Mid-air collision

[flash]

Mid-air collision

http://www.townhall.com/news/us/2007/11/20/small_planes_collide_in_wash;_all_live

Somebdy must have said their prayers before takeof. Three people, no serious
injury or loss of life. Loss of one craft in the bay, the other landed
safely.

Flash

[Harry K]

On Nov 20, 8:57 pm, "flash" > wrote:
> Mid-air collision
>
> http://www.townhall.com/news/us/2007/11/20/small_planes_collide_in_wa...
>
> Somebdy must have said their prayers before takeof. Three people, no serious
> injury or loss of life. Loss of one craft in the bay, the other landed
> safely.
>
> Flash

Paper had a picture of the one that landed - total damage was the rear
end of the wheel pants broken off. Amazing!

Harry K

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:10:05 -0800 (PST), Harry K >
wrote:

> On Nov 20, 8:57 pm, "flash" > wrote:
> > Mid-air collision
> >
> > http://www.townhall.com/news/us/2007/11/20/small_planes_collide_in_wa...
> >
> > Somebdy must have said their prayers before takeof. Three people, no serious
> > injury or loss of life. Loss of one craft in the bay, the other landed
> > safely.
>
> Paper had a picture of the one that landed - total damage was the rear
> end of the wheel pants broken off. Amazing!

A bit more than that...some wrinkled skin on the belly, and one account said the
plane is sitting a little cockeyed on the ground.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004026642_planecrash21m.html

Happened right on one of my usual sightseeing routes. Makes you think....

Ron Wanttaja

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>
> A bit more than that...some wrinkled skin on the belly, and one account
> said the
> plane is sitting a little cockeyed on the ground.
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004026642_planecrash21m.html
>
> Happened right on one of my usual sightseeing routes. Makes you think....


Yeah, I'll bet! Keep those peepers open and looking around, huh?

One thing I have been wondering, is what caused the guy with so little
damage come down out of the sky? It seems like he should have continued to
land at the airport, too.

Am I missing something?
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:10:09 -0500, "Morgans" > wrote:

>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
> >
> > A bit more than that...some wrinkled skin on the belly, and one account
> > said the
> > plane is sitting a little cockeyed on the ground.
> >
> > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004026642_planecrash21m.html
> >
> > Happened right on one of my usual sightseeing routes. Makes you think....
>
> Yeah, I'll bet! Keep those peepers open and looking around, huh?

Interesting thing is, I've had a pass or two in that area, myself. It's sort of
a funnel between the Class D at Tacoma Narrows and the Sea-Tac Class B. Thun
Field (where the Cessna landed) is a very popular destination, and if you're
heading south over Puget Sound on your way there, you're going to go feet dry at
Commencement Bay.

> One thing I have been wondering, is what caused the guy with so little
> damage come down out of the sky? It seems like he should have continued to
> land at the airport, too.
>
> Am I missing something?

Haven't heard, yet, an interview with the pilot who ditched. Witnesses report
the plane circling on the way down. Given full control of the plane, he should
have been able to glide back to dry land or at least immediately offshore rather
than out a ways. There are LOTS of places to set down around Commencement Bay,
*if* you've got control of the aircraft.

If the local media is accurately reporting, the plane ditched towards the
western part of the bay, which is the most urban but still has a
pretty-good-sized park.

(Do 'Commencement Bay' on Google Earth, and you'll see all the wharves and stuff
on the south and east side of the bay. The local media is showing the setdown
point right about where the Google Earth marker for the Bay is.)

I suspect the pilot had difficulty controlling the aircraft in roll/yaw. Sounds
like he had pitch control, as the witnesses report a near-perfect setdown in the
water (tail touched down first). When you consider the Cessna obviously hit the
Citabria with its landing gear, it was slightly higher and probably hit the wing
or vertical tail of the Citabria. By all reports, the guy did a damn good job
setting it down.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:31:32 -0800, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

> ...When you consider the Cessna obviously hit the
> Citabria with its landing gear, it was slightly higher and probably hit the wing
> or vertical tail of the Citabria.

Report on rec.aviation.piloting says the Citabria lost its vertical tail....

Ron Wanttaja

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-21 21:10:09 -0800, "Morgans" > said:

>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>>
>> A bit more than that...some wrinkled skin on the belly, and one account
>> said the
>> plane is sitting a little cockeyed on the ground.
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004026642_planecrash21m.html
>>
>> Happened right on one of my usual sightseeing routes. Makes you think....
>
>
> Yeah, I'll bet! Keep those peepers open and looking around, huh?
>
> One thing I have been wondering, is what caused the guy with so little
> damage come down out of the sky? It seems like he should have continued to
> land at the airport, too.
>
> Am I missing something?

Maybe not, but the Citabria was missing its vertical stabilizer. :-)

The water there was 44 degrees and the 70 year old woman does not swim,
so they were very lucky indeed. The boaters who rescued them got them
out of their wet clothes and wrapped in dry towels immediately, which
probably saved their lives.

As Ron noted, this area is a funnel for east-west traffic. Really, it
is a narrow corridor only a few miles across between McChord's class D,
Tacoma Narrows' class D, and SeaTac and Boeing Field's airspace. The
effect is as if the FAA erected a 40 mile long 10,000 foot high wall
and left this tiny hole through it. They will blame the pilots for
failing to see and avoid, of course, but that will be like some highway
department suddenly narrowing a 16 lane freeway to a single lane and
then blaming all the accidents and congestion on "bad drivers." Come to
think of it, Washington State's DOT is like that...


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Morgans[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote

> Maybe not, but the Citabria was missing its vertical stabilizer. :-)

Well, that makes more sense. The early reports given here said that the
only damage was a dent and bent landing gear.

No fin and rudder would make it more difficult to come out of a spin, I
guess! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
>
>> Maybe not, but the Citabria was missing its vertical stabilizer. :-)
>
> Well, that makes more sense. The early reports given here said that the
> only damage was a dent and bent landing gear.

That was the damage to the Cessna that landed at an airport.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"C J Campbell" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>Maybe not, but the Citabria was missing its vertical stabilizer. :-)
>>
>>Well, that makes more sense. The early reports given here said that the
>>only damage was a dent and bent landing gear.
>
>
> That was the damage to the Cessna that landed at an airport.
>


If the Cessna is claimed to have a "bent landing gear", I'd real quick
go looking at the gear mount area of the fuselage.

That steel leg can take a lot more impact that the aluminum fusleage.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" > wrote
>
> That was the damage to the Cessna that landed at an airport.

Yep, I didn't catch that, the first time around.

I think I've got it now! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"cavelamb himself" <> wrote

> If the Cessna is claimed to have a "bent landing gear", I'd real quick
> go looking at the gear mount area of the fuselage.
>
> That steel leg can take a lot more impact that the aluminum fusleage.

Yep. I would think that it would get a VERY good inspection before it takes
off again. One would hope, anyway.

Who knows. That much damage to the gear may mean enough damage was done to
the fuselage, that it could have to be totaled out.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:26:23 -0600, cavelamb himself >
wrote:

> If the Cessna is claimed to have a "bent landing gear", I'd real quick
> go looking at the gear mount area of the fuselage.
>
> That steel leg can take a lot more impact that the aluminum fusleage.

The newspaper link I posted the other day had a photo that included both the
gear and the fuselage, and there was a definite wrinkle/bend in front of the
gear leg....

Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

On Nov 20, 8:57 pm, "flash" > wrote:
> Mid-air collision
>
> http://www.townhall.com/news/us/2007/11/20/small_planes_collide_in_wa...
>
> Somebdy must have said their prayers before takeof. Three people, no serious
> injury or loss of life. Loss of one craft in the bay, the other landed
> safely.
>
> Flash

I'm thinking a well-answered prayer would have kept the aircraft from
striking each other in the first place. It IS great that nobody was
physically harmed, but I'm sure there was a strong emotional impact.
R

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-22 20:26:23 -0800, cavelamb himself > said:

> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> "C J Campbell" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe not, but the Citabria was missing its vertical stabilizer. :-)
>>>
>>> Well, that makes more sense. The early reports given here said that
>>> the only damage was a dent and bent landing gear.
>>
>>
>> That was the damage to the Cessna that landed at an airport.
>>
>
>
> If the Cessna is claimed to have a "bent landing gear", I'd real quick
> go looking at the gear mount area of the fuselage.
>
> That steel leg can take a lot more impact that the aluminum fusleage.

People who have seen the plane say there is also a nasty dent below the door.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Tri-Pacer]

I question the 182 pilot's decision to go on to Thun rather than Tacoma
Narrows which was close by. He said he didn't remember the freq and his
charts had been scattered. I would have yelled Mayday on 121.5 and landed at
TIW I think.

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
KPLY

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:59:18 -0800, "Tri-Pacer" > wrote:

> I question the 182 pilot's decision to go on to Thun rather than Tacoma
> Narrows which was close by. He said he didn't remember the freq and his
> charts had been scattered. I would have yelled Mayday on 121.5 and landed at
> TIW I think.

Might have been better, might not have been. No doubt any of us, right after a
major event like this, are going to be fairly rattled.

One way to handle this is sticking with routine, as well as you're able. While
I fly in the accident area all the time, I've landed at Tacoma Narrows airport
precisely once in twenty years. Given an emergency situation where the aircraft
was apparently still controllable and showing no distress, my preference would
be to land at an airport I'm more familiar with. It may have been the case with
the accident pilot.

Other factors may have come to mind, like feeling that repairs/support might be
easier to easier to access at Thun (having friends there, having used the shops
located there, etc.). It's certainly takes a far second place to any safety
considerations, but once it looks like the plane will hold together, it's
something that'll cross any owner's mind.

I once discovered a bad magneto during runup on a nearby island airport. I
could have left the plane there (not having any tiedowns along nor the cockpit
cover, on a near-abandoned public strip), hitched a ride to the ferry terminal,
caught a ferry, rode to the mainland, ordered a new magneto, waited for it to
arrive, then brought an A&P across on the ferry to install the new mag (never
having timed an aircraft before...), then wave tootles to the A&P for him to
drive back while I flew the plane home.

Instead, I cranked up the airplane, climbed to the highest legal altitude over
the island, crossed the two-mile stretch of water to the mainland, and landed
back at my home field about ten minutes later.

I'm not proud of it, but I think given the same circumstances, I'd probably do
it again.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:23:37 -0800, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:59:18 -0800, "Tri-Pacer" > wrote:
>
> > I question the 182 pilot's decision to go on to Thun rather than Tacoma
> > Narrows which was close by. He said he didn't remember the freq and his
> > charts had been scattered. I would have yelled Mayday on 121.5 and landed at
> > TIW I think.
>
> Might have been better, might not have been. No doubt any of us, right after a
> major event like this, are going to be fairly rattled.
>
> One way to handle this is sticking with routine, as well as you're able. While
> I fly in the accident area all the time, I've landed at Tacoma Narrows airport
> precisely once in twenty years. Given an emergency situation where the aircraft
> was apparently still controllable and showing no distress, my preference would
> be to land at an airport I'm more familiar with. It may have been the case with
> the accident pilot.

More data garnered at EAA tonight: The 182 pilot indeed flew to Thun instead of
Tacoma Narrows because he wasn't familiar with the Tacoma Narrows airport.

Also, he stayed in the area as the Citabria went down, transmitting a Mayday on
121.5. He kept circling until the pilot and passenger had been rescued. By
then, you can figure he was pretty confident in the condition of the Cessna and
flying an extra five minutes to reach his preferred field wasn't a risk. I
don't disagree with his decision.

Ron Wanttaja

[Scott[_1_]]

Plus, he was pilot in command of his ship so the decision was his alone.
I think he did a great job! We all can play the "what if" game, but
since everyone is OK, no need to play the what if scenario. Just glad
everyone is OK. Weren't so lucky here this weekend...a fellow classmate
from the University of WI Stout perished in a plane crash this past
Sunday. She was 19. All four aboard died in Faribault, MN when they
crashed on landing at the airport :( No details yet...

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)



Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:23:37 -0800, Ron Wanttaja >
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:59:18 -0800, "Tri-Pacer" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I question the 182 pilot's decision to go on to Thun rather than Tacoma
>>>Narrows which was close by. He said he didn't remember the freq and his
>>>charts had been scattered. I would have yelled Mayday on 121.5 and landed at
>>>TIW I think.
>>
>>Might have been better, might not have been. No doubt any of us, right after a
>>major event like this, are going to be fairly rattled.
>>
>>One way to handle this is sticking with routine, as well as you're able. While
>>I fly in the accident area all the time, I've landed at Tacoma Narrows airport
>>precisely once in twenty years. Given an emergency situation where the aircraft
>>was apparently still controllable and showing no distress, my preference would
>>be to land at an airport I'm more familiar with. It may have been the case with
>>the accident pilot.
>
>
> More data garnered at EAA tonight: The 182 pilot indeed flew to Thun instead of
> Tacoma Narrows because he wasn't familiar with the Tacoma Narrows airport.
>
> Also, he stayed in the area as the Citabria went down, transmitting a Mayday on
> 121.5. He kept circling until the pilot and passenger had been rescued. By
> then, you can figure he was pretty confident in the condition of the Cessna and
> flying an extra five minutes to reach his preferred field wasn't a risk. I
> don't disagree with his decision.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

--