ft msl, which led to rain organizing in bands of shower activity. Satellite imagery depicted that one of these bands was moving northeastward across the accident site at the accident time. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) weather cameras and local weather observations also indicated that lower visibility and mountain obscuration conditions were progressing northward across the accident area with time. Based on photographs recovered from passenger cell phones along with FAA weather camera imagery, the accident flight encountered mountain obscuration conditions, rain shower activity, and reduced visibilities and cloud ceilings, resulting in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) before the impact with terrain. The pilot reviewed weather conditions before the first flight of the day; however, there was no indication that he obtained updated weather conditions or additional weather information before departing on the accident flight. Based on interviews, the accident pilot landed following the first flight of the day in lowering visibility, ceiling, and precipitation, and departed on the accident flight in precipitation, based on passenger photos. Therefore, the pilot had knowledge of the weather conditions that he could have encountered along the route of flight before departure. The operator had adequate policies and procedures in place for pilots regarding inadvertent encounters with IMC; however, the pilot’s training records indicated that he was signed off for cue-based training that did not occur. Cue-based training is intended to help calibrate pilots’ weather assessment and foster an ability to accurately assess and respond appropriately to cues associated with deteriorating weather. Had the pilot completed the training, it might have helped improve his decision-making skills to either cancel the flight before departure or turn around earlier in the flight. The operator’s lack of safety management protocols resulted in the pilot not receiving the required cue-based training, allowed him to continue operating air tours with minimal remedial training following a previous accident, and allowed the accident airplane to operate without a valid FAA registration. The operator was signatory to a voluntary local air tour operator’s group letter of agreement that was developed to improve the overall safety of flight operations in the area of the Misty Fjords National Monument. Participation was voluntary and not regulated by the FAA, and the investigation noted multiple instances in which the LOA policies were ignored, including on the accident flight. For example, the accident flight did not follow the standard Misty Fjords route outlined in the LOA nor did it comply with the recommended altitudes for flights into and out of the Misty Fjords. FAA inspectors providing oversight for the area reported that, when they addressed operators about disregarding the LOA, the operators would respond that the LOA was voluntary and that they did not need to follow the guidance. The FAA’s reliance on voluntary compliance initiatives in the local air tour industry failed to produce compliance with safety initiatives or to reduce accidents in the Ketchikan region.

The commercial pilot was conducting his first scheduled commuter flight from the company’s seaplane base to a nearby island seaplane base with one passenger and cargo onboard. According to company pilots, the destination harbor was prone to challenging downdrafts and changing wind conditions due to surrounding terrain. Multiple witnesses at the destination stated that the airplane made a westerly approach, and the wind was from the southeast with light chop on the water. Two witnesses reported the wings rocking left and right before touchdown. One witness stated that a wind gust pushed the tail up before the airplane landed. A different witness reported that the airplane was drifting right during the touchdown, and another witness saw the right (downwind) float submerge under water after touchdown, and the airplane nosed over as it pivoted around the right wingtip, which impacted the water. Flight track and performance data from the cockpit display units revealed that, as the airplane descended on the final approach, the wind changed from a right headwind of 6 knots to a left quartering tailwind of 8 knots before touchdown. The crosswind and tailwind components were within the airplane’s operational limitations. Examination of the airframe, engine, and associated systems revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation or egress. During the final approach and descent, the pilot had various wind information available to him; the sea surface wind waves and signatures, the nearest airport observation winds, the cockpit display calculated wind, and the visual relative ground speed. Had the pilot recognized that the winds had shifted to a quartering tailwind and the airplane’s ground speed was faster than normal, he could have aborted the landing and performed another approach into the wind. Although crosswind landings were practiced during flight training, tailwind landings were not because new pilots were not expected to perform them. Although the crosswind component was well within the airplane’s limits, it is possible that combined with the higher ground speed, the inexperienced pilot was unable to counteract the lateral drift during touchdown in a rapidly shifting wind. The pilot was hired the previous month with 5 hours of seaplane experience, and he completed company-required training and competency checks less than 2 weeks before the accident. According to the chief pilot (CP), company policy was to assign newly hired pilots to tour flights while they gained experience before assigning them to commuter flights later in the season. The previous year, the CP distributed a list of each pilot’s clearances for specific types of flights and destinations; however, an updated list had not been generated for the season at the time of the accident, and the flight coordinators, who were delegated operational control for assigning pilots to flights, and station manager were unaware of the pilot’s assignment limitations. Before the flight, the flight coordinator on duty completed a company flight risk assessment that included numerical values based on flight experience levels. The total risk value for the flight was in the caution area, which required management notification before releasing the flight, due to the pilot’s lack of experience in the accident airplane make and model and with the company, and his unfamiliarity with the geographical area; however, the flight coordinator did not notify management before release because the CP had approved a tour flight with the same risk value earlier in the day. Had the CP been notified, he may not have approved of the pilot's assignment to the accident flight. The pilot's minimal operational experience in seaplane operations likely affected his situational awareness in rapidly changing wind conditions and his ability to compensate adequately for a quartering tailwind at a higher-than-normal ground speed, which resulted in a loss of control during the water landing and a subsequent nose-over.

On May 13, 2019, about 1221 Alaska daylight time, a float-equipped de Havilland DHC-2 (Beaver) airplane, N952DB, and a float-equipped de Havilland DHC-3 (Otter) airplane, N959PA, collided in midair about 8 miles northeast of Ketchikan, Alaska. The DHC-2 pilot and four passengers sustained fatal injuries. The DHC-3 pilot sustained minor injuries, nine passengers sustained serious injuries, and one passenger sustained fatal injuries. The DHC-2 was destroyed, and the DHC-3 sustained substantial damage. The DHC-2 was registered to and operated by Mountain Air Service LLC, Ketchikan, Alaska, under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 as an on-demand sightseeing flight. The DHC-3 was registered to Pantechnicon Aviation LTD, Minden, Nevada, and operated by Venture Travel, LLC, dba Taquan Air, Ketchikan, Alaska, under the provisions of Part 135 as an on-demand sightseeing flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed in the area at the time of the accident. According to information provided by the operators, both airplanes had been conducting sightseeing flights to the Misty Fjords National Monument area. They were both converging on a scenic waterfall in the Mahoney Lakes area on Revillagigedo Island before returning to the Ketchikan Harbor Seaplane Base (5KE), Ketchikan, Alaska, when the accident occurred. According to recorded avionics data recovered from the DHC-3, it departed from an inlet (Rudyerd Bay) in the Misty Fjords National Monument area about 1203 and followed the inlet westward toward Point Eva and Manzanita Island. At 1209, at an altitude between 1,900 and 2,200 ft, the DHC-3 crossed the Behm Canal then turned to the southwest about 1212 in the vicinity of Lake Grace. Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) tracking data for both airplanes, which were provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), began at 1213:08 for the DHC-3, and at 1213:55 for the DHC-2. At 1217:15, the DHC-3 was about level at 4,000 ft mean sea level (msl) over Carroll Inlet on a track of 225°. The DHC-2 was 4.2 nautical miles (nm) south of the DHC-3, climbing through 2,800 ft, on a track of 255°. The DHC-3 pilot stated that, about this time, he checked his traffic display and “there were two groups of blue triangles, but not on my line. They were to the left of where I was going.” He stated that he did not observe the DHC-2 on his traffic display before the collision. The ADS-B data indicated that, about 1219, the DHC-3 started a descent from 4,000 ft, and the DHC-2 was climbing from 3,175 ft. During the next 1 minute 21 seconds, the DHC-3 continued to descend on a track between 224° and 237°, and the DHC-2 leveled out at 3,350 ft on a track of about 255°. Between 1220:21 and 1221:14, the DHC-3 made a shallow left turn to a track of 210°, then a shallow right turn back to a track of 226°. The airplanes collided at 1221:14 at an altitude of 3,350 ft, 7.4 nm northeast of 5KE. The ADS-B data for both airplanes end about the time of the collision. The DHC-2 was fractured into multiple pieces and impacted the water and terrain northeast of Mahoney Lake. Recorded avionics data for the DHC-3 indicate that at 1221:14, the DHC-3 experienced a brief upset in vertical load factor and soon after entered a right bank, reaching an attitude about 50° right wing down at 1221:19 and 27° nose down at 1221:22. The DHC-3 began descending and completed a 180° turn before impacting George Inlet at 1222:15 along a northeast track.

On May 13, 2019, about 1221 Alaska daylight time, a float-equipped de Havilland DHC-2 (Beaver) airplane, N952DB, and a float-equipped de Havilland DHC-3 (Otter) airplane, N959PA, collided in midair about 8 miles northeast of Ketchikan, Alaska. The DHC-2 pilot and four passengers sustained fatal injuries. The DHC-3 pilot sustained minor injuries, nine passengers sustained serious injuries, and one passenger sustained fatal injuries. The DHC-2 was destroyed, and the DHC-3 sustained substantial damage. The DHC-2 was registered to and operated by Mountain Air Service LLC, Ketchikan, Alaska, under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 as an on-demand sightseeing flight. The DHC-3 was registered to Pantechnicon Aviation LTD, Minden, Nevada, and operated by Venture Travel, LLC, dba Taquan Air, Ketchikan, Alaska, under the provisions of Part 135 as an on-demand sightseeing flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed in the area at the time of the accident. According to information provided by the operators, both airplanes had been conducting sightseeing flights to the Misty Fjords National Monument area. They were both converging on a scenic waterfall in the Mahoney Lakes area on Revillagigedo Island before returning to the Ketchikan Harbor Seaplane Base (5KE), Ketchikan, Alaska, when the accident occurred. According to recorded avionics data recovered from the DHC-3, it departed from an inlet (Rudyerd Bay) in the Misty Fjords National Monument area about 1203 and followed the inlet westward toward Point Eva and Manzanita Island. At 1209, at an altitude between 1,900 and 2,200 ft, the DHC-3 crossed the Behm Canal then turned to the southwest about 1212 in the vicinity of Lake Grace. Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) tracking data for both airplanes, which were provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), began at 1213:08 for the DHC-3, and at 1213:55 for the DHC-2. At 1217:15, the DHC-3 was about level at 4,000 ft mean sea level (msl) over Carroll Inlet on a track of 225°. The DHC-2 was 4.2 nautical miles (nm) south of the DHC-3, climbing through 2,800 ft, on a track of 255°. The DHC-3 pilot stated that, about this time, he checked his traffic display and “there were two groups of blue triangles, but not on my line. They were to the left of where I was going.” He stated that he did not observe the DHC-2 on his traffic display before the collision. The ADS-B data indicated that, about 1219, the DHC-3 started a descent from 4,000 ft, and the DHC-2 was climbing from 3,175 ft. During the next 1 minute 21 seconds, the DHC-3 continued to descend on a track between 224° and 237°, and the DHC-2 leveled out at 3,350 ft on a track of about 255°. Between 1220:21 and 1221:14, the DHC-3 made a shallow left turn to a track of 210°, then a shallow right turn back to a track of 226°. The airplanes collided at 1221:14 at an altitude of 3,350 ft, 7.4 nm northeast of 5KE. The ADS-B data for both airplanes end about the time of the collision. The DHC-2 was fractured into multiple pieces and impacted the water and terrain northeast of Mahoney Lake. Recorded avionics data for the DHC-3 indicate that at 1221:14, the DHC-3 experienced a brief upset in vertical load factor and soon after entered a right bank, reaching an attitude about 50° right wing down at 1221:19 and 27° nose down at 1221:22. The DHC-3 began descending and completed a 180° turn before impacting George Inlet at 1222:15 along a northeast track.

The airline transport pilot was conducting a commercial visual flight rules (VFR) flight transporting 10 passengers from a remote fishing lodge. According to the pilot, while in level cruise flight about 1,100 ft mean sea level (msl) and as the flight progressed into a mountain pass, visibility decreased rapidly. In an attempt to turn around and return to VFR conditions, the pilot initiated a climbing right turn. Before completing the 180° right turn, he saw what he believed to be a body of water and became momentarily disoriented, so he leveled the wings. Shortly thereafter, he realized that the airplane was approaching an area of snow-covered mountainous terrain, so he applied full power and initiated a steep climb; the airspeed decayed, and the airplane collided with an area of rocky, rising terrain, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and the examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The weather forecast at the accident time included scattered clouds at 2,500 ft msl, overcast clouds at 5,000 ft msl with cloud tops to 14,000 ft and clouds layered above that to flight level 250, and isolated broken clouds at 2,500 ft with light rain. AIRMET advisory SIERRA for "mountains obscured in clouds/precipitation" was valid at the time of the accident. Conditions were expected to deteriorate. Passenger interviews revealed that through the course of the flight, the airplane was operating in marginal visual meteorological conditions and occasional instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) with areas of precipitation, reduced visibility, obscuration, and, at times, little to no forward visibility. Thus, based on weather reports and forecasts, and the pilot's and passengers' statements, it is likely that the flight encountered IMC as it approached mountainous terrain and that the pilot then lost situational awareness. The airplane was equipped with a terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS); however, the alerts were inhibited at the time of the accident. Although the TAWS was required to be installed per Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, there is no requirement for it to be used. All company pilots interviewed stated that the TAWS inhibit switch remained in the inhibit position unless a controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) escape maneuver was being accomplished. However, the check airman who last administered the accident pilot's competency check stated that the TAWS inhibit switch was never moved, even during a CFIT escape maneuver. The unwritten company policy to leave the TAWS in the inhibit mode and the failure of the pilot to move the TAWS out of the inhibit mode when weather conditions began to deteriorate were inconsistent with the goal of providing the highest level of safety. However, if the pilot had been using TAWS, due to the fact that he was operating at a lower altitude and thus would have likely received numerous nuisance alerts, the investigation could not determine the extent to which TAWS would have impacted the pilot's actions. At the time of the accident, the director of operations (DO) for the company resided in another city and served as DO for another air carrier as well. He traveled to the company's main base of operation about once per month but was available via telephone. According to the chief pilot, he had assumed a large percentage of the DO's duties. The president of the company said that the chief pilot had taken over "officer of the deck" and "we're just basically using him [the DO] for his recordkeeping." The FAA was aware that the company's DO was also DO for another commuter operation. FAA Flight Standards District Office management and principal operations inspectors allowed him to continue to hold those positions, although it was contrary to the guidance provided in FAA Order 8900.1. The company's General Operations Manual (GOM) only listed the DO, the chief pilot, and the president by name as having the authority to exercise operational control. However, numerous company personnel stated that operational control could be and was routinely delegated to senior pilots. The GOM stated that the DO "routinely" delegated the duty of operational control to flight coordinators, but the flight coordinator on duty at the time of the accident stated that she did not have operational control. In addition, the investigation revealed numerous inadequate and missing operational control procedures and processes in company manuals and operations specifications. Based on the FAA's inappropriate approval of the DO, the insufficient company onsite management, the inadequate operational control procedures, and the exercise of operational control by unapproved persons likely resulted in a lack of oversight of flight operations, inattentive and distracted management personnel, and a loss of operational control within the air carrier. However, the investigation could not determine the extent to which any changes to operational control, company management, and FAA oversight would have influenced the pilot's decision to continue the VFR flight into IMC.

The pilot of the twin-engine airplane and the pilot-rated passenger reported that, during a missed approach in instrument meteorological conditions, at 2,000 ft mean sea level, the right engine seized. The pilot attempted to feather the right engine by pulling the propeller control to the feather position; however, the engine did not feather. The airplane would not maintain level flight, so the pilot navigated to a known airport, and the passenger made emergency communications with air traffic control. The pilot was unable to maintain visual reference with the ground until the airplane descended through about 100 to 200 ft and the visibility was 1 statute mile. The pilot stated that he was forced to ditch the airplane in the water about 5 miles short of the airport. The pilot and passenger egressed the airplane and swam ashore before it sank in about 89 ft of water. Both the pilot and passenger reported that there was postimpact fire on the surface of the water. The airplane was not recovered, which precluded a postaccident examination. Thus, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.

The airplane collided with mountainous, tree-covered terrain about 24 miles east-northeast of Ketchikan, Alaska. The commercial pilot and eight passengers sustained fatal injuries, and the airplane was destroyed. The airplane was owned by Pantechnicon Aviation, of Minden, Nevada, and operated by Promech Air, Inc., of Ketchikan. The flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 as an on-demand sightseeing flight; a company visual flight rules flight plan (by which the company performed its own flight-following) was in effect. Marginal visual flight rules conditions were reported in the area at the time of the accident. The flight departed about 1207 from Rudyerd Bay about 44 miles east-northeast of Ketchikan and was en route to the operator’s base at the Ketchikan Harbor Seaplane Base, Ketchikan. The accident airplane was the third of four Promech-operated float-equipped airplanes that departed at approximate 5-minute intervals from a floating dock in Rudyerd Bay. The accident flight and the two Promech flights that departed before it were carrying cruise-ship passengers who had a 1230 “all aboard” time for their cruise ship that was scheduled to depart at 1300. (The fourth flight had no passengers but was repositioning to Ketchikan for a tour scheduled at 1230; the accident pilot also had his next tour scheduled for 1230.) The sightseeing tour flight, which the cruise ship passengers had purchased from the cruise line as a shore excursion, overflew remote inland fjords; coastal waterways; and mountainous, tree-covered terrain in the Misty Fjords National Monument Wilderness. Promech pilots could choose between two standard tour routes between Rudyerd Bay and Ketchikan, referred to as the “short route” (which is about 52 nautical miles [nm], takes about 25 minutes to complete, and is primarily over land) and the “long route” (which is about 63 nm, takes about 30 minutes to complete, and is primarily over seawater channels). Although the long route was less scenic, it was generally preferred in poor weather conditions because it was primarily over water, which enabled the pilots to fly at lower altitudes (beneath cloud layers) and perform an emergency or precautionary landing, if needed. Route choice was at each pilot’s discretion based on the pilot’s assessment of the weather. The accident pilot and two other Promech pilots (one of whom was repositioning an empty airplane) chose the short route for the return leg, while the pilot of the second Promech flight to depart chose the long route. Information obtained from weather observation sources, weather cameras, and photographs and videos recovered from the portable electronic devices (PEDs) of passengers on board the accident flight and other tour flights in the area provided evidence that the accident flight encountered deteriorating weather conditions. Further, at the time of the accident, the terrain at the accident site was likely obscured by overcast clouds with visibility restricted in rain and mist. Although the accident pilot had climbed the airplane to an altitude that would have provided safe terrain clearance had he followed the typical short route (which required the flight to pass two nearly identical mountains before turning west), the pilot instead deviated from that route and turned the airplane west early (after it passed only the first of the two mountains). The pilot’s route deviation placed the airplane on a collision course with a 1,900-ft mountain, which it struck at an elevation of about 1,600 ft mean sea level. In the final 2 seconds of the flight, the airplane pitched up rapidly before colliding with terrain. The timing of this aggressive pitch-up maneuver strongly supports the scenario that the pilot continued the flight into near-zero visibility conditions, and, as soon as he realized that the flight was on a collision course with the terrain, he pulled aggressively on the elevator flight controls in an ineffective attempt to avoid the terrain. Although Promech’s General Operations Manual specified that both the pilot and the flight scheduler must jointly agree that a flight can be conducted safely before it is launched, no such explicit concurrence occurred between the accident pilot and the flight scheduler (or any member of company management) before the accident flight. As a result, the decision to initiate the accident tour rested solely with the accident pilot, who had less than 2 months’ experience flying air tours in Southeast Alaska and had demonstrated difficulty calibrating his own risk tolerance for conducting tour flights in weather that was marginal or below Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) minimums. Further, evidence from the accident tour flight and the pilot’s previous tour flights support that the pilot’s decisions regarding his tour flights were influenced by schedule pressure; his attempt to emulate the behavior of other, more experienced pilots whose flights he was following; and Promech’s organizational culture, which tacitly endorsed flying in hazardous weather conditions, as evidenced (in part) by the company president/chief executive officer’s own tour flight below FAA minimums on the day of the accident.

The pilot departed from an off-airport site in marginal visual flight rules conditions. Shortly after departure, the weather worsened, and flight visibility dropped to near zero in heavy snow. He attempted to follow the shoreline at a low altitude but was unable to maintain visual contact with the ground. He stated that he saw trees immediately in front of the airplane and attempted a right turn toward what he thought was an open bay. During the turn, the right float contacted a rock outcrop, and the airplane impacted the water. The pilot did not report any mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.

The pilot had been advised by the Federal Aviation Administration flight service station (FSS) specialist to remain clear of the destination airport until the specialist could issue a special visual flight rules clearance. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the airport, with a strong southeasterly wind. About 8 minutes after initial contact, the FSS specialist attempted to contact the pilot to issue the clearance but received no response. A witness about 0.5 mile southeast of the accident site said he saw the accident airplane flying very low over the treetops. He said the weather conditions consisted of low clouds, rain, and gusty southeasterly wind estimated at 30 to 40 knots. He said that, as the airplane passed overhead, it turned sharply to the left. As he watched the airplane, the wings rocked violently from side to side, and the nose pitched up and down. As the airplane passed low over hilly, tree-covered terrain, it rolled to the right, the right wing struck a large tree and separated, and the airplane descended behind a stand of trees. Pilots flying in the accident area reported strong wind with significant downdrafts and turbulence. A postaccident examination of the airplane did not disclose any preimpact mechanical malfunctions. Given the lack of mechanical deficiencies and the reports of turbulence and downdrafts, as well as the witness’ account of the airplane’s physical movements, it is likely that the pilot encountered significant terrain-induced turbulence and downdrafts while flying at low altitude. The area surrounding the accident site and portions of the pilot's earlier flight path were bordered by large areas of open and protected water, several of which were suitable for landing the float-equipped airplane.

The float-equipped airplane was departing from a remote bay 20 miles north of Ketchikan, Alaska, to return air taxi passengers to Ketchikan after a ground tour. The accident pilot, who reported that he had 17,000 flight hours and 7,000 hours in the make and model of the accident airplane, said that southeasterly winds had begun to increase while he was waiting at the bay for the passengers to return from the tour. He said that, unlike when he had landed about 2.5 hours earlier, it was no longer “nice and calm” when the passengers returned. The pilot noticed choppy waves in parts of a nearby cove. To avoid some of the wind and waves, the pilot elected to take off toward the interior of the bay, in the direction of rising terrain. The pilot said that he had never taken off in that direction before. The pilot also said that he had intended to make a shallow, right-climbing turn toward the mouth of the bay and away from the terrain, but shortly after takeoff, he saw numerous choppy waves concentrated along his proposed departure flightpath, which he said indicated to him that strong winds were likely along that path. The pilot decided to change his plan and continue flying straight temporarily, away from the waves, and to make a left, 180-degree turn inside the bay, which was surrounded by high terrain. The pilot indicated that when the turn was initiated, the airplane was about 400 feet above the water, and he did not recall the indicated airspeed. The attempted 180-degree turn was within the airplane’s performance capabilities but placed it closer to rising terrain. While attempting this turn, the pilot encountered a downdraft, was unable to climb above the terrain, and stalled the airplane about 60 feet above the ground. The downdraft likely made it more difficult to avoid descending into the rising terrain. A weather study by the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that there was a gust front in the area and an abrupt wind change about the time of the accident. Pilots flying nearby also reported low-level windshear, strong winds, and turbulence. No mechanical anomalies were discovered during postaccident inspections by the Safety Board. Five passengers including two children were killed. A month later, one of the survivor died from his injuries.