SixPapaCharlie
May the force be with you
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,070
- Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
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.
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.
700 feet from the road...not the runway. Airport was still a mile out looking at the map.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
700 feet from the road...not the runway. Airport was still a mile out looking at the map.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
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?
You have the ratio backwards, but the thinking is correct. RVs glide ratio is much higher, 14-1 for the RV-12.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still within gliding distance if you plan it right.
In any event, stalling and dying is never a good plan.
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.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.
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.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.
Does that mean we can blame vain women who don't want to rumple their shirts with shoulder belts for dying in GA accidents?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tough to lose a wife and mom. RIP...
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."
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.
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.
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?