Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation A-79-067
Details
Synopsis: ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1978, AN ANTILLES AIR BOATS, INC., GRUMMAN 21A, STRUCK THE WATER WHILE ON A PASSENGER FLIGHT FROM ST. CROIX TO ST. THOMAS IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. THE AIRCRAFT BROKE APART AND THE CAPTAIN AND 3 OF THE 10 PASSENGERS DROWNED.
Recommendation: TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: Amend 14 CFR 135 to require all aircraft conducting passenger service under Part 135 in any over water operation be equipped with approved flotation-type seat cushions, and to require aircraft conducting extended overwater operations to also be equipped with an approved life preserver equipped with an approved survivor locator light. (Superseded by A-85-35 through A-85-49)
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Superseded
Mode: Aviation
Location: St. Thomas, VI, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: DCA78AA021
Accident Reports: Antilles Air Boats, Inc., Grumman G21A, N7777V
Report #: AAR-79-09
Accident Date: 9/2/1978
Issue Date: 8/20/1979
Date Closed: 6/12/1985
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: FAA (Closed - Superseded)
Keyword(s):

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 6/12/1985
Response: From the safety study of Air Carrier Overwater Emergency Equipment and Procedures (NTSB/SS-85/02). The Board published this study on 6/12/1985. The Safety Board placed the following recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration in a “Closed—Superseded” status: A-79-67 and A-84-20. A-79-67 and A-84-20 are superseded by A-85-35 through A-85-49.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 9/14/1981
Response: We recommended that passenger-carry aircraft operating under the rules of far part 121 and 135 be required to carry flotation-type seat cushions. We are informed that a project will be undertaken to examine the feasibility of these recommendations. Pending the faa's further response these recommendations will be held in an open-- acceptable action status.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 6/15/1981
Response: FAA LTR: I HAVE DIRECTED MY STAFF TO PROVIDE ME WITH AN ANALYSIS OF WHERE WE ARE, AND OUR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE, IN REGARD TO THE WHOLE QUESTION OF SURVIVAL AIDS IN WATER LANDINGS. I HAVE DIRECTED THAT THEY ASSEMBLE THE OPERATIONAL STATISTICS, ANALYZE THEM TO PROJECT THE RISK WE FACE, AND PRESENT ME WITH A SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO MITIGATE THOSE RISKS. I HAVE ALSO DIRECTED THAT, AT THE SAME TIME, THEY PROVIDE A DETAILED ESTIMATE OF THE COSTS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE ACTION. THIS EFFORT WILL INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF ALL RELEVANT DATA AND RECOMMENDA TIONS FROM THE BOARD, AS WELL AS INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AT THE FAA TECHNICAL CENTER IN RESPONSE TO REQUIREMENTS APPROVED BY THE OFFICE OF AIRWORTHINESS.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 2/25/1981
Response: Faa response of november 21, 1979, indicated that this recommendation was under review and that we would be advised of the faa's decision. In order to evaluate its present status and update the public docket, we request a further progress report.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 12/17/1979
Response: Pending completion of the faa's ongoing evaluation of the recommendation on or alternatives concerning life preserver equipment, and receipt of additional information from the faa, a-79-67 will be classified an open--acceptable action.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 11/21/1979
Response: FAA LTR: THE BOARD, IN SAFETY RECOMMENDATION A-79-36, MADE SIMILAR RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPECT TO PASSENGER CARRYING AIR CARRIER AIRCRAFT. AFTER RESPONDING TO THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION, THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RECEIVED A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH REFLECTS THAT BOTH LIFE PRESERVERS, WHICH ARE ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE SUPERIOR, AND FLOTATION CUSHIONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED UNDER THE HYPOTHESES THAT EVACUATION TIME MAY BE CRITICAL OR THAT PASSENGERS MAY BE THROWN CLEAR OF THE AIRCRAFT ALONG WITH THE FLOATING SEAT CUSHIONS. THE RATIONALE USED BY THE BOARD WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO OUR RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE RECOMMENDATION. WE ARE CONTINUING OUR REVIEW OF THIS RECOMMENDATION OR ALTERNATIVES WHICH MAY SATISFY THE INTENT OF THE RECOMMENDATION, TOGETHER WITH YOUR REQUEST IN RESPECT TO A-79-36.