The government owns enough land, why not keep things like this at those places. Myself I am tired of seeing all the military vehicles all around. Just me but they should not be on any public or private anything. I do not need to see how much might our government has, I know this.
Lets stop this now. If those trucks had not been there I really doubt we would even be having this conversation today.
Tony Sweet
I flew into OSH last year and in no way can I see how those trucks could have contributed to this accident, lets not add politics to this tragic event please.
Glenn Brasch
KRYN Tucson, Arizona
2013 RV-9A
Medevac helicopter pilot (Ret)
EAA member since 1980
Owner, "Airport Courtesy Cars" website.
www.airportcourtesycars.com
Volunteer Mentor www.SoAZTeenAviation.org
Really, the airplane is setting on top of those military vehicles but they had nothing to do with it. While its true these military vehicles did not cause the airplane to come out of the sky, they did have a part in the fact the airplane is setting on top of them.Originally Posted by gbrasch
If those trucks where not there would we be talking about this. They had a lot to do with this.
Tony sweet
So, you're saying that if the trucks hadn't been there, the plane would have missed the ground completely? Or that the impact would have been survivable? Please show your basis for this assumption...knowledge of the impact angle, speed at impact, etc. Why would hitting an unarmored military truck be less survivable than a civilian Kenworth, Hummer, or Dodge pickup? Finally, I have to say this: Attempting to make political hay off this tragedy is reprehensible. Ron Wanttaja
Last edited by rwanttaja; 06-04-2015 at 11:51 AM.
I originally questioned the trucks location, not because they are military but because they appear close to the sides of the runway if you have an off runway excursion on landing. This was a factor in the Breezy incident for certain according to the NTSB report:
"The amateur-built ****** Breezy touched down on Runway 36R and "appeared to bounce during the landing roll," the NTSB report states. The Breezy then veered right off the runway and struck armored vehicles parked near the airport perimeter."
I simply raised the question as it seems there was contact with them again after a landing attempt. I did not intend any political statement, I merely wanted to understand how close they are. I should have known better than to ponder out loud on a web forum I guess. Emotions are high after a horrible event. I google mapped the location and I now have a complete understanding of the location of the vehicles with respect to 36R and runway 9, so my questions are answered.
I hope we can return to simply mourning the event and wishing our best for the families and friends of those involved. Sorry for the tangent.
So you are saying if nothing was there this still would have happened in the way it did. I had an engine out, a few in fact and not one resulted or had the outcome this did.
I am saying if nothing was in that spot more then likely we would not be talking about this. It just seems that a bad place to store things like this is at an airport. Not an airport that has a lot of experimental airplanes flying in and out all the time. Why not keep government military vehicles on government land?
My question, why do we store these things in spots like this? I believe airplanes land on the ground everyday and this does not happen. But your response sounds like any power off landing, they are doomed to crash into the ground. It looks as if they landed pretty flat to me. How about those two airplanes in Alaska that landed on each other at 100' All walked. But if they would have landed on parked trucks I am sure the outcome would have been different. This is all I am saying.
From what you are saying you believe they slammed this airplane into the ground and it matters not if the ground was clear or had obstacles in the way. The outcome would have been the same. I just do not see it that way.
But like you pointed out, who am I.
Tony
It does no good to just morn what happened. We or I want and need to learn from this. Why you ask. Because if this can happen to these two men, this can happen to anyone/me.
You view this as an argument. I view this as a discussion about safety. You call it what you want. I have already said in many other post how sorry I am this happened and how it saddens me.
Tony Sweet
Ron if that airplane would have come down hard would it not have been in worse condition then it was? I am amazed there was not a fire. Because I see no fire, I can only determine that this was not a really hard impact with the ground. That and the airplane looks to be in one piece. If it had slammed the ground would it not be in worse condition.
I ask this not arguing but trying to understand this. The most frightening thing to me is an engine out on climbout. I have had a couple. I have also had a couple in flight with one being the loss of the reduction unit and prop. Not one ended as this one. One did come close though.
I had been soloing for a few hrs. On Climbout I loose the engine. It just stopped. I did as trained and landed straight ahead. Problem was my flight ended in the middle of a ditch about 30' wide and 20' deep. I saw this ditch coming and kept her about 10' high. I stalled right in the middle of the ditch about 10 above it. Doing this caused on the stall and drop I went forward some. I slam the opposite bank of the ditch with the mains right at the top. The mains missed going onto flat land by about 6 inches. I slam the bank. The airplane goes up on its nose and stayed in this position what seemed like two or three mins. I am pushed against the belts thinking go over already. She came back down on the wheels and I crawl out. Now I am on flat land. All wheels landed on flat ground once the airplane came back down on its wheels. I did not get hurt nor did the airplane, it was a pusher. We pulled it out of the field with an atv. My instructor saw all this happen and said. You should have turned. I told him all I could hear was his voice telling me to fly straight, land straight ahead. he said I did just fine.
But if I had landed on something that day I am not sure I would have walked away.
I mean no disrespect to anyone and I am grieving what happened here just as everyone . I have to make heads and tails of this. I do respect what you do Ron. I hope you understand this. I am not arguing, just trying to understand how these very talented men came to this. I know they say 90% or something like that is pilot error. But I don't see it here. But again what do I know.
R.I.P.
Tony
Last edited by 1600vw; 06-04-2015 at 01:47 PM.
But, of course, in an earlier post you blamed the US Government for the vehicles sitting where they were. "The government owns enough land, why not keep things like this at those places. " In all likelihood, the vehicles were still owned by the manufacturer (e.g., pre-delivery). Don't know why you brought the Government into it. Whether the trucks contributed to the severity of the accident or not, the fact that they were being sold to the Government is immaterial.
We'd all like it if every airport had a five-mile radius that was nothing but green meadows and pillow corrals. But the reality most of us face is different. I took at photo at my home drome about twenty years ago; a Cardinal has lost power on takeoff and pancaked into the dirt a quarter-mile from the runway. That spot is now a day care, with a strip mall and a Lowes' around it.
Obstructed forced-landing locations are a fact of life. I don't like it that a Dairy Queen sits just short of the approach end of my home field...nor that a set of bazzilion-volt power lines crosses a short distance off OTHER end of the runway. But if the engine quits, that's the hand I'm dealt and I hope I play it as well as possible.
I am intensely uninterested in pre-analyzing this accident...I completed some accident analysis for Mr. Monnet just two weeks ago. But I find the wreckage's final location and condition (upright, flat *atop* a truck with the tail section apparently mostly intact) of interest.
Ron Wanttaja
We had a set of posts cross. As I mentioned there, I'm not really interested in pre-analyzing this early, but: The amount of damage to an aircraft (and its occupants) is exponentially related to the speed at which it hits. The amount of energy involved is related to the square of the speed...hit twice as fast, the airplane and occupants suffer four times as much.
Conversely, all things being equal, the less damage the airplane exhibits, the slower it was going. A lot of things affect this...a glancing first impact to slow the plane down, the nature of what it hits, etc. You can be killed on a bicycle; Frank Tallman had to have a leg amputated from tripping off a curb.
In all probability, the plane was travelling slowly when it hit. They may have had bad luck with the first thing they hit...but I think, typically, you see more tail cone damage in these cases as the plane tumbles. But, of course, the OTHER way it could hit slowly is vertically...deep stall or incipient spin.
We had a Fly Baby accident last year after an engine failure. It went down in a grove of trees. The NTSB report comments that the trees were damaged in a hole only slightly larger than the aircraft...in other words, it went straight in, probably stalled. In the pictures in the docket, the Fly Baby's fuselage is broken off just behind the cockpit and is remarkably intact. So are the wings, for that matter...but the forward fuselage is shattered. No fire, despite a fuel tank located above the pilot's legs right behind the engine.
So the NTSB investigators will be examining the debris trail, attempting to piece together how, exactly, the Sonex was travelling at the time of impact. With all that equipment around, it should have left a pretty obvious trail as it disintegrated.
Ron Wanttaja
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote