PA32 Clips Wires and Traffic Signal after Engine Out

Justin M

Justin M

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
817
Display Name
Display name:
JM
Here's a video of a PA32 clipping wires and a traffic signal as the pilot safely guides it down after an engine failure.

 
The pilot made it out if that? Link to the story?
 
Possible the fuel all ignited and burned immediately after it was clipped, giving him time to get out? It looks like the plane still landed flat after the explosion.
 
Bonchie said:
Possible the fuel all ignited and burned immediately after it was clipped, giving him time to get out? It looks like the plane still landed flat after the explosion.
Click to expand...
It almost looks like the fireball you see in the video is the power lines themselves. The couple of photos I have seen from the wreckage, show no significant burn marks on the airplane. There are a couple of cars below the power lines that were seriously burned/destroyed by fire when the power lines fell on them.
 
Yup. The right wing hit the first street light pole and right tank ruptured and fuel burnt off. Then the left wing hit another pole and left tank ruptured and all fuel burned up mid-air again.
Maybe the pilot meant to do that and possesses superior skills to dump fuel before crashing in such a spectacular manner? :)
Wow, the occupants are just so dang lucky they lost all the fuel. This could have been much much MUCH uglier.

If you look closely, you can see his wingtip vortices in the dark smoke, awesome.
 
I like all the idiots that can't wait to drive around the stopped traffic towards the fireball/downed wires/etc. Gotta get home from work in time to watch a Pawn Stars re-run.
 
tawood said:
I like all the idiots that can't wait to drive around the stopped traffic towards the fireball/downed wires/etc. Gotta get home from work in time to watch a Pawn Stars re-run.
Click to expand...

I noticed that as well....:lol::lol::lol:
 
tawood said:
I like all the idiots that can't wait to drive around the stopped traffic towards the fireball/downed wires/etc. Gotta get home from work in time to watch a Pawn Stars re-run.
Click to expand...
Don't be so harsh on the people by judging them so quickly. :(

Maybe they were trying to drive toward the fireball to get a better picture for their self-absorbed self-important Insta-Tw@t or Fecesbook? :D
 
tawood said:
I like all the idiots that can't wait to drive around the stopped traffic towards the fireball/downed wires/etc. Gotta get home from work in time to watch a Pawn Stars re-run.
Click to expand...
Looks like the white SUV may have even bumped another car trying to switch lanes after the fireball.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
Looks like the white SUV may have even bumped another car trying to switch lanes after the fireball.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I just rewatched it to look for that...
I then noticed at 00:30, at the base of the right-most telephone pole, you can see a downed wire arcing too.
 
Time for me to climb on my soapbox: this was a classic "impossible turn" accident. If he had not caught the wire/pole.whatever and ruptured the tank the story would have ended differently. PAE is 600' above sea level, the town of Mukilteo slopes down toward the water. Had he opted to land straight ahead or plus-minus 45 degrees he had in excess of 600 feet (don't know the altitude when he began the 180) in which to select something soft and cheap.

Always plan to lose an engine at the worst possible time and have an action plan in mind. Emergencies cause tunnel vision, so you must rely on training and practice to get you through the tight spots. How log has it been since you eyeballed the terrain off the departure end of the runway you plan to use for takeoff with an eye to locating that cheap, soft alternative?

Edit: Just checked Google Earth. There are wooded areas within 30 degrees of the runway 16 centerline.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Saw this in the Detroit news this morning... Couldn't believe that the pilot made it out alive. Pictures of the plane looked like a 'normal' crash landing - you wouldn't believe there was this fire ball if you looked at just the few pictures that were shown.
 
Last edited:
I just noticed the traffic lights quit working. Here where I live if the traffic lights go out everyone floors it.
 
Same with Skywalker - saw it on the news this AM as I was preparing to dash out for my commute. Great news the pilot made it out alive. Amazing footage. Not sure of the circumstances and what the alternate options were. But just glad this wasn't a fatality.
 
bobmrg said:
Time for me to climb on my soapbox: this was a classic "impossible turn" accident. If he had not caught the wire/pole.whatever and ruptured the tank the story would have ended differently. PAE is 600' above sea level, the town of Mukilteo slopes down toward the water. Had he opted to land straight ahead or plus-minus 45 degrees he had in excess of 600 feet (don't know the altitude when he began the 180) in which to select something soft and cheap.

Always plan to lose an engine at the worst possible time and have an action plan in mind. Emergencies cause tunnel vision, so you must rely on training and practice to get you through the tight spots. How log has it been since you eyeballed the terrain off the departure end of the runway you plan to use for takeoff with an eye to locating that cheap, soft alternative?

Edit: Just checked Google Earth. There are wooded areas within 30 degrees of the runway 16 centerline.

Bob
Click to expand...
How do you know he attempted a 180? Was this witnessed? If he took off from 16, I don't see how a 180 attempt put him where he ended up, If i have the crash site right:

upload_2017-5-3_21-36-22.png

looks like a land straight ahead attempt to me. ?? I just watched the video again, looks like he was coming from the direction of the airport and making a right turn to the southwest to make that intersection. The car with the video was facing NW looking towards the airport.
 
Last edited:
It looks like the clipping of the traffic light ruptured at least one of the tanks and that fireball was a lot of the fuel burning off. That may have turned out to be an incredibly lucky occurance that limited any fire on the ground at impact.

Glad everyone walked away.
 
Last edited:
BigBadLou said:
Yup. The right wing hit the first street light pole and right tank ruptured and fuel burnt off. Then the left wing hit another pole and left tank ruptured and all fuel burned up mid-air again.
Maybe the pilot meant to do that and possesses superior skills to dump fuel before crashing in such a spectacular manner? :)
.
Click to expand...

Bet they don't teach THAT in the Cirrus school :D :rolleyes:
 
exncsurfer said:
How do you know he attempted a 180? Was this witnessed? If he took off from 16, I don't see how a 180 attempt put him where he ended up, If i have the crash site right:

View attachment 53282

looks like a land straight ahead attempt to me. ?? I just watched the video again, looks like he was coming from the direction of the airport and making a right turn to the southwest to make that intersection. The car with the video was facing NW looking towards the airport.
Click to expand...

All other (admittedly unofficial) sources I've seen analyzing it agree with your placement and directions.

Pilot appears to have NOT succumbed to the temptation to turn back, if anything. Kept it flying and smacked the power poles but managed to walk away.
 
Thus happened literally 1 mile from the hotel i am in rt now

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
bobmrg said:
Time for me to climb on my soapbox: this was a classic "impossible turn" accident. If he had not caught the wire/pole.whatever and ruptured the tank the story would have ended differently. PAE is 600' above sea level, the town of Mukilteo slopes down toward the water. Had he opted to land straight ahead or plus-minus 45 degrees he had in excess of 600 feet (don't know the altitude when he began the 180) in which to select something soft and cheap.

Always plan to lose an engine at the worst possible time and have an action plan in mind. Emergencies cause tunnel vision, so you must rely on training and practice to get you through the tight spots. How log has it been since you eyeballed the terrain off the departure end of the runway you plan to use for takeoff with an eye to locating that cheap, soft alternative?

Edit: Just checked Google Earth. There are wooded areas within 30 degrees of the runway 16 centerline.

Bob
Click to expand...

What I am confused about is this. 16R/34L is right around 10K feet long. Several sources indicate he lost power around 500 ft (I assume AGL since PAE is about 600 MSL). How did he even end up off-airport to begin with? intersection t/o I guess?

Obviously the "news" could be off on the altitude, etc, but this just confused me.

As far as off-airport choices, there are very few. That surrounding area is a concrete jungle and the nice wide roads (Airport Rd to the NE of the airport and SR525 (Mukilteo Speedway) to the SW are almost always packed with cars. Ditto for SR99 on the SE.
 
It's possible he didn't take the full runway, we were departing for a test flight yesterday and the tower gave us an intersection, the pilot asked for full length, which I think is great idea. On a diff note, we landed in another airport with 5k runway and while we were on the runway, 2k feet left , tower cleared a 172 to land, ON the active runway saying that he has over 3k feet, so he should be alright.... what the he'll was that? FAR....optional?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
JohnAJohnson said:
"the two-passenger plane clipped powerlines and hit a street light, which raptured a fuel cell"

"Despite the ensuring fire, no one was seriously injured"

Quality as we knew it has left the building.
Click to expand...

Stuff I learned from that article:
-the useful load must be great since it only carries two passengers
-apparently there is a fuel cell STC for Pipers (here we are complaining about 100ll pricing and they have hydrogen technology for the O-540...)
-apparently those fuel cells can feel emotion
-apparently the fire was ensuring something, which must be the subject of a follow-up story since they didn't specify what...
 
WannFly said:
It's possible he didn't take the full runway, we were departing for a test flight yesterday and the tower gave us an intersection, the pilot asked for full length, which I think is great idea. On a diff note, we landed in another airport with 5k runway and while we were on the runway, 2k feet left , tower cleared a 172 to land, ON the active runway saying that he has over 3k feet, so he should be alright.... what the he'll was that? FAR....optional?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Legal for the controller. He maintains a specified separation between the two aircraft. He does not have to have only one aircraft on a runway.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Stuff I learned from that article:
-the useful load must be great since it only carries two passengers
-apparently there is a fuel cell STC for Pipers (here we are complaining about 100ll pricing and they have hydrogen technology for the O-540...)
-apparently those fuel cells can feel emotion
-apparently the fire was ensuring something, which must be the subject of a follow-up story since they didn't specify what...
Click to expand...

Quality journalism :).
 
Clark1961 said:
Legal for the controller. He maintains a specified separation between the two aircraft. He does not have to have only one aircraft on a runway.
Click to expand...
Ha, there is always something to learn on POA

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
WannFly said:
Ha, there is always something to learn on POA

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'd say you have the opportunity to learn something every time you fly somewhere new. At least for awhile.
 
exncsurfer said:
How do you know he attempted a 180? Was this witnessed? If he took off from 16, I don't see how a 180 attempt put him where he ended up, If i have the crash site right:

View attachment 53282

looks like a land straight ahead attempt to me. ?? I just watched the video again, looks like he was coming from the direction of the airport and making a right turn to the southwest to make that intersection. The car with the video was facing NW looking towards the airport.
Click to expand...

He had just taken off. Runway 16 is right traffic, so his initial turn would have been to the right. Somewhere in that process he lost power (pilot quoted in this morning's Seattle Times) and apparently tried to turn back. I flew out of PAE for many years.

Bob
 
Of course this guy was lucky.
But also very important was the fact that he flew the airplane all the way to the impact like Bob Hoover said. I think it becomes very critical in these situations that you do not stall the plane and maintain control . It must be very hard to do though with the panic and ground coming to you very fast etc.
 
WannFly said:
It's possible he didn't take the full runway, we were departing for a test flight yesterday and the tower gave us an intersection, the pilot asked for full length, which I think is great idea. On a diff note, we landed in another airport with 5k runway and while we were on the runway, 2k feet left , tower cleared a 172 to land, ON the active runway saying that he has over 3k feet, so he should be alright.... what the he'll was that? FAR....optional?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yep, perfectly legal. 3,000' between the little guys (CAT I), 4,500' for a little guy and a CAT II or a twin for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top