Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aviation Mishaps' started by Kenny Phillips, Jan 14, 2022.
They don't float well.
Small plane crashes into Lake Murray | WACH
Two more lives saved.
Certainly good news that they were strong swimmers. The parachute sailed them toward shore, which helped, too.
I wonder why they pulled the chute, rather than put it down in a field, like Salty did? Or maube one of the large nearby highways.
When you pull the red handle, you are no longer in control. You are a rider.
Hmmmm, I thought the Lake Murray splash-in was typically held in May.
Also, if in doubt, pull the chute, and most certainly be alive to fly another day. But perhaps put in a couple of preservers if flying in wet country.
Coyotes spotted on the airport… Wylie E. Is responsible for this whole thing
Did they mention they crashed “near a school full of children”? Oh wait, it’s not cn……eh never mind….. comment redacted
I like this one:
“My first thought is we’ve seen hydro planes around here and so maybe it was that, but then the way it landed, kind of nose down – it, kind of could tell something was off."
Also, THAT BIG GIGANTIC HUNTER ORANGE PARACHUTE THINGIE.
Hmmm. A Cirrus with the spinnaker option. Who knew?
I thought the BRS got them out of the spinnaker test requirement....
If it worked for Trevor Jacob...
Gee. Normally when a Cirrus chute is pulled a Navion gets a new engine. I don't think this one will be of much use.
Where are you seeing these comments?
the second comment was in the linked video and article, the first one is just a running joke that the media usually involves narrowly missing children at school with every plane crash.
Ah, can't find them, good reading usually.
What did they say?
Apparently the engine lost oil pressure, prop over sped. Pilot reduced power, pointed toward the shore of the lake. He started out at 5,500 feet, nursed it toward land, unable to maintain altitude, he pulled at 2,000 agl. They landed in the water near the shore then swam to land.
Engine found to have a hole in the casing over number 6 cylinder.
Textbook chute pull, well done.
This where I estimate the engine failed at 4,000' AGL.
There are a couple 1,000' fields behind the path that he could have made but they also appear to have tall trees at each end. I don't see any "large" highways. Only two-lane roads. There is a 2,000' field on the other side of the lake but what happens if you don't have enough altitude to reach it and then you're below the parachute envelope? And with a hole in the crankcase, there was probably oil on the windshield so visibility out the front wasn't the best.
So if I had to guess, the reason he decided to pull the chute was that it was the best option.
Hard to imagine there are lakes you can swim in this time of year that won't kill you in minutes...
At the surface, probably mid 50's to even low 60's.
Unless you have rhe runway made pulling the chute in. Cirrus is always the better option. You have no idea what that field is like, and an unexpected wind can make your planned approach fall apart quick.
Id bet that with a chute deployment insurance simply writes a check with no questions asked.
Id bet that without a chute deployment insurance simply writes a check with no questions asked.
of course, in the real world where we live, the first step is the insurance company asks you to fill out a form with dozens of questions on it. Until you answer those questions, they don’t know that the chute was pulled.
Ps> They also don’t care how you crashed, unless it’s fraud, or you did property damage to someone else.
So, Trevor is going to be covered?
I knew I saw ACME written on three chute
I know a guy who says he'll pull with the runway made.
I fly in Nevada and carry life jackets and a raft. In South Carolina I can’t imagine flying without those.
And why is that? The farthest you could ever be from land while over water in Nevada about 4 miles.
Probably the same here. (South Carolina)
Okay so insurance doesn't cover normal wear and tear. So say that engine went out before take off on run up. The insurance would not have covered it?? But since it failed later in the flight and the plane ended up at the bottom of the lake they cover the damage. Makes no sense to me.
It all comes down to the amount of damage. If it's at the bottom of the lake, then it's probably cheaper to pay the entire insured hull value than put all the money into it to repair it back to where it was before the crash. They aren't going to buy you a new engine, they're going to find a used one comparable, but if there is other significant damage then it's not worth it to them to repair any of it. If the engine breaks due to wear and tear on the runway, there is no crash damage to repair.