On April 22 at the Hamilton airport south of Missoula a Short Sherpa smokejumper plane — Jumper 63 or N163Z incurred “substantial” damage on landing after a training flight from MSO down to Ravalli County.
The Forest Service acknowledges the incident happened, but not in those words. They don’t want to talk about it beyond saying “we can’t talk about it.” If there’s any kind of an incident with F&AM aircraft that triggers an NTSB investigation, then the USFS can’t talk to us (the public and firefighters and fire aviation readers and media enemies) because the ONLY people who can speak about this incident are those with the NTSB. And they’re not readily available. (05/11: It’s been 16 days and zero replies from them to either of my emails.)
The Forest Service definitely can’t tell reporters and editors what’s up with an aircraft incident when the NTSB takes over. They can’t talk about the timeline, the personnel involved, the causes or results of the incident, or anything at all related to the incident. We didn’t ask for any of that.
But they also can’t confirm whether the aircraft registration was current if you point out to them that some records online indicate that registration was lapsed back in September, and they won’t say who’s responsible for updating the registration or records thereof. (One helpful person told me the N-number is current.)
We’re not talking about a multiple-fatality incident on a fire here. The smokejumper aircraft for some reason exited the runway (depending on who you talk to, the brakes may or may not have seized up or frozen up, and the aircraft may have “lost control” (though it’s probabably a pilot who loses contraol, not the aircraft), and then it “veered” off the runway. Persons who were involved or knowledgeable about the incident but who prefer to not share their names in public say that brakes on a Sherpa on landing do not “freeze up” without pilot involvement, the plane did not lose control, and “veering” from the runway likely wouldn’t cause “substantial” damage — which a couple of non-NTSB reports say it did.
This was a training flight with a Sherpa jump ship in late April; the aircraft left MSO mid-day and flew around on a training run with a pilot and two passengers and then had some kind of “incident” when it landed at Hamilton (KHRF).
The USFS has more than a couple of Short Sherpas registered for smokejumper and other purposes.
According to the FAA Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS), substantial damage was incurred in an incident in which “BRAKES LOCKED AND LOST CONTROL, VEERING OFF THE RUNWAY at HAMILTON.” On the next day, the Helena FSDO was in charge. The FSDO (the Flight Standards District Office of the FAA) includes three groups — Operations and Airworthiness and Avionics — each of which has inspectors to run investigations. We’re betting the first report info will come from someone besides U.S. Forest Service employees, NINE of whom refused to even acknowledge this aircraft incident occurred.
17 Comments
I’m one citizen grateful that you are doing the necessary journalism to keep the public informed on these unresponsive but crucial agencies.
Awful journalism, educate yourself on the process of an NTSB investigation. Anyone who’s been directly involved in an investigation knows the repercussions that can happen with releasing information outside what the NTSB has approved. Clearly you aren’t aware of the process by how your article is wrote. You wrote an article off your opinions because you don’t have facts. Click bait CNN garbage. People like you give journalists a bad name.
Clearly your decision to educate yourself in journalism was not effective. You’re complaining he doesn’t have facts? That’s what he was asking for . . .
Clearly, information is not allowed to be released yet per an open investigation there’s a process. Same way, the police don’t release all the information in an investigation regarding a murder. Rather than file an article prematurely based off opinions like there’s a cover up…wait until the report is released publicly by the NTSB. Then gather the information you have out of that and then follow up with any additional questions once it’s no longer an active investigation. But falsely writing an article like it’s a cover up is a misrepresentation of the situation, when in reality they aren’t willing to break their NTSB agreement.
I see alot of thumbs down to Mike’s response…..hmmm I ve taken a number of IAT courses online and being a pilot, there are policies and procedures under FAA Part 830 and NTSB workings. Let the aviation community take care of it and and let the investigatory process run its course…we’ll all know in about a month a Factual and about a year, the Final….
Everyone, place your hands under those webbed troop seats and hold on!!
I don’t think this represents any conspiracy to keep facts from the public. As noted, if the NTSB is involved, they NTSB will come out with a factual, preliminary report in about a month. That report can be accessed here: https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/AviationQueryv2.aspx
or here:
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/basic-search
You’re right, Glenn,
despite what Mike (or NotMike or mh1776freedom or mikehawk1776 or mikehawk or mikkehawkk1776 or the other several fake emails and pseuds he’s tried here today) has pushed here in the name of his repeated comments … I really just don’t have the time for this stuff and yes, he’s right, I have blocked him. He’s tried 14 times this afternoon to end-run this block and the rest of you are welcome to comment on this post. But he’s done.
I mean did they have a point? You do drill hard that everyone was unwilling to comment on the open investigation in your article. When it is standard practice and laid out in the CFR’s. Kind of feels like you silenced and individual for pointing that flaw in your article out or avoidance to take responsibility for it. No matter who’s wrong or right feels like that should have been explain better in the article. It’s your name, reputation and opinion on the article. You can reach me at my email.
He wasn’t blocked for pointing out anything, Eric. He was blocked for posting the same lengthy copy-and-paste comment 6 times in a row after I told him twice to stop it — and for using fake email addresses on his comments and trying to end-run a block. It’s quite clear in the rules, which Bill Gabbert wrote here years ago — and I agree with all of them.
Good journalism, vital on this topic, can’t give much time to possible madly paranoid conspiracy theorists. The facts are hard enough to trace down. But maybe I will look up the Mikehawk1776 or whatever he calls himself — since as the modern-day folk saying goes: “This is a world where even paranoids have real enemies.” But that’s for nutty non-journalists like me to pay attention to.
You are to be commended for informing the public that on the eve of another fire season, an expensive taxpayer resource has been substantially damaged and ostensibly put out of service.
As I read your post, you are not asking for a root cause, pre-investigation, or analysis at this early point.
All the USFS needed to do was state that an accident occurred during landing, the three crewmembers are safe, and the accident is under investigation. Why the secrecy? Who the hell do they think they are?
They work for us. We paid for those aircraft and to install millions of dollars of new avionics in them, to train the crews, put fuel in them, and maintain them. To simply not make the simplest statement, and to declare that they can’t because of some agreement with the NTSB, is the most cynical of government arrogance and obfuscation.
The NTSB is responsible for investgating ALL aircraft accidents. No agreements, MOUs, etc. necessary, nor are they required. Like to see this USFS-signed “Magna Carta of Goverment Aviation” that supposedly dictates the USFS non-disclosure of the substantial damage to a taxpayer-owner resource.
Gotta call BS.
With all the braggadacio that is spouted of about agreements then its time its proven that it exists with the NTSB….until then its hearsay..
No one’s boasting about anything here, Leo, who are you accusing of that?
The document’s listed on our DOCUMENTS page and you can read it yourself.
NTSBpartyGuidance.pdf
The document in question relates to, and pertains to entities that are a member of the NTSBs investigative team, and only to topics concerning the investigation.
“This guidance is intended to familiarize participants in NTSB accident and incident investigations with the NTSB investigative process and the NTSB’s expectations regarding the roles and responsibilities of organizations and individual employees of those organizations assigned to work in support of an NTSB investigation.”
And this:
“Before the NTSB’s adoption of the final report, only appropriate NTSB personnel are authorized to publicly disclose investigative information, which will be limited to verified factual information identified during the course of the investigation. In addition, party participants and their respective organizations must refrain from providing opinions or analysis of the accident outside of the participants in the investigation. Failure to abide by these requirements may lead to removal of a party from the investigation. Any questions on this policy may be directed to the NTSB’s IIC on an investigation, or to the NTSB’s Media Relations Division at 202-314-6100.”
And finally:
“Contacts with news media concerning the investigation will be made only by the NTSB, through the Board member if on scene, the NTSB’s Medial Relations representative, or the IIC. The NTSB is a public agency engaged in the public’s business and supported by public funds. The agency’s work is open for public review, and the Act under which the NTSB operates makes this mandatory. The NTSB believes that periodic factual briefings to the news media are a normal part of our investigation and that, for the public to perceive the investigation as credible, the investigation must speak with one voice: that of the independent agency conducting the investigation.
Therefore, the NTSB insists that it be the sole source of public information regarding the progress of an accident investigation. Parties are encouraged to refer media inquiries to the NTSB’s Media Relations Division. Release to the media of investigative information at any time is grounds for a party’s removal from the investigation.”
So, two points here:
1). Is the USFS a member of this investigative team? To my knowledge, they never really said so.
2). The rules in this document apply only to topics about, and pertinent to, the investigation of the accident.
The document doesn’t state that the operator can’t report the fact that an accident had occured. The USFS should have done this by the next day, at the latest.
Such secrecy. (Shhhhhhhhhhhh!)
Since this wasn’t the crash of a secret spacecraft near Area 51, but rather a landing accident at a public airport, involving a publicly-owned fire-fighting aircraft; and because the Public Relations Dept. Five-or-Six-Figure- Pay-Recipients employed by the Forest Service have been told to ignore this embarassment, I’ll go ahead and report it for them.
To, and for, the U. S. Public by a private citizen:
“On April 22, 2024, a US Forest Service Smokejumper aircraft, based in Missoula, Montana was involved in an accident at the Hamilton, Montana, Ravalli County airport.
The aircraft, apparently on a training flight, exited the runway during landing, sustaining “substantial” damage. There were no injuries among the three crewmembers.
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the accident. No further information is available at this time.”
Now, I’ll sit back and wait for the IRS audit
A quick N number search on the FAA registration page shows N163Z’s registration is good until 09/30/2027. Whatever source you are using isn’t up to date. The NTSB prelim says everything you need to know. Let the process work like it does for hundreds of accidents each year. There have been a number of parties kicked off NTSB investigations for disclosing information outside the investigation team. Some very public. No one wants to be on the wrong side of the NTSB and get dismissed.
Once again……
Now try to pay attention here…….
No one is asking for ANY accident investigation details
Just an announcement that a USFS aircraft was even involved in an accident!
Jeez. Try some reading comprehension skills. As an aside, how about some examples of entities that have been “kicked off NTSB investigations” to support your assertion.
Removals from NTSB party agreements are actually pretty rare. Ten years ago the NTSB revoked party status for UPS and a pilots’ union in the investigation of a crash when public comments were made by both sides about the accident. Which other removals are you referring to?
Comments are closed for this article!