Plane down in Denton, TX

I just spoke to the controller he said the plane diverted to Denton and then dropped like a rock.
 
Last edited:
Its very sad to read.


In the other thread talking about VASI/PAPI a few of us were discussing intentionally coming in high for this very reason. Some people argued against the chances of losing the engine so close to the runway, but 700ft away? I have to think if they were higher it would of ended differently. This really hit close to home because I too am I family man & pilot.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Its very sad to read.


In the other thread talking about VASI/PAPI a few of us were discussing intentionally coming in high for this very reason. Some people argued against the chances of losing the engine so close to the runway, but 700ft away? I have to think if they were higher it would of ended differently. This really hit close to home because I too am I family man & pilot.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Pulling the throttle can be when the **** can hit the fan. Landing on the numbers is way over rated, IMHO. The runway is there use it. Aim for the middle.
 
Last edited:
Jhernandez04 said:
Its very sad to read.


In the other thread talking about VASI/PAPI a few of us were discussing intentionally coming in high for this very reason. Some people argued against the chances of losing the engine so close to the runway, but 700ft away? I have to think if they were higher it would of ended differently. This really hit close to home because I too am I family man & pilot.
Click to expand...

700 feet from the road...not the runway. Airport was still a mile out looking at the map.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
 
dottat said:
700 feet from the road...not the runway. Airport was still a mile out looking at the map.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Still within gliding distance if you plan it right.

In any event, stalling and dying is never a good plan.
 
dottat said:
700 feet from the road...not the runway. Airport was still a mile out looking at the map.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


A 1:7 glide ratio means if they were 750ft higher they could of glided 1 mile if my math is correct and assuming they had a 1:7GR

Im just trying to make sense of it. If they were a mile away and didnt make it, that means they were around 842ft MSL/200FT AGL which puts them 600ft below pattern altitude for KDTO. What glidescope does that put them on if im even thinking right on this?
 
Jhernandez04 said:
A 1:7 glide ratio means if they were 750ft higher they could of glided 1 mile if my math is correct and assuming they had a 1:7GR

Im just trying to make sense of it. If they were a mile away and didnt make it, that means they were around 842ft MSL/200FT AGL which puts them 600ft below pattern altitude for KDTO. What glidescope does that put them on if im even thinking right on this?
Click to expand...

You have the ratio backwards, but the thinking is correct. RVs glide ratio is much higher, 14-1 for the RV-12.

http://youtu.be/_xZmsxEewik
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
You have the ratio backwards, but the thinking is correct. RVs glide ratio is much higher, 14-1 for the RV-12.
Click to expand...

ah, I was thinking it was "for every 1 mile you are in altitude you can glide X amount of miles" so I figured 1:7 was right, but I see its backwards now.


Hicks airfield is 855MSL so its roughly the same as KDTO. They were really low and it was at night. P2L (3.00° Glide Path Angle) is whats used at Hicks, I wonder if my estimate of their AGL alt puts them on the 3*.
 
GEICO, seriously, are you placing blame on the pilot? How sad that you are such an ace that you can analyze a tragic accident and cast stones. How about having some compassion for the poor guy. BTW, he had no intention of landing at Denton. He was in contact with Regional Approach, trying to get down to save his family. He was not in the pattern. He was not attempting to land "on the numbers". He was at 4,500 feet, at night, when he lost power.
Pilots like you make me sick. You probably think it could never happen to you. Instead of judging, how about saying a prayer for Jennifer Lunow and also for her husband and daughter who have to face their future without her.
 
mrreddick said:
GEICO, seriously, are you placing blame on the pilot? How sad that you are such an ace that you can analyze a tragic accident and cast stones. How about having some compassion for the poor guy. BTW, he had no intention of landing at Denton. He was in contact with Regional Approach, trying to get down to save his family. He was not in the pattern. He was not attempting to land "on the numbers". He was at 4,500 feet, at night, when he lost power.
Pilots like you make me sick. You probably think it could never happen to you. Instead of judging, how about saying a prayer for Jennifer Lunow and also for her husband and daughter who have to face their future without her.
Click to expand...

Stop drinking Red Bull son, your thinking and rational is way off. I did not judge anyone.

Praying for the dead is silly, praying for the survivors is noble but, a waste of prayer IMHO. I pray every day that pilots will stop doing stupid pilot tricks and understand a few basic rules of physics and flying.
 
Last edited:
mrreddick said:
GEICO, seriously, are you placing blame on the pilot? How sad that you are such an ace that you can analyze a tragic accident and cast stones. How about having some compassion for the poor guy. BTW, he had no intention of landing at Denton. He was in contact with Regional Approach, trying to get down to save his family. He was not in the pattern. He was not attempting to land "on the numbers". He was at 4,500 feet, at night, when he lost power.
Pilots like you make me sick. You probably think it could never happen to you. Instead of judging, how about saying a prayer for Jennifer Lunow and also for her husband and daughter who have to face their future without her.
Click to expand...

Please Mike calm down, no one is judging. We're discussing the situation because we don't know all the facts. As a new pilot, this exact scenario is my worst fear. So of course im trying to pick up knowledge from better pilots.

This is a horrible tragedy and arguing wont accomplish anything.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Please Mike calm down, no one is judging. We're discussing the situation because we don't know all the facts. As a new pilot, this exact scenario is my worst fear. So of course im trying to pick up knowledge from better pilots.

This is a horrible tragedy and arguing wont accomplish anything.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Certainly, we don't have all of the facts, but a couple of facts about flying GA are in order here.

1. At night, if possible, be high enough to glide to the nearest airport or road. This assumes you know the glide ratio and best glide airspeed of the plane you are flying.
2. Stalling is never good when trying to reach an airport or road. Hitting the ground hard is not going to end well for the plane or occupants.
3. Carry PLENTY of fuel.
4. Add your personal safety rule here.
 
Last edited:
I guess no one here has heard he told ATC he was having oil issues and engine problems, not fuel. The relatively undamaged prop tells a story, but we don't know what.

Stall? Doesn't look like it. The aircraft appears to have landed almost flat and perhaps would not have been badly damaged except for hitting trees.


:rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
I did not judge anyone.

I pray every day that pilots will stop doing stupid pilot tricks and understand a few basic rules of physics and flying.
Click to expand...

Didn't judge anyone? You clearly think the pilot stalled the aircraft and crashed it by doing a "stupid pilot trick". You said if he had planned it right he could have made the runway.

But you don't know anything about the nature of the emergency, or at what altitude and distance from the airport his engine quit. You don't know how much power the engine was producing before it quit.

You don't know how well he knew the terrian, the roads, lights, or if he had ever landed at KTDO.

He was attempting to make an emergency landing at Denton. It wasn't his planned destination, he wasn't in the pattern. I think he "under[stood] a few basic rules and physics of flying" just fine.

He began having severe engine issues miles from KTDO. He notified ATC, properly identified KDTO as the nearest airport and communicated his intention to land there. Based upon the pilot's description of the oil issue it seems quite likely the engine was still producing partial power during their descent.

At some point the engine failed, and the pilot did not have adequate altitude to make the runway.

He then performed an off airport emergency landing, not a crash. The outboard right wing section is relatively undamaged. The leading edge of the left wing shows damage that appears to be from striking small trees. The motor mount is broken, but the fuselage is surprisingly intact. Damage around the cabin windshield and door frames may be due to rescue personnel efforts.
 
3393RP said:
Didn't judge anyone? You clearly think the pilot stalled the aircraft and crashed it by doing a "stupid pilot trick". You said if he had planned it right he could have made the runway.

But you don't know anything about the nature of the emergency, or at what altitude and distance from the airport his engine quit. You don't know how much power the engine was producing before it quit.

You don't know how well he knew the terrian, the roads, lights, or if he had ever landed at KTDO.

He was attempting to make an emergency landing at Denton. It wasn't his planned destination, he wasn't in the pattern. I think he "under[stood] a few basic rules and physics of flying" just fine.

He began having severe engine issues miles from KTDO. He notified ATC, properly identified KDTO as the nearest airport and communicated his intention to land there. Based upon the pilot's description of the oil issue it seems quite likely the engine was still producing partial power during their descent.

At some point the engine failed, and the pilot did not have adequate altitude to make the runway.

He then performed an off airport emergency landing, not a crash. The outboard right wing section is relatively undamaged. The leading edge of the left wing shows damage that appears to be from striking small trees. The motor mount is broken, but the fuselage is surprisingly intact. Damage around the cabin windshield and door frames may be due to rescue personnel efforts.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I think considering his experience level, I think he did as good as I would expect a recreational pilot to do when it comes to a forced landing at night over unfamiliar terrain in a spam can. It was indeed a valiant effort and let's not forget that two of the occupants survived.

Looking at the wreckage it appears not all that badly orchestrated. We really don't know the nature of the fatal injuries to the wife. Getting impaled by a tree branch or having any other kind of freak but probable injury during a night forced landing over obscured trees, killing one occupant but sparing another, or perhaps shielding the child and exposing herself, is a circumstance that could happen to anyone in spite of the best engine out touchdown attempt at night.

My sincere condolences to that family.
 
Geico266 said:
Thanks.

Certainly, we don't have all of the facts, but a couple of facts about flying GA are in order here.
Click to expand...

Oh boy! Here we go! We're going to be kicked some serious knowledge.

1. At night, if possible, be high enough to glide to the nearest airport or road. This assumes you know the glide ratio and best glide airspeed of the plane you are flying.
Click to expand...

Guess that wasn't possible. Ooopsie! Maybe perchance, he couldn't actually see any roads. What's on those roads? What obstructs that road? Is that road straight, or does it curve? It is good to know your best glide distance in the middle of the night to... ????

2. Stalling is never good when trying to reach an airport or road. Hitting the ground hard is not going to end well for the plane or occupants.
Click to expand...

I never would have thought that. I would figure that in emergency, you would want to stop flying and get on the ground as soon as possible. Seems like a stall would be the best way to do that. Who knew it would be bad for people and planes?

3. Carry PLENTY of fuel.
Click to expand...

Why? So you can make that huge Hollywood fireball when you end up crashing?

4. Add your personal safety rule here.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll have a stab at it. How about... don't pack up your family and go flying at night in a single engine airplane? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Bet it does to this poor guy too.

To the rest of you invincible pilots with "bullet proof" engines that "statistically" account for nearly nothing in the Nall report every year, continue on as you were. Blame this idiot pilot for not keeping a runway, or road in glide distance at all time. Assume at once, that if there is engine trouble, that he must have run out of gas and finally, shake your head in disgust that somehow, someway, this pilot managed to fail his duty and stalled his plane in the dark under a high stress situation.

The good news is, nobody reading this will ever, ever do this. We're better than that.:rolleyes:
 
Geico266 said:
Stop drinking Red Bull son, your thinking and rational is way off. I did not judge anyone.

Praying for the dead is silly, praying for the survivors is noble but, a waste of prayer IMHO. I pray every day that pilots will stop doing stupid pilot tricks and understand a few basic rules of physics and flying.
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
Still within gliding distance if you plan it right.

In any event, stalling and dying is never a good plan.
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
Thanks.

Certainly, we don't have all of the facts, but a couple of facts about flying GA are in order here.

1. At night, if possible, be high enough to glide to the nearest airport or road. This assumes you know the glide ratio and best glide airspeed of the plane you are flying.
2. Stalling is never good when trying to reach an airport or road. Hitting the ground hard is not going to end well for the plane or occupants.
3. Carry PLENTY of fuel.
4. Add your personal safety rule here.
Click to expand...
Three times you blame the pilot. Stalling the plane, running out of fuel, and stupid pilot tricks. If that is not what you mean, watch how you word things. And all this without facts of the accident in question.
And let me ask you this, if you should keep an airport in gliding distance at night, how do YOU ever leave the pattern? Or do you ever?
 
hindsight2020 said:
Looking at the wreckage it appears not all that badly orchestrated. We really don't know the nature of the fatal injuries to the wife.
Click to expand...
My guess from looking at the wreckage and the report that the pilot and child's injuries are non-life threatening, is that the mom wasn't wearing a shoulder harness.
 
Fearless Tower said:
My guess from looking at the wreckage and the report that the pilot and child's injuries are non-life threatening, is that the mom wasn't wearing a shoulder harness.
Click to expand...
Does that mean we can blame vain women who don't want to rumple their shirts with shoulder belts for dying in GA accidents?
 
Wonder if a seat belt is going to stop that tree from shearing off the passenger front seat....looks like a landing that simply had a tree that was four feet too close to the cabin. High winds were involved, doesn't look like a stall, but rather a fire department getting into the cabin. News story also says mechanical failure of some sort.
 
skyking3286 said:
Wonder if a seat belt is going to stop that tree from shearing off the passenger front seat....looks like a landing that simply had a tree that was four feet too close to the cabin. High winds were involved, doesn't look like a stall, but rather a fire department getting into the cabin. News story also says mechanical failure of some sort.
Click to expand...

Not saying it wasn't the tree that got her, but I see no evidence that the tree penetrated the cabin. And the passenger seat is fully intact. What you see is all damage from FD extraction.

What I do find interesting is the location of that tree. Take a close look at where it is (wedged between the wing and the fuselage where the flap would be) and the fact that the leading edge of wing is completely intact.
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
OK, I'll have a stab at it. How about... don't pack up your family and go flying at night in a single engine airplane? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Bet it does to this poor guy too.

To the rest of you invincible pilots with "bullet proof" engines that "statistically" account for nearly nothing in the Nall report every year, continue on as you were.
Click to expand...

I know EdFred and others laugh at me as I don't do XC SE night flights, nor do I do day flights over broad areas of LIFR. When the fan quits, if you can't see where to put it down, your chances of a favorable outcome are nil. JMHO of course.

Maybe in the plains states you might be able to put it down in a field, but around here it's all hills and hardwoods.

I feel sorry for the survivors, the road will be tough.
 
Lookin at those photos, You are right PAX seat is in perfect shape. I am back to wondering if mom wasn't fastened in an attempt to somehow shield her daughter.

As a new PP, this makes me second guess flying at night. I do it a lot. Solo and with my family on board.

Last night trip was departing at 9 PM from Dallas to Tulsa. Would have not inconvenienced anyone to depart at 6 AM the following morning.
 
N23984

KDTO 130153Z 16014G23KT 10SM CLR 24/16 A2974

I have only been up with the family once at night. I can usually wait until early the next AM to depart. We go to bed early and are usually up at 4-5 AM. We enjoy the smooth early morning flights.

There were many (unlit) private strips along his route that possibly showed up on his panel mounted 496. I can barely find some of them in the day time, so I can understand aiming for Denton. He told ATC he lost OP and control of prop. Mine goes to fine pitch. At night, I would run it until it locks up or catches fire.

Sorry for the loss of a wife and mother.
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
As a new PP, this makes me second guess flying at night. I do it a lot. Solo and with my family on board.

Last night trip was departing at 9 PM from Dallas to Tulsa. Would have not inconvenienced anyone to depart at 6 AM the following morning.
Click to expand...

Yep. You never have to fly at night. People choose to fly at night for convenience. IMO, the much greater risk is not worth it. If you're on the fence about it, put it to a vote with the family. Just because you are PIC, doesn't mean they shouldn't have a say. However, they need to be properly informed.

Tell them the truth. Tell them that the engines on these planes almost never quit. That the percentage of fatalities due to engine failure every year is a very small percentage, but they do quit. Also tell them that if it does quit at night, the odds are very high that somebody is going to the hospital, or morgue.

I bet they pick wait until morning.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Lookin at those photos, You are right PAX seat is in perfect shape. I am back to wondering if mom wasn't fastened in an attempt to somehow shield her daughter.
Click to expand...

I'm actually thinking she may have smacked her head against the rear doorframe. They probably came down in the trees. Judging by the rear doorframe and that tree, I'd say the airplane was moving sideways when it came to a stop. That would have been a pretty strong side force.
 
Fearless Tower said:
My guess from looking at the wreckage and the report that the pilot and child's injuries are non-life threatening, is that the mom wasn't wearing a shoulder harness.
Click to expand...

The Tarrant County ME said she died from head and spinal injuries...you may be correct.

From looking at the photo I was thinking the aircraft hit left wing low and spun around the tree located at the right wing root somehow. The right wing is pretty much intact.

Tough to lose a wife and mom. RIP...
 
RIP

If I were looking at doing a lot of night work with the family, I'd want a twin real bad.
 
Dav8or said:
Yep. Real tough I imagine. That's why you should do all you can to protect her. That's why you say- "We'll be leaving in the morning."
Click to expand...

If you're going to do "all you can to protect her", why fly her in a small plane at all? It's well-documented that there are safer ways to travel, day or night.
 
Jim_R said:
If you're going to do "all you can to protect her", why fly her in a small plane at all? It's well-documented that there are safer ways to travel, day or night.
Click to expand...

But there are FedEx trucks roaming the highways just waiting to kill us all!!!
 
Jim_R said:
If you're going to do "all you can to protect her", why fly her in a small plane at all? It's well-documented that there are safer ways to travel, day or night.
Click to expand...

Good point. Something to consider particularly if she is mother to young children. How much risk is the family willing to take? Why would you compound the risk by flying at night when you don't have to? I don't understand the logic of, "Well, we're already doing something risky, why not make this even riskier?"
 
You guys are sexist. Mothers can choose for themselves what level of risk they want in their lives. Don't forget women(moms too) love a dangerous ride. Are they not adults and free to choose?
 
ClimbnSink said:
You guys are sexist. Mothers can choose for themselves what level of risk they want in their lives. Don't forget women(moms too) love a dangerous ride. Are they not adults and free to choose?
Click to expand...

They absolutely are. However, as presumed non pilots, are they fully informed as to the risk, or do they get the "This safer than your drive to the airport." tripe? The example here with the man being the pilot and the female the passenger, is just spun off from this particular crash. The circumstances could easily be reversed with woman being the pilot and man being a non pilot, a loved one and a passenger. Same question here. Is he fully informed on the risk, or is he led to believe by the only authority he knows, that this is the safest thing he'd do all day?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top