172 down at RKD (Rockland, Maine) - fatalities

Aeric said:
There may have been other faults, but it's his runway, every inch of it.
Click to expand...
Of course it is, but that doesn't answer the simple question of why they was still in a position to hit a truck 3/4 of the way down a 5000 foot runway.

This was in Maine....in November....at sea level. Even if they were full size adults, a 172 should have been in the air by that point.

Only things I can think of are:
They were REALLY big guys and WAY over gross
They didn't use full length
or the news report is wrong (anyone know where the truck was crossing and which runway they were using?)

I suspect it is either the second or third possibility
 
Anyone know what runway they were using? Airnav lists 13/31 at 5007' and 3/21 at only 4000'. That would seem to indicate they were taking off on 13, BUT one of the news reports states that after the collision, the plane veered west and ended up un the woods near Dublin Rd, which would seem more consistent with the 21 (only 4000').
 
Fearless Tower said:
Anyone know what runway they were using? Airnav lists 13/31 at 5007' and 3/21 at only 4000'. That would seem to indicate they were taking off on 13, BUT one of the news reports states that after the collision, the plane veered west and ended up un the woods near Dublin Rd, which would seem more consistent with the 21 (only 4000').
Click to expand...

They were using runway 31.

The victims names were released. Two current UMaine students and one 2011 UMaine grad. One of them was an exchange student from Brazil.

My guess is the pilot didn't back-taxi to utilize the whole length of the runway, but did an intersection takeoff instead. That may explain the long takeoff roll.
 
Last edited:
CBeaulieu said:
They were using runway 31.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you didn't mean 13?

The most logical place for a truck to the crossing 13/31 is on the taxiway leading to the SE hangars. I don't even see a place (or reason) to cross on the west end.
 
My last recurrent in the sim the instructor parked a fuel truck on the departure runway with about 1/2 mile vis. I saw it at near 100 kts and there was going to be a collision. I veered into the grass and got it stopped. Blew the tires but didn't cross the threshold to make the screens go red (red you're dead).

He told me after, "you'd be surprised how many guys go right into the truck!"
 
timwinters said:
Are you sure you didn't mean 13?

The most logical place for a truck to the crossing 13/31 is on the taxiway leading to the SE hangars. I don't even see a place (or reason) to cross on the west end.
Click to expand...

The airport manager said they departed 31.

if you're looking at the airport directory - keep in mind it does not depict all of the taxiways on the field. I was a bit confused the first time I flew there.
 
CBeaulieu said:
The airport manager said they departed 31.

if you're looking at the airport directory - keep in mind it does not depict all of the taxiways on the field. I was a bit confused the first time I flew there.
Click to expand...

No, google maps w/all the taxiways...the only crossing taxiway that's 3/4 of the way down the runway is the one leading to the SE hangars.

Also, it'd be difficult to go down in the woods near Dublin Rd if departing on 31.

Or, as fearlesstower said, they were departing on 21. That would make more sense with both the opportunity to go down in the woods near Dublin road and crossing pavement near the 3/4 point.

But I guess we'll see when the initial report is released.
 
Last edited:
CBeaulieu said:
The airport manager said they departed 31.

if you're looking at the airport directory - keep in mind it does not depict all of the taxiways on the field. I was a bit confused the first time I flew there.
Click to expand...
Even looking at it on Google Maps, it is hard to see a reason for a truck to be crossing the western half of 31 unless he was doing some kind of airport maintenance activity. There is nothing on either side of the runway but trees down there.
 
The airport manager stated runway 31 and the area he pointed to as the impact area is not far down the runway.

Maybe this helps? :dunno:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • KRKD Image.png
    KRKD Image.png
    3.5 MB · Views: 120
Last edited:
timwinters said:
That's clears it up (if the manager's description is accurate). Apparently the plane wasn't 3/4 down the runway...only 1/4. And it was the taxiway leading to the SE hangars.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think the papers goofed up on where the aircraft was.
 
N801BH said:
There has to pics of the truck, and its damage and debris left on the runway.. Anyone one out there have some, or know where to read an article that has them ?
Click to expand...

http://www.penbaypilot.com/article/truck-runway-causes-owls-head-plane-crash-three-killed/5860

There are response and debris pictures in this article, but no pictures of the truck; I've written Holly to see if she has any.

EDIT: Got a quick reply from Holly:

I do not. The truck was over by the plane that night, and I was unable to get close to that area. I have asked the sheriff’s department for a photo too, because many in the community have no idea how much damage was caused to the truck, which from my understanding and what I saw on the runway where they collided, was minimal.

I will forward a photo if/when I get one. It should be part of the public record and accessible, but where it’s an ongoing investigation, they might hold it back.
Click to expand...

There is a picture of the truck here, from this article, with this caption:

The pickup truck that was struck by the Cessna 172 that was taking off and then crashed Friday evening is seen on the runway at the Knox County Regional Airport on Saturday morning. A Knox County Sheriff's Office cruiser is parked in front of the vehicle, which has been impounded as part of the investigation
Click to expand...

10009781_H9145925-600x450.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's a radio, not a horn.

I wonder how much time there was between the announcement and entering the runway.
 
Prelim report is out:



NTSB Identification: ERA13FA059
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, November 16, 2012 in Rockland, ME
Aircraft: CESSNA 172N, registration: N6142F
Injuries: 3 Fatal.
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. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On November 16, 2012, about 1645 eastern standard time), a Cessna 172N, N6142F, was substantially damaged when it impacted a non-airport vehicle and then subsequently impacted terrain during takeoff from Knox County Airport (RKD), Rockland, Maine. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The private pilot and two passengers were fatally injured and the occupant of the non-airport vehicle was not injured. The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 with the intended destination of Bangor International Airport (BGR), Bangor, Maine.

According to an interview with the driver of the vehicle, he was driving his private vehicle on the taxiway and had followed another aircraft out to taxiway "alpha." The other airplane continued down taxiway "delta" and he proceeded with his vehicle to the hold short line of the runway. He announced his intentions on the common traffic advisory frequency using a radio in his vehicle, heard no response nor saw anything on the runway, and he proceeded to cross runway 31. He subsequently saw something grayish in color, continued to cross the runway, and then got out to inspect what he saw at which time he observed an airplane attempting to climb. He continued watching the airplane drift to the left of the runway and make a left turn as if attempting to return to the airport. Subsequently, the airplane was then observed in "slow flight" and then it began to "spin."

According to an eyewitness statement, the airplane was observed departing to the west and appeared to be doing a left climbing "chandelle" type maneuver. The airplane also had what appeared to be a high angle of attack. About 200 feet above ground level the navigation identification lights were observed rotating slowly counter clockwise. The airplane then appeared to pitch down and descended behind trees.

Examination of the airplane revealed that it impacted the ground in a nose down attitude, next to a tree, approximately 2,200 feet from the initial impact location with the vehicle, and subsequently caught fire. The right elevator was in the vicinity of the initial impact location on the runway. The airplane came to rest on a heading of 346 degrees.
Index for Nov2012 | Index of months
 
I had heard a rumor that the pilot wasn't night current. That is just a rumor though and everyone knows that they aren't worth much.

The NTSB's prelim reports makes no mention of that however.
 
CBeaulieu said:
I had heard a rumor that the pilot wasn't night current. That is just a rumor though and everyone knows that they aren't worth much.

The NTSB's prelim reports makes no mention of that however.
Click to expand...

That kind of stuff doesn't usually show up in prelims.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Fearless Tower said:
That kind of stuff doesn't usually show up in prelims.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

Thanks - I wasn't sure if that kind of information would be in a preliminary report or not.

if it is found that the pilot was not night current, could his family be sued by the families of the other victims? I suppose they probably could, anyway...
 
CBeaulieu said:
Thanks - I wasn't sure if that kind of information would be in a preliminary report or not.

if it is found that the pilot was not night current, could his family be sued by the families of the other victims? I suppose they probably could, anyway...
Click to expand...

I think the time of the crash was not officially "night"..:dunno:
 
N801BH said:
I think the time of the crash was not officially "night"..:dunno:
Click to expand...

I belive the aircraft took off right at civil twilight and was flying to BGR, about a 25 - 30 minute flight, so some the flight would have been conducted at night I believe. The sun sets early this time of year...

edited for typo
 
Last edited:
CBeaulieu said:
I had heard a rumor that the pilot wasn't night current. That is just a rumor though and everyone knows that they aren't worth much.

The NTSB's prelim reports makes no mention of that however.
Click to expand...

It wasn't night time when he took off. How would that change the fact that the guy in the truck pulled out onto the runway when there is a road that could have gotten him there? I guess the extra two minutes to go around on the road would have been too much.
 
He subsequently saw something grayish in color, continued to cross the runway, and then got out to inspect what he saw at which time he observed an airplane attempting to climb.
Click to expand...

The driver of the truck doesn't have enough guts to admit what happened... judging from the debris on the runway, there was a clear and significant impact with the aircraft. I find it improbable he was unaware of it.
 
EppyGA said:
It wasn't night time when he took off. How would that change the fact that the guy in the truck pulled out onto the runway when there is a road that could have gotten him there? I guess the extra two minutes to go around on the road would have been too much.
Click to expand...

The accident occurred around 4:45. The sun set at about 4:10 last Friday. It is damn-near pitch black at that time of day. I can see how under certain circumstances an aircraft would be very hard to see.

I'm not trying to defend the driver...just looking at both sides of the story.
 
Last edited:
Reading the description of the accident, and the accident scene I have a nagging question I cannot answer for myself. What we seem to know is airplane goes down runway, hits truck, hitting truck makes a huge amount of noise and I would assume slows plane down considerably. This is where I get confused. This is where I think I would land the plane in the remaining runway, or whatever is in front of me, thinking something quite bad happened. Instead it appears he tries to fly the plane to pattern, and ends in classic spin and stall. Am I missing something? Am I being to critical? Something else?:dunno:
 
As was mentioned earlier, half of their elevator was torn off. Probably due to a steep climb over the truck, which put the elevator horn down enabling it to be ripped off. Since both elevator halves are connected by a tube in the center, damage to one side could easily leave you just along for the ride.
 
RV10flyer said:
As was mentioned earlier, half of their elevator was torn off. Probably due to a steep climb over the truck, which put the elevator horn down enabling it to be ripped off. Since both elevator halves are connected by a tube in the center, damage to one side could easily leave you just along for the ride.
Click to expand...

Retard throttle, land straight ahead.

Nice to have the luxury of "chair flying" the what-would-I-do scenario. RIP.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Retard throttle, land straight ahead.

Nice to have the luxury of "chair flying" the what-would-I-do scenario. RIP.
Click to expand...

Agreed.......

Had to have been the LONGEST 20 seconds of that poor pilots life, trying to keep it in the air.,.:sad::sad::sad:
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Retard throttle, land straight ahead.

Nice to have the luxury of "chair flying" the what-would-I-do scenario. RIP.
Click to expand...

I think there was also damage to the landing gear, wasn't there? If so, it's quite possible that he thought that was the extent of the damage, in which case the decision to fly is understandable - Get it in the air and maybe go somewhere with better emergency services if you know you're likely to lose control on the landing, or at least get the existing emergency services rolling. Missing half the elevator is always going to cause a bad day, though...
 
I am so early in my training and everyday with the posts here its crazy and I am thinking I am going to learn everything I can to be a great pilot but it seems like the best pilots get into these wild freak accidents. Should I be double thinking I dont think so but its pretty crazy.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think there was also damage to the landing gear, wasn't there? If so, it's quite possible that he thought that was the extent of the damage, in which case the decision to fly is understandable - Get it in the air and maybe go somewhere with better emergency services if you know you're likely to lose control on the landing, or at least get the existing emergency services rolling. Missing half the elevator is always going to cause a bad day, though...
Click to expand...

That's what didn't make sense to me. Imagine the AoA the aircraft would have been at to have the elevator rip off - the report makes no mention of the landing gear impacting the vehicle. Just seems odd...

I don't think there is any way the driver could have not know an airplane struck his vehicle.
 
marcoseddi said:
I am so early in my training and everyday with the posts here its crazy and I am thinking I am going to learn everything I can to be a great pilot but it seems like the best pilots get into these wild freak accidents. Should I be double thinking I dont think so but its pretty crazy.
Click to expand...

There is risk in everything you do...you need to make sure you accept that before you go forward.

With that said - this was a freak accident that should have never happened. Complacency kills whether you are driving a truck or flying an airplane.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Retard throttle, land straight ahead.

Nice to have the luxury of "chair flying" the what-would-I-do scenario. RIP.
Click to expand...
It is easy to chair fly, but I think the reality is that a situation/scenario like this MUST be engrained into the pilot's decision making process. When a freak accident like this occurs the pilot must make an immediate decision/action without much time to think about what just happened.

This is where I think we do a disservice in basic PPL training.

How many folks have actually trained for an aborted takeoff in an ASEL when they were working on the PPL? There is nothing in the PTS for aborted/rejected takoeff for ASEL.

For the majority of us, it isn't until a pilot starts moving on to Multi-Engine and larger aircraft with V1/V2 speeds that we start seriously training for rejected takeoffs. For me it seems a no-brainer....if something happens while I am taking off and I don't know what it is, I'm aborting, but I can easily see how a low time Private Pilot could get caught by suprise and continue the takeoff....or at least not take any action until the airplane was already in the air and it was too late.
 
CBeaulieu said:
That's what didn't make sense to me. Imagine the AoA the aircraft would have been at to have the elevator rip off - the report makes no mention of the landing gear impacting the vehicle. Just seems odd...

I don't think there is any way the driver could have not know an airplane struck his vehicle.
Click to expand...

It appeared in the crash site pics that at least the main gear was still intact.

I do alot of arm chair flying after accidents like this. This could happen to any of us and at night would really compound the situation no matter our experience level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top