The Jessica Dubroff Tragedy

I was going to avoid this issue because it's so emotional. But the level of nonsense being tossed around by an ignorant press is getting too high. This article contains everything you need to know about Jessica Dubroff's ill-fated attempt to be the youngest pilot to fly across the continental United States. It's written by a licensed pilot (me) with about 250 hours in planes very similar to the Cessna 177 Jessica was flying (by no means an expert but a little more knowledgeable than the bozos on CNN).

Background Information

Jessica's plane was flown by a licensed pilot, as required by FAA regulations. Her pilot also happened to be a Certified Flight Instructor (CFI). The FAA does not allow a student pilot (Jessica) to fly "solo" until they're 16 years old. So Jessica (at 7) requires a licensed pilot with her at all times.

Her father was a passenger on the flight.

The Cessna 177 (owned by the pilot) in which they were flying was equipped with dual controls. This permits both the CFI and the student pilot to control the aircraft. The real purpose is to allow the instructor to take over complete control of the airplane at any time.

Some people have proposed that "we don't let seven-year-olds drive cars, so they shouldn't fly." These people are missing the point. With dual controls, the instructor is always in complete control of the airplane even when the student has her hands on the controls. Under these conditions, it doesn't really matter how old the student is. (My son "flew an airplane" for the first time at age two!) The pilot is actually "flying" the plane even when the student is manipulating the controls.

The CFI is referred to as the "Pilot In Command (PIC)." The student "manipulates the controls," and may enter time in her log book as "PIC Time" during training under a CFI, but is not truly in command of the flight. The instructor is completely responsible for the safety of any student flight.

The Weather

All pilots are required to get a weather briefing before any flight. Official FAA personnel operate weather briefing centers which can be reached through a toll-free number. The pilot's name and the registration number of the plane are recorded by the FAA so that they can determine in an accident situation whether or not the pilot talked to an FAA briefer. In the case of Jessica's flight, it would be the responsibility of the Pilot In Command (the instructor in this case) to receive a briefing and to make a go/no-go decision on the flight.

Jessica's flight took off into rain, snow and snow pellets at 38 degrees F. Winds were from 260 degrees (west) at 20-30 knots (about 25 mph) and gusty. They would have been hitting the plane at about a 45 degree angle, creating a very difficult take-off situation. Thunderstorms were reported in the area.

The pilot could expect icing around 1500 feet above the ground. This means that ice would build up on the leading edges of the wings causing disruption in airflow and thus decreased lift. As little as an eighth of an inch of ice can cause the wing to simply "quit flying." Faced with these conditions, any pilot will tell you that it was not a good idea to fly. Even with an instrument rating and de-icing equipment, the winds combined with the high elevation of the airport would make it difficult for the plane to fly. The Pilot In Command (the instructor in this case) should not have taken off.

The FAA has stated that the plane was over-loaded with "personal effects." The cargo area of a C-177 is behind the rear seat. It is highly likely that with extra weight in the rear, the center of gravity was too far back for the plane to fly. Under these conditions it would tend to fly with the tail low. The extra drag caused by the wings in this configuration would cause the airspeed to be slow. With the airspeed slow, the plane wouldn't climb. It is the PIC's responsibility to calculate the weight and center of gravity of the airplane and compare it to published maximums before every flight.

Who Was In Control?

Many people have speculated on whether Jessica or the instructor was flying the plane when it went down. The idea is that if Jessica was in control, then we would blame the accident on her inexperience. The next question would logically be, "Should we allow seven-year-olds to fly?" This was the question asked on all the news programs this week.

But I must point out that Jessica was not the Pilot In Command! So even if her hands were on the controls, it was the instructor who was the "pilot" on this flight! The fact that Jessica was not the pilot is further confirmed by the fact that Flying magazine refuses to print stories on these youngsters who set "records" because, as students, they're not really pilots. So their accomplishments are not important to the flying community. Pilots in the Aviation Forum on CompuServe are pointing out that she was no more than a passenger. One even said, "You could strap a dog in the left seat, duct tape its paws to the wheel, say it was flying the plane and have no different situation than we have here."

My opinion (if you can call it that - it's actually the only accurate point of view on this subject) is that Jessica was dead when the Pilot In Command (the instructor) decided to fly Thursday morning. While the official weather was "marginal VFR" (the lowest conditions that he could legally take off in) it was rapidly deteriorating. Within minutes after departure the weather was "IMC" (instrument flight only) and it would have been illegal for them to take off with out an IFR (instrument flight rules) clearance.

It doesn't matter who was manipulating the controls at the time of impact. The instructor is obligated to maintain control over the aircraft at all times. Even if Jessica's hands were on the controls, the instructor was "at fault" when he hit the ground.

The real problem was the decision to take off. Jessica was not involved in that decision. The Pilot In Command (the instructor) is the only person who is authorized to make that decision. Jessica was just a student. Her opinion would not matter. The Pilot In Command is responsible for all aspects of the safety of the flight.

If I'm right, and if it doesn't matter who was manipulating the controls, then the set of logical questions changes. Instead of asking, "should we let seven-year-olds learn to fly planes?" we'd ask, "Did the Pilot In Command receive a weather briefing, and did he use good judgment in deciding to fly?" This is very important. I predict that the FAA will find the PIC completely responsible for this accident due to improper judgment. They will name the weather, the improper loading of the plane and the self-imposed pressure of setting a record as mitigating factors in the crash. If they find that Jessica's hands were on the controls (which is where mine would be even if I was in the back seat!) at the time of impact, they might identify her inexperience as a secondary contributing factor in the crash.

My point is, Jessica's age just doesn't matter. We don't need to revisit pilot training rules. They're fine. She was not flying the plane. She was in essence a passenger who the pilot allowed to manipulate the controls when it was safe. She wasn't responsible for the decision to fly. It was tragic that she was killed by her instructor's bad judgment, but accidents like this happen every day. (Though mile-for-mile, flying with a private pilot is still safer than driving your car to work.)