piper cargo twin crashes in eastern washington

ok, long day, just got in from SFO for work. lol

200HP hershey bar wing.
not a bare wing, lol

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"steve" wrote

It is a 2200HP Hershey bare wing and straight tail.

Damn, that must be one powerful HP additive you are putting in your fuel!
g
--
Jim in NC

"steve" wrote

It is a 2200HP Hershey bare wing and straight tail.

Damn, that must be one powerful HP additive you are putting in your fuel!
g
--
Jim in NC

"steve" wrote in message
. ..
The other issue is that Interstate 90, with two full lanes in each
direction was right next to the Easton airstrip, and parallel to his
direction of flight.

That would have given him a nearly unlimited landing strip, albeit with
cars scampering out of the way.

People talk about landing on highways all the time. But IMHO, a busy
highway like I-90 is just not a viable option. Sometimes, there is space in
the median, or along the cleared right-of-way to either side. But landing
on the paved portion where motorists are driving simply endangers innocent
bystanders. I would only choose the paved highway if it were literally the
*only* possible place to land.

(Though, on the bright side, at least a big highway like I-90 is less likely
to have obstructions such as power lines and whatnot).

There are a variety of things to question about the way things unfolded in
this accident, but the pilot choosing to not land on I-90 doesn't seem to me
to be one of them.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"steve" wrote in message
. ..
The other issue is that Interstate 90, with two full lanes in each
direction was right next to the Easton airstrip, and parallel to his
direction of flight.

That would have given him a nearly unlimited landing strip, albeit with
cars scampering out of the way.

....

There are a variety of things to question about the way things unfolded in
this accident, but the pilot choosing to not land on I-90 doesn't seem to me
to be one of them.

The pilot was a reasonably experienced CFII. When I last flew with
him, I think he probably had at least 2000 hours. Landing on a freeway
when there's a perfectly good strip nearby might be a little
embarassing to a professional pilot, but my guess is that he probably
thought he had the airstrip made. While going through the emergency
procedures checklist (or trying to control the descent without
stalling), he could have failed to see the tall tree that he ultimately
clipped with one wing. I wouldn't expect such a mishap to cause fatal
injuries because he was sufficiently low and slow that impact forces
could have been survivable, but I'm still unaware of the full set of
facts and the preliminary NTSB report is not yet published.

"rps" wrote in message
oups.com...
The pilot was a reasonably experienced CFII. When I last flew with
him, I think he probably had at least 2000 hours. Landing on a freeway
when there's a perfectly good strip nearby might be a little
embarassing to a professional pilot, but my guess is that he probably
thought he had the airstrip made.

I agree that's a good guess. A guess nonetheless, but a good one.

While going through the emergency
procedures checklist (or trying to control the descent without
stalling), he could have failed to see the tall tree that he ultimately
clipped with one wing.

I also agree that this is a good guess. It doesn't look like in that area
that it would have been impossible to avoid all trees, at least during the
emergency approach.

I wouldn't expect such a mishap to cause fatal
injuries because he was sufficiently low and slow that impact forces
could have been survivable, but I'm still unaware of the full set of
facts and the preliminary NTSB report is not yet published.

As I mentioned, an eye-witness reported that the airplane was already upside
down well before actually crashing. That is, it's likely that the airplane
had already struck a tree quite early in the approach. That completely
changes the nature of the accident, and being "low and slow" as he might
normally have been isn't necessarily helpful as it normally might be.

Of course, there is also the unsettling thought that he may well have
survived the impact, only to be consumed in the fire with the rest of the
airplane.

But back to the impact issue...it is a bit of "luck of the draw". A few
years ago, at Thun Field near here, a Lake Buccaneer pilot aborted an
approach and then screwed up the go-around. He wound up crashing into a
stand of 75' evergreen trees just to the left of the runway centerline.
Broke the very top of a tree off as he entered the stand and came down at a
very steep angle (at the crash site, you could see the path the airplane
took just by noting the broken trees and branches). The airplane turned
around 180 degrees during the final descent, but didn't flip over. It was
basically totaled, but the pilot and his passenger (to whom the pilot was
demonstrating the airplane in hopes of selling it) walked away with
relatively minor injuries (one of them wound up with a hairline fracture in
his hip...the pilot, if I recall correctly).

Comparing the two accidents (with the suspect assumption that they are
comparable), one major difference is that where the people walked away, the
entire accident took place within a dense stand of trees. They lucked out
and failed to hit any tree directly, so with each tree what happened is that
more and more energy was removed gradually from the airplane, reducing the
impact forces. In that respect, it seems that one might conclude that it's
better to hit a couple dozen trees at the end of the approach than to hit
just one. Of course there were many other lucky aspects, including that the
airplane did not flip over, and that there was no post-crash fire.

And of course, it's better to not hit ANY trees, and of course in the case
of the Lake accident here, the cause wasn't due to mechanical failure.
There was no good reason for the airplane to have wound up in the trees in
the first place in that accident.

But still, all of this just reinforces that during an emergency, the pilot
MUST keep "aviate" as the very highest priority. Something that ought to be
a "walk away" accident can turn into a deadly event, if one's attention is
distracted even for just a moment.

Pete

Steve

Day VFR only.
No landings/takeoffs at short back woods fields or high altitude
fields.
No overloaded bird. Don't bring all the fish back in one trip )
Plenty of gas for each leg.
Have co-pilot run a verbal checklist each take off and landing.

Straight and level point A to point B should be a piece of cake.

Good fishing.

Big John
``````````````````````````````````````````````

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:10:30 -0700, "steve"
wrote:

Just heard about this on the morning news. Apparently pilot with 4 months
with the company had trouble maintaining altitude and attempted a landing at
the Easton, WA airstrip. It sounds like he came up short and crashed into
some trees, then cartwheeled and burst into flames.

This is tragic, and I have to wonder if he should have gone for the freeway,
which is also nearby. My instructor for BFR grilled me on what alternative
sites are available if it become apparent you aren't going to make your
emergency touch down point.

My deepest condolences to the family and friends of the pilot.

I was planning to fly to Bozeman, MT next weekend for fishing, but this has
my wife saying a definite no-way to my flying out there. She does have
somewhat of a point though. I just got checkout out for my complex rating,
and will have at best, 4 hours of time in type as PIC before going on this
trip.