Accident report on the midair at Tenino

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:58:32 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

The raw radar returns (tapes) had them both at approx. 3500 msl.
As I recall, the weather was fairly decent that day (I was up/
flying in the general vicinity that day).

Bela P. Havasreti

"Karl Treier" wrote in message
.. .
OK on that heading shouldn't you be at Even + 500' for VFR? Amazing that
the CG was not shifted aft so far as to make it impossible to pitch down.

It appears that both planes were below 3000' AGL. Although Tenino is at
about 300' the surrounding terrain pokes up over 1000.' It is a favorite
area for instructors to demonstrate to students how rising terrain can meet
lowering clouds, since such conditions can be found there very frequently.
In fact, that is where my instructor taught me about CFIT when I was a
student. Reading the accident report it appears that both planes may have
had their altitude restricted by low clouds, which is pretty much a normal
state of affairs around here. The report notes that neither pilot was using
flight following. It does not say that flight following might well have not
been available in that area and that altitude. Radio reception out there is
spotty at best. I almost always lose both radio and radar contact somewhere
in the area south of SCOOT, even though I am flying a published IFR approach
and on an IFR flight plan.

The other thing is that from that area north there is a lot of flight
training going on, with airplanes constantly maneuvering, climbing,
descending, and practicing IFR maneuvers with one pilot under the hood. It
is just inside the 15 DME arc for the VOR/DME approach into Olympia and near
the final approach course and not all that far from the published holding
pattern for the missed approaches into Olympia. There are likely to be two
or three planes flying these approaches at any one time. Consequently there
are so many airplanes flying at odd altitudes and odd directions that for
all practical purposes the VFR altitude rules might as well not exist. For
that matter, these have to be the most widely ignored regulations in the
country, especially in the West.

You have to keep a sharp eye out. Sometimes even that is not enough.

I have always been told that it is impossible to pitch down if your engine
comes off. You will pitch up, stall, and die. That is what I have always
been told. I guess in a 170, at least, that is not true. I would guess that
the engine weighs about 270 lbs. with accessories and sits about 20 inches
forward of the datum. He also lost the prop and part of the cowl. The 170 is
a tailwheel airplane, so landing gear would be unaffected. (Now there is an
interesting argument in favor of tailwheel airplanes -- if your engine falls
off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
weight might improve your glide significantly.

He probably would not even have nosed over if he hadn't hit the trees and
power line.

Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
someone too foolish to fly with.

Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
consider mandatory) flying aid?


I like to fly low, and that is often below radar coverage, so sometimes flight
following is not an option.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:48:12 -0400, "John Harlow"
wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:
Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
Amazing that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:

"...neither aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic
control radar
services at the time of the collision."

What a shame.

I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
someone too foolish to fly with.

Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
consider mandatory) flying aid?


I'll try to be nice and say you are welcome to consider getting
flight following services "mandatory" whenever you fly.

My personal opinion, is that primary see & avoid techniques
are not being adequately taught these days, and (perhaps?)
too much emphasis is put on relying on systems (radios,
flight following, etc.).

I think there are a lot of pilots out there who climb to cruise
altitude, never "clearing" the airspace in front of them with gentle
5-10 degree turns one way & then the other. Same thing with
descending from cruise altitude. They just lower the nose and drive
straight to the intended airport.

I also think there are a lot of pilots out there who cruise along to
their destination, never lifting (or lowering, for you bottom wingers)
a wing & then the other while scanning the entire viewable horizon
looking for other traffic.

I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

Of course, this mid-air could also have been avoided if at least
one pilot had been getting advisories. But always remember
that there are plenty of mid-air collisions on record where both
aircraft were in contact with ATC.

Bela P. Havasreti

John Harlow wrote:

Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get
flight following as someone too foolish to fly with.

Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what
I consider mandatory) flying aid?

Wow. That's quite an indictment. I don't question your choice of
requesting flight following and I highly recommend the practice for cross
country flights (especially over less populated areas). However, I don't
see a particular problem with heading to airport, holding up a wet finger
and "going thattaway" just for the fun of it.

The shame here is that neither pilot did an effective job of "see and
avoid".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________

The accident site is JUST at the border of where one would get a traffic
alert from the new Garmin TIS system.

Karl
N185KG

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:58:32 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

The raw radar returns (tapes) had them both at approx. 3500 msl.
As I recall, the weather was fairly decent that day (I was up/
flying in the general vicinity that day).

Bela P. Havasreti

"Karl Treier" wrote in message
.. .
OK on that heading shouldn't you be at Even + 500' for VFR? Amazing
that
the CG was not shifted aft so far as to make it impossible to pitch
down.

It appears that both planes were below 3000' AGL. Although Tenino is at
about 300' the surrounding terrain pokes up over 1000.' It is a favorite
area for instructors to demonstrate to students how rising terrain can
meet
lowering clouds, since such conditions can be found there very
frequently.
In fact, that is where my instructor taught me about CFIT when I was a
student. Reading the accident report it appears that both planes may have
had their altitude restricted by low clouds, which is pretty much a
normal
state of affairs around here. The report notes that neither pilot was
using
flight following. It does not say that flight following might well have
not
been available in that area and that altitude. Radio reception out there
is
spotty at best. I almost always lose both radio and radar contact
somewhere
in the area south of SCOOT, even though I am flying a published IFR
approach
and on an IFR flight plan.

The other thing is that from that area north there is a lot of flight
training going on, with airplanes constantly maneuvering, climbing,
descending, and practicing IFR maneuvers with one pilot under the hood.
It
is just inside the 15 DME arc for the VOR/DME approach into Olympia and
near
the final approach course and not all that far from the published holding
pattern for the missed approaches into Olympia. There are likely to be
two
or three planes flying these approaches at any one time. Consequently
there
are so many airplanes flying at odd altitudes and odd directions that for
all practical purposes the VFR altitude rules might as well not exist.
For
that matter, these have to be the most widely ignored regulations in the
country, especially in the West.

You have to keep a sharp eye out. Sometimes even that is not enough.

I have always been told that it is impossible to pitch down if your
engine
comes off. You will pitch up, stall, and die. That is what I have always
been told. I guess in a 170, at least, that is not true. I would guess
that
the engine weighs about 270 lbs. with accessories and sits about 20
inches
forward of the datum. He also lost the prop and part of the cowl. The 170
is
a tailwheel airplane, so landing gear would be unaffected. (Now there is
an
interesting argument in favor of tailwheel airplanes -- if your engine
falls
off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
weight might improve your glide significantly.

He probably would not even have nosed over if he hadn't hit the trees and
power line.

"kage" wrote in message
...

The accident site is JUST at the border of where one would get a traffic
alert from the new Garmin TIS system.


Eh? Why does the location make a difference?

Jay Honeck wrote:

How can this be?

Just goes to show: "Never stop flying the airplane."

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John Harlow" wrote:
...I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic
advisories, and
it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my
instructors
ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't
you
know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight
following as
someone too foolish to fly with.
...

Then there's a lot foolish pilots around where I fly. I won't argue
against FF in really busy airspace in bad haze, but in general there's
no 100% assurance you'll get advisories on primary targets nor a
callout of a nonparticipant putting out inaccurate Mode C. The only
safe time to more than glance at a map is while IFR in solid. Of only
2 close calls I've ever had, one involved a military transport
Approach never called about; the other was with a CFI with both us
bozos staring at the panel and discussing same.

If you download the actual NTSB databases, a search on the mid-air
collision field will show, away from the traffic pattern, they are
rare events, and there's years where none have occurred. That's about
30 million flight hours annually.

Fred F.

I'll try to be nice and say you are welcome to consider getting
flight following services "mandatory" whenever you fly.

Thank you. In my opinion it is a safety feature as important as a weather
briefing.

My personal opinion, is that primary see & avoid techniques
are not being adequately taught these days, and (perhaps?)
too much emphasis is put on relying on systems (radios,
flight following, etc.).

My personal opinion is habitual use of ATC is not being adequately taught
these days. My instructors would announce us leaving the pattern then
essentially turn the radio off. With panicky government regulations, moron
pilots busting TFRs and increased air traffic, the need to communicate grows
every day. It is not a *substitute* for "see and avoid"; rather a
complement.

Anyone who thinks this could never be them is probably fooling themselves.

-Robert

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...[i]
Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area. Amazing
that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:


NTSB Identification: SEA04FA083B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 16, 2004 in Tenino, WA
Aircraft: Cessna 210J, registration: N3329S
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Minor.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed.

On May 16, 2004, approximately 2040 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 170B,
N3510D, and a Cessna 210J, N3329S, collided in flight approximately five
nautical miles southeast of Tenino, Washington. The Cessna 170B had departed
Roseburg, Oregon, and was en route to the Wax Orchards Airport, Vashon
Island, Washington. The Cessna 210J had departed Camas, Washington, and was
en route to Paine Field, Everett, Washington. There was one occupant onboard
each aircraft. The pilot of the Cessna 210J, a certificated commercial
pilot, sustained fatal injuries while the certificated private pilot of the
Cessna 170B sustained minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed and both aircraft were operated under 14 CFR Part 91 regulations.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), both pilots received
weather briefings but neither pilot filed a flight plan, and neither
aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic control radar
services at the time of the collision.

The pilot of the Cessna 170B reported that he was level at 3,500 feet mean
sea level and had just changed his heading from 350 degrees to 318 degrees.
The pilot stated, "I was looking down at my map as part of this 'normal
scan' that I do when the collision occurred." The pilot stated, "I never saw
the other airplane." The pilot further stated that the aircraft pitched down
and went into an uncommanded left turn, requiring him to stabilize the angle
of bank by holding full right aileron. The pilot reported that he then
realized that the engine had come off the airplane, but he was still able to
maintain the nose down attitude and keep his speed up. The pilot further
reported that he then attempted to move the elevator and rudder enough to
see if they were responsive, which they were. The pilot stated that as the
airplane continued in the left turn through a southerly heading to an
easterly heading he saw what appeared to be parts of "something" falling out
of the sky below him. The pilot said, "...that's when I thought I'd been hit
by another airplane." The pilot reported that as he proceeded turning and
losing altitude rapidly, he picked out a field where he thought he could
land. The pilot said, "I moved the flap handle a little to see how much they
moved, and when I saw they worked I decided to add some flap to reduce my
speed as I approached the field." The pilot stated that he then applied
right rudder to raise the left wing before "clipping" the tops of some trees
and going through one power line wire which bordered the field on the south.
The pilot stated that after the airplane impacted the ground and came to
rest, he immediately exited the airplane and sought help at a nearby house.
The aircraft had come to rest in an inverted position on a magnetic heading
of 120 degrees. There was no post impact fire.

A witness, who is also a private pilot and the owner of the property where
the Cessna 210J came to rest, reported that while in his house he heard an
airplane flying around, prompting him to go outside to see what it was. The
witness stated that he looked up and thought he heard airplanes overhead,
then saw the two accident aircraft coming together. The witness further
stated, " saw them about 5 to 8 seconds before they hit. Both were
straight and level. Neither took evasive action in any way." The witness
stated that one was heading north and the other one was heading northeast
when he saw them hit and parts started coming at him. The witness further
stated that after the parts hit the ground he looked up again and saw "the
silver aircraft" gliding north without an engine before it went out of sight
over some trees.

The Cessna 170B's engine was located approximately one-half mile southwest
of where the aircraft came to rest. The airplane's right cabin door and left
lower cowling were found approximately three-quarters of a mile south of
this location.

The Cessna 210J's engine, propeller, and main cabin area were located
approximately one-quarter of a mile south of where the Cessna 170B came to
rest. The wing was located approximately 400 feet south of the main cabin
area, and the airplane's tail section was discovered in a thick brush area
one-half mile south of the main cabin.

At 2031, a special aviation surface weather observation taken at the Olympia
Airport, Olympia, Washington, located 11 nautical miles northwest of the
collision reported wind 220 degrees at 5 knots, visibility 10 statute miles,
broken clouds at 2,600 feet, overcast clouds at 4,900 feet, temperature 12
degrees C, dew point 7 degrees C, and an altimeter of 30.03 inches of
Mercury.