plane crashed on takeoff attempt after emergency landing

[Toks Desalu]

http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4038264

I found this link in alt.binaries.multimedia.aviation. I thought you guys
should see this. After seeing this clip, I wonder why the pilot would begin
a takeoff rollout with all the vehicles on the side of road. The risk factor
would cut down enormously if you ask those vehicles to move away.

Comments?

Toks Desalu
PP-ASEL
Dyin' to Soar

[George Patterson]

Toks Desalu wrote:

> After seeing this clip, I wonder why the pilot would begin
> a takeoff rollout with all the vehicles on the side of road.

He was stupid enough to run the plane out of gas and you wonder that he's still
stupid after they fill it up again?

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Dave Stadt]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Ttr8f.21$UW5.16@trndny09...
> Toks Desalu wrote:
>
> > After seeing this clip, I wonder why the pilot would begin
> > a takeoff rollout with all the vehicles on the side of road.
>
> He was stupid enough to run the plane out of gas and you wonder that he's
still
> stupid after they fill it up again?
>
> George Patterson
> Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
neighbor.
> It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Don't most insurance policies provide disassembly, removal and reassembly
for situations like this to prevent situations like this? My policy is in
the safe but I am pretty sure it does.

[Robert M. Gary]

Sadily, I don't think this is the only video of the same thing. :(

-Robert

[Ben Smith]

> Comments?

Wholly smokes.

[Wallace Berry]

In article <4er8f.26$kj6.17@trndny03>,
"Toks Desalu" > wrote:

> http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4038264

You'd a thunk he would have heard the old saw "No such thing as an
emergency takeoff".

A friend who used to run a flight school had a renter total a 152 pretty
much the same way. Landed on a road due to "engine trouble" then tried
to take off again. Clipped a sign and proceeded into the woods.

[Potato Chip]

holy smokes, this guy is deep in the hole now.

i doubt insurance will cover any of the damage. totalled airplane,
damage to the truck, damage to the fire engine, and towing.

that is one hell of an expensive golf outing.

jae

[kontiki]

Toks Desalu wrote:
>
> Comments?

A safe pilot would have walked down the takeoff route carefully
measuring the distance and the side to side clearances. Both the
emergency landing and the collision on takeoff were preventable.

My comment is only to seriously question the judgement of the pilot.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>
> Toks Desalu wrote:
>>
>> Comments?
>
> A safe pilot would have walked down the takeoff route carefully
> measuring the distance and the side to side clearances. Both the
> emergency landing and the collision on takeoff were preventable.
>
> My comment is only to seriously question the judgement of the pilot.
>

A question that the FAA will likely ask.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Potato Chip" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> holy smokes, this guy is deep in the hole now.
>
> i doubt insurance will cover any of the damage. totalled airplane,
> damage to the truck, damage to the fire engine, and towing.
>

Why? If the guy has insurance, he's covered. Same as if you wreck your
(insured) car while driving drunk, without a license, doing the nasty with
under-age prostitutes, taking pot shots out the window with your illegal
machine gun, and transporting a trunk full of mary-jane..

You'd have a heck of a time getting the *next* policy underwritten, but your
current policy is in effect...

KB

[Happy Dog]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message

> Why? If the guy has insurance, he's covered. Same as if you wreck your
> (insured) car while driving drunk, without a license, doing the nasty with
> under-age prostitutes, taking pot shots out the window with your illegal
> machine gun, and transporting a trunk full of mary-jane..
>
> You'd have a heck of a time getting the *next* policy underwritten, but
> your current policy is in effect...

You'd better read yours carefully. AFAIK, standard auto policies don't
cover losses incurred during the commission of a serious crime.

moo

[Gary Drescher]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>
>> Why? If the guy has insurance, he's covered. Same as if you wreck your
>> (insured) car while driving drunk, without a license, doing the nasty
>> with under-age prostitutes, taking pot shots out the window with your
>> illegal machine gun, and transporting a trunk full of mary-jane..
>>
>> You'd have a heck of a time getting the *next* policy underwritten, but
>> your current policy is in effect...
>
> You'd better read yours carefully. AFAIK, standard auto policies don't
> cover losses incurred during the commission of a serious crime.

Same with aviation policies, and the crime doesn't have to be serious. My
AOPA/AIG policy, for instance, doesn't cover any damage that arises while
the plane is used with my knowledge and consent for any unlawful purpose.

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

> > My comment is only to seriously question the judgement of the pilot.
>
> A question that the FAA will likely ask.

We can only hope so.

I feel sorry for the guy, but, man, there's really no excuse for what
he did.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Happy Dog]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in

>> You'd better read yours carefully. AFAIK, standard auto policies don't
>> cover losses incurred during the commission of a serious crime.
>
> Same with aviation policies, and the crime doesn't have to be serious. My
> AOPA/AIG policy, for instance, doesn't cover any damage that arises while
> the plane is used with my knowledge and consent for any unlawful purpose.

Yeah. I just wanted to make some distinction there. I don't know exactly
what level of crime loses your claim. You meant, of course, that your
"knowledge and consent" was given only for the lawful use of the plane.
You're still SOL if there's a loss while the person who had your consent
uses it in the commission of a crime. It isn't uncommon for parents to have
a child charged with unlawful use of their automobile, or for friends to
have other friends charged, to receive compensation for damage resulting
from a DWI incident. And don't even think about asking Customs for your car
or plane back if someone rents or borrows it to transport something illegal
across the border and gets caught.

moo

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I feel sorry for the guy, but, man, there's really no excuse for what
> he did.

True enough. At the very least he should have sought the opinion of
an experienced pilot familiar with the 210 as to the feasability
and safety of such a take off.

As a relatively low time pilot he probably should have paid an experienced
commercial pilot to fly it out to the nearest airport instead of
risking his families safety like that. I do feel sorry for the guy
to but not much.

[[email protected]]

KB
I'll bet you the policy mentions "...or operations not on an approved
runway..." etc, etc. I looked at the clip a few times and the guy
really screwed up from the time he failed to put enough fuel in his
airplane to start with. That is enough to take his policy into court
having already violated the FAR's by no fuel.
Nope, he is going to be nearly bankrupt behind this one and all the
damages.
Ol Shy & Bashful

[Matt Whiting]

kontiki wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> I feel sorry for the guy, but, man, there's really no excuse for what
>> he did.
>
>
> True enough. At the very least he should have sought the opinion of
> an experienced pilot familiar with the 210 as to the feasability
> and safety of such a take off.

How would that have helped him not hit a truck and ambulance? That was
just plain stupidity, nothing to do with the inherent danger of making a
takeoff from that road. Not asking to have the emergency vehicles
moved was simply stupid.


Matt

[Judah]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in
:

> Why? If the guy has insurance, he's covered. Same as if you wreck
> your (insured) car while driving drunk, without a license, doing the
> nasty with under-age prostitutes, taking pot shots out the window with
> your illegal machine gun, and transporting a trunk full of mary-jane..

I can relate to all of your other examples. But I have a problem with one.
While I'm doing the nasty with under-age prostitutes, the car is in park. I
just don't see how one could total the car in such a scenario. Ruin the
apholstery, maybe. But not total it...

[kontiki]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> How would that have helped him not hit a truck and ambulance? That was
> just plain stupidity, nothing to do with the inherent danger of making a
> takeoff from that road. Not asking to have the emergency vehicles
> moved was simply stupid.

I agree... but you are making my point. I never said that that taking off
from a road was inherently dangerous, although most roads (other than
interstate highways) typically can have obstacles (i.e. light poles, etc.)
to be concerned with that make steering the plane down the center especially
important.... less room for error than your typical runway.

My point was that he was obviously incapable of making a proper judgement
about that so perhaps someone more experienced would have unsisted on
clearing out all the vehicles before attempting the take off, I certainly
would have.

[Matt Whiting]

kontiki wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> How would that have helped him not hit a truck and ambulance? That
>> was just plain stupidity, nothing to do with the inherent danger of
>> making a takeoff from that road. Not asking to have the emergency
>> vehicles moved was simply stupid.
>
>
> I agree... but you are making my point. I never said that that taking off
> from a road was inherently dangerous, although most roads (other than
> interstate highways) typically can have obstacles (i.e. light poles, etc.)
> to be concerned with that make steering the plane down the center
> especially
> important.... less room for error than your typical runway.
>
> My point was that he was obviously incapable of making a proper judgement
> about that so perhaps someone more experienced would have unsisted on
> clearing out all the vehicles before attempting the take off, I certainly
> would have.

My point is that asking a more experienced pilot for advice wasn't
required as the advice he needed had nothing to do with flying and had
more to do with simply having a brain. My guess most of the bystanders
could have told him that he should have the vehicles moved. This isn't
aviation, this is simply physics. The wings were too long for the space
apparently availabe. I say apparently because looking at the video it
wasn't obvious to me that he was as far to the left as he could have
been. Another two feet probably would have made the difference. This
guy obviously doesn't have the IQ to be flying.


Matt

[Gary Drescher]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>
>>> You'd better read yours carefully. AFAIK, standard auto policies don't
>>> cover losses incurred during the commission of a serious crime.
>>
>> Same with aviation policies, and the crime doesn't have to be serious. My
>> AOPA/AIG policy, for instance, doesn't cover any damage that arises while
>> the plane is used with my knowledge and consent for any unlawful purpose.
>
> Yeah. I just wanted to make some distinction there. I don't know exactly
> what level of crime loses your claim. You meant, of course, that your
> "knowledge and consent" was given only for the lawful use of the plane.
> You're still SOL if there's a loss while the person who had your consent
> uses it in the commission of a crime.

Actually, the wording seems ambiguous in that regard. It says there's no
coverage when the plane is "operated with your knowledge and consent for...
an unlawful purpose". I think that's most naturally read to mean that the
unlawful purpose has to be with my knowledge and consent. But it could be
argued that it just means that the plane is operated with my knowledge and
consent, and that the plane was operated for an unlawful purpose.

--Gary

[Stubby]

kontiki wrote:
>
> Toks Desalu wrote:
>
>>
>> Comments?
>
>
> A safe pilot would have walked down the takeoff route carefully
> measuring the distance and the side to side clearances. Both the
> emergency landing and the collision on takeoff were preventable.
>
> My comment is only to seriously question the judgement of the pilot.
>

Right. He broke the Basic Rule of Flying: Don't Hit Anything.

[Gary Drescher]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> I feel sorry for the guy, but, man, there's really no excuse for what
>> he did.
>
> True enough. At the very least he should have sought the opinion of
> an experienced pilot familiar with the 210 as to the feasability
> and safety of such a take off.
>
> As a relatively low time pilot he probably should have paid an experienced
> commercial pilot to fly it out to the nearest airport instead of
> risking his families safety like that.

What indication is there that he's a low time pilot? It's possible, but
according to the FAA database he's had an instrument rating for at least ten
years.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> kontiki wrote:
>> My point was that he was obviously incapable of making a proper judgement
>> about that so perhaps someone more experienced would have unsisted on
>> clearing out all the vehicles before attempting the take off, I certainly
>> would have.
>
> My point is that asking a more experienced pilot for advice wasn't
> required as the advice he needed had nothing to do with flying and had
> more to do with simply having a brain. My guess most of the bystanders
> could have told him that he should have the vehicles moved.

In fact, they say they did try to tell him--they waved for him to wait when
they saw him start the engine.

--Gary

[Jonathan]

Toks Desalu wrote:

> http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4038264
>
> I found this link in alt.binaries.multimedia.aviation. I thought you guys
> should see this. After seeing this clip, I wonder why the pilot would begin
> a takeoff rollout with all the vehicles on the side of road. The risk factor
> would cut down enormously if you ask those vehicles to move away.

I saw something like this at a recent AOPA seminar. A pilot made a successful
off airport landing due to excessive air in the fuel tanks. They obtained fuel
from a nearby private field, put some in their C-150 and the two of them took
off. Because their off airport landing had attracted some attention, there was
video shot of the take off. The plane took off, but the roadway was far too
short for a C-150 on a summer day and two people aboard to clear the tree
obstacles at the end of the "runway." Neither was badly hurt but the airplane
was destroyed.

[Happy Dog]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>> Yeah. I just wanted to make some distinction there. I don't know
>> exactly what level of crime loses your claim. You meant, of course, that
>> your "knowledge and consent" was given only for the lawful use of the
>> plane. You're still SOL if there's a loss while the person who had your
>> consent uses it in the commission of a crime.
>
> Actually, the wording seems ambiguous in that regard. It says there's no
> coverage when the plane is "operated with your knowledge and consent
> for... an unlawful purpose". I think that's most naturally read to mean
> that the unlawful purpose has to be with my knowledge and consent. But it
> could be argued that it just means that the plane is operated with my
> knowledge and consent, and that the plane was operated for an unlawful
> purpose.

In fact, the latter is true for motor vehicles, maybe bicycles too. So it
probably applies to planes, boats, ATVs, etc. If you loan your vehicle to
someone and, with or without your knowledge, it's involved in certain types
of crime, your insurer won't willingly pay. And, I suspect, the test of the
definition of "crime" becomes looser with the enormity of the claim. I know
of one case where a body shop owner wasn't paid for loss of property when a
loaner vehicle was involved in an accident that resulted in criminal
negligence charges against the driver. I don't know if there was any
liability claim paid out by his insurer or if they subsequently sued him for
it. Insurers, obviously, have plenty of motivation to aggressively deny any
claim that their policy gives them a chance to litigate. And, in my
experience, they do.

A few years ago, I was walking down a quiet residential street in downtown
Toronto when I saw an SUV with major damage to the front pull up at an
intersection next to me. It had obviously just been involved in a major
shunt and was barely drivable. The fender was pressing so hard against the
tire that it could barely maneuver and smoke from the friction billowed from
the front when it moved. I phoned the police and gave a description of the
vehicle and driver (a young Asian male). The investigating officer called
me a week later and told me that they were pretty sure that they knew who
the driver was (and there was an accident and injury involved) but the kid's
mother said she was driving. Why? Who knows? But, if I testified, I
couldn't positively identify the driver (it was dark) but if I was sure that
it was a young man, and not an old lady, which I was, then the prosecutor
wouldn't proceed with charges. And that was the end of it. No charges,
insurance pays. Another cop told me that it's remarkably easy to get away
with a hit and run if nobody can positively ID the driver and the owner
claims that he loaned the vehicle to someone but doesn't know where they
live and hasn't seen them since.

Anyway, back to the idiot who's the topic of the thread, he's double ****ed.
I can't imagine explaining this one to the wife. How long was it after the
landing that he attempted to take off? Traumatic experiences, like an
emergency landing, tend to screw up people's ability to think for a period
afterward. I once saw a new pilot park on a restricted air ambulance ramp
next to the flight school hangar. I'd just landed myself and the conditions
were really challenging. I told him he should move it and he said that he'd
just had a really bad landing and was a bit pumped up and parked in the
wrong place by mistake. I laughed and told him I'd almost done exactly the
same thing when I was a student; and helped him push the plane next door.
I'm not making any excuses for this moron, but I suspect that his, already
questionable, judgment abilities were further diminished by the preceding
screw-up.

moo

[Gary Drescher]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> How long was it after the landing that he attempted to take off?
> Traumatic experiences, like an emergency landing, tend to screw up
> people's ability to think for a period afterward.

The emergency landing was on Wednesday, and the attempted takeoff was
Thursday afternoon.

--Gary

[Ron Lee]

kontiki > wrote:
>
>> I feel sorry for the guy, but, man, there's really no excuse for what
>> he did.

I don't feel sorry. That was gross incompetence, poor judgement and
downright stupidity. The idiot likely contributed to raising our
insurance premiums.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

kontiki > wrote:

>My point was that he was obviously incapable of making a proper judgement
>about that so perhaps someone more experienced would have unsisted on
>clearing out all the vehicles before attempting the take off, I certainly
>would have.
>
How many brain cells are needed to ensure that your take-off path is
clear of obstructions?

Ron Lee

[Morgans]

"Ron Lee" > wrote

> How many brain cells are needed to ensure that your take-off path is
> clear of obstructions?

One more than you need to keep from running out of gas. Does that answer
you question?

The person in this incident obviously had a couple fewer <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Happy Dog]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>> How long was it after the landing that he attempted to take off?
>> Traumatic experiences, like an emergency landing, tend to screw up
>> people's ability to think for a period afterward.
>
> The emergency landing was on Wednesday, and the attempted takeoff was
> Thursday afternoon.

One less excuse then. FWIW, in Canada:

The Ontario Highway Traffic Act says:

When an aircraft has landed on a highway because of an emergency related to
the
operation of the aircraft, the aircraft may take off from the highway
provided,

(a) a commercial licensed pilot, not being the owner of the aircraft, who is
qualified to fly that class and category of aircraft, and the pilot in
command
of the aircraft are both satisfied that the aircraft is airworthy and that
there are no physical obstructions on or over the highway which would make
such
take-off unsafe;

(b) the pilot in command of the aircraft is satisfied that weather
conditions
are satisfactory for the purpose and that the minimum requirements are met
under the visual flight rules established by the regulations made under the
Aeronautics Act (Canada) or, if the flight is to be continued under
instrument
flight rules, that adequate arrangements can be made for obtaining a
clearance
from an air traffic control unit prior to entering instrument flight weather
conditions;

(c) traffic control is provided by the appropriate police force;

(d) the police force consents to the take-off.

Similar rules there? Another pilot might have been helpful.

m

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> Similar rules there? Another pilot might have been helpful.

One competent pilot would have been sufficient.

Matt

[Aluckyguess]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Potato Chip" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> holy smokes, this guy is deep in the hole now.
>>
>> i doubt insurance will cover any of the damage. totalled airplane,
>> damage to the truck, damage to the fire engine, and towing.
>>
>
> Why? If the guy has insurance, he's covered. Same as if you wreck your
> (insured) car while driving drunk, without a license, doing the nasty with
> under-age prostitutes, taking pot shots out the window with your illegal
> machine gun, and transporting a trunk full of mary-jane..
>
> You'd have a heck of a time getting the *next* policy underwritten, but
> your current policy is in effect...
>
> KB
>
>
Nope Car insurance is different. He was covered on the landing because it
was an emergency, but he wasnt covered on the take off unless he had
insurance for off airport take off and landings. He should of let the toe
truck take it.
If your drunk and crash your not covered. Ask your agent.
>
>

[Newps]

Aluckyguess wrote:

>>
>
> Nope Car insurance is different. He was covered on the landing because it
> was an emergency, but he wasnt covered on the take off unless he had
> insurance for off airport take off and landings.



It is the odd and rare policy that would list off airport operations as
not covered for an aircraft such as a 210.