http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/15438549.htm

Two folks flew into instrument conditions and tried to fly back out without
success. Aircraft parts are scattered over a one mile radius.

Very unfortunate.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 05:25:21 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>:

>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/15438549.htm
>
>Two folks flew into instrument conditions and tried to fly back out without
>success. Aircraft parts are scattered over a one mile radius.
>
>Very unfortunate.


Would that be this one?


http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/06_2932J.txt
************************************************** ******************************
** Report created 9/5/2006 Record 6 **
************************************************** ******************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 2932J Make/Model: C150 Description: 150, A150,
Commuter, Aerobat
Date: 09/04/2006 Time: 1530

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing:
N
Damage: Destroyed

LOCATION
City: LYNCHBURG State: VA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
ACFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TWO PERSONS ON BOARD
WERE
FATALLY INJURED, 23 MILES SOUTHWEST OF LYNCHBURG, NEAR PENHOOK, VA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 2
# Crew: 2 Fat: 2 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:

WEATHER: KLYH 041544Z 00000KT 6SM -RA FEW013 BKN030 OVC049 16/15

OTHER DATA

Departed: MONETA, VA Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: FLORENCE, SC Flt Plan: Wx
Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:

FAA FSDO: RICHMOND, VA (EA21) Entry date:
09/05/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------


The time doesn't seem to match the news story:

The two-seat Cessna 150G went down around 11:30 a.m., said Sgt.
Robert Carpentieri. The victims were identified as Ira Nash, 34,
and Erika Nash, 28, of Fork, S.C., Carpentieri said. They had been
at a family reunion at Smith Mountain Lake and were en route to
Florence, S.C., when they ran into heavy fog and attempted to turn
around.


The 1966 Cessna 150 was apparently owned by Mr. Nash. If I understand
Mr. Nash's entry in the FAA Airmans Database correctly, it appears he
was issued his airmans certificate: 06/17/2006.

Pictures here:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/81311

Tragic indeed.

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Would that be this one?

That appears to be it. A query of the aircraft registration database shows
that registration number belonging to a person with the deceased's name.

Additionally, FlightAware.com does not have any history of an IFR flight
plan under that tail ID.

VFR into IMC?

Damn.

--
Peter

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:57:57 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> Would that be this one?
>
>That appears to be it. A query of the aircraft registration database shows
>that registration number belonging to a person with the deceased's name.
>
>Additionally, FlightAware.com does not have any history of an IFR flight
>plan under that tail ID.
>
>VFR into IMC?
>
>Damn.

It would appear the private pilot just received his certificate two
months prior, and was not instrument rated.

WEATHER: KLYH 041544Z 00000KT 6SM -RA FEW013 BKN030 OVC049 16/15

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/81311
They flew out in poor conditions: heavy rain, cloud cover and fog,
Borgess said.

From the observed weather sequence it appears they departed just as
the weather worsened:


http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/metars/index.php?submit=1&station_ids=KLYH&chk_metars=on&hoursStr=48&chk_tafs=on&std_trans=translated

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

METAR text: KLYH 041554Z 00000KT 4SM RA BR SCT022 BKN030 OVC050
16/15 A3019 RMK AO2 SLP215 P0012 T01610150 $
Conditions at: KLYH (LYNCHBURG, VA, US) observed 1554 UTC 04
September 2006
Temperature: 16.1°C (61°F)
Dewpoint: 15.0°C (59°F) [RH = 93%]
Pressure (altimeter): 30.19 inches Hg (1022.4 mb)
[Sea-level pressure: 1021.5 mb]
Winds: calm
Visibility: 4 miles (6 km)
Ceiling: 3000 feet AGL
Clouds: scattered clouds at 2200 feet AGL
broken clouds at 3000 feet AGL
overcast cloud deck at 5000 feet AGL
Weather: RA BR (rain, mist)
SOME DATA ABOVE MAY BE INACCURATE!!!
"$" is an indication the sensor requires maintenance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

METAR text: KLYH 041544Z 00000KT 6SM -RA BR FEW013 BKN030 OVC049
16/15 A3019 RMK AO2 P0011 $
Conditions at: KLYH (LYNCHBURG, VA, US) observed 1544 UTC 04
September 2006
Temperature: 16.0°C (61°F)
Dewpoint: 15.0°C (59°F) [RH = 94%]
Pressure (altimeter): 30.19 inches Hg (1022.4 mb)
Winds: calm
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Ceiling: 3000 feet AGL
Clouds: few clouds at 1300 feet AGL
broken clouds at 3000 feet AGL
overcast cloud deck at 4900 feet AGL
Weather: -RA BR (light rain, mist)
SOME DATA ABOVE MAY BE INACCURATE!!!
"$" is an indication the sensor requires maintenance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

METAR text: KLYH 041526Z VRB03KT 2SM +RA BR FEW011 OVC026 16/15
A3019 RMK AO2 P0010 $
Conditions at: KLYH (LYNCHBURG, VA, US) observed 1526 UTC 04
September 2006
Temperature: 16.0°C (61°F)
Dewpoint: 15.0°C (59°F) [RH = 94%]
Pressure (altimeter): 30.19 inches Hg (1022.4 mb)
Winds: variable direction winds at 3 MPH (3 knots; 1.6 m/s)
Visibility: 2.00 miles (3.22 km)
Ceiling: 2600 feet AGL
Clouds: few clouds at 1100 feet AGL
overcast cloud deck at 2600 feet AGL
Weather: +RA BR (heavy rain, mist)
SOME DATA ABOVE MAY BE INACCURATE!!!
"$" is an indication the sensor requires maintenance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

METAR text: KLYH 041454Z VRB03KT 6SM -RA BR BKN017 BKN032 OVC060
17/14 A3019 RMK AO2 RAB1357 SLP215 P0014 60014 T01670144 51012 $
Conditions at: KLYH (LYNCHBURG, VA, US) observed 1454 UTC 04
September 2006
Temperature: 16.7°C (62°F)
Dewpoint: 14.4°C (58°F) [RH = 86%]
Pressure (altimeter): 30.19 inches Hg (1022.4 mb)
[Sea-level pressure: 1021.5 mb]
Winds: variable direction winds at 3 MPH (3 knots; 1.6 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Ceiling: 1700 feet AGL
Clouds: broken clouds at 1700 feet AGL
broken clouds at 3200 feet AGL
overcast cloud deck at 6000 feet AGL
Weather: -RA BR (light rain, mist)
SOME DATA ABOVE MAY BE INACCURATE!!!
"$" is an indication the sensor requires maintenance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

METAR text: KLYH 041441Z 00000KT 4SM -RA BR BKN015 OVC025 17/14
A3018 RMK AO2 RAB1357 P0013 $
Conditions at: KLYH (LYNCHBURG, VA, US) observed 1441 UTC 04
September 2006
Temperature: 17.0°C (63°F)
Dewpoint: 14.0°C (57°F) [RH = 82%]
Pressure (altimeter): 30.18 inches Hg (1022.1 mb)
Winds: calm
Visibility: 4 miles (6 km)
Ceiling: 1500 feet AGL
Clouds: broken clouds at 1500 feet AGL
overcast cloud deck at 2500 feet AGL
Weather: -RA BR (light rain, mist)
SOME DATA ABOVE MAY BE INACCURATE!!!
"$" is an indication the sensor requires maintenance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

METAR text: KLYH 041434Z VRB04KT 2 1/2SM +RA BR BKN013 OVC025
17/15 A3018 RMK AO2 RAB1357 P0012 $
Conditions at: KLYH (LYNCHBURG, VA, US) observed 1434 UTC 04
September 2006
Temperature: 17.0°C (63°F)
Dewpoint: 15.0°C (59°F) [RH = 88%]
Pressure (altimeter): 30.18 inches Hg (1022.1 mb)
Winds: variable direction winds at 5 MPH (4 knots; 2.1 m/s)
Visibility: 2.50 miles (4.02 km)
Ceiling: 1300 feet AGL
Clouds: broken clouds at 1300 feet AGL
overcast cloud deck at 2500 feet AGL
Weather: +RA BR (heavy rain, mist)
SOME DATA ABOVE MAY BE INACCURATE!!!
"$" is an indication the sensor requires maintenance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

METAR text: KLYH 041425Z VRB03KT 4SM RA BR BKN017 OVC025 17/15
A3018 RMK AO2 RAB1357 P0009 $
Conditions at: KLYH (LYNCHBURG, VA, US) observed 1425 UTC 04
September 2006
Temperature: 17.0°C (63°F)
Dewpoint: 15.0°C (59°F) [RH = 88%]
Pressure (altimeter): 30.18 inches Hg (1022.1 mb)
Winds: variable direction winds at 3 MPH (3 knots; 1.6 m/s)
Visibility: 4 miles (6 km)
Ceiling: 1700 feet AGL
Clouds: broken clouds at 1700 feet AGL
overcast cloud deck at 2500 feet AGL
Weather: RA BR (rain, mist)
SOME DATA ABOVE MAY BE INACCURATE!!!
"$" is an indication the sensor requires maintenance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

METAR text: KLYH 041417Z 00000KT 2 1/2SM RA BR SCT011 OVC025
17/15 A3018 RMK AO2 RAB1357 P0008 $
Conditions at: KLYH (LYNCHBURG, VA, US) observed 1417 UTC 04
September 2006
Temperature: 17.0°C (63°F)
Dewpoint: 15.0°C (59°F) [RH = 88%]
Pressure (altimeter): 30.18 inches Hg (1022.1 mb)
Winds: calm
Visibility: 2.50 miles (4.02 km)
Ceiling: 2500 feet AGL
Clouds: scattered clouds at 1100 feet AGL
overcast cloud deck at 2500 feet AGL
Weather: RA BR (rain, mist)
SOME DATA ABOVE MAY BE INACCURATE!!!
"$" is an indication the sensor requires maintenance


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

METAR text: KLYH 041408Z VRB03KT 1 3/4SM +RA OVC025 17/14 A3018
RMK AO2 VIS 1 1/4V3 RAB1357 P0004 $
Conditions at: KLYH (LYNCHBURG, VA, US) observed 1408 UTC 04
September 2006
Temperature: 17.0°C (63°F)
Dewpoint: 14.0°C (57°F) [RH = 82%]
Pressure (altimeter): 30.18 inches Hg (1022.1 mb)
Winds: variable direction winds at 3 MPH (3 knots; 1.6 m/s)
Visibility: 1.75 miles (2.82 km)
Ceiling: 2500 feet AGL
Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 2500 feet AGL
Weather: +RA (heavy rain)
SOME DATA ABOVE MAY BE INACCURATE!!!
"$" is an indication the sensor requires maintenance


From eye witness reports it appears the wings came off in flight.

Mary Ann Plunkett was talking on the telephone when she heard a
"terrible, rattly" noise. She saw the plane, watched it disappear
behind the trees and figured it went down.

Then Jacob White saw the plane nose-diving, without any wings. By
that point, the plane was no longer making any noise, he said. He
saw it go down into the woods behind his house.

Tragic.

Larry,

> Tragic indeed.
>

Hmm. If indeed it was VFR into IMC and the pilot had obtained his
certificate only two months prior, that's not the only word that comes
to mind. And I would have some questions for the CFI.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Peter R." > wrote:
>
>That appears to be it. A query of the aircraft registration database shows
>that registration number belonging to a person with the deceased's name.
>
>Additionally, FlightAware.com does not have any history of an IFR flight
>plan under that tail ID.
>
>VFR into IMC?

Most likely 100% avoidable and yet it continues to happen.

Ron Lee
Grounded due to fog.

Ron Lee wrote:


> Most likely 100% avoidable and yet it continues to happen.
>


Even if you're rich and famous.

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>Larry,
>
>> Tragic indeed.
>>
>
>Hmm. If indeed it was VFR into IMC and the pilot had obtained his
>certificate only two months prior, that's not the only word that comes
>to mind. And I would have some questions for the CFI.

A word that I think of is "stupid." You can't legislate common sense.
If this was a case of "get home-itis" then it is just one more. It
would not be the last.

Ron Lee

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> to mind. And I would have some questions for the CFI.
>

On the surface it appears to be a case of poor decision making
combined with lack of experience. CFI's can't 'teach' experience
and can only do our best to teach good decision making....
and a good part of that is grounded in common sense.

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:13:59 -0400, The Visitor
> wrote in
>:

>Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> Most likely 100% avoidable and yet it continues to happen.
>
>Even if you're rich and famous.

From the photographs of the diseased here
http://www.wdbj7.com/global/story.asp?s=5362572 it's difficult to
believe the "mechanic at a Chevrolet dealership" was either.

It looks like the pilot was attempting to sell his Cessna:


http://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?mode=usersearch&user=nswg1&PHPSESSID=4fc045ed173902afc536007139c8bce6
CESSNA 150G • $18,500 • ACCEPTING OFFERS • 5507ttaf/550SMOH,
autofuel, stol tips, new tires, o/h seats, mode c, slick mags
email 4 pics • Contact Ira R. Nash - located Fork, SC USA •
Telephone: 843-250-5271 • Posted August 23, 2006

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
>
> Two folks flew into instrument conditions and tried to fly back out without
> success. Aircraft parts are scattered over a one mile radius.

How hard do you have to work to break up a 150 in flight?

I don't believe I've ever heard of its happening before. Anyone know of
another case?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
>> Two folks flew into instrument conditions and tried to fly back out without
>> success. Aircraft parts are scattered over a one mile radius.
>
> How hard do you have to work to break up a 150 in flight?

I was recently reading the "AOPA Pilot" article about C150 Aerobat
aerobatic training.

Can any Cessna fans point out the differences between the basic 150/152
& Aerobat versions? Do they have different G restrictions? Or are the
Aerobat upgrades mainly pilot escape related, etc...

Thanks!

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
>>
>> Two folks flew into instrument conditions and tried to fly back out without
>> success. Aircraft parts are scattered over a one mile radius.
>
> How hard do you have to work to break up a 150 in flight?
>
> I don't believe I've ever heard of its happening before. Anyone know of
> another case?


I've never heard of one but who knows? In this case, a graveyard spiral until
the wings came off? It only takes a few seconds to go from stall speed to
redline if you're pointed downhill with the power still on.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

B A R R Y wrote:
> Dan Luke wrote:
> I was recently reading the "AOPA Pilot" article about C150 Aerobat
> aerobatic training.
>
> Can any Cessna fans point out the differences between the basic 150/152
> & Aerobat versions? Do they have different G restrictions? Or are the
> Aerobat upgrades mainly pilot escape related, etc...
>
As I recall, there is a bit of horizontal stabilizer reinforcement and
not much else.

Acrobatic or not, it's hard to imagine it being overly difficult to pull
the wings off in a spiral. And not too difficult to get in one in those
conditions.

The Aerobat has much larger struts and wing attach points.

Karl


"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> B A R R Y wrote:
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>> I was recently reading the "AOPA Pilot" article about C150 Aerobat
>> aerobatic training.
>>
>> Can any Cessna fans point out the differences between the basic 150/152 &
>> Aerobat versions? Do they have different G restrictions? Or are the
>> Aerobat upgrades mainly pilot escape related, etc...
>>
> As I recall, there is a bit of horizontal stabilizer reinforcement and not
> much else.
>
> Acrobatic or not, it's hard to imagine it being overly difficult to pull
> the wings off in a spiral. And not too difficult to get in one in those
> conditions.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Larry,
>
>> Tragic indeed.
>>
>
> Hmm. If indeed it was VFR into IMC and the pilot had obtained his
> certificate only two months prior, that's not the only word that comes
> to mind. And I would have some questions for the CFI.
>
Speaking as a CFI who once had a student that she dumped for doing
idiotic stuff, it's not always the CFI's fault.

The 150/152 were certified in the normal/utility category which, as I
recall, carries a G rating of 3.8/4.4 positive and 1.52/1.76 negative.

The 150 Aerobat was certified in the aerobatic category which carries a
+6 -3 G rating.


Jim



"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
...


>>
> As I recall, there is a bit of horizontal stabilizer reinforcement and not
> much else.

>"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>
>> As I recall, there is a bit of horizontal stabilizer reinforcement and not
>> much else.
>
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:37:07 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote in >:

>The 150/152 were certified in the normal/utility category which, as I
>recall, carries a G rating of 3.8/4.4 positive and 1.52/1.76 negative.
>
>The 150 Aerobat was certified in the aerobatic category which carries a
>+6 -3 G rating.

But, was Vne increased?

Larry Dighera wrote:
> >"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >>>
> >> As I recall, there is a bit of horizontal stabilizer reinforcement and not
> >> much else.
> >
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:37:07 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> > wrote in >:
>
> >The 150/152 were certified in the normal/utility category which, as I
> >recall, carries a G rating of 3.8/4.4 positive and 1.52/1.76 negative.
> >
> >The 150 Aerobat was certified in the aerobatic category which carries a
> >+6 -3 G rating.
>
> But, was Vne increased?

Those limits apply to properly maintained airplanes, not those
that have been neglected, abused or otherwise poorly treated. I've seen
serious corrosion in 150 wings that would have weakened them; the
insides of struts can corrode from condensation; The stabilizer spars
can be cracked by pushing down on the tail to swing the nose around
during ground handling (though the 172 is more prone to that). A failed
stab allows the airplane go instantly go over onto its back and the
wings fail downward a la Bonanza or 210.
Who knows; maybe there was hardware missing. I once came across a
172 that had no nuts on the lower strut attach bolts, and those bolts
were working their way out. There are some real horror stories out
there.
But I would still suspect loss of control and a hard pull-up
when the ground appeared. The usual scenario in the Bonanza/210 crash.

Dan

Must of been scary in that plane.

> wrote

> But I would still suspect loss of control and a hard pull-up
> when the ground appeared. The usual scenario in the Bonanza/210 crash.

Generally, when wreckage is spread over such a wide area, it indicates a
breakup at a much higher altitude, than a pull-up close to the ground.
--
Jim in NC

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Larry,
>
>> Tragic indeed.
>>
>
> Hmm. If indeed it was VFR into IMC and the pilot had obtained his
> certificate only two months prior, that's not the only word that comes
> to mind. And I would have some questions for the CFI.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

And what questions would that be? The Pilot applicant also had to
demonstrate some proficiency of the 180 degree turn while under the hood to
the Examiner. I'm sure all records will be reviewed.

It reminds me of the new teenage driver, all is well in front of family and
the motor vehicle test. But then they feel invincible after a few weeks on
their own.

BT

Btiz,

> And what questions would that be?
>

"What was your impression about the pilot's general attitude towards
risk assessment in flying?" would be one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Emily,

> >
> Speaking as a CFI who once had a student that she dumped for doing
> idiotic stuff, it's not always the CFI's fault.
>

I'm aware of that. I didn't say anything about assigning blame. It
could be at least interesting to learn from the CFI about the general
mindset of the pilot with rgard to flying.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)