Beechcraft Bonanza down in Glencoe, MN

MSPAviator

MSPAviator

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Display Name
Display name:
MSPAviator
I couldn't even tell what kind of plane it was from the wreckage...


http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/03/21/plane-crash-kills-3-people-north-of-glencoe/

GLENCOE, Minn. (WCCO) — At least three people have been killed in a small airplane crash just north of Glencoe on Wednesday, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Authorities received a report of the crash at about 11:12 a.m. The crash happened about four or five miles away from Glencoe, authorities said.

The McLeod County Sheriff’s Office said the plane crashed north of Glencoe near the intersection of Falcon Avenue North and 150th Street. Authorities also said they don’t believe the victims were from around the Glencoe area.

The FAA said it appears the plane was not in radio contact with a nearby tower before the crash, but they were using visual flight rules.

Wreckage from the plane was scattered across a farm field at the scene.

A farmer came upon the wreckage right after the crash and said he found three adults and three dogs all dead.

“The plane came over, and like I said, it was so low, it kind of made you duck it was going so fast,” said Richard Gebhardt, who lives near where the crash happened.

Gebhardt said the plane was probably only a few hundred feet above the ground before the crash. He said he felt it crash, and it shook the ground on impact.

“I heard the explosion, and I could see the smoke billowing up from the ground, and I hopped in my pickup, and that’s when I came on the scene,” Gebhardt said.

There is no word yet on where the plane was coming from or where it was headed. The FAA is on the scene investigating and has identified the plane as a Beech Bonanza. The National Transportation Safety Board will have a team there to investigate what led up to the crash and what may have caused it. Records show that the aircraft was in a change of ownership.

The Anoka County Medical Examiner is also at the scene, but the names of the victims have not yet been released.
 
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/co...rchive/2012/03/what_happened_in_glencoe.shtml

What happened in Glencoe?

Posted at 3:55 PM on March 21, 2012 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)
Filed under: Aviation

As usual in the immediate aftermath of a plane crash, some of the initial facts and witness accounts don't quite add up. That's the case for the plane crash in Glencoe today that claimed three lives.

The accident occurred around 11 a.m.

The plane was not under air traffic control supervision, according to FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory.

That's one part that doesn't add up. Here's why: This is the weather observation at the nearby airport at the time of the crash, according to the website, FlightAware.



The weather at the time of the crash was five miles visibility and overcast at 900 feet above the ground. In that area, the so-called Class E airspace begins at 700 feet above the ground and requires the pilot to stay 500 feet below clouds. That's fairly impossible in this case, it would have required the pilot to fly 200 feet above the ground (and there are three towers in the vicinity that are at least 300 feet high). Just minutes before the crash, the cloud cover was reported as "broken," indicating deteriorating weather.

That means the pilot was likely operating in instrument flight conditions, which would have required him/her to be in some sort of contact with air traffic control. If he/she wasn't -- as the FAA indicated -- it means the pilot was flying by visual flight rules in conditions when VFR flight isn't allowed.

Meanwhile, just a few dozen miles away at Flying Cloud airport, the clouds were 2,700 feet above the ground, plenty of room for legal VFR flight.

In the other direction -- Marshall -- the cloud ceilings quickly went from 4100 feet to 600 feet around the time of the crash.

There is, of course, no proof that the pilot wandered inadvertently into instrument conditions, however we know a couple of things: (a) the conditions were right to trap a pilot into flying into so-called IMC and (b) inadvertent flight into instrument meteorological conditions is one of the most common causes of aircraft accidents.

It's not known -- yet -- whether the pilot in today's crash was instrument rated. If so, he/she would've contacted air traffic control. If not, it's very easy to lose situational awareness and a sense of which way is "up," that often leads to a stall/spin. So can efforts to stay out of such conditions.

It's possible -- since we don't know where the plane was traveling from or to -- that the plane encountered an engine malfunction, but the relatively concentrated area of the wreckage does not suggest an attempt at an emergency landing, at least judging by this photo from MPR photographer Jeffrey Thompson.



That, of course, is not to say there wasn't an attempt at an emergency landing, but even with wet and plowed fields, the flat terrain in the area is conducive to a successful emergency landing attempt.

The Star Tribune reported a witness in the area heard "popping sounds" shortly before the crash, but such reports have been shown to be notoriously unreliable in previous crash investigations.

It's a mystery, but not one without clues to consider.
 
i think Bob Collins needs to start giving courses in aviation journalism somewhere.
 
MSPAviator said:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/co...rchive/2012/03/what_happened_in_glencoe.shtml

What happened in Glencoe?

...
That's one part that doesn't add up. Here's why: This is the weather observation at the nearby airport at the time of the crash, according to the website, FlightAware.

The weather at the time of the crash was five miles visibility and overcast at 900 feet above the ground. In that area, the so-called Class E airspace begins at 700 feet above the ground and requires the pilot to stay 500 feet below clouds. That's fairly impossible in this case, it would have required the pilot to fly 200 feet above the ground (and there are three towers in the vicinity that are at least 300 feet high)...
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me and the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet this morning, but is there something in this reporting (as better-than-average as it is) that doesn't add up?

The guy wouldn't have been forced to 200 feet agl for legal cloud clearance, since he would have been in Class G below 700 feet.

Picking nits, but... that's what we do.

MTA: I see this was addressed in the first comment on the article.
 
Last edited:
Gravity wins again...:redface::redface:

To read about the dogs was pitiful too....:sad::sad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top