SFTY 330 - Aircraft Accident Investigation Aircraft Accident Project \".....The devil is in the details\" Assignment: This assignment tests your ability to apply the lessons and information learned in this course to develop a \"partial\" accident investigation report based upon the accident information provided on the 'Zonk Air Accident' scenario. The length of the paper is open, but your instructor reserves the right to determine if the length of a paper correlates to a complete document. Obviously, a brief paper (2-3 pages) indicates a lack of attention on details and research. You have some writing latitude given the mandates of the assignment but keep it uniform and well organized. In other words, do not write a \"story like narrative\" or simply cut and paste from the accident scenario. Put forth some energy, creative skills, accurate writing and deduction and have some fun. Rubric: The grading rubric is based upon APA writing style, critical thought, a detailed analysis of information and development of a logical and justifiable probable cause, contributing factors and realistic recommendations. Instructions: This is a blend of technical but readable report writing all encompassed by proper language, syntax, grammar and avoidance of emotional and subjective writing. The report may follow, to some extent, the manner in which the NTSB writes accident reports. Students should, as much as possible, corroborate their data by explaining where the information was gained. This is spelled out in the report instructions below. In other words, there should be no leaps to conclusions without proof or data. A good report should include a probable cause and a list of contributing factors all developed and based from the information in the accident report. Post any questions in the 'Investigator's Workshop' forum so all can see the responses. Follow the format, conventions, and examples below: Page 1 of 3 Format Title Page: \"Aircraft Accident Report Project\" SFTY 330, Name plus required APA/ERAU information Abstract: What this paper is about. For instance, \"this paper will examine the processes of accident investigation...\" All writing is third person. Sections: You are to glean and distill information from the accident narrative thence place the information into the appropriate sections listed below. You may add sections, if needed. Drawing from those sections, you then distill, develop, prove and corroborate accident causations within in section 1.9, \"Final Analysis.\" From Section 1.9, \"Final Analysis\Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University College of Aeronautics Undergraduate Studies Research Paper Grading Rubric Criteria Context/ Introduction Research Comprehension Superior (A) Above Average (B) Average (C) Below Average (D) Failure (F) 13 to 15 points 11 to 13 points 9 to 11 points 7 to 9 points 0 to 7 points Paper provides an effective introduction and a research problem that is intrinsically related to the field of aeronautical science. It presents strong relationships between factors with accurate realworld examples. It develops a coherent, central theme that is expressed in a wellstructured, organized, and logically-consistent manner throughout the assignment. Paper provides a good introduction and a research problem related to the field of aeronautical science. It presents reasonable relationships between factors with real-world examples. It develops a good central theme that is expressed in a structured, organized and consistent manner throughout the assignment. Paper provides a satisfactory introduction. Research problem is fairly related to the field of aeronautical science. It also provides satisfactory relationships between factors with examples and specific details. It develops some level of a central theme that is expressed in an acceptably organized manner. Paper provides poor introduction. Research problem that is inadequately related to the field of aeronautical science. Text lacks any coherent, central theme; illogical structure and organization. Paper provides no introduction. Research problem has no relation to the field of aeronautical science. It presents no coherent central them, no structure and no organization whatsoever. 23 to 25 points 21 to 23 points 19 to 21 points 17 to 19 points 0 to 17 points Paper provides a comprehensive identification and analysis of key issues in the realm of aeronautical science. It designs an effective course of action to solve the proposed research problem using multidisciplinary principles, if appropriate. The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects the appropriate sources. Paper provides a good identification and analysis of key issues in the realm of aeronautical science. It designs a good course of action to solve the proposed research problem using multi-disciplinary principles, if appropriate. The evidence comes from many valid sources. The bibliography is complete. Paper identifies and analyzes at least a few key issues in the realm of aeronautical science. It designs a satisfactory course of action to solve the proposed research problem. The evidence comes from a satisfactory number of sources. The bibliography is missing some pieces. Writing generally shows poor evidence the student has done the required research and analysis of key issues in the realm of aeronautical science. Instead, it generally consists of opinions. Valid sources are inconsistently used. The bibliography is missing many pieces. Writing generally shows no evidence the student has done the required research and analysis of key issues in the realm of aeronautical science at all. Instead, it is essentially a compilation of opinions, feelings and impressions. The bibliography is nonexistent. From 23 to 25 points 21 to 23 points 19 to 21 points 17 to 19 points 0 to 17 points Paper presents a strong, well-supported argument based on relevant concepts and theories, providing new ideas to the field of aeronautical science. Argument is logical and Paper presents a good argument based on pertinent concepts, theories, and frameworks that provides some ideas to the field of aeronautical science. Argument is logical and uses good examples, evidence, Paper presents a valid argument with sparse reference to relevant concepts, theories and/or frameworks that provides ideas to the field of aeronautical science. Argument is fairly logical and uses satisfactory Argument presented is from evidence and personal opinion. It contains poor linkages to relevant concepts, theories and/or framework. Some evidence is used in random locations throughout No arguments presented. It contains no linkage to relevant concepts, theories and/or framework. Minimal or no evidence is presented to validate Page 1 of 2 - CoA_Research_Paper_UG_Rubric_v1 Criteria Superior (A) Above Average (B) Average (C) research, and/or data from course content and from satisfactory external information sources throughout assignment. examples, evidence, research, and/or data from course content and from external information sources throughout assignment. 23 to 25 points 21 to 23 points 19 to 21 points Decisions and conclusions are a result of outstanding analysis and synthesis of evidence. Formulates excellent resolution and recommendations, contributing to substantial improvements in the field of aeronautical science. Conclusion includes possible consequences and outcome scenarios. Decisions and conclusions are a result of effective analysis and synthesis of evidence. It formulates good resolution and recommendations, contributing to good improvements in the field of aeronautical science. Conclusion includes consequences and outcome scenarios. Decisions and conclusions are a result of good analysis and synthesis of evidence. Formulates satisfactory resolution and recommendations, contributing to the field of aeronautical science. Conclusion does not include consequences and outcome scenarios. 8 to 10 points 6 to 7 points 4 to 5 points 2 to 3 points APA guidelines are seldom followed throughout text, which has major grammar and spelling errors. Formatting rules are satisfactory followed. Citations are sometimes missing and/or are incorrect. An acceptable level of writing is exhibited, even with a few mechanical mistakes, but the communication is clear nonetheless. uses significant examples, evidence, research, and/or data from course content and from valid, external information sources throughout assignment. Application Style & Mechanics Paper efficiently uses current APA guidelines in citations and references. Text is grammatically-sound and free of spelling errors and follows required formatting rules. Paper uses current APA guidelines in citations and references. Text has minor grammar and spelling errors, but follows required formatting rules. Page 2 of 2 - CoA_Research_Paper_UG_Rubric_v1 Below Average (D) the paper. 17 to 19 points A partial attempt is made to offer a resolution and recommendations with poor contribution to the field of aeronautical science. Conclusion may be vague and incomplete. Failure (F) analysis, evaluation or other important elements in the assignment. 0 to 17 points Minimal or no attempt is made to offer a resolution, recommendations. Conclusion is clearly inappropriate. 0 to 1 points Lack of any sort of citation; grammar, spelling, and/or word choice errors are frequent enough that the communication is muddled or incomprehensible. SFTY 330 - Aircraft Accident Investigation Aircraft Accident Project Scenario: \"Zonk Air Accident\" Accident Case Number ERAU-330RL This accident is fictional, but based on many true events. The characters and company are fictional. Accident Scenario Investigators: Jake Dillion NTSB Party to Investigation: Sharon Bair Engine Representative Dawn Smith Airframe Representative Nov 7, 2010 The charter pilot and 4 passengers boarded a light twin and departed Tahoe Airport (KTVL) at dusk, with the weather reported as 2 miles in lowering clouds and 900 feet overcast and deteriorating. The aircraft departed on Runway 18. The aircraft had arrived a day before from Burbank, CA and was returning to KBUR after a brief photo flight around the local area. After takeoff, the aircraft rotated, entered the lowering mist. Approximately 5 miles past the departure end of the Runway 18, the airplane was seen exiting the clouds in a steep left \"rolling like\" bank, trailing smoke. It first impacted the top of a 100-foot communication tower. The next impact point, a ground impact scar with a red tip light was discovered 400 feet from the base of the tower. An additional ground scar with a green tip light was located 100 feet from the first ground scar. The aircraft came to rest 50 feet from that point. The aircraft burned. This was a fatal accident. There was no flight plan or radio contact with the aircraft after departure. On-scene management tasks: It was determined that specific investigative organization and procedures were completed. On-scene observations: It was determined the aircraft traveled at a specific angle and distance from the top of the a 100 foot communication tower, thence airborne-downward to the first ground impact 400 feet from the base of the tower. It was determined which wing impacted the ground first. All wreckage was twisted, partially burned, and crushed into a consolidated area. Page 1 of 6 The crushed portions of fuselage and wing roots had vertical soot marks. There were slipstream soot marks running along the side of the right engine nacelle, aft towards the remains of the right horizontal stabilizer, which had tiny emery light droplets of metal and soot. There was no such detail noted on the remains of the left horizontal stabilizer. The engines were mangled. The right prop, however, showed span and chord wise striations with numerous classic "S" compressions on the trailing edges, as well as, the blade tips jagged, broken and pieces missing. Fire and impact made inspection of other components nearly impossible. NOTE: Follow-up lab tear downs were made difficult by the burn and impact damage. However, the expert inspections revealed the right engine was developing some power at time of impact, however, the left engine showed no evidence of significant power via signatures from gear, cooled metal exhaust ducting, and analysis to the props. It was noted on the left engine that the fuel line support bracket appeared to have some propagation cracks along the boltholes that connected to the firewall, but it had not separated from the firewall bracket and the fuel line showed no cracks or breech of integrity. The left engine nacelle showed evidence of some vertical dark residue marks or soot trails. The engine was severely damaged by impact and burned. The left prop was intact; the tips were bent aft, and the blades showed little sign of trailing edge compression. The left propeller remained attached to the left engine and investigators noted that the blades were secure in their grips, and the blade angles corresponded to a feathered position relative to normal direction of flight. The cockpit and passenger areas were crushed and destroyed, mostly beyond recognition. The seats were broken and twisted. Evidence showed this was a nonsurvivable accident. Rescue crews had removed the bodies, cutting the restraint systems. The county coroner retained control of the bodies and had indicated massive blunt trauma as the cause of death for all occupants. Toxicology reports on the pilot were negative. All instruments were destroyed. The throttle quadrant was damaged, but did show all levers, props, throttle, mixture and feathering levers to be pushed forward-into the cockpit panel. Rescue personnel at the scene were unsure if they had disturbed any devices, controls or levers. Initial cable tracing showed integrity, but due to burning and impact damage, actuator positions were inclusive. The large cargo trunks had burned, but some remnants were distributed in the aft cabin, but larger parts of the trunks and contents were also noted scattered in the cockpit area and outside, forward of the crash site. No tie down straps or other restraint cables were noted in the wreckage. It was determined the 1980 PA-31-310 had a max gross weight of 6500 pounds. The mishap aircraft had an empty weight of 3900 pounds. It was determined the aircraft was carrying 1000 pounds of fuel. It was determined the four passengers had a combined weight of 800 pounds, the pilot weighed 180 pounds and the 4 cargo trunks weighed approx. 900 pounds. It was determined the center of gravity of the aircraft was aft and outside the normal envelope datum based on time the aircraft was loaded with the cargo. Page 2 of 6 Follow-up Observations: It was determined that Lake Tahoe Airport ( KTVL) is an FAA certified airport. The mishap aircraft departed on Runway 18. It was determined that at the time of the mishap the airport density altitude was within operating limits of a properly operating PA-31. It was determined that this was a sunset photo flight within 20 miles of the airport with a return to the same airport or with an option to continue to Burbank, CA. The flight departed under visual flight rules (VFR) and visual meteorological conditions (VMC). There were 4 passengers, one pilot and 4 trunks of camera and photo equipment.\" It was determined the newly hired (one year) pilot possessed a commercial multiengine instrument rating. The pilot had a total of 300 hours, 50 hours in twins with 15 hours in make and model of the mishap aircraft. The pilot had 5 hours of actual instrument meteorological condition (IMC) flight time. He had completed three flights with the principle company, Zonk Air, all day light, VFR sightseeing tours. Prior to working at Zonk Air, the pilot was employed in Arizona, flying a light twin, Part 91, for a solar panel company. Prior to that, the pilot received multi-engine flight training from a FBO, called \"Super Pilot\" based in Arizona, but it is no longer in business. Prior to the mishap, the pilot had not flown for Zonk Air in over 10 days. In addition, the pilot, on return from the mishap flight would be 2 days over his \"grace\" period for a Part 135-check ride. However, due to a lack of pilots, and urgency of the flight, management told the pilot to take the flight. It was determined that the aircraft, N517RL (fictional) was a 1980 PA-31-310 twin engine, turbo-charged \"Navajo\" with Lycoming IO-540 reciprocating engines. The aircraft has a max gross weight of 6500 pounds. It was determined this aircraft had an empty weight of 3900 pounds. Total time on the airframe was 15,000 hours+. The engines had been rebuilt, however, now, both were within 10 hours of Time Before Overhaul (TBO). The aircraft was within 2 hours of its next 100-hour inspection. The aircraft was considered \"airworthy\" by the company and possessed an FAA registration, airworthy certificate and Form 337. Ten years prior, the mishap aircraft was seized by the DEA from a drug smuggler. Most of the aircraft's original paperwork and records were lost during a shoot-out and subsequent fire at the smuggler's hanger. After sitting in government storage for 2 years, the aircraft was auctioned off to a civil operator. The aircraft was sold several times over and operated from the Arctic and Florida in various cargo and charter operations. It was determined there was an Air Worthiness Directive (AD) issued three days prior to the mishap for a cracking of fuel line support brackets. The AD stated to inspect and or remove/replace. There was no indication of AD compliance though the aircraft was to receive a100-hour inspection on the conclusion of the flight. Page 3 of 6 It was determined the operator of this aircraft was \"Zonk Air Charters\" based in Oxnard, CA. Zonk Air operates three aircraft, a PA-31 (mishap aircraft) and two 1979 Cessna 310s. Most of the charter business is related to scenic flights, etc. The company is certified for Part 135 and Part 91 operations. There are six part-time pilots, the owner, and secretarial staff. Maintenance is contracted out to another operation on the field. Zonk Air has had no accidents in the past, but has been cited by the FAA for \"failure to maintain proper records in accordance CFR 135 operations.\" Training and flight proficiency were accomplished by the owner/operator who is a designated Part 135 check airman. Pilots are called in to fly; they do the pre-flight, file a flight plan, obtain weather, load the passengers, and execute the mission. Maintenance of the aircraft is contracted out to various vendors. A review of maintenance records indicated some aircraft logs are incomplete and lacking some sign-offs. Pilot records were noted to be incomplete and often showed no dates of the 135 check rides or line checks though personal logbooks of some pilots did reflect such information. There were no records to indicate that the pilot had attended any formal flight training from a recognized and certified flight safety training company. It was determined that Zonk Air had been up for sale for two years and was delinquent in paying fuel bills and maintenance inspections. The company was in the process of filing for Chapter 11, bankruptcy protection. Zonk Air had no formal dispatching or flight monitoring system, but does have an operations manual stating the need for such requirements. There was no documentation to show pilots received any human factors training or a company manual or procedures for an SMS program. Currently, there is some FAA ambiguity on what constitutes an SMS program for small operations. Though SMS is highly recommended, specific mandated procedures have not been totally adopted and placed into rules. The general theme repeated by the pilots as told to them by the owner is, \"never be unsafe, but try and be creative before aborting a flight.\" Interviews with the maintenance personnel said that about 10 days prior to the mishap, the accident pilot "thought" there was a possible power loss and noted a few minor fuel droplets below the right engine on a preflight, but ground tests conducted by another line pilot could not duplicate the problem. The owner stated he was aware of the rough running engine and a few drops of fuel, but it was "just the nature of this aircraft.\" There was one maintenance entry approximately 15 hours before the mishap that indicated work was done on the right engine to correct a small \"seep\" of the fuel line gasket and readjust the turbo waste gates. On the morning of the mishap, the pilot called Zonk Air stating there were, again, small fuel drips coming from the right engine. The manager/owner stated it was probably an old vent/fuel cap leaking a bit, which was normal for this old aircraft after top-off. Note, the vent/fuel cap was burned at the crash site and pre-accident quality was not determined. The mechanic that usually serviced the company aircraft was no longer employed and had moved. However, his A&P was valid. The maintenance company, \"Wrench and Fix\" that serviced the PA-31 did not have experience working on PA-31 aircraft, but did service a few light twins that came to Oxnard, CA. The maintenance operation had no Page 4 of 6 major FAA violations, except for some minor \"record management issues.\" The company indicated they worked on the mishap aircraft but noted no squawks listed from the company. However, it was not unusual for Zonk Air to request that a mechanic come over and take a \"quick gander\" at something before they wrote up the squawks as was the case with the leaky fuel drops on the right engine. It was determined there were a list of deferred maintenance items on the aircraft that included; repair loose cooling baffling on the right engine, tightening friction controls on the cockpit power quadrant adding cargo nets and straps to the aircraft flight kit, as well as inspecting and replacing first aid kits, adjusting the pilot's seat springs and locking the travel adjustment slide on the pilot's seat. It was determined that no VFR or IFR flight plan was filed nor a weather report provided to the mishap aircraft. Witness Interviews: WIT-1: Air Traffic Controller at TVL tower confirmed ATIS information to the mishap aircraft and provided taxi and take-off instructions. The ATC personnel advised the pilot that it was marginal VFR and asked if he was requesting an IFR clearance? Pilot stated no, he would pick up an IFR clearance enroute, if needed. The tower operator again commented the weather seemed to be really going down to the south and the mountain peaks were beginning to get obscured. \"The pilot, replied, that he had better \"scoot it on out of here.\"\" The airport went officially IFR a short time after the mishap. The controller gave taxi clearance, watched the plane taxi directly to the hold short line, then request take-off. He did not observe any run-up prior to take-off. After take-off, he observed the plane use about length of the runway, rotate, then suddenly, to what he perceived, continue and enter an abrupt and very high angle of pitch. The controller then lost sight of the aircraft as it disappeared in the mist past the end of the runway. The controller advised the pilot to report clear, but never received a reply. About 10-15 minutes later the controller was advised by local law enforcement of a possible aircraft down south of the airport. WIT-2: The \"Tahoe FBO Service\" fuel attendant/line tech had, one hour prior to the departure, \"topped off the tanks\" and asked the pilot where he was going. The pilot stated it was a local flight of about 45 minutes, but wanted \"extra gas\" in case the clients wanted to go home to Burbank. The pilot seemed \"rushed\" and was getting \"anxious\" about the fast changing weather. The fuel truck driver also helped the pilot load four or five large, \"like metal sea trunks marked photo gear\" into the back passenger compartment of the plane. The fuel attendant asked where the tie down straps or netting was and the pilot stated he would secure the stuff later. The fuel attendant estimated the trunks had to be near 100 pounds each and were stacked on top of one another. WIT-3: A secretary for the Tahoe FBO Service said she greeted the passengers of the mishap flight and directed them to the ramp. She heard one the passengers jokingly tell the pilot to hurry-up or they would leave without him. The pilot approached the counter and paid the fuel bill with a company credit card. Page 5 of 6 WIT-4: A geologist standing at the departure end of the runway looked up as the plane crossed over and noted, \"lots of yellow sparks or flame coming from the right engine, then the plane disappeared into the mist. He thought he heard a \"boom\" a short time later but couldn't be sure. WIT-5: A retired LAPD police helicopter pilot working as a bartender at the airport caf saw the plane depart and wondered if the \"guy was going IFR\" as the weather was quickly going down at the airport. He said he saw some smoke coming off the right engine and though he didn't actually see it, \"knew the right engine had flames.\" The WIT was sitting on the east side of the field with a view perspective of only the left side of the aircraft as it rolled by. WIT-6: A vacationing ERAU professor was standing in the parking lot mid-field and commented to her husband \"about how fast the weather was changing and then noted the mishap aircraft rotating off the runway with a smoking right engine. She thought she saw some flames coming from the right engine, but, \"it went by pretty quick\" so she couldn't be sure. She was standing on the south side/west of the field and could see the right side of the aircraft. WIT-7: A forest ranger was on the roadway, about 5 miles from the airport when he saw an airplane \"just come out of the mist\Aircraft Accident Report Project 1 Aircraft Accident Report Project Professor Brandon Corwin Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University SFTY 330 Joshua Dresner 7/7/2016 Aircraft Accident Report Project 2 Accident Case Number: ERAU-330RL Aircraft Type: 1980 PA-31-310 Tail Number: N517RL Aircraft hours: 15,000 + Flight Crew: 1 pilot Passengers: 4 Fatalities: 5 Abstract This paper will examine the Zonk Air Charters Flight 330RL accident by conducting an investigation, analyzing all documented statements, and determining the probable cause. This catastrophic accident killed all members on board and will be investigated utilizing key eye witness interviews of individuals who saw the accident take place from the ground as well as company interviews collecting background information of the flight crew. The report will conclude with the probable cause and NTSB recommendations to prevent any future reoccurrences. Aircraft Accident Report Project 3 1.0 History of flight On November 7, 2010, Zonk Air Charters Flight 330RL, a Piper PA-31-310 with tail number N517RL, was set to withdraw Lake Tahoe Airport (KTVL), on a dusk photographic flight. The aircraft was set to fly 20 miles around the air terminal with an arrival to the same air terminal upon completion of it photography assignment, or with the choice to keep on to Burbank, CA (KBUR). At nightfall, the pilot and travelers loaded the aircraft with all the required equipment and taxied from the airplane terminal. The flight left under visual flight rules (VFR) and visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of departure. The weather report confirmed lowering clouds with visual deterioration as the night progressed. At time of departure the surrounding climate was reported as 2 miles in lowering clouds and 900 feet overcast and deteriorating. After departure from Runway 18, the aircraft pivoted and entered the bringing down fog. It was Around 5 miles past the end of the runway. The flying machine was seen leaving the mists in a lofty left moving bank, trailing smoke. 1.1 On-Scene Actions Upon arriving to the mishap scene, Jake Dillion, Investigator-in-Charge (IIC), organized conducted, controlled, and managed the field phase of the investigation following 49 C.F.R. 831.8 protocol. a preparatory visual examination was finished. Taking that after the preparatory assessment, particular zones of obligation were appointed to whatever remains of the examining party. 1.2 On Scene Observations Aircraft Accident Report Project 4 The flying machine first struck the highest point of a 100-foot correspondence tower. After the underlying contact with the tower, the airship started a move to one side and affected the ground 400 feet from the base of the tower. It was dictated by the revelation of the red tip light. With the disclosure of the green tip light that was discovered 100 feet from the principal ground scar, it was resolved that after the main effect, the flying machine started to truck haggle the ground with the conservative. The flying machine fuselage isolated from the wings and stopped 50 feet from the last ground scar, and blazed. There were no survivors. The smashed parts of fuselage and wing roots had vertical ash marks. Slipstream residue marks were running at the edge of the right motor nacelle, rearward towards the remaining parts of the right flat stabilizer, which had modest emery light beads of metal and sediment. There was no such detail noted on the remaining parts of the left level stabilizer. The motors were ravaged. The right prop, in any case, demonstrated traverse and harmony shrewd striations with various exemplary "S" compressions on the trailing edges, and also, the cutting edge tips spiked, broken and pieces missing. Fire and effect made an examination of different parts almost unimaginable. NOTE: Follow-up lab tear downs were made troublesome by the smolder and cause harm. In any case, the master studies uncovered the right motor was building up some force at the time of effect. Nonetheless, the left engine demonstrated no confirmation of noteworthy power using marks from the rigging, cooled metal fumes ducting, and investigation to the props. Zonk Air had no formal dispatching or flight observing framework, however, has an operations manual expressing the requirement for such necessities. There was no documentation to show pilots got any human variables preparing or an organization manual then again methodology for an SMS program. Right now, there is some FAA vagueness on what constitutes an SMS program for little operations. In spite of the fact that SMS is exceptionally suggested, particular ordered methods Aircraft Accident Report Project 5 have not been completely embraced and put into standards. The general topic rehashed by the pilots as advised to them by the proprietor may be, "never be hazardous, however, attempt and be inventive before prematurely ending a flight." Interviews with the support workforce said that in regards to 10 days preceding the accident, the mischance pilot "thought" there was a conceivable force misfortune and noticed a couple of minor fuel beads beneath the right motor on a preflight. However, ground tests directed by another line pilot couldn't copy the issue. The proprietor expressed he knew about the harsh running engine and a couple of drops of fuel, yet it was "only the way of this airplane." There was one upkeep section around 15 hours before the accident that showed work was done on the right motor to amend a little "leak" of the fuel line gasket and rearrange the turbo waste doors. On the morning of the accident, the pilot called Zonk Air expressing there were, once more, little fuel trickles originating from the right motor. The director/proprietor showed it was most likely an old vent/fuel top releasing a bit, which was ordinary for this old airship after tip-off. Note, the vent/fuel top was smoldered at the accident site, and pre-mischance quality was not decided. The technician that more often than not adjusted the organization flying machine was no more utilized and had moved. In any case, his A&P was substantial. The support team, "Wrench and Fix" that adjusted the PA-31 did not have experience dealing with a PA-31 airship, but rather did administration a couple of light twins that came to Oxnard, CA. The upkeep operation had no real FAA infringement, except some minor "record administration issues." The organization showed they chipped away at the accident airship, however, noticed no screeches recorded from the organization. In any case, it was not uncommon for Zonk Air to demand that a workman comes over and take a "brisk gander" at something before they reviewed the cackles as was the situation with the broken fuel drops on the right motor. Aircraft Accident Report Project 6 1.3 Airport Information/Weather Departure airport, Lake Tahoe Airport (KTVL), is located 3 miles SW South Lake Tahoe, CA with an elevation of 6268.6 ft above sea level (AirNav, 2016). Runway 18 from which the accident aircraft took off from is dimensionally 8541ft. long by 100 ft. wide and with a surface of grooved asphalt considered in excellent condition. Obstructions include: 13 ft. brush, 450 ft. from runway, 125 ft. left of centerline, 19:1 slope to clear (AirNav, 2016). The airport is publicly-owned and operated and the manager is Sherry Miller. Airport operational statistics gathered for fiscal year 2009-2010 concluded there is quantity 29 aircraft based on the field to include: 24 Single Engine, 1 Multi-engine, and 4 Helicopters. Daily operations count averaged 64 with 74% transient, 19% local, 5% air taxi, and 2% military (AirNav, 2016). The airport used Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) and Localizertype directional Aid (LDA) for instrument approaches. The weather report confirmed lowering clouds with visual deterioration as the night progressed. At time of departure the surrounding climate was reported as 2 miles in lowering clouds and 900 feet overcast and deteriorating (Dillion, 2010). 1.4 Flight Information/Mission Aircraft Accident Report Project REFERENCES: AirNav: KTVL - Lake Tahoe Airport. (n.d.). Retrieved July 11, 2016, from http://www.airnav.com/airport/ktvl Dillion, J. (2010, November 7). Zonk Air Accident Scenario. Retrieved July 7, 2016, from https://erau.instructure.com/courses/39915/pages/project/room/Zonk_Air_Accident 7