Hey Ed you see this?

I should give this guy a call. I'll see if I can find a number.

Edit: Sent an e-mail.

Double Edit: Just what I need is this showing up less than a month before the fly in.

There is some stuff not in that article that should be.
 
Last edited:
I'm confused the title is "Too Short Too Soft" What does that have to do with the accident involved? The pilot came in hot with a tailwind. Touched down 1/2 way down the darn runway and waited to long to do a goaround. Certainly not an NTSB investigator here but IMHO this has nothing to do with the field :no: and everything to do with the pilot.
 
AdamZ said:
I'm confused the title is "Too Short Too Soft" What does that have to do with the accident involved? The pilot came in hot with a tailwind. Touched down 1/2 way down the darn runway and waited to long to do a goaround. Certainly not an NTSB investigator here but IMHO this has nothing to do with the field :no: and everything to do with the pilot.
Click to expand...

Well the field also wasn't "very rough" at each end either. There's a few other things that need to be cleaned up in that article as well. I've got a couple e-mails into AvWeb.
 
AdamZ said:
I'm confused the title is "Too Short Too Soft" What does that have to do with the accident involved? The pilot came in hot with a tailwind. Touched down 1/2 way down the darn runway and waited to long to do a goaround. Certainly not an NTSB investigator here but IMHO this has nothing to do with the field :no: and everything to do with the pilot.
Click to expand...
Obviously Aviation Safety needs a new editor. :rofl:
 
I can't access anything on the avweb server. I've tried it from two different computers and any attempt including just www.avweb.com returns a blank page an no errors. What's with that? Also what was in the article?
 
lancefisher said:
I can't access anything on the avweb server. I've tried it from two different computers and any attempt including just www.avweb.com returns a blank page an no errors. What's with that? Also what was in the article?
Click to expand...
The article is a reprint of a 2005 accident analysis article done by Jeb Burnside (the accident must have been in 2004) at Fred's field.
 
lancefisher said:
I can't access anything on the avweb server. I've tried it from two different computers and any attempt including just www.avweb.com returns a blank page an no errors. What's with that? Also what was in the article?
Click to expand...
Someone pushed the Wolk button? I have the same problem.

-Skip
 
Hmmmmm I used to get it I wonder if they got Ed's email and pulled the article
 
AdamZ said:
Hmmmmm I used to get it I wonder if they got Ed's email and pulled the article
Click to expand...

It's not just that article, I can't get into the avweb.com site at all. Perhaps Ed's email had a Trojan Horse that took the whole thing down.
 
i was able to get in. the article is basically the nTSB report transcipted for easier reading. Jeb has about a short paragraph of conclusion in which (i believe) he spends too much time talking about marginal airports and not enough about marginal pilots.
 
No problem getting in. Short Final is good, as is the new Pelican's Perch article by Deakin.
 
The accident was in 2003. The article's title is misleading, as is Jeb's lead-in paragraph. He should also mention that the airport in question has a new owner and that the field condition has been substantially improved, which is, I presume, what Ed's been contacting him about. Note, however, that it's a reprint of a 2005 article, so I think that, while they might add an addendum, they probably won't change the article itself. Ken could probably talk more about how that might go.
 
gprellwitz said:
Ken could probably talk more about how that might go.
Click to expand...
It's AvWeb. They do the cheapest, simplest thing possible, which is to raid already-paid-for articles from their captive publications. They MIGHT put an editor's note at the top. But most likely Ed will have to be content with a "letter to the editor" that will be lost in the shuffle. I hope I'm wrong about this.
 
Ya know, I got a Seneca II in and outta dere. Seems to me that the field is plenty for a Cessna Single. Can you say, Inadequate Pilot Performance?
 
bbchien said:
Ya know, I got a Seneca II in and outta dere. Seems to me that the field is plenty for a Cessna Single. Can you say, Inadequate Pilot Performance?
Click to expand...

2000 foot runway was a problem in a 172??? Maybe at some extreme density altitude, but, gee whiz...
 
Ghery said:
2000 foot runway was a problem in a 172??? Maybe at some extreme density altitude, but, gee whiz...
Click to expand...

I've flown a 172P model out of that airport. This guy was in a SP which had 20 more horse power. I was able to operate using less than 1/2 the runway during takeoff or landing. I had to come in *SLOW* and steep. A typical "normal" short field approach I see people do would probably burn through most of that 2000 ft.

Take a pilot that has little real world short field experience and I can see this happening. Keep in mind this airport has/had big ass trees. 6Y9 is a lot of fun and can be very safe. Just practice before you get there and make sure you can land with little to no float.

Plus I think it's longer now.
 
Reporter in link above: "A real danger is when a short, soft runway is combined with poor technique."

Agreed.
 
A bit off-topic, but I just noticed that the newest "Probable Cause" column over at Avweb talks about an interesting accident at 6Y9:

http://www.avweb.com/news/probablecause/probable_cause_38_too_short_too_soft_195756-1.html

-Felix

Moderators,
perhaps merge this with http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15745 ?

Argh. Sorry, clearly not spending enough time here :redface:

Reporter in link: "A real danger is when a short, soft runway is combined with poor technique."

Agreed.

OK first off, here's the problems with the article, and a couple things that weren't mentioned, or were incorrect.

First off the feds SUCK at updating the information, I've been trying to get them to update the airport master record for the past year as to the condition of the field. The feds still list the turf as poor. For any of you that have been there, you know this is obviously not the case.

Secondly the "runway very rough" for the first 200 feet at each end was not the case. Yes at the approach end of 28 it was rough for the first 150'. (That was the small dirt area which was smoothed out last year). The west end of the field, not the case at all. What you saw last year (or this year) at the west end is the way it was in 2003 when this incident happened. However that 150 feet of rough stuff was before the 400 foot threshold, so the being very rough is a non issue for landing because you wouldn't be touching down for another 250 after the once rough area. However, the 400' displaced threshold was for a 20:1 obstacle clearance, but a power off approach will put you at 8:1 or so why the guy was that far down the runway to begin with is a mystery. I can get down and turned off into the east end of the parking area with minimal braking, so I still shake my head at this "pilot".

Thirdly, and I don't know why this wasn't mentioned in the article: The previous airport manager wasn't exactly dutiful in keeping the grass mowed. From what I've heard in talking to a couple of people who saw it, the grass wasn't cut and was somewhere between 12" and 18" tall and the pilot didn't touch down until TWO-THIRDS of the way down the runway before attempting a go around. If there was a tailwind (the windsock in 2003 was broken) he would have put it off the end of the runway even if it were paved and 3000 feet.

If you look at the little diagram I have in the cooking thread the airplane did a classic left turn stall to the southwest of the utility pole and did a nose plant in the yard of that house on the corner.

I really wish the dickweeds at AvWeb would get back to me, as I emailed two of them and have gotten no response from either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
( Note: All the items in the post immediatly above are not Dave kralls words. An error occured ( read I messed up) When I tried to move the other thread here. So all of the post in the tread merged into one.)
 
AdamZ said:
( Note: All the items in the post immediatly above are not Dave kralls words. An error occured ( read I messed up) When I tried to move the other thread here. So all of the post in the tread merged into one.)
Click to expand...

Dock yourself a days "moderator pay" as punishment then :D:D:rolleyes::rolleyes:;););)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top