Towpilot fatality in Oregon

I appears that the tow plane had mechanical problems, and, or had an
on board fire before landing in the grass field. This is preliminary
info. It appears the tug landed safely in a field but the pilot was
unable to get out in time. Scott was one of the nicest guys I've ever
met and will be greatly missed.

Gary Boggs

On Aug 27, 8:46*am, GARY BOGGS wrote:
I appears that the tow plane had mechanical problems, and, or had an
on board fire before landing in the grass field. *This is preliminary
info. *It appears the tug landed safely in a field but the pilot was
unable to get out in time. *Scott was one of the nicest guys I've ever
met and will be greatly missed.

Gary Boggs


According to one of the news articles, the glider pilot saw the tow
plane in distress at the time he released. What type of distress did
he observe

Nelson Funston

Jim Logajan wrote:
"Larry Goddard" wrote:
In looking at a video shot earlier in the day of a glider launch, it
appeared to me that the pawnee was not climbing very well...
Creswell elevation is only 540 feet. And the temperature only got up
to the low 70's that day.
http://www.kval.com/news/local/54613062.html

Yes - the climb angle does appear low - at least compared to last year
when we launched off an 1890 foot grass airstrip (OG48) with the same
tow plane and glider (but different tow pilot.) The asphalt airfield
(77S) you see in that video is 3100 feet.

I need to correct myself: the tow plane that crashed is _not_ the same one
that was used to tow the glider last year. The tow plane that I flew behind
last year was a Lycoming O-540 (235 HP) powered Pawnee. The tow plane in
the video is a Lycoming O-320 (160 HP) powered Pawnee. That is why the
takeoff looked "anemic" to me. My perception was colored by only seeing
tows behind the higher powered Pawnee. The takeoff in the video is normal
for that Pawnee.

Since I never got around to seeing any of the takeoffs at the new runway,
and because I recalled Scott telling me last fall that he was interested in
possibly buying the 235 HP Pawnee, I incorrectly assumed that he had bought
that one. Obviously I hadn't kept up to date.

Why can'ty you vultures just wait for the official accident report instead
of using unbased hypothesis and dragging it all out for the bereaved who
may also be reading this string ?

Shame on you

MW

At 21:37 27 August 2009, Jim Logajan wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
"Larry Goddard" wrote:
In looking at a video shot earlier in the day of a glider launch, it
appeared to me that the pawnee was not climbing very well...
Creswell elevation is only 540 feet. And the temperature only got up
to the low 70's that day.
http://www.kval.com/news/local/54613062.html

Yes - the climb angle does appear low - at least compared to last year
when we launched off an 1890 foot grass airstrip (OG48) with the same
tow plane and glider (but different tow pilot.) The asphalt airfield
(77S) you see in that video is 3100 feet.

I need to correct myself: the tow plane that crashed is _not_ the same
one

that was used to tow the glider last year. The tow plane that I flew
behind
last year was a Lycoming O-540 (235 HP) powered Pawnee. The tow plane in

the video is a Lycoming O-320 (160 HP) powered Pawnee. That is why the
takeoff looked "anemic" to me. My perception was colored by only seeing

tows behind the higher powered Pawnee. The takeoff in the video is normal

for that Pawnee.

Since I never got around to seeing any of the takeoffs at the new runway,

and because I recalled Scott telling me last fall that he was interested
in
possibly buying the 235 HP Pawnee, I incorrectly assumed that he had
bought
that one. Obviously I hadn't kept up to date.

On Aug 28, 3:00*pm, Mark Wright wrote:
Why can'ty you vultures just wait for the official accident report instead
of using unbased hypothesis and dragging it all out for the bereaved who
may also be reading this string ?

*Shame on you

MW

Perhaps, Mark, because some of us vultures also fly Pawnee towplanes
and have a certain interest in what happened. Nothing in the
discussions in this thread have been in poor taste - just pilots
asking each other "what happened?"

To me, as a pilot who has lost many friends in aviation accidents, not
saying anything about an accident is much worse than open discussion.
I sure hope if something ever happens to me that people will ask why
and try to learn from it!

Your little comment, on the other hand, strikes me as somewhat mean
spirited - a bit of an overreaction, I hope.

Kirk
66

I expected someone will come up sooner or later with the lame request
to wait for the "official accident report". It is comments like this
which often prevent useful discussions about accidents and how to
prevent them. I for one learned much more about accidents from RAS
then from "official accident reports". Are you referring to the
usually useless NTSB reports, or to accident reports in the soaring
magazine which may take months or years to come if at all? We had too
many fatalities this year yet I don't recall seeing any "official
accident reports". Meanwhile more could die from the same reasons.
I'm with Kirk and also hope that if something will ever happen to me
people will discuss it right away and try to learn from it.

Ramy

On Aug 28, 1:00*pm, Mark Wright wrote:
Why can'ty you vultures just wait for the official accident report instead
of using unbased hypothesis and dragging it all out for the bereaved who
may also be reading this string ?

*Shame on you

MW

At 21:37 27 August 2009, Jim Logajan wrote:



Jim Logajan *wrote:
"Larry Goddard" *wrote:
In looking at a video shot earlier in the day of a glider launch, it
appeared to me that the pawnee was not climbing very well...
Creswell elevation is only 540 feet. *And the temperature only got up
to the low 70's that day.
http://www.kval.com/news/local/54613062.html

Yes - the climb angle does appear low - at least compared to last year
when we launched off an 1890 foot grass airstrip (OG48) with the same
tow plane and glider (but different tow pilot.) The asphalt airfield
(77S) you see in that video is 3100 feet.

I need to correct myself: the tow plane that crashed is _not_ the same
one

that was used to tow the glider last year. The tow plane that I flew
behind
last year was a Lycoming O-540 (235 HP) powered Pawnee. The tow plane in
the video is a Lycoming O-320 (160 HP) powered Pawnee. That is why the
takeoff looked "anemic" to me. My perception was colored by only seeing
tows behind the higher powered Pawnee. The takeoff in the video is normal
for that Pawnee.

Since I never got around to seeing any of the takeoffs at the new runway,
and because I recalled Scott telling me last fall that he was interested
in
possibly buying the 235 HP Pawnee, I incorrectly assumed that he had
bought
that one. Obviously I hadn't kept up to date.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree.

The NTSB findings will likely be something generic. I've lost 3
friends over the last 30 years of flying. I was by no means a better
pilot than they were.

I read EVERY accident report that I see just in case there is one idea
that might save my ass someday. I don't perceive any of the comments
on here as anyone being more than curious. He sounds like a great guy
that loved flying...he would want us to question what happened.

Fly safe.

FC Norton
HpH 304CZ (FCZ)

Ramy wrote:
I expected someone will come up sooner or later with the lame request
to wait for the "official accident report". It is comments like this
which often prevent useful discussions about accidents and how to
prevent them. I for one learned much more about accidents from RAS
then from "official accident reports". Are you referring to the
usually useless NTSB reports, or to accident reports in the soaring
magazine which may take months or years to come if at all? We had too
many fatalities this year yet I don't recall seeing any "official
accident reports". Meanwhile more could die from the same reasons.
I'm with Kirk and also hope that if something will ever happen to me
people will discuss it right away and try to learn from it.

Ramy

Just to play devil's advocate...what can be learned from "what ifs"?

If I weren't there to physically witness the accident, I might as well
say the engine quit and someone made a 180 degree turn to return to the
field and spun in. What is learned by that? Especially if the real
cause was something such as a forgotten bolt or pin, causing the wing to
fold.

I myself prefer to wait for an investigation where there are at least
some preliminary FACTS. That's just the way I work, I guess.....

Scott

Mark Wright wrote:
Why can'ty you vultures just wait for the official accident report instead
of using unbased hypothesis and dragging it all out for the bereaved who
may also be reading this string ?

If the "vultures" thought the bereaved were reading this thread and were
upset by it, I'm sure it would come to a halt. Without any evidence
that's what is happening (surely they would be smart enough to stop
reading if it upset them?), I see no harm being done here, and
potentially some good.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Scott wrote:
Ramy wrote:
I'm with Kirk and also hope that if something will ever happen to me
people will discuss it right away and try to learn from it.

Ramy

Just to play devil's advocate...what can be learned from "what ifs"?

If I weren't there to physically witness the accident, I might as well
say the engine quit and someone made a 180 degree turn to return to the
field and spun in. What is learned by that? Especially if the real
cause was something such as a forgotten bolt or pin, causing the wing to
fold.

I myself prefer to wait for an investigation where there are at least
some preliminary FACTS. That's just the way I work, I guess.....

We have some preliminary facts: Pawnee, crash, fatality, glider OK,
Creswell, Oregon, etc. How long do you want to wait for more facts? How
many facts do you need? My experience is we often don't have "enough"
facts to conclusively understand an accident, even the year or so later
when NTSB report is issued.

RAS isn't a court of law trying to issue a fair judgment. We don't need
"all the facts" to have discussions that leaven the pain of losing a
fellow pilot, or goad us into rethinking about what we do when get into
our towplane or glider, and what we should be doing.

That is just the way most of us work.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org