US pilotcharged in crash that killed South African teen

[flyboy2]

July 08 2006 at 05:00PM
By Rachel d'Oro
Anchorage, Alaska - The pilot in a plane crash that led to a the drowning death of a teen from South Africa was charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
Kurt Stenehjem of Anchorage was arrested on Thursday in connection with the felony charges stemming from the July 7, 2005, death of 17-year-old Mark Schroeder of Durban, South Africa.
Stenehjem, 55, and Schroeder were among five people on board the floatplane that crashed in calm weather into Johnstone Lake on the Kenai Peninsula. A floatplane is a plane equipped with pontoons so it can land on water.
Not wearing a lifejacket
Schroeder, who was not wearing a lifejacket, slipped into the glacier-fed lake while the others made it to icebergs with minor injuries.
Schroeder's mother, Lesley Schroeder McLean, said she saw "something cosmic" in the timing of the arrest - a day before the year anniversary of the crash.
Stenehjem is a longtime associate of the family. McLean's husband, Chris, is a former Alaska bush pilot and registered owner of the Maule M7-235 involved in the crash.
"From my heart, I just miss my son. I would rather have him back than have the pilot in jail," Lesley McLean said Friday from Durban. "But we do feel vindicated that justice has been served, although it's not a happy day for me."
State prosecutors could not be reached on Friday, but Alaska State Troopers and Federal Aviation Administration officials could not recall another an Alaska pilot involved in a fatal crash being criminally charged.
'Justice has been served'
Nationally, such prosecutions are uncommon, but not unheard of, said Phil Kolczynski, a Santa Ana, California-based aviation law attorney and former FAA trial attorney. Convictions are even more unusual, he said, typically involving alcohol or drugs - factors not present in the Stenehjem case. Far more common are civil lawsuits claiming negligence.
"It depends on the weight of the evidence," Kolczynski said. "If it weighs a ton, a prosecutor is doing exactly what they should be doing. On the other hand, some cases are politicised."
In its own investigation, the FAA found enough to issue a rare emergency revocation of Stenehjem's commercial pilot license, saying his lack of care and judgment justified immediate action. Among factors noted, the plane was equipped with only four seats even though there were five people on board, it was overloaded and had not undergone an annual inspection. Schroeder had sat in the back where gear was stored.Stenehjem turned himself in to Anchorage authorities Thursday and was released less than two hours later after posting $50 000 bail. Stenehjem said Friday he has not been arraigned. -
Sapa-AP [from]
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?newsl...2R131&set_id=1

[barit1]

I'll bet they didn't have parachutes either. :rolleyes:

[Permafrost_ATPL]

On a small float plane pilot salary, he probably hired the creme de la creme of lawyers :rolleyes:

Don´t know the exact details though. If the plane was indeed over max weight and had not passed its annual, it´s a tough one to defent (both in court and morally)

P

[jondc9]

4 seats, 5 people= wrong

though I understand that in alaska, planes may be operated 10percent over weight...this was to preclude not taking emergency survival gear.

not making any excuses

[jetjackel]

Probably some GS6 FAA type trying to upgrade his "cheap suit" AND get a raise.

Lifejackets aren't required to be worn any more than a parachute.

Spent a year flying out of Palmer and the FAA stayed away from Bush Pilots. Saw Bush planes with oversize car wheets on them parked at the airport.

Lots of stories about FAA types getting the s**t kicked out of them for screwing with bush pilots.

10% overload was allowed up there then but don't know about these days. As far as not having a seat, it wasn't a factor as he drowned due to not having a vest on.

FAA guy in a cheap suit looking for a raise. Wish the pilot luck because we all know he has to live with it and it certainly wasn't intentional.

Airplanes do crash.

[bafanguy]

No matter how you slice it, this is a bad precedent. This guy may have done some inappropriate things; that has yet to be determined/proven. One is "presumed" innocent until proven guilty in this country.

What's bad is criminal prosecution of a pilot involved in an accident ( I know other countries have a different slant on this...that's not what we're talking about ). This guy may have done bad stuff, but it's a very short jump for some government pencil monkey to paint all pilots in all accidents as criminally liable without regard to circumstances. The public loves a public hanging.

If they hang this guy, the camel's head is in the tent and this job will finally be not worth having.

[Barndweller]

Observation...
It seems a bit coincidental that all those properly seated and restrained survived the crash and swam to safety but the one person who was not seated and restrained - indeed was "sat in the rear with the gear" did not.
Did he suffer injuries during the accident that contibuted to his subsequent drowning that he might not have otherwise suffered if he had been properly seated and restrained
If this was a contributing factor to the guys death then the pilot is moraly as well as criminaly responsible! Simple as that.
The other overwhelming factor is... He's in aircraft taking off and landing on water... Why the hell was he not wearing a life-jacket? Could have saved his life and might have saved the pilots career.
Really sad

[ChrisVJ]

Hardly ever see anyone wearing a life jacket ( or PFD) when they come in to the dock here, in fact only one family plane load this year besides myself, (well you have to see my water landings.) Certainly none of the commercial passengers in Beavers ever do and I've never seen commercial passengers in 180's wear them either.

Interesting mention in the article that seems to have gone un-noticed. The plane belonged to the victims father. It is, in the end, the pilot's responsibility to make sure that the plane is both legal and properly loaded but I would not allow another pilot to fly my plane while it was out of annual and if I was around I wouldn't if it was overloaded.

Just for instance, you toddle off down to the FBO and rent your regular plane, did you check the plane was in annual? I never remember doing so. You have a minor incident and the suits arrive. Next thing you know you have a citation for flying a plane out of annual plus a couple for carelessness and negligence just to make sure.

None of this is to deny that we have particular duties to young people. Two of my kids go out every day to guide on a Zip Trek line and another is a lifeguard at a camp working in a sea situation. I wonder every time they go out if those responsible for running these places have taken every precaution and if the maintenance and training are all they could possibly be. (And I do quiz the boys about it all the time!)

[Barndweller]

When it comes down to it the Pilot is the first person to arrive at the crash and he is the first person of whom the "suits" will start asking questions.
It is his absoulute responsibility to check the servicability and certification of the aircraft - " i didn't know it was out of check" will not cut it with the authorities - and rightly so.
If i fly an aircraft, for the first time, i go through the documents with a microscope and then keep an aye on the re-val dates as time goes on. You have to, because you are the one who is protecting yourself, your passengers, your income & assets and your liberty (this guy could be going to jail).
Every time you think about doing something that is a little bit outside the rules (and we all do) you have to ask - "what's this going to look like if the suits arrive or if there is a prang". Then you have to ask "is it worth it". The answer is usually "NO".

Oh and "Jetjackal". It may or may not be true be true that Lifejackets are no more a requirement than parachutes, but would you jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute on? No! Nor should you take off and land on water without a Lifejacket. It's common sense and it really irritates me when people trivialise the wearing of LJ's or mock people for doing so. People continue to survive aeroplane accidnts and drown afterwards because they were not wearing LJ's. WHY!!!!!?????

Safe Flying Ladies and Gents

[wideman]

The NTSB report provides a significant amount of information:
Prior to the flight the pilot gave each passenger a personal flotation device (PFD), and briefed them on its use. The fourth/fatal passenger was seated in the aft cargo compartment atop kayak spray-skirts and gloves. The pilot and all four passengers survived the water impact with a few minor injuries. After the impact, the five survivors climbed onto the fuselage top and wings. The pilot and fatal passenger exited the airplane, leaving their PFD's behind. The other three passengers were wearing their PFD's when the accident occurred, and exited the airplane wearing them. The airplane was sinking, and all the survivors swam to a large, nearby iceberg, but were unable to climb out of the water onto the iceberg. The pilot, and the three passengers wearing PFD's, swam back to the airplane, and climbed out of the water onto the airplane. The pilot borrowed a PFD from one of the passengers, and swam back to the remaining passenger, but was unable to render aid because he'd lost all feeling in his hands due to the cold water. The remaining passenger, without aid of a PFD, slipped below the surface of the lake, and was not seen again. The survivors were able to cut through the fabric fuselage skin to retrieve extra clothing from the baggage compartment, which they gave to the pilot who, according to them, was showing signs of hypothermia. During the accident scenario, two of the passengers were dressed in layered clothing, including fleece, as suggested by the pilot. The other two passengers and the pilot were dressed in cotton levis and cotton shirts. As the airplane continued to slowly sink, two of the passengers swam to a smaller ice cake, which they were able to climb on, and the remaining passenger followed. Prior to the airplane sinking, using an inflated dry-bag, the pilot joined the others on the iceberg.
Full report is available here (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050721X01069&ntsbno=ANC05FA098&akey=1)