Baron down at Lagrange Ga, 3 killed

CJones said:
Saw a note from what I would consider a reliable source that the tow plane and glider had started takeoff roll on Rwy 3, tow pilot saw the Baron and called abort, glider pilot popped the release both the tow plane and glider executed an aborted takeoff and exited the runway.

Not sure if that constitutes 'involved' or not for the glider.

It will be interesting to see what the investigation says about the flight controls of the Baron.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm...

That is different from Greg's story..

"The 172 and L23 were stopped on runway 3, south of runway 31. They never crossed the runway. The crews were very experienced, with 2 CFIG's in the L23 and a retired Air Force pilot and now Delta Captain flying the 172. One of the CFIGs is also a club member."
 
alfadog said:
So you are trusting your safety pilot - who may not be very familiar with your aircraft, who may delay in responding, who may be more interested in what you are doing that what is outside - to save your butt if a NORDO (or glider) cuts in front of you at 400 feet. Especially in a twin. Too much going on at many non-towered airports and lots of towered alternatives for me. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone enlist the help of a safety pilot that didn't/couldn't do these things... Isn't that the point of the safety pilot?
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmmm...

That is different from Greg's story..

"The 172 and L23 were stopped on runway 3, south of runway 31. They never crossed the runway. The crews were very experienced, with 2 CFIG's in the L23 and a retired Air Force pilot and now Delta Captain flying the 172. One of the CFIGs is also a club member."
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If the glider and tow plane aborted the takeoff run and stopped on runway 3 prior to 31, then both stories are true. Just carefully worded.
 
Last edited:
Pappy said:
Not necessarily. If the glider and tow plane aborted the takeoff run and stopped on runway 3 prior to 31, then both stories are true. Just carefully worded.
Click to expand...


Yup.. after a fatal crash stories of the event are "carefully worded"..

Even the CAP members got their story straight from the beginning..

" With all these reports, you can judge for your self the accuracy. Everyone agreed that they did not hear any radio calls from the Baron."


All three perished in the Baron so we don't know their side of the story...:nonod::sad:
 
N801BH said:
Yup.. after a fatal crash stories of the event are "carefully worded"..

Even the CAP members got their story straight from the beginning..

" With all these reports, you can judge for your self the accuracy. Everyone agreed that they did not hear any radio calls from the Baron."


All three perished in the Baron so we don't know their side of the story...:nonod::sad:
Click to expand...

They will _hopefully_ be able to figure out the state of the Baron radios and Comms panel which may be able to shed some light on what was going on in the twin. If they were in fact shooting instrument approach, it may be as simple as switching to the wrong frequency, wrong radio, or not switching at all. I'm as certain as I can be, having not been there, that the CAP guys were on the radio.
 
alfadog said:
I think you are confusing TRACON and Center with the tower. I hardly think tower's instructions are "advisory in nature".
Click to expand...

That's true. But when you're 10-15 miles out, being vectored around towards the FAF, unless you're practicing into a Class B, you're outside their airspace, and they always tell me [I practice under VFR] "separation services are not provided." Sometimes I will call them from ~30 miles out after my off-radar miss somewhere when I want a practice ILS or surveillance approach. I've had them invite me over to give a controller practice with a no-gyro approach, and I usually go, I just don't log it if I don't have a safety pilot with me.
 
N801BH said:
All three perished in the Baron so we don't know their side of the story[.]
Click to expand...

One of the three survived until the hospital, so we don't know whether he managed to report anything about the crash circumstances.
 
acrophile said:
One of the three survived until the hospital, so we don't know whether he managed to report anything about the crash circumstances.
Click to expand...

Hopefully he made a comment or two before passing away... Looking at the damage and severity of the impact my guess he was very badly hurt and not able to say a word...:sad:
 
N801BH said:
Hopefully he made a comment or two before passing away... Looking at the damage and severity of the impact my guess he was very badly hurt and not able to say a word...:sad:
Click to expand...

that pic is awful. the whole passenger compartment looks like a folded accordion. it may be where they cut the roof to extricate the pilots, but it still looks terrible.
 
N801BH said:
Hopefully he made a comment or two before passing away... Looking at the damage and severity of the impact my guess he was very badly hurt and not able to say a word...:sad:
Click to expand...
Witness reports are always sketchy, I can't see that a guy in the back, half dead, would provide better info then three pilots on the ground watching.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Witness reports are always sketchy, I can't see that a guy in the back, half dead, would provide better info then three pilots on the ground watching.
Click to expand...


I assume you are speaking about the three CAP pilots who were involved with the glider operation? :dunno:
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmmm...

That is different from Greg's story..

"The 172 and L23 were stopped on runway 3, south of runway 31. They never crossed the runway. The crews were very experienced, with 2 CFIG's in the L23 and a retired Air Force pilot and now Delta Captain flying the 172. One of the CFIGs is also a club member."
Click to expand...

I've seen Civil Air Patrol planes stop on the runway before to do a runup and tell me to extend my downwind to accommodate them. Nothing suprises me from that group.
 
DavidWhite said:
I've seen Civil Air Patrol planes stop on the runway before to do a runup and tell me to extend my downwind to accommodate them. Nothing suprises me from that group.
Click to expand...

Me neither....

I helped Fletcher Anderson, our chief CAP check ride pilot pull N9928H out of the local CAP hangar one morning.... He was dead and the plane destroyed 15 minutes later from him hitting a cable that was 15' off the surface of the Snake river... he should have been 4000' higher and flying above the canyon....


http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20051128X01892&ntsbno=DEN06GA017&akey=1

Friggin idiot.... And a dead one at that....:mad2::mad:......

Sparky Imeson was based out of here too.. Both Him and Fletcher wrote books on safe flying in the mountians... BOTH died doing exactly what they told people NOT to do,.....:rolleyes::rolleyes2:
 
ClimbnSink said:
From rec.soaring(yeah soaring pilots still use a newsgroup.)
OK guys. I guess it's time to post some of what we really know. I'm the president of Southern eagles Soaring Club at LaGrange. We were not operating Saturday and I was not at the field. The Civil Air Patrol had been operating their L23 towed by their 172, for several hours from runway 3.

The Baron had been doing ILS low approaches to runway 31. They landed and refueled. There were various reports of what the Baron was doing before it crashed, including a missed approach from a practice ILS, a take off, and a go around. With all these reports, you can judge for your self the accuracy. Everyone agreed that they did not hear any radio calls from the Baron.

The 172 and L23 were stopped on runway 3, south of runway 31. They never crossed the runway. The crews were very experienced, with 2 CFIG's in the L23 and a retired Air Force pilot and now Delta Captain flying the 172. One of the CFIGs is also a club member.

The crews saw the Baron at low altitude along runway 31. It pulled up very nose high, rolled to the left from 100-200 feet, and crashed in an approximate 60 degree nose down attitude. The front seat pilots were killed on impact. The passenger in the back later died at the hospital.

We do not now, nor will we ever know what made the PIC take the action that he did. They could have been flying simulated instruments, practicing single engine, had an engine failure, or any of a number of things.

Since the names have been release, we do know that the two co-owners were in the aircraft along with another pilot. Records show one of the co-owners was multi-engine rated. No records on the other co-owner. The third person did hold an ATP and instructors rating. We do not know the seating arrangement or who was at the controls.

All the noise about a glider being involved was from one person that was interviewed by two TV stations. He said the Baron was trying to avoid a glider. It unclear as to his actually seeing the crash. The only glider operating that day was sitting on runway 3 behind the tow plane.

Also to show the accuracy of the reporting, one of the stations reported the Baron had flown from Panama City, FL to LaGrange that morning. They used a screen shot from flightAware.com to confirm it. When we checked flightaware, it did indeed show a flight from Panama City as being the last flight they had recorded. Of course, That flight took place in October, 2013!

If any FACTS become available, I'll let you know. However, conjecture will not accomplish anything and could hurt our sport.
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm...

Stories definately do NOT match...

From the NTSB report..........

" Several other witnesses stated their attention was drawn to the airplane by the sound of the engines' rapid acceleration. It was at that time they also noticed the towplane and glider departing from runway 03, with the towplane still on the runway, and the glider on tow and flying above the runway. One witness felt that a left turn by the accident airplane to sidestep the runway would have resolved the perceived conflict with the towplane.


The witnesses described the radio traffic on the airport's common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) as "constant" from the glider tow operation throughout the day. Some were unable to recall hearing an inbound radio call from the accident airplane, or a departure radio call from the towplane. Several witnesses distinctly remembered hearing the accident airplane announce "inbound on the ILS runway 31" prior to the accident. Just prior to the accident, several also recalled hearing an "Abort! Abort!" transmission over the CTAF frequency."
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmmm...

Stories definately do NOT match...

From the NTSB report..........

" Several other witnesses stated their attention was drawn to the airplane by the sound of the engines' rapid acceleration. It was at that time they also noticed the towplane and glider departing from runway 03, with the towplane still on the runway, and the glider on tow and flying above the runway. One witness felt that a left turn by the accident airplane to sidestep the runway would have resolved the perceived conflict with the towplane.


The witnesses described the radio traffic on the airport's common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) as "constant" from the glider tow operation throughout the day. Some were unable to recall hearing an inbound radio call from the accident airplane, or a departure radio call from the towplane. Several witnesses distinctly remembered hearing the accident airplane announce "inbound on the ILS runway 31" prior to the accident. Just prior to the accident, several also recalled hearing an "Abort! Abort!" transmission over the CTAF frequency."
Click to expand...

Sounds like there is a lot of ass-covering going on.
 
DavidWhite said:
Sounds like there is a lot of ass-covering going on.
Click to expand...
Yup. The glider may or may not have been involved (the NTSB prelim highlights the possibility that it may have been a go-around due to excessive speed), but the glider folks are engaged in some serious damage control.

Either way, I'd be very suprised if the airplane was found to have excessive nose-up trim based on the reports that they were coming in fast and had eaten up over 2000' of runway and still hadn't touched down.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yup. The glider may or may not have been involved (the NTSB prelim highlights the possibility that it may have been a go-around due to excessive speed), but the glider folks are engaged in some serious damage control.

Either way, I'd be very suprised if the airplane was found to have excessive nose-up trim based on the reports that they were coming in fast and had eaten up over 2000' of runway and still hadn't touched down.
Click to expand...

Who would have right of way in this situation? I'd think the guy on final, but you have a glider in the mix and from the limited glider experience I have, they take the runway to do their hook up a good bit in advance of the launch so they may have already been there when the Baron made his call. I kinda think mixing glider and regular airplane ops on the same runway is like bicycles operating on busy streets, an accident waiting to happen.
 
I thought the glider ops were on the intersecting runway, not the one the Baron was using . . .
 
Hank S said:
I thought the glider ops were on the intersecting runway, not the one the Baron was using . . .
Click to expand...

That appears to be correct....

Also from "other" witnesses, the CAP tow plane and glider were NOT stopped on the ground as the initial CYA spin was reported...

If the tow plane was on the take off roll with the glider already in the air, that combination is considered a powered flight of two and the glider does NOT have right of way over other aircraft.. That only happens when the glider pulls the release and it on its own... IMHO.

Landing aircraft have the right of way over all other aircraft.. That fact alone will sink the CAP and their story..

It will be VERY interesting when ALL the true facts come out in this fatal crash..:idea:
 
My closest call was with a CAP 182 out of KELP. I was on a VOR approach into KDMN talking on CTAF. They were doing G1000 training with both pilots inside, behind me doing the same approach but not up on CTAF. I heard the noise of their engine, then saw their left wing flash by my right strut and was close enough to see both pilots glued to the PFD. When they finally came up on CTAF I informed them that we had a near miss and they almost hit me. Their response was "See and avoid."
 
N801BH said:
...
If the tow plane was on the take off roll with the glider already in the air, that combination is considered a powered flight of two and the glider does NOT have right of way over other aircraft.. That only happens when the glider pulls the release and it on its own... IMHO.

...:idea:
Click to expand...

Guess again--
91.113 ... "However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft."
 
Blackhawk said:
My closest call was with a CAP 182 out of KELP. I was on a VOR approach into KDMN talking on CTAF. They were doing G1000 training with both pilots inside, behind me doing the same approach but not up on CTAF. I heard the noise of their engine, then saw their left wing flash by my right strut and was close enough to see both pilots glued to the PFD. When they finally came up on CTAF I informed them that we had a near miss and they almost hit me. Their response was "See and avoid."
Click to expand...

Color me shocked.
 
Last edited:
Witmo said:
Guess again--
91.113 ... "However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought I remembered that.
 
Witmo said:
Guess again--
91.113 ... "However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft."
Click to expand...

WOW... I always thought a landing aircraft on short final had the right of way over ANY aircraft on the ground...

I never knew a tow plane pulling a glider could wait till a twin is on short final and attempt to take off on a crossing runway, causing the landing aircraft to swerve and crash and kill all aboard, and the tow plane is not negligent..:mad2::mad2:.......:rolleyes2:...

Only in America..... and worse yet.. a CAP plane to boot...:(
 
N801BH said:
WOW... I always thought a landing aircraft on short final had the right of way over ANY aircraft on the ground...

I never knew a tow plane pulling a glider could wait till a twin is on short final and attempt to take off on a crossing runway, causing the landing aircraft to swerve and crash and kill all aboard, and the tow plane is not negligent..:mad2::mad2:.......:rolleyes2:...

Only in America..... and worse yet.. a CAP plane to boot...:(
Click to expand...

I don't know what happened nor do you. I do know that your earlier statement about gliders on tow and right-of-way were flat out wrong so suck it up and move on.
 
Witmo said:
Guess again--
91.113 ... "However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft."
Click to expand...

Context Please!

Because you left out the context you got the meaning wrong. The portion you quoted only applies while aircraft are converging (d). Landing has its own paragraph (g). A glider being towed has no special right of way in that situation.
 
Helpful highlights. Red text covers converging, blue covers landing.

§91.113 - Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories—

(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.

(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.

(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004]
 
Witmo said:
I don't know what happened nor do you. I do know that your earlier statement about gliders on tow and right-of-way were flat out wrong so suck it up and move on.
Click to expand...

I am betting you are a Civil Air Patrol member...:dunno::rolleyes:
 
Jim Logajan said:
Context Please!

Because you left out the context you got the meaning wrong. The portion you quoted only applies while aircraft are converging (d). Landing has its own paragraph (g). A glider being towed has no special right of way in that situation.
Click to expand...

I made no statement about landing right-of-way. The post I responded to incorrectly stated that a glider on tow did not have any priority until he released. This is clearly incorrect as an aircraft being towed does have right of way over other powered aircraft. I do agree that aircraft landing would have right of way over the glider and tow plane but that was not what I was responding to. We still do not know what were the precise circumstances in this accident as I have read several conflicting accounts.
 
One unbiased opinion, if the call abort! abort! was heard over unicom, then it sure sounds like someone was trying to avoid something.

My guess is, he firewalled it, and yanked too hard. RIP

I don't fly twins, so I don't know the flight dynamics of a full power on stall or why he rolled over from what I'll call an expedited 'go-around' for lack of better words. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Witmo said:
This is clearly incorrect as an aircraft being towed does have right of way over other powered aircraft.
Click to expand...

If I apply the claim you make in the quote above to the case where a plane towing a glider is overtaking another plane, I find that the plane being overtaken must give way to the tow plane. How do you reconcile that with paragraph (f) of 91.113?
 
txflyer said:
One unbiased opinion, if the call abort! abort! was heard over unicom, then it sure sounds like someone was trying to avoid something.

My guess is, he firewalled it, and yanked too hard. RIP

I don't fly twins, so I don't know the flight dynamics of a full power on stall or why he rolled over from what I'll call an expedited 'go-around' for lack of better words. :dunno:
Click to expand...

It's possible the "abort" calls came from the tow plane or glider? That would make more sense to me as to why it was heard over CTAF.
 
Jim Logajan said:
If I apply the claim you make in the quote above to the case where a plane towing a glider is overtaking another plane, I find that the plane being overtaken must give way to the tow plane. How do you reconcile that with paragraph (f) of 91.113?
Click to expand...

I made no such claim. The portion of the reg I quoted applies to converging aircraft, not landing aircraft, not overtaking aircraft. If a glider is overtaking an airplane, the glider has to give way and pass off to the right.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
It's possible the "abort" calls came from the tow plane or glider? That would make more sense to me as to why it was heard over CTAF.
Click to expand...


If the call is genuine, it could have come from either, the baron pilot may have never said a word and just yanked. :dunno:

We're speculating.
 
timwinters said:
It's possible the "abort" calls came from the tow plane or glider? That would make more sense to me as to why it was heard over CTAF.
Click to expand...

I've never heard the term "abort" in reference to flying an approach and if the Baron was breaking off the approach, the call should have been "missed". I have no glider experience, but "abort" makes more sense coming from the glider or tow pilot. Very sad situation, no matter what happened.:(
 
It could have also been said by someone on the ground with a hand held radio watching events unfold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top