CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK

http://www.wfaa.com/video/?z=y&nvid=245640
First Video: Improbable crash at Roanoke airport
May 15th, 2008

A small plane has landed on top of another aircraft as it was waiting
to take off at Northwest Regional Airport in Roanoke. These are first
pictures from HD Chopper 8.
Read the full story:
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw...103382c61.html

On May 19, 2:38*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
http://www.wfaa.com/video/?z=y&nvid=245640
First Video: Improbable crash at Roanoke airport
May 15th, 2008

A small plane has landed on top of another aircraft as it was waiting
to take off at Northwest Regional Airport in Roanoke. These are first
pictures from HD Chopper 8.
Read the full story:http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw...tories/wfaa080...

I can see a check ride in the future for the Cherokee pilot...

denny

Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
Lou

Lou wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
:

Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
Lou

it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them from
the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an accident. You
carry your own roll cage around with you.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Lou wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
:

Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
Lou

it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them from
the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an accident. You
carry your own roll cage around with you.


Bertie


Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a
coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable
dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee are
much better. :-)

Frank Olson wrote in
news:dMYYj.157252$Cj7.137901@pd7urf2no:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Lou wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
:

Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
Lou

it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them
from the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an
accident. You carry your own roll cage around with you.


Bertie


Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a
coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable
dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee are
much better. :-)


Not statistically.


BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in control.


Bertie

On Tue, 20 May 2008 04:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Denny
wrote:

I can see a check ride in the future for the Cherokee pilot...

My money is on the Stinson, or both.

This will do nothing to settle the low wing vs high wing argument,
will it?

What puzzles me is I'd have thought the Stinson had to be on the
runway well ahead of the Piper, and although the Piper had right of
way shouldn't the other airplane have been visible? The runway may
have had the same color intensity as the Stinson, but it was a
different hue.

A slow airplane accelerating for take off, and a faster one
decelerating for landing, it takes just an awful set of circumstances
where the two paths converge at the same time on the runway.

Most times at uncontrolled airports we visit or use, the airplanes
waiting to take off usually are facing the downwind direction, or are
at least parked 45 degrees toward the incoming traffic for improved
visibility. Is that not common?


On May 20, 12:09 pm, B A R R Y
wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 04:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Denny
wrote:



I can see a check ride in the future for the Cherokee pilot...

My money is on the Stinson, or both.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT), Tina
wrote in
:

Most times at uncontrolled airports we visit or use, the airplanes
waiting to take off usually are facing the downwind direction, or are
at least parked 45 degrees toward the incoming traffic for improved
visibility. Is that not common?

If I recall correctly, there were a line of trees at the airport
boundary that may have obscured the aircraft from each other. But
aircraft that decline to participate in broadcasting their positions
on CTAF at uncontrolled fields are hazards. I have no idea if radio
communications were being used by either of the two aircraft involved
in this mishap.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT), Tina
wrote:

This will do nothing to settle the low wing vs high wing argument,
will it?

What puzzles me is I'd have thought the Stinson had to be on the
runway well ahead of the Piper, and although the Piper had right of
way shouldn't the other airplane have been visible? The runway may
have had the same color intensity as the Stinson, but it was a
different hue.

A slow airplane accelerating for take off, and a faster one
decelerating for landing, it takes just an awful set of circumstances
where the two paths converge at the same time on the runway.

If the reports of a two way CTAF exchange are true, both should have
been exactly aware of the other, as in "in sight", before landing or
departing.

That's why both may get to do command performance rides.

I would NEVER accept the ROW to enter the runway from an aircraft I
didn't have in sight, and I wouldn't land after giving it away, if I
didn't see the pilot I gave it to. I've heard too many errorred
position reports, way too many.