Plane Crash at Gaston's

mornings metars at Mountain Home:

KBPK 261653Z AUTO 28003KT 7SM CLR 32/24 A2989 RMK AO2 SLP110 T03220244
KBPK 261553Z AUTO 00000KT 6SM HZ FEW065 31/24 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP116 T03060244
[FONT=Monospace,Courier]KBPK 261453Z AUTO 00000KT 6SM HZ CLR 29/24 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP116 T02890239 51004[/FONT]
[FONT=Monospace,Courier]KBPK 261353Z AUTO 00000KT 6SM HZ CLR 27/23 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP116 T02720233[/FONT]
[FONT=Monospace,Courier]KBPK 261253Z AUTO 22003KT 6SM BR FEW060 24/23 A2990 RMK AO2 SLP115 T02440228[/FONT]
[FONT=Monospace,Courier]KBPK 261153Z AUTO 00000KT 5SM BR CLR 23/22 A2990 RMK AO2 SLP112 T02330222 10250 20228 53011[/FONT]
 
Aw, damn.

Any Lance drivers around here? Five people aboard, on a hot (27-29 C at the time of the crash) day, on a 3200-foot grass runway...how close to the edge were they pushing it?
 
Apparently too close. That sucks though, hits home a lot more. Many of us were there only a few weekends ago and giving rides on hot days.
 
jmaynard said:
Aw, damn.

Any Lance drivers around here? Five people aboard, on a hot (27-29 C at the time of the crash) day, on a 3200-foot grass runway...how close to the edge were they pushing it?
Click to expand...

Ive only got a little Lance time. Ken Ibold used to own one, maybe he'll pipe in. The heaviest i ever flew it was probably about 4 FAA adults. I wouldn't think that getting in the air in 3200 feet would be an issue. I could envision the pilot getting a bit antsy and pulling off too slow and not gaining enough speed in a foiled attempt to climb. The ridge looks a lot closer than it really is, as you know. But who knows what really happened...
 
tonycondon said:
im thinking they must've been well off the end of 6 out in that pasture somewhere.
Click to expand...

Which makes the incident curiouser and curiouser. For the fuse to rip in half like that. How do you get that much airspeed with that little altitude? If it turns out to be one of those nose too high takeoffs.
 
tonycondon said:
photos in the featured galleries here:

http://www.baxterbulletin.com

gear was down. it looks like they may have drifted south of centerline.
Click to expand...

What's at the end of the paved road if you keep going down past the cabins? Does the pavement dead end (no pun intended)? Is the wreckage laying past the end of the pavement?
 
CJones said:
What's at the end of the paved road if you keep going down past the cabins? Does the pavement dead end (no pun intended)? Is the wreckage laying past the end of the pavement?
Click to expand...

The paved area ends at cabin 75; cabins 76 and 77 are in a gravel turn around, and a "do not enter" gravel road continues beyond that to a home on the hill... I think that's Jim's place?

I have no idea what is beyond the home.

Google now has much higher detailed photos of the area than they used to:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...8038,-92.548614&spn=0.016972,0.02635&t=h&z=15
 
Radio station quotes a fisherman as saying it sounded as though they were experiencing engine trouble. KSGF, 104.1 (I thirk).
 
TangoWhiskey said:
The paved area ends at cabin 75; cabins 76 and 77 are in a gravel turn around, and a "do not enter" gravel road continues beyond that to a home on the hill... I think that's Jim's place?

I have no idea what is beyond the home.

Google now has much higher detailed photos of the area than they used to:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...8038,-92.548614&spn=0.016972,0.02635&t=h&z=15
Click to expand...

I jogged down there one morning warming up for Tony to join me <g>. After the cabin at the end of the gravel, there were walking trails that went down to a nice covered area to eat along the river. Then, those trails ended maybe 1/2 mile farther down from that home on the gravel road.

When I took off heavy from there (with Larry O. and Jason); went between the trees and drifted to the right to go through the pasture, then, along the river if need be. Kind of a reverse pattern to the river. I wouldn't head straight to the ridge line.

Best,

Dave
 
i looked on the satellite map and nearest i can figure they ended up doing a shallow right after going off the end of the runway, ended up against some trees maybe 3/4 from the end of the runway to the end of the pasture.
 
There is a fence. When you land on 24 your goal is to get low between the trees and plan th ewheels just where the turf starts becoming level. If you walk down the incline beyond the end of the useable runway, there's a fence toward the bottom of the gully oriented 15/33 that we all cross to land. For most of us the fence is not an issue- we come in light. In my case, 1100 undergross.....

If you do a Dr. Bill depature unsuccessfully, this is what happens. Very sad that it happened, but super-happy that it isn't one of our own.
 
Wow, how sad. :(

Dave Siciliano said:
I jogged down there one morning warming up for Tony to join me <g>. After the cabin at the end of the gravel, there were walking trails that went down to a nice covered area to eat along the river. Then, those trails ended maybe 1/2 mile farther down from that home on the gravel road.
Click to expand...
We've walked that walking trail...it's pretty down there.
 
This is the reason I wont take my underpowered 172 in there. The little O320 engine just needs a few more ponys to drag a 172 size airframe out of there, especially on a hot day.
 
horsepower is not the answer mike. ive done plenty of flying out of gastons in 85-500 hp airframes. proper planning and technique are all it really takes. there is even plenty of room for error.
 
tonycondon said:
horsepower is not the answer mike. ive done plenty of flying out of gastons in 85-500 hp airframes. proper planning and technique are all it really takes. there is even plenty of room for error.
Click to expand...

Yup. Flew a rental 172 (definitely not a powerhouse) out of there this year with two of us and about half-fuel. No problems at all. It probably wasn't as hot as it is down there today, but it was warmer than 'comfortable'. Still had PLENTY of room at the end of the runway.

Gaston's isn't an 'impossible' strip by any stretch of the imagination.

I hope the NTSB doesn't come to the conclusion that the pilot overloaded the plane like the 'witnesses' are trying to lead everyone to believe.
 
flyer said:
This is the reason I wont take my underpowered 172 in there. The little O320 engine just needs a few more ponys to drag a 172 size airframe out of there, especially on a hot day.
Click to expand...
Mike, we've taken our 172 and similar airplanes into and out of Gaston's for years. We were careful how we loaded the airplanes and knew how to fly them. But, there is certainly nothing wrong with your decision to be cautious about flying your airplane there. :)
 
flyer said:
This is the reason I wont take my underpowered 172 in there. The little O320 engine just needs a few more ponys to drag a 172 size airframe out of there, especially on a hot day.
Click to expand...
Not quite Mike. I have flown a O320 172 into Gastons without issue. A 172 performs beautifully at Gastons.

Tony and I flew a 172 in with Leah. That made 3 of us and luggage and it was a non-issue. Of course, we were all pretty light, even more so then.

A 172 with yourself or another passenger would work wonderfully and you would beat the majority of the airplanes off the runway with your O-320. It isn't all about horsepower.
 
Diana said:
there is certainly nothing wrong with your decision to be cautious about flying your airplane there. :)
Click to expand...


You are right. My decision for not flying into this particular strip is based on many things like airplane performance, pilot skill level, weather, etc.. and gut feelings. I dont know about other pilots, but I look at all these things before each and every flight. I just dont like pushing the envelope, its not worth it to me, lol. It will be interesting to see what NTSB has to say about this accident, though I have a hunch.


And by the way, my 172 has the little O320, 150HP, most 172's have 160 HP O320's. Even on pavement it takes forever to gain speed.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
It would have been much nicer in your company :smile:

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

You've got something on your nose there, Dave... :D

flyer said:
You are right. My decision for not flying into this particular strip is based on many things like airplane performance, pilot skill level, weather, etc.. and gut feelings. I dont know about other pilots, but I look at all these things before each and every flight. I just dont like pushing the envelope, its not worth it to me, lol. It will be interesting to see what NTSB has to say about this accident, though I have a hunch.


And by the way, my 172 has the little O320, 150HP, most 172's have 160 HP O320's. Even on pavement it takes forever to gain speed.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that thought process at all... you know how the saying goes - "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are not too many old, bold pilots." WTG for being on your way to becoming an old pilot.
 
I didn't think the 172 that Tony brought was doing any worse than my Aztec with over 3x the horsepower. There's a lot that factors into the equation. I was certainly glad to have Tony go with me the first few times, and didn't really get comfortable with the in/out procedures until later on Friday or early on Saturday.

Very sad. Gaston's is a fun strip, I hope that nothing bad comes of this for them.
 
Pilots are supposed to know their limitations. You obviously consider your airplane's performance as a limitation for this airport. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that needs to be said. If at some later date you become comfortable flying there, that will be fine too. In the meantime, you're always welcome to ride from the concrete to the grass in a airplane that likes the grass.
flyer said:
You are right. My decision for not flying into this particular strip is based on many things like airplane performance, pilot skill level, weather, etc.. and gut feelings. I dont know about other pilots, but I look at all these things before each and every flight. I just dont like pushing the envelope, its not worth it to me, lol. It will be interesting to see what NTSB has to say about this accident, though I have a hunch.


And by the way, my 172 has the little O320, 150HP, most 172's have 160 HP O320's. Even on pavement it takes forever to gain speed.
Click to expand...
 
Amen.

6Y9 is the SHORTEST grass the Seneca's ever been into. I want to be 50 feet (treetop) at least by 600 feet (that's only 6 seconds) from the treetops.

That required 20 gallons of fuel, -40 lbs for missing 4 seats, myself or 1300 undergross. It was very adequate but NOT comfortable.

It's actually semi decent at STOL at 3350 pounds. After all, it has 420 hp. But NO shorter than 6Y9's first year. NOPE.
 
flyer said:
And by the way, my 172 has the little O320, 150HP, most 172's have 160 HP O320's. Even on pavement it takes forever to gain speed.
Click to expand...

I flew an old 172 model with the 145 HP (I forget the model letter).

It was my CFI and I on board (we were using it for spin training).

It sorta loped laong and it climbed so anemicly we both looked at each other and laughed.

"Wow...it will be while before we get to 4,000, so go ahead and take a nap..."
 
Pilots who have flown out of the same grass strip when conditions are good (as when Ed reported on Wednesday before the annual grabash) and the remainder of the weekend (when we were sloshing around in the muck) are acutely aware of the perormance differences.
 
Skypilotcfii said:
Lost 3 Friends there October 8, 2002
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. Obviously, some mistakes were made in that incident.

My policy at Gastons is rather simple. I fly *light*, so light, that I don't have to worry about anything for a moment. I've never had any sort of takeoff issue there.

Those that saw me giving rides might have noticed that I split up "families" into several rides. I'd much rather take the parent and a kid, land, then grab the other kid. The parent gets two rides and I don't worry about weight.

Also--my rule there--if for some terrible reason I don't produce the power I normally produce and can't clear the power lines I will simply go under them and then put the plane in the river. The chance of surviving the ditch in the water is much higher than a stretched climb into the ridge.
 
jmaynard said:
Aw, damn.

Any Lance drivers around here? Five people aboard, on a hot (27-29 C at the time of the crash) day, on a 3200-foot grass runway...how close to the edge were they pushing it?
Click to expand...

It all depends on amount of fuel and baggage (not to mention the plane's actual useful load).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top