N499SW King Air fatal crash - Owner/pilot was unlicensed

[bizjets101]

The Western News

Aircraft struck a mountain on approach to Libby Airport Montana, fatal to pilot (unlicensed) and passenger.

Carl J. Douglas, the 54-year-old CEO of Stinger Welding who was killed in a plane crash Dec. 19, was not certified to pilot the aircraft that night.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration registration records, Carl James Douglas was only a student pilot and navigating the Beechcraft King Air 100 at night, above the clouds and without clear visibility of the ground exceeded his student qualifications.

Douglas and his passenger, John Smith, 43, died after Douglas’ twin-engine turbo-prop slammed into Swede Mountain just about three miles northeast of Libby Airport.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration’s website, Carl J. Douglas received his student pilot’s license on June 9, 2010. There are no records indicating Douglas had a full-fledged pilot’s license.

“It is correct to say the FAA records online indicate that (Douglas) was only a student pilot,” wrote Allen Kenitzer, manager of communications for the FAA in the Northwest Mountain and Alaska Region to an online inquiry from The Western News. “(However,) this is under investigation, and we don’t comment on ongoing investigations,” Kenitzer stated.

Similarly, The Western News did a search of the FAA site and found no full pilot certification for Douglas, 54, born June 8, 1958. However, Douglas’ student license approval was indicated.

A student’s license limitations are extensive. Most notably, a student pilot may not carry passengers, may not fly for hire or the furtherance of a business and may not fly above clouds or when visual reference cannot be made to the surface. Certainly, an investigation is incomplete, but it appears Douglas was in violation of all these limitations when he crashed shortly after midnight Dec. 19 in a snowstorm.

Currently, the National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash, which initially indicated would take a week to 10 days to complete.

As of Friday, the NTSB website has not indicated the results of that investigation.

Reports of Douglas’ lack of proper certification to pilot the aircraft at night in a snowstorm and with a passenger came as news to Ron Denowh, chairman of the board that governs Libby Airport.

“If that’s the case, that really surprises me,” said Denowh, who said he’s known Douglas for about four years. “I hate to hear this. If it’s true, there will probably be a lawsuit.”

Denowh said he’s witnessed Douglas fly into Libby many times.

“That plane has had hundreds of operations into Libby,” Denowh said. “From what I understood, he’s been flying all his life.”

Denowh admitted as pilots come and go from Libby Airport, there is not a mandatory certification check of a pilot’s license — no log that requires signing in and out with a pilot’s license number.

“It’s not up to me to check that,” Denowh said. “Carl did a lot of EPS (instrument only) approaches, which is an accomplishment. Normally, you just don’t pick that up.”

[Dutchpilotguy]

Ohhhhh that's awkward...

Here's hoping there's more to this story...

[PilotDAR]

This is one of many instances of this, each very unfortunate. With some people, their busy life seems to prevent them from following through on details - like finishing training. I knew a fellow who flew his MU2 around for years. It was only after the two fatal accident one night, that we all learned that he was unlicensed.

I suppose it is natural for a passenger to be impressed with the plane, and just assume that the pilot is properly licensed and qualified. I've ridden right seat a few times, to learn once airborne, that I was actually pilot in command, 'cause no one else aboard was licensed. Yes, awkward....

[oldsault7]

I've ridden right seat a few times, to learn once airborne, that I was actually pilot in command, 'cause no one else aboard was licensed. Yes, awkward....

I'll go along with that.
Once I thought I was hitch-hiking, in the right hand seat, suddenly
the sky went black, the dash bounced up and down in a blur,
the rain and turbulence felt and sounded like a barrel going over
Niagara falls. That's when I found out he was not instrument rated
and lacked even basic instrument skills.

Then there was a private owner, just got him to solo, and
discovered he was all over the country flying on company business
and never a flight plan or a radio call.

[lilflyboy262]

On a side note, and I don't want to cause a thread drift here, but is that exhaust mod normal?

[AOW]

On a side note, and I don't want to cause a thread drift here, but is that exhaust mod normal?

No mod, that is a stock B100 exhaust.... TPE331 (Garrett) engines! Notice the props in full fine too, not something you should ever see on a shut down free turbine, but almost a necessity in a fixed shaft engine.

[Shiny Side Up]

With some people, their busy life seems to prevent them from following through on details - like finishing training.

And that's just the pure BS they tell themselves. When someone says "I'm too busy for that" what they really mean is "That's not important to me." 'nuff said. Guess what, unless you're in a coma, everyone is "busy", that's life. I think the only thing that pisses me off more than these guys who just feel that their "busy" life's requirements trump the health and safety of others - especially those in their care (ie passengers) is the fact that it seems to be accepted, even applauded. Even the above article seems to convey the idea that this guy is some sort of self made hero - up to the moment he f@cks up and takes someone with him.

[North Shore]

Before we absolutely crucify this guy, is it at least conceivable that he was licenced elsewhere?

Way back in the mists of time, I used my CDN PPL to get an FAA PPL. I don't think that I used it even once. If I was to go down to the USA now, buy a 172, or somesuch, and then (God forbid) pile it in, am I then unqualified to fly that plane? I think not. Unlicenced, yes, unqualified, no. I can see this guy as being successful enough to purchase/run a Kingair, have a licence from elsewhere in the world, and, following the great traditions of American individualism, not be bothered to get the paperwork correct. Journalists wouldn't know the difference

That all being said, if the story is correct, what a fool...

[Shiny Side Up]

Before we absolutely crucify this guy, is it at least conceivable that he was licenced elsewhere?

My commentary was based more on the idea that if it is true, then why aren't more people - especially pilots - pissed off about this sort of stuff? Excuses for individuals that engage in this sort of stuff always seem to be made by the rest of us, which in turn is why aviation in general has such a bad reputation amongst the non-aviating public. The question is why don't more of us think guys like this should be crucified?

That said, if the fellow was otherwise licensed, why would he have bothered with a student permit?

[PilotDAR]

25 years ago, I bought my plane from a fellow whom I knew did not have a license. He had flown the aircraft I bought, more than 500 trouble free hours during the years I knew him, and bought a 172 after selling his former plane to me. He was not so much lazy about finishing training, but simply unable to read and write, which must make passing ground school impossible. I can't abide his flying with no license, but I can understand the challenge faced by a person who is very competent to fly, flying in a self restricted flying environment within his skills. I did not express an opinion to him either way, as I had not walked the mile in his shoes...

During that same period of my aviation career, I was a joint organizer of an annual fly in. Those were the days when TC started taking an interest is the regulatory compliance of such events as "airshows", so I did things properly. We had "floatplane games", which were simply timed competitive skill challenges. To comply with TC regulations, it was required the pilots wishing to participate show all of their paperwork, so as to demonstrate they were eligible to fly. Each year, 10% to 20% of the pilots who VOLUNTEERED to fly in the games, could not produce even half the required paperwork. Several admitted to me that they did not have a license at all. I pointed in the direction of the two TC inspectors who were nicely blended into the crowd, and said "see those two guys? They're TC inspectors, watching this event, do you really want to be seen flying around here at all without a license?". In every case, they slinked away.

I delivered a Grumman to its new owner upon its sale decades ago. When I took off to fly the short flight to deliver it, I had filled the tanks full. The next day, the new owner prevailed upon a friend of mine to "check him out". Wise to get some training, any time, but my friend was just doing a favour, nothing in it for him. 'Problem was, my friend did not know that Mr. new owner did not have a license at all. When the two of them managed to fly it around all day, and then run it out of fuel on climb out, the plane was wrecked. They were both hurt, and for all his trouble, my friend was violated for running out of fuel - because he was the only licensed pilot aboard. Yes, he should have been paying way more attention, but that was adding insult to injury.

It's not usually our burden to assure that the other pilot actually has a license, but if you could end up holding the bag, either make sure that pilot is licensed and insured, or you actually are taking enough responsibility for the flight that you are willing to be found to be PIC.

[Shiny Side Up]

I can't abide his flying with no license, but I can understand the challenge faced by a person who is very competent to fly, flying in a self restricted flying environment within his skills.

Two issues here though. First is what one defines as "competent" which I find is one of the prime excuses for these sorts of guys. Being a reasonable stick just isn't good enough to be considered competent in my books. It would be like saying a driver is competent because he can handle the car well, but doesn't understand the implications of a stop sign. That's not a competent driver anymore than your fellow is a competent pilot. While I don't like the written exams any more than anyone else, there's got to be a certain bar we got to make everyone pass. Secondly, people are terrible at self restriction, that gets looser and looser on the typical slippery slope. If self restirction really worked we could get away with the Colonel's two rules and one guideline of flying instead of reams of CARs.

Like I said, no offense, but it infuriates me when we make excuses for these guys. Especially when I know 60 year old grandmas who've went through all the hoops to get their licenses, makes some guy with a learning disability seem sort of trivial as an excuse not to get it done properly. Especially when the bar is already pretty low.

It's not usually our burden to assure that the other pilot actually has a license, but if you could end up holding the bag, either make sure that pilot is licensed and insured, or you actually are taking enough responsibility for the flight that you are willing to be found to be PIC.

More people should be aware of this and not afraid to check.

[Cat Driver]

Very few things in life are black and white.

Many years ago I knew a pilot who flew his Cub on floats for many many years without a license..

...he never carried passengers and never flew in controlled airspace...

I flew with him several times in my airplane and his airplane handling skills were in the top 5% points of most private pilots.

Except for the liability issues I would far rather lend him my Cub than lend it to a lot of licensed pilots I have flown with..

[brownbear]

purely a fault of the FAA or TC inspectors and the government mandate. If they did more ramping and checking of documents less people would take the chance.

Today TC is so far gone, fly without a licence. You will only get caught when you kill yourself and others.

We check people for drinking and driving, speeding and all other ground based things, but aviation must be all good guys, why check them?

[Shiny Side Up]

Many years ago I knew a pilot who flew his Cub on floats for many many years without a license..

...he never carried passengers and never flew in controlled airspace...

I hate to say it Cat, but how did you know? I'm assuming you didn't fly in formation with him for every flight to check. I'm not sure about the rest here, but I've been in controlled airspace enough times and been warned about a "non squawking primary contact" in my vicinity and watch some guys in a Cessna zoom by you. How many of these guys do you suppose told their friends they "never flew in controlled airspace"? Maybe not knowingly. Making some educated guesses about where such airplanes originate from, I know damn well a good fraction don't have licenses either.

I flew with him several times in my airplane and his airplane handling skills were in the top 5% points of most private pilots.

So if he was an ace, what's his excuse for not having a license? Too busy? Good sticks just get a pass from everyone? To me this issue is black and white.

Except for the liability issues I would far rather lend him my Cub than lend it to a lot of licensed pilots I have flown with..

Well that's a separate issue, and there's already a thread running somewhere on that theme.

[Cat Driver]

O.K....

He never carried passengers or flew in controlled airspace to my knowledge.

I was flying for a charter company in northern Ontario and he lived at a remote camp he owned about fifty miles away from our base and he used our dock when he came to town...always alone.

To the best of my knowledge he was unable to pass the written exams due to a reading difficulty issue he had.

[Shiny Side Up]

To the best of my knowledge he was unable to pass the written exams due to a reading difficulty issue he had.

Well then that would be the second time in this thread that it has been accepted that illiteracy is an acceptable excuse to fly unlicensed. Personally I just don't buy it. Firstly, there's a lot of people getting licenses these days who are bothering to learn English (however minimally ) to learn here. So obviously two things must be possible. a) The exam ain't that hard to pass even with minimal english ability, or b) its possible to just work really hard for something you want.

Secondly, did I not get the memo about how reading is not important to flight safety? Stuff like NOTAMs, weather, ADs, Journey logs, recording flight times, just ain't important? I wish I would have known earlier, could save myself a lot of time and trouble.

At the end of the day, passing through the hoops of the licensing process just ain't that much to ask of people. All it really asks of people is a bit of their time and effort.

[Cat Driver]

Well then that would be the second time in this thread that it has been accepted that illiteracy is an acceptable excuse to fly unlicensed.

Who is saying it is an excuse?

I was only stating what I observed.

As well it was my opinion that his ability to fly his Cub was well within the realms of safety.

I do not have a valid TCCA medical at the moment, however I have just recently gone through a medical that was far more in depth than a TCCA medical and the results were I am in excellent health with the only finding was I was low in vitamin D.

If I were to head out to the airport today and fly the Husky would that automatically mean I am not a safe pilot?

[Shiny Side Up]

Who is saying it is an excuse?

I was only stating what I observed.

So you're saying this pilot had no excuse for not having a license?

As well it was my opinion that his ability to fly his Cub was well within the realms of safety.

While it would be nice if we could vouch for one another in such a fashion, the world just doesn't work that way. Personally I would rather have some sort of proof that he meets some sort of standard. Again, that said standard isn't very high is a different matter - but then it just begs the question why some people just don't go through the process to meet it.

If I were to head out to the airport today and fly the Husky would that automatically mean I am not a safe pilot?

Possibly, I'm not your doctor, and I don't know you well enough to take your word for it. Now we could have an argument about how flimsy of protection said piece of paper provides but that's not really the point of the discussion - again back to another one on standards and the whole process to get the paper which also needs to be changed. Another thread another day. To turn your question around, I have to go get my medical next month, if I didn't, would you want me flying your family around? Did I suddenly become an unsafe pilot? In my opinion I probably didn't, but everyone else would probably prefer to have that in paper.

[pika]

If I were to head out to the airport today and fly the Husky would that automatically mean I am not a safe pilot?

No, it would mean you are not legally qualified to operate an aircraft. I believe you have some experience with legal matters so you'd probably know better than most if that is a road worth travelling.

[Cat Driver]

I believe you have some experience with legal matters so you'd probably know better than most if that is a road worth travelling.

Yes for sure I have had some experience with legal matters in aviation.

Flying without a valid medical is so high a risk liability wise I would have to get a lobotomy to even consider it.

[Northern Flyer]

On a side note, and I don't want to cause a thread drift here, but is that exhaust mod normal?

No mod, that is a stock B100 exhaust.... TPE331 (Garrett) engines! Notice the props in full fine too, not something you should ever see on a shut down free turbine, but almost a necessity in a fixed shaft engine.

Not really accurate. Free turbines are shut down full fine quite often on floats.

[kevinsky18]

Back on track.

Something isn't ringing true to this story. If he has made hundreds of IFR flights how on earth was he able to file a flight plan with a student license? It's one thing for a rouge pilot to take a 172 out with no license and bust a couple of clouds, I can see someone doing that without filling a flight plan. But to take a King Air on multiple long xcountry trips in true IFR conditions and airspace requires a flight plan which requires a licenses number. Maybe he was using someone elses but that would have shown up immediately in the investigation.

[photofly]

Are you required to supply an airman certificate number to file a flight plan in the US? I don't recall that you are.

[Cat Driver]

I have filed IFR in so many countries around the world over the last forty years I can't really remember them all.

I was never asked to show any certificates ...ever.

[kevinsky18]

Hmmm well what do you know. Looks like an actual license number is not required.

http://www.avweather.com/fltplan.htm