Lancair Turboprop down near Three Sisters Wilderness, Oregon

Let'sgoflying! said:
metars krdm kbdn nearby only show favorable weather last 36 hrs.
Click to expand...

Indeed, my place overlooks KRDM and the entire Upper Deschutes drainage. Yesterday morning we had severe clear with a little build up in the PM that went away as soon as the sun did. This morning was clear and calm, now we have some cu buildup with bases about 9-10k
 
Jim Logajan said:
Actually NWS issued a weather alert for scattered thunderstorms. I see the local radar map currently shows heavy echoes pretty much right around the Sisters.
Click to expand...

Jim, this happened this morning. At 8am I could see from Mt. Hood to Mt. Bachelor and not cloud one. It's ugly over the Sisters/Broken Top area now
 
Bad day. Learned this morning that one of those aboard was Patrick Franzen, 52, of Bend. The other was the A/C owner from Chicago. Pat was a CFII and a hell of a guy. Tailwinds to you Pat.
 
It sounds from the article that it exploded in flight?
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Way early to say. But apparently some sort of structural issue as several witnesses reported pieces falling from the sky.
Click to expand...

Burning pieces at that. Of most of the in-flight breakup cases i've heard about, they don't ignite till they hit the ground...
 
dell30rb said:
Burning pieces at that. Of most of the in-flight breakup cases i've heard about, they don't ignite till they hit the ground...
Click to expand...

If they saw the engine falling, that might explain it. Shredded turbines can send hot stuff everywhere, so a failure there might have been an ignition source. As far as I know there was no radio traffic indicating any problems.
 
steingar said:
Those prop jets never go bad in a small way.
Click to expand...

ANd from talking to a couple of folks that had turbine Lancairs, they can be a real handful. As one put it "my dad has one, but it's just too much power & too much airplane. I don't like to fly it or fly in it."

Probably fine in the right hands, but you gotta stay on top of it.
 
wsuffa said:
ANd from talking to a couple of folks that had turbine Lancairs, they can be a real handful. As one put it "my dad has one, but it's just too much power & too much airplane. I don't like to fly it or fly in it."

Probably fine in the right hands, but you gotta stay on top of it.
Click to expand...

Yes. But then you can say that about any plane with equal performance. Having the power is just potential for trouble, knowing when to employ all of it draws the line between success and tragedy.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Yes. But then you can say that about any plane with equal performance. Having the power is just potential for trouble, knowing when to employ all of it draws the line between success and tragedy.
Click to expand...

Correct.... but.... a very slick, high-performance plane operating with that much power has very little tolerance for error. You have to stay on top of it at all times. I'd venture to guess that even the best of us have times where our concentration is not as good as it could be.

I was not, and am not, suggesting that there need to be any regulatory action, just pointing out that the tolerances for error become much lower with that kind of power & speed available. Some folks are not comfortable with that... those same folks probably should not be driving a Masarati, either.
 
wsuffa said:
Correct.... but.... a very slick, high-performance plane operating with that much power has very little tolerance for error. You have to stay on top of it at all times. I'd venture to guess that even the best of us have times where our concentration is not as good as it could be.

I was not, and am not, suggesting that there need to be any regulatory action, just pointing out that the tolerances for error become much lower with that kind of power & speed available. Some folks are not comfortable with that... those same folks probably should not be driving a Masarati, either.
Click to expand...

No they shouldn't....they should send it to me!!!!! :yesnod:
 
A aviation insurance broker recently told me that these aircraft were very difficult to get insurance for - this certainly isn't going to help.
 
I'm guessing this was a Lancair IV-P turboprop? Other option would be an Evolution. The Evolution is a surprisingly easy plane to fly, but still requires a lot of skill. I haven't flown a IV, but everyone I've talked to has said the exact same thing: They're a real handful. For a while, someone was crashing one in a spectacular manner at least once per year. Typically it was getting too slow and/or doing something stupid. The people who have problems with them are people who have too little experience and too little discipline. The people who do fine with them have good amounts of experience, and follow the procedures as they need to. I met a former U-2 pilot the other day who now flies a IV-P. He has no problems. He also could fly a U-2 with no problems.

Sad :(

If they made a twin version of the IV-P, that would be on my list...
 
wsuffa said:
I was not, and am not, suggesting that there need to be any regulatory action, just pointing out that the tolerances for error become much lower with that kind of power & speed available. Some folks are not comfortable with that... those same folks probably should not be driving a Masarati, either.
Click to expand...

A Maserati can be driven slowly. If you follow the speed limit and yellow suggested signs, a Maserati or Ferrari isn't any more difficult to drive than any other car. The challenges happen at the edge of the envelope.

Airplanes are different. You need to go fast. You have to slow down eventually, and that's harder. It's a different kettle of fish.
 
Art VanDelay said:
A aviation insurance broker recently told me that these aircraft were very difficult to get insurance for - this certainly isn't going to help.
Click to expand...

Based on current attrition, it shouldn't be a problem for long.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm guessing this was a Lancair IV-P turboprop? Other option would be an Evolution. The Evolution is a surprisingly easy plane to fly, but still requires a lot of skill. I haven't flown a IV, but everyone I've talked to has said the exact same thing: They're a real handful. For a while, someone was crashing one in a spectacular manner at least once per year. Typically it was getting too slow and/or doing something stupid. The people who have problems with them are people who have too little experience and too little discipline. The people who do fine with them have good amounts of experience, and follow the procedures as they need to. I met a former U-2 pilot the other day who now flies a IV-P. He has no problems. He also could fly a U-2 with no problems.

Sad :(

If they made a twin version of the IV-P, that would be on my list...
Click to expand...
From Local news:
"NTSB Investigator-in-Charge Kurt Anderson said the plane took off from Redmond Airport at 9:04 a.m. and was aloft for about an hour, at an altitude of 10,500 feet. Radar information shows the plane then climbed another 1,200 feet before it began a rapid descent around 10:16 a.m."

Pat Franzen was a Lancair IP and delivery pilot, he also flew PC-12s for a local air ambulance company. He was very experienced in type. This is a head scratcher.
 
steingar said:
Forgive me for nitpicking, but these two statements are contradictory.
Click to expand...

Not really. Your Cherokee is easy to fly, and requires minimal skill. That's why it's a good trainer.

"Surprisingly easy" means it doesn't require as much skill as you'd expect. It doesn't. It's still a plane that goes well over 200 kts, has a glide ratio about as bad as a Steinway, etc. etc.

Threefingeredjack said:
From Local news:
"NTSB Investigator-in-Charge Kurt Anderson said the plane took off from Redmond Airport at 9:04 a.m. and was aloft for about an hour, at an altitude of 10,500 feet. Radar information shows the plane then climbed another 1,200 feet before it began a rapid descent around 10:16 a.m."

Pat Franzen was a Lancair IP and delivery pilot, he also flew PC-12s for a local air ambulance company. He was very experienced in type. This is a head scratcher.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately having an experienced body in the plane doesn't necessarily mean that it will be of much use. Let's say (hypothetically) that the registered owner and builder did something stupid. No idea what, but something stupid. Experienced pilot says "No, that's stupid. Don't do that." Stupid act continues. "My plane," says the experienced pilot. Owner refuses to relinquish controls. The two fight. The plane gets out of control and crashes. All this can happen pretty quickly.

To be clear: I am not saying this is what happened. But it is a possibility, and part of why I refuse to instruct certain people.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
To be clear: I am not saying this is what happened. But it is a possibility, and part of why I refuse to instruct certain people.
Click to expand...

Very true. The quick climb of 1200ft and then a rapid uncontrolled descent has me thinking engine separation. All purely hypothetical of course. Witnesses reported several sections of debris falling and at least one trailing black smoke.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Let's say (hypothetically) that the registered owner and builder did something stupid. No idea what, but something stupid. Experienced pilot says "No, that's stupid. Don't do that." Stupid act continues. "My plane," says the experienced pilot. Owner refuses to relinquish controls. The two fight. The plane gets out of control and crashes. All this can happen pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
I was kinda wondering about it when a local Lancair crashed and left a wide debris field. I knew the instructor superficially (only met him once), he was widely respected in the area and I thought about getting my primary instruction from him at one point.
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=144155
(there is no NTSB report)

On the other hand, Steve Appleton was solo.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Very true. The quick climb of 1200ft and then a rapid uncontrolled descent has me thinking engine separation. All purely hypothetical of course. Witnesses reported several sections of debris falling and at least one trailing black smoke.
Click to expand...

That is another feasible theory, as is a wing falling off.

I'm sure that the NTSB will figure out what happened, and I feel sorry for the people on board who likely saw the impending impact. That seems to me like it must be the most horrific thing imaginable. I'd also be fighting to fly the plane every second, right into the ground.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That is another feasible theory, as is a wing falling off.

I'm sure that the NTSB will figure out what happened, and I feel sorry for the people on board who likely saw the impending impact. That seems to me like it must be the most horrific thing imaginable. I'd also be fighting to fly the plane every second, right into the ground.
Click to expand...

The local paper today had a pix of investigators looking at what appeared to be the outboard section of a wing with the winglet. The radar track showed level flight, so am not sure how they could have overstressed the wing unless it was a radical pull up at high speed, which would have produced the ascent shown on radar. You're right about that ride down. Ugly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top