Running head: ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT 1

Zonk Air Accident Investigation Report

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT 2

Zonk Air Accident Investigation Report

1.0 Flight Information

On the nightfall of 7th November 2010, an aircraft managed by Zonk Airline Charters

with one pilot and four passengers was involved in an fatal accident near Tahoe Airport on the

runway 18 for an evening photo taking session. The plane arrived one day prior to the incident

day from Burbank, California and planned to make a return flight to KBUR when the passengers

were done with the photo session in the region. At dusk, the plane took off with four passengers

and a pilot for a 20-minute flight with an option to fly the passengers to California or return them

to the same airport. The plane was flying under the provision of the code 14 for the Aeronautics

and Space general operating and flight rules hence had no flight plan (Ecfr.gov, 2019). The plane

took off under visual flight rules (VFR) and a reported visual deteriorating meteorological

condition. It was observed entering the cloud at about 900 feet AGL overcast according to the air

traffic controller personnel in charge that day. The pilot who had certification for small

commercial multiengine aircraft from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was cleared to

depart on the runway 18. Five miles from the point of departure, the air traffic controller saw the

aircraft emerging from the mist in a rolling like movement with smoke from the rear end. The

plane collided with a tower that was 100-foot-long, lost control, and fatally hit the surface at

about 500 distance from the tower. The impact dragged the plane for about 100 feet on the

ground from the first point it hit the ground causing a post-crash fire and killing all on board.

1.1 Scene Management Procedures

The procedures and organization of the investigation process was conducted in accordance

with the guidelines set by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At the center of the
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT 3

investigation was the NTSB Go team, a simple and effective team that ensured the likely causes

of Zonk Air incident were determined.

1.2 On-Scene observations

After reaching at the site, it was clear where the plane had crashed into the tower and

made contact with the surface. The lead investigator from NTSB established that the plane had

travelled at an angle before hitting the surface with wings marks in the terrain showing where

wings were hitting the ground. The aircraft debris was partly burnt, twisted, and consolidated in

certain area with a vertical crushed portion of the wing roots and fuselage covered in soot.

Furthermore, the engine expert found that the aircraft engine was distorted although the propeller

on the right had several "S" compressions on the trailing ends. The fire effect and collision

impact made observation of the other parts almost terrible by the NTSB investigators. Still, the

expert observed that engine on the right might have had some power before the collision while

the left had none power but damaged completely

The main aircraft body was distorted completely with unrecognizable passenger and the

cockpit areas that were crashed and destroyed utterly. The airframe investigator observed that

this was not a survivable accident with the broken and twisted seats. The emergency rescue

personnel extracted the destroyed bodies of those on the flight by dismantling the protective

gears. The country coroner retained the bodies of the deceased with autopsy showing that they

died from excessive blunt trauma while negative toxicology report was obtained from pilot.

Besides, it was observed that the instruments were destroyed completely and the large cargo

trucks was burnt and a large portion of the content was scattered cockpit section and outside. The

investigators also found that the aircraft weighed 6600 pounds and a mishap weight of 3900.
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT 4

Still, it was loaded with fuel weight at1000 pounds, 980 pounds for those on baord while the

cargo trucks were 900 pounds.

1.3 Airport information and weather

The Go team determined that the airport was an FAA recognized airport certified under

14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 139. The airport had complied with all the relevant airport

safety program that involved runway safety, general aviation safety , safety management system

from FAA. Besides, the meteorological information from the airport aviation meteorological

offices indicate that the airport had an altitude density conducive for the operation of PA-31.

1.4 Flight information and mission

The information found from the Zonk Air charter company and the Lake Tahoe Airport

authority by the investigators established that this was an evening photoshoot within airport 20

miles. The flight had an option of either coming back or fly directly to Burbank, CA. Besides, it

was established that air traffic controllers gave permission for the flight to depart under VFR and

visual meteorological conditions in accordance to the FAA rules. Still, information obtained

from the airport advance passenger information system showed that the plane had four

passengers and one pilot on board, photo equipment and four camera trucks.

1.5 Aircraft information

According to the manufacturing company, Pier Aircraft, the aircraft was a PA-31-310

with a rebuilt twin engine. It was Navajo turbo charged manufactured in 1980 weighing 6500

pounds. The aircraft data obtained from the company showed that the plane had 15,000 flight

hours and was remaining with about two hours before the 100-hour inspection time set by FAA

in code of Federal Regulations Sec. 91. 409 (FAA, 2019). Besides, the aircraft had been detained
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT 5

by DEA once and later auctioned to a civil operator that got a license from Air Carrier Certificate

and Operations Specifications from the FAA and Department of Transport. Besides, the

information obtained from FAA showed the airworthiness directive was given in accordance

with FAA 14 CFR part 39 guidelines although there is no record from the company that they

were followed. Maintenance was outsourced and it was established that the maintenance work

was poorly done and the maintenance facility was not experienced to carry out search services to

this type of airframe.

1.6 Pilot information

The information obtained from the pilot employer and FAA database showed that the

pilot was not certified to fly commercial multi-engine aircrafts despite having written on the

resume that he had 300 hours flying time. Also, the pilot resume said that he had only 50 hours

for twin engine aircrafts and five hours on such type of planes. Regarding certification, the

school where the pilot had obtained his training had closed down meaning it was impossible to to

get any information on his competency.

1.7 Company information and operations

The investigation revealed that the plane was managed by Zonk Air Charters company

based in Oxnard, CA. Documents obtained from FAA showed that the company operated three

airplanes under both FAR Part 91 and Part 135 regulations with specialization in scenic flights.

From the company management, the company operated a small office that included the owner,

secretarial staffs, and at least six pilots on part-time basis. The company had no earlier incidents

records but FAA had cited them for failing to carry out maintenance procedures as stipulated in

the FAR code 14 CFR 135 on operation requirement.

1.8 Miscellaneous information

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT 6

The flight proficiency and training were accomplished by the owner of the company

meaning that the pilots did not meet the FAA regulations. Still, the company had poor

documentation of the maintenance procedures as well as poor records in paying for services such

as maintenance and services. Also, there was ignorance from the owner when the pilot reported a

fuel drip from the right engine.

1.9 Final analysis

It is with my determination that the company failed in a series of events which when aligned

together, caused the accident. From the poorly trained pilots and failure of the company to follow

FAA regulation especially in the hiring of the pilots and maintenance procedure. First, the slimy

meteorological condition may have led to the accident considering the pilot had no experience in

such weather conditions. Also, poor management from the company can directly be cited as the

cause of the accident because of failing to ensure FAA regulation are followed in the training and

hiring of pilots. Still, the company failed to ensure that maintenance procedures are followed

according to FAA regulations or hire competent maintenance professional to carry out the tasks.

Also, due to ignorance, the company owner failed to make a rational decision regarding the fuel

leakage on the right engine. Still, the management failed to follow FAA regulation on duty

allocation for pilots to ensure pilots have enough rest time before any flight. About the pilot, the

pilot had no enough training and experience to handle such kinds of aircraft as well as
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT 7

insufficient on training on meteorological conditions. Besides, the pilot had flown for the

company only three times and had not worked for the company for about 10 days. This was a

clear indication that the pilot was not experienced to handle the aircraft.

2.0 Conclusion

This research paper is a report on the accident of an aircraft owned by Zonk Air Charter that

occurred on November 7th 2010 in Tahoe Airport. The paper concludes that there is a numerous

factor that might have led to the fatal accident occurring. These factors include poor weather

conditions, poor company’s management, and pilot inefficiency. About the pilot, the paper

highlights that the pilot was poor trained and had inadequate training to operate such an aircraft

in such poor weather condition. Before incident, the pilot had not flown any plane from the

employer for about 10 days and also, he had previously handled only three aircrafts from the

company. This showed that the pilot had no experience to handle aircrafts from the company.

Together with the poor management that allowed incompetent pilot to fly and poor maintenance

services, the pilot is to blame for the accident.

2.1 Recommendations

Safety recommendation are the most significant part of the NTSB board to improve

aviation transportation safety. Therefore, it is recommended for the airplane operators to strictly

follow FAA code14 of the Federal Regulations CFR 135 on mechanic regulations and aircraft

maintenance. Besides, it is recommended that airplane operators to ensure pilots are certified

under the authority of Federal regulation tittle 14 of the FAR code parts 61, under 141 before

taking any flying tasks. Also, the airline operators should ensure that their pilots attended their

training in FAA authorized schools as indicated in part 141 on the 14 CFR. Besides, airline
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT 8

companies should have proper management structure that will ensure proper smooth running if

the airline operations such as human resource management. This will see that duty cases such

pilot duty allocation is strictly adhered to and proper maintenance procedures are followed for

the aircrafts