What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Causaul and/or contributing factors:
The pilot stated that there was another pilot on board who was a new hire to the organization, however, the pilot said that this person was not acting as a pilot during this trip and was only a passenger.
The pilot did not recall if he executed the dual generator failure emergency by completing the emergency procedure and instead decided to turn immediately back to the Billings airport and complete the manual gear extension, which he stated was done in accordance wth the aircraft checklist.
An NTSB inspection of the aircraft determined that the “gen out” light bulbs for both the number one and number two generators were burned out, however, the pilot stated that they were operating before the flight and that he specifically recalled checking them as he had to adjust the dimmer to full bright because of the sunrise.
The pilot stated that the normal procedures checklist that was being used was a company developed checklist that has not been accepted by the FAA and was the same checklist that was used for both part 91 and part 135 operations.
The pilot was not operating in accordance with the checklist being used. The pilot stated that prop feathering was checked during taxi and that power was checked after taking the active and just before takeoff. When asked about the run-up, the pilot did not mention any of the before taxi, taxi, before take-off (run-up) or before take-off (final) checks. The pilot stated that he operates the aircraft the same, using the same checklist whether he is completing a part 91 or part 135 flight leg.
No ATC actions contributory to the event.
No recommendations for systemic corrective action.
Action taken to correct problem and prevent reoccurance:
44709 – Reexamination
Sas record #: NM05202401280
As the FAA filed it
CAUSAUL AND/OR CONTRIBUTING FACTORS:
THE PILOT STATED THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER PILOT ON BOARD WHO WAS A NEW HIRE TO THE ORGANIZATION, HOWEVER, THE PILOT SAID THAT THIS PERSON WAS NOT ACTING AS A PILOT DURING THIS TRIP AND WAS ONLY A PASSENGER.
THE PILOT DID NOT RECALL IF HE EXECUTED THE DUAL GENERATOR FAILURE EMERGENCY BY COMPLETING THE EMERGENCY PROCEDURE AND INSTEAD DECIDED TO TURN IMMEDIATELY BACK TO THE BILLINGS AIRPORT AND COMPLETE THE MANUAL GEAR EXTENSION, WHICH HE STATED WAS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WTH THE AIRCRAFT CHECKLIST.
AN NTSB INSPECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT DETERMINED THAT THE “GEN OUT” LIGHT BULBS FOR BOTH THE NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO GENERATORS WERE BURNED OUT, HOWEVER, THE PILOT STATED THAT THEY WERE OPERATING BEFORE THE FLIGHT AND THAT HE SPECIFICALLY RECALLED CHECKING THEM AS HE HAD TO ADJUST THE DIMMER TO FULL BRIGHT BECAUSE OF THE SUNRISE.
THE PILOT STATED THAT THE NORMAL PROCEDURES CHECKLIST THAT WAS BEING USED WAS A COMPANY DEVELOPED CHECKLIST THAT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE FAA AND WAS THE SAME CHECKLIST THAT WAS USED FOR BOTH PART 91 AND PART 135 OPERATIONS.
THE PILOT WAS NOT OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHECKLIST BEING USED. THE PILOT STATED THAT PROP FEATHERING WAS CHECKED DURING TAXI AND THAT POWER WAS CHECKED AFTER TAKING THE ACTIVE AND JUST BEFORE TAKEOFF. WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE RUN-UP, THE PILOT DID NOT MENTION ANY OF THE BEFORE TAXI, TAXI, BEFORE TAKE-OFF (RUN-UP) OR BEFORE TAKE-OFF (FINAL) CHECKS. THE PILOT STATED THAT HE OPERATES THE AIRCRAFT THE SAME, USING THE SAME CHECKLIST WHETHER HE IS COMPLETING A PART 91 OR PART 135 FLIGHT LEG.
NO ATC ACTIONS CONTRIBUTORY TO THE EVENT.
NO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SYSTEMIC CORRECTIVE ACTION.
ACTION TAKEN TO CORRECT PROBLEM AND PREVENT REOCCURANCE:
44709 – REEXAMINATION
SAS RECORD #: NM05202401280
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.