According to Boeing, Ortberg will begin in the position on August 8. He replaces Dave Calhoun, who earlier this year announced he was retiring. Calhoun had served as president and CEO since January 2020 and been on the Boeing board of directors since 2009.

Ortberg, 64, comes to the position with more than 35 years of experience in the aerospace industry. He recently served as president and CEO of Rockwell Collins, a position he held since 2013.

Ortberg was instrumental in the company’s integration with United Technologies and RTX. He holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Iowa, has held numerous leadership positions in the aerospace industry, and is the former chair of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) board of governors.

• READ MORE: FAA Head Vows Increase in Boeing Oversight

“The board conducted a thorough and extensive search process over the last several months to select the next CEO of Boeing, and Kelly has the right skills and experience to lead Boeing in its next chapter,” said Steven Mollenkopf, chair of the board. “Kelly is an experienced leader who is deeply respected in the aerospace industry, with a well-earned reputation for building strong teams and running complex engineering and manufacturing companies. We look forward to working with him as he leads Boeing through this consequential period in its long history.”

The board also thanked Calhoun for his services, noting the past few years have been challenging for Boeing, beginning with the two 737 Max crashes in 2018 and 2019, respectively, resulting in the deaths of 346 people. The FAA ordered the grounding of the aircraft while the accidents were investigated. Boeing’s manufacturing and certification processes were called into question.

• READ MORE: Boeing Presents Quality Control Improvement Plan to FAA

The aerospace company announced it had worked through the issues and made changes to its manufacturing procedures to mitigate them. Then in January a 737 Max 9 operated by Alaska Airlines lost a door plug shortly after takeoff from Portland, Oregon, resulting in rapid decompression and minor injuries.

Next week the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is scheduled to conduct an investigative hearing on the door plug loss.

In the meantime, the families of those killed in the crashes are campaigning for Boeing to face criminal prosecution and the U.S. Department of Justice to fine the company $24 billion, alleging criminal negligence and violating the 2021 agreement that allowed the company to previously avoid criminal charges.

The post Boeing Names New CEO to Lead Through ‘Consequential Period’ appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Three of the people on board the privately owned aircraft were members of the Atlanta-based gospel group The Nelons. 

• READ MORE: PC-12 Crash Claims Members of Prominent Gospel Singing Group

According to USA Today, those who died in the crash have been identified as singers Jason and Kelly Nelon Clark, Nathan and Amber Kistler, and group assistant Melody Hodges.

The aircraft, a 2010 PC-12/47E single-engine turboprop, was registered to Haynie Enterprises Inc. It was piloted by its owner, Larry Haynie, who along with his wife, Melissa, was also killed in the accident.

According to a statement from the Gaither Management Group, the family was en route to Seattle to join the Gaither Homecoming Cruise in Alaska. It was noted that Autumn, the youngest daughter of the Kellys, and her husband, Jamie Streetman, arrived in Seattle by other means and are safe.

Flight History 

The PC-12 departed from West Georgia Regional Airport (KCTJ) around 9:30 a.m. EST Friday, stopping at Nebraska City Municipal Airport (KAFK) to refuel. The aircraft lifted off around noon, heading for Billings Logan International Airport (KBIL) in Montana.

Approximately two hours into the flight while cruising at an altitude of 26,000 feet, Haynie notified controllers there was a problem with the autopilot and he was losing control of the aircraft. The ADS-B data as recorded by FlightAware.com shows multiple turns and pitch changes. The ground speed varied from 173 to 319 mph, and at one point the aircraft was descending at 5,545 feet per minute. 

The ADS-B readout shows a series of descending turns before data is lost.

According to the Gillette News Record, the aircraft crashed near the town of Recluse, Wyoming, near the Montana state line, causing a small wildfire that was contained to about 38 acres. There were no injuries on the ground, although witnesses reported seeing the airplane circling and flying low before the crash.

Debris from the aircraft was found away from the main impact. One of the theories that NTSB investigators will be looking at is the possibility of an in-flight breakup, as the aircraft was not designed for such rapid and extreme altitude and airspeed changes.

• READ MORE: Authorities ID 2 Killed in Lancair ES Crash Near EAA AirVenture

According to NTSB spokesperson Keith Holloway, the investigation begins with the identification of the so-called “four corners” of the aircraft: the nose, tail and wing tips

“Part of the investigation will be to locate those sections,” Holloway told FLYING. “NTSB investigators have the experience and expertise to locate aircraft parts even from aircraft that are not quite intact. They have the knowledge of being able to locate aircrafts parts that may be unidentifiable to the average person. Unfortunately, it is not rare that NTSB investigators have situations involving scattered wreckage from a plane crash.”

When the wreckage is scattered over a wide area in a remote location, gathering it up takes time and is a painstaking but necessary process as each piece is considered evidence and part of a puzzle.

“With the use of the NTSB metallurgical lab and review of navigational devices and equipment, NTSB investigators are still able to put together the scenario of what probably happened and determine a cause of the crash,” Holloway said.

According to Holloway, the NTSB investigations involve three basic review areas: the pilot—notably their actions in the 72 hours prior to flight, as well as ratings and recency of experience—aircraft maintenance records, and the operating environment.

The agency will also listen to recordings of any ATC communications and review radar data and weather reports. If there are any witnesses to the event, they will be interviewed as well, Holloway said, adding that the NTSB will “look for electronic devices that could contain information relevant to the investigation and any available surveillance video, including from doorbell cameras.”

The NTSB preliminary report is expected to be available in a few weeks. The final report with the probable cause of the accident is several months out from being released.

The post NTSB to Focus on ‘Four Corners’ of PC-12 in Fatal Crash Probe appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

According to officials, the aircraft went down around 12:15 p.m. CDT in a farm field near Wittman Regional Airport (KOSH). 

“This area is about 2 miles south of the EAA AirVenture event and was first reported by ATC in the Wittman Airport tower,” Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. “Upon arrival, responders discovered that the plane was fully engulfed in fire. At this time, we can confirm that there were two occupants in the plane, and that they are both deceased.”

The black smoke was visible from the airport at the annual weeklong airshow, which opened Monday and attracts thousands of visitors from all over the world, according to media reports.

The names of the people on board the aircraft have not been released.

This is a developing story.

The post 2 Killed in Plane Crash Near EAA AirVenture appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The first crash happened on June 15 in Chino, California, when Lockheed N93R was taking part in a Father’s Day airshow. The pilot and copilot were killed when the aircraft crashed during takeoff. The pilot took off with the flaps fully extended. 

Lockheed N93R

The NTSB noted that video of the takeoff shows the flaps down and the aircraft struggling to climb. The vintage twin reached an altitude of approximately 300 feet before plunging to the left. There was a post-impact fire.

The crew had lowered the flaps as part of the preflight inspection but did not retract them before takeoff. The NTSB noted that during engine start the ground crew used arm and hand signals to try to let the pilot and copilot know the flaps were in the fully extended position.

Lockheed N2072

The second accident occurred on June 18 at Seven Lakes Airport (62GA) in Jackson, Georgia. The pilot, the commercially rated copilot, and a passenger were seriously injured when the privately owned 1936 Lockheed 12A Electra Junior (N2072) veered off the turf runway during landing.

Video of the landing taken by a bystander on the ground shows the aircraft on approach to the turf runway with the flaps and gear down. The touchdown appears normal, then as the aircraft slows and the tailwheel settles to the ground, the aircraft veers to the left. The videographer lowers the camera so the aircraft’s impact with a tree is heard but not shown.

• READ MORE: 3 Left Injured in Georgia Lockheed 12A Crash

“The impact crushed the cockpit] aft toward the cabin,” the NTSB report said. “A tree trunk about 2 feet in circumference was observed within the cockpit. The instrument panel was buckled around the tree trunk. The pilot, co-pilot, and passenger seats were crushed up and aft.”

The investigation quickly focused on the brakes and the tailwheel as both are used for directional control on the ground. Examination of the main landing gear braking system revealed hydraulic fluid on the landing gear strut and hydraulic fluid leaking from the brake line fitting.

“The steel-braided brake line B-nut fitting, which connected the right brake caliper to the rigid brake line attached to the right landing gear strut, was finger-tight, and hydraulic fluid was observed leaking from the fitting,” the NTSB said.

The fitting on the left brake could not be moved by hand and there was no fluid leakage.

Investigators stated the tailwheel lock control lever was found in the locked position, but the locking tab on the control-wheel assembly appeared to be unlocked.

The NTSB final report on both accidents is likely several months out as it can take 18 to 24 months for investigations to be completed.

The post NTSB Releases Details on 2 Lockheed 12A Crashes appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The aircraft were flying in the pattern of the Fun Fly Zone (FFZ), which is located in the Ultralight area.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the accident occurred when the gyroplane pilot violated established and briefed FFZ procedures by making a prohibited 360-degree turn in the pattern before colliding  with the helicopter.

• NTSB: Rule Violation Contributed to Fatal Midair Collision at EAA AirVenture

The pilot and passenger of the helicopter were killed and the pilot and passenger of the gyrocopter were seriously injured. No one on the ground was injured, however, an unoccupied aircraft was destroyed when the gyroplane came down on top of it.

According to the NTSB final report (below) on the accident, in addition to the one-strike rule, the EAA has adopted the following changes to prevent future mishaps:

• Standardized briefing for all types of FFZ operations
• Standardized traffic pattern for all types of FFZ operations with exception of the powered-parachutes group due to speed performance
• Standardized aircraft spotter locations for all types of FFZ operations
• Designated sterile corridor for traffic on base leg over the north/south paved road

The NTSB’s final report is below.

The post EAA Adopts New Procedures in Wake of AirVenture NTSB Crash Report appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I looked off the extended centerline hoping to see the landing light of the twin. No joy. The skies were hazy due to forest fire smoke, and the light was flat because it was late afternoon and, frankly, it was difficult to see anything.

The C-172 pilot reduced engine power and configured the aircraft for a descent. Normal procedures called for losing 200 to 300 feet of altitude then turning base when the runway was at a 45-degree angle to the aircraft.

“Do you see the twin?” I asked, because I still didn’t have a visual. 

“Nope,” the pilot said, stopping the descent. “I’m not turning base until I see him. I’m not going to do a Watsonville.”  

• READ MORE: Avoiding Mid-Airs: Safety in the Practice Area

We continued on an extended downwind for another 10 seconds, then the pilot of the C-172 decided to break off the approach and depart to the west. He told me he planned to reenter on the 45. As he rolled wings level to the west, we finally saw the twin—on short final. 

Watsonville

“Watsonville” refers to an August 2022 midair collision between a Cessna 152 and a Cessna 340A at Watsonville Municipal Airport (KWVI) in California. Three people and a dog were killed.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released the final report on the accident earlier this year. All accident reports present an opportunity to learn. What I learned from this one is that in aviation you can be doing everything right, but if someone else does something wrong, you can still get hurt. 

Deconstructing Watsonville

According to the NTSB, on August 18, 2022, around 3 p.m. PDT the pilot of the C-152 was in the pattern for Runway 20 as the pilot of the C-340A was attempting a straight in. It was a VFR day. Both pilots were communicating on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF).

The pilot of the C-152 was flying in the traffic pattern of the nontowered airport and making position reports on the airport’s CTAF. The pilot of the twin made an initial radio call 10 miles from the airport announcing his intentions to perform a straight approach for Runway 20. The pilot of the C-152 was flying the pattern for Runway 20. He made position reports as he turned on each leg of the pattern—as a well-trained pilot does. 

I listened to the  recordings of the CTAF on LiveATC.com after the event. The C-152 pilot’s radio calls were concise and informative.

Just after the pilot of the twin reported a 3-mile final, the pilot of the C-152 announced he was turning left base for Runway 20. Around 19 seconds later, the twin pilot reported that he was a mile from the airport. The last transmission of the C-152 pilot noted how quickly the larger airplane was coming up behind him and announced he was going around. 

The Cessna twin hit the C-152 from behind. The aircraft collided less than a mile from the runway at an altitude of approximately 150 feet above ground. There were several witnesses on the ground, and the collision was caught on security cameras near the airport.

The Aftermath

Investigators using ADS-B data determined the twin was at a ground speed of 180 knots, more than twice that of the C-152 on approach and considerably faster than the normal C-340A approach speed of 120 knots. 

The examination of the wreckage revealed the twin’s wing flaps and landing gear were both retracted at the time of the collision, which is consistent with the pilot’s failure to configure the airplane for landing. Normal flap extension speed for the C-340A is 160 knots, and the landing gear extension is 140 knots. Investigators noted that the faster speed reduced the pilot’s time to see the smaller aircraft. 

Witnesses on the ground reported the twin veered to the right at the last second, but it wasn’t enough to avoid the smaller, slower aircraft.

The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident to be “the failure of the pilot of the multiengine airplane to see and avoid the single-engine airplane while performing a straight-in approach for landing.”

Applying Lessons at Home

That Watsonville accident was talked about for weeks at my home airport as there are a few light twins based there. These airplanes often do straight-in approaches, or fly the RNAV 35 in VFR conditions. It is legal for them to do so. 

One of the lessons I impart is for the learners to pay attention to the make of aircraft as well as their distance from the runway during position reports. “Cessna twin” tells me that it is faster and larger than the Cessna 100 series aircraft I normally fly. Conversely, if I hear “yellow Cub,” I know to keep looking for slower traffic.

Right of Way

Clearing the area before you turn is one of the first lessons a pilot learns. It is the aviation version of look before you cross the street.

One of my best learners, an Army helicopter pilot going for her fixed wing add-on, had this down cold. She was used to flying in a multicrewed environment so she would say, “Look left, clearing left, coming left,” then make the turn. If there was another aircraft, she’d announce, “Not clear to the left, not sure if he sees me,” then she would turn to avoid the other aircraft, often taking us in the opposite direction or changing altitude. This was even if we technically had the right of way, per FAR 91.113.

FAR 91.113 states: “When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.” It is difficult to avoid the other aircraft if you don’t see them—and don’t count on ADS-B as a crutch, as some aircraft are not equipped with it. You still need to keep your eyes outside.

The details of FAR 91.113 state which aircraft have right-of-way over others. Basically, the least maneuverable, such as a glider (no engine for go-around) or airship (those things are slow), have the right of way over an airplane, unless the airplane is being towed, refueled, or is in distress. 

FAR 91.113 also states that the aircraft being overtaken has the right of way—as the C-152 did in Watsonville. But the rules don’t help if the pilot of the other aircraft doesn’t see you. 

Instead of potentially putting yourself in front of a faster, larger aircraft, take precautionary evasive action, even if you do technically have the right of way. There are a lot of rights worth dying for. Right of way is not one of them.

The post Remembering Right of Way and Steering Clear of a ‘Watsonville’ appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

New details reveal the incident occurred during a skydiving operation at Raeford West Airport (NR20) in North Carolina. The pilots were on approach to pick up another group of skydivers with second in command (SIC) Crooks flying. According to the NTSB report, the approach was stable until the aircraft descended below the tree line and encountered wind shear. Crooks initiated a go-around, but before establishing a climb, the right main landing gear struck the runway surface and then detached.

The pilots then declared an emergency and requested to divert to a larger airport. The pilot in command (PIC) took over while Crooks communicated with ATC. According to the unnamed PIC, Crooks became visibly upset following the hard landing. He proceeded to open his side cockpit window and lower the ramp in the back of the aircraft, indicating he needed air. Crooks then apologized, left his seat, removed his headset, and ran out of the airplane via the aft ramp door.

• READ MORE: NTSB Preliminary Report Sheds Light on Copilot Mid-Air Departure

According to the report, “although the PIC and operator reported that the SIC’s departure from the airplane was an intentional act, there was insufficient information to support that assertion.”

Federal investigators also noted that the PIC, who was flying with Crooks, served as the chief pilot for the operator, which could have contributed to his stress. Family members told investigators Crooks was “extremely happy” and “loved to fly,” noting that he was in “a fabulous state of mind” prior to the flight.

• READ MORE: Copilot’s Departure of Aircraft in Mid-Flight Baffles Authorities

Ultimately, investigators listed the probable cause as “the airplane’s encounter with wind shear during landing, which resulted in a hard landing and separation of the right main landing gear, and the pilot’s subsequent decision to leave his seat in flight, which resulted in his fall from the airplane.”

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post NTSB’s Final Report Leaves Unanswered Questions in Copilot’s Fatal Fall appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Anders, 90, was a retired military pilot and Air Force major general, Apollo-era NASA astronaut, and founder of the Heritage Flight Museum.

According to the preliminary investigation published by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), a friend told investigators that Anders sent her a text message before the June 7 morning flight stating he would be flying past her house at 11:40 a.m., which was close to his old residence located on the western shore of Orcas Island.

• READ MORE: Apollo Astronaut William Anders, 90, Dies in T-34 Crash

The witness said these flights were not unusual, although the accident flight was the first time he had performed it in 2024. The witness said that Anders would sometimes rock the wings of the airplane but did not perform aerobatic maneuvers.

Radar data provided by the FAA showed a target departing Skagit Bayview Regional Airport (KBVS) at about 11:13 the morning of the accident but did not include altitude data.

The target flew west toward Orcas Island and performed a series of passes back and forth along the coastline of the San Juan Channel.

The graphics provided by the NTSB report show the aircraft flying a route back and forth along the shoreline.

The friend told investigators that she heard the airplane, then a short time later she observed it overhead traveling north along the shoreline in front of her house. The aircraft then flew behind trees and out of view, and she could hear but not see what sounded like the airplane making a left turn to the south. The airplane came back into view, rolling out on a south heading.

“It was flying over the water but higher than the previous occasions,” the witness told NTSB investigators.

After the aircraft passed, the witness saw the left wing drop, and she thought this was part

of his usual routine. However, the wing continued to drop as the airplane began to rapidly descend toward the water.

• READ MORE: 55 Years Ago, Apollo 8 Astronauts Deliver Christmas Eve Message of Unity

Another witness located along the same shoreline about a third of a mile to the north said he observed the aircraft from his deck. He began to record the aircraft with his phone.

“At the beginning of the recording the airplane was inverted with a slight nose down attitude and heading generally to the south,” the NTSB report said. “Over the next three seconds, the airplane had transitioned to an almost vertical dive. As the airplane approached the water, it began to pull out of the dive, now facing the opposite direction. By the time it had recovered to almost wings level, upright attitude, the airplane struck the water with its right wing tip and spun across the water on a northern trajectory.”

Video of the event shows the aircraft being torn apart by the impact.

The NTSB said that these were the only witnesses to come forward with information. The final report on the accident is still months away.

The post NTSB: Witness Provides Details Leading Up to Fatal T-34 Crash appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

It was about 1 o’clock in the morning. The air on the surface was warm and humid. If he checked the weather—there was no evidence that he did—he would have expected to find widespread but patchy cloudiness over the route of flight and at the destination. In some places clouds were broken or scattered with tops at 3,000. Elsewhere buildups climbed into the flight levels. Ceilings and visibilities under the clouds were good, at worst 700 feet and 5 miles. The temperature and the dew point were only 3 degrees apart, however, and there was a slightly increased risk of fog formation owing to, of all things, particulate pollution from dust blown in from the Sahara.

During the short flight, he climbed to 3,600 feet, probably to get above some cloud tops. It was pitch-dark as the crescent moon was far below the horizon. As he neared his destination he descended to 1,500 msl, 1,300 feet above the terrain, and reduced his groundspeed from 175 knots to 100 knots.

The airstrip at which he intended to land was 3,500 feet long, 40 feet wide, and had a light gray concrete surface oriented 4/22. Other than a hangar on an apron at midfield, there were no structures on the airport and no edge lights along the runway.

The only lights were red ones marking the runway ends. The surrounding area was largely dark. Sam Rayburn Reservoir sat close by to the north and east, a vast region of uninterrupted black. Parallel to the runway, about half a mile north, was State Highway 147, lighted only by the headlamps of infrequently passing cars.

• READ MORE: Two Fatal Cases of the Simply Inexperienced

For almost an hour, the pilot flew back and forth over the airstrip, tracing a tangled path of seemingly random right and left turns. His altitude varied between 350 and 1,100 feet agl and his groundspeed between 65 and 143 knots. His ground track, as recorded by ATC radar, suggested no systematic plan, but it was broadly centered on the northeast end of the runway.

The last return from the Saratoga, recorded 54 minutes after it arrived over the field, put it 9,700 feet from the northeast end of the runway on a close-in extended left downwind leg for Runway 22 at a height of 350 feet agl and a groundspeed of 94 knots. The Saratoga was below radar for the remainder of the flight.

Its burned wreckage was found at the southern edge of the clear-cut area surrounding the runway, several hundred feet short of the threshold. A trail of parts led back across the clear-cut to its north side, where the airplane had clipped a treetop at the edge of the woods. From the orientation of the wreckage path, it appeared that the Saratoga may have overshot the centerline on base and was correcting back toward the approach end lights when it struck the tree.

In the course of the accident investigation, it emerged that the airplane was out of annual, its last inspection having occurred in 2017, the registration had expired, and the pilot’s medical was out of date. The pilot had 400 hours (estimated) but did not have an instrument rating and, in fact, had only a student certificate. The autopsy turned up residues of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC (the psychoactive component of cannabis), but investigators did not rule out the possibility that the drugs could have had a therapeutic purpose.

• READ MORE: Three-Mile Limit: Novice Pilots Succumb to the Perils of Total Darkness

The National Transportation Safety Board’s report on the accident declines to speculate on whether the drugs impaired the pilot in any way. In fact, the NTSB report concedes that “the pilot’s aircraft handling was not deficient relative to his limited experience of flying in night instrument conditions and the prolonged period of approach attempts.” The finding of probable cause cited only the pilot’s “poor decision-making as he attempted to land at an unlit airstrip in night instrument conditions.”

The pilot bought the Saratoga in 2016 and then took flying lessons, but he stopped short of getting the private certificate. His instructor said he had never given him any instrument training. The pilot’s wife said that he “normally” flew to the airport at night and circled down until he could see the runway.

The airport was in Class G airspace. What the cloud conditions were we don’t know—the nearest automated reporting station was 24 nm away—and so we don’t know whether the Saratoga was ever in clouds and, if so, for how long. Maneuvering around at low level for nearly an hour in darkness and intermittent IMC would be taxing even for many instrument-rated pilots, and so it seems likely that if the pilot was in clouds at all, it was only for brief periods.

• READ MORE: Fatal Cirrus Accident Shows That Some Knowledge Doesn’t Translate

Two things strike me about this accident. First, how close it came to not happening: If the pilot hadn’t clipped the tree, he might have made the turn to the runway successfully and landed without incident, as he apparently had done in the past. Second, that he had ever managed the trick at all. I can only suppose that the contrast between the runway clear-cut and the surrounding forest was discernible when there was moonlight and that he was able to use GPS and the runway’s end lights to get himself to a position where his landing light would illuminate the runway.

Rugged individualism being, supposedly, an American virtue, I leave it to you to applaud or deplore the nonconformist aspects of this pilot’s actions. Perhaps a certain amount of freelancing is inevitable in an activity like flying. But I deprecate his persistence. One of the essential arrows in every pilot’s quiver should be knowing when to quit. He set himself a nearly impossible goal, and after flying half an hour to his destination, he spent an hour trying to figure out how to get onto the ground.

If it was that difficult, it wasn’t worth doing. There were other airports—with runway lights—nearby.

At the time of the crash, the pilot was awaiting the decision of a Houston court in a wrongful  termination lawsuit that he had filed against a former employer. Five months later, the court found in his favor to the tune of $143 million. Thanks to a terminal case of “get-homeitis,” however, he wasn’t there to enjoy it.

Note: This article is based on the National Transportation Safety Board’s report of the accident and is intended to bring the issues raised to our readers’ attention. It is not intended to judge or reach any definitive conclusions about the ability or capacity of any person, living or dead, or any aircraft or accessory.

This column first appeared in the May 2024/Issue 948 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post A Cautionary Tale About Pilot Freelancing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Former United Airlines pilot Bruce Forbes, 66 at the time, initially told authorities the Stearman experienced engine trouble on a sightseeing flight over a lake and he struck power lines while he was trying to troubleshoot the engine issues. On Monday, he pled guilty in federal court to misrepresenting the facts.

• READ MORE: The Stearman Next Door

“I was flying low over the water around the curves of Lake Keystone and struck power lines, causing the plane to crash into the lake,” Forbes told the court. “I believed if I told NTSB investigators the truth, their investigation would find that I was flying in an unsafe manner, and I would have difficulty receiving insurance payments.”

Last December, an Oklahoma grand jury indicted Forbes on two counts of making false statements and one count of obstructing a government proceeding. The indictment cited statements Forbes made to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) between August 27 and September 30, 2022, and alleged false statements on October 2, 2023, to a special agent of the Department of Transportation–Office of the Attorney General.

His passenger, 19-year-old Baily Nevill, told local news outlets that, before the flight, she had not received a safety briefing on how to unfasten her safety belt. Describing the accident, she said Forbes was demonstrating “water dancing” low over the surface of the lake before striking the power lines and crashing into the water.

Nevill said Forbes tried to pull her from her seat, but “we were sideways, and the water was rising. We were in the middle of the lake. He was screaming at me. And once the water got above my chest, Bruce then decided to let go of me and swim away.”

• READ MORE: Stearman Patrol

Nevill was unsure how she finally freed herself from the belt and swam to the surface. Boaters rescued both occupants and brought them safely to shore.

The court has not set a sentencing date, and Forbes could be facing up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. He declined to comment on the case to local news outlets.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post Stearman Pilot Found Guilty of False Statements in Water Crash appeared first on FLYING Magazine.