Just heard about this on the morning news. Apparently pilot with 4 months
with the company had trouble maintaining altitude and attempted a landing at
the Easton, WA airstrip. It sounds like he came up short and crashed into
some trees, then cartwheeled and burst into flames.

This is tragic, and I have to wonder if he should have gone for the freeway,
which is also nearby. My instructor for BFR grilled me on what alternative
sites are available if it become apparent you aren't going to make your
emergency touch down point.

My deepest condolences to the family and friends of the pilot.

I was planning to fly to Bozeman, MT next weekend for fishing, but this has
my wife saying a definite no-way to my flying out there. She does have
somewhat of a point though. I just got checkout out for my complex rating,
and will have at best, 4 hours of time in type as PIC before going on this
trip.

--
Thanks,

Steve

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

> I was planning to fly to Bozeman, MT next weekend for fishing, but this has
> my wife saying a definite no-way to my flying out there. She does have
> somewhat of a point though. I just got checkout out for my complex rating,
> and will have at best, 4 hours of time in type as PIC before going on this
> trip.

What airplane?
Statistically, you are more likely to have an incident with less than 10
hours in type, but I think it depends more on total time and familiarity
with other aircraft. However, as you mentioned, you are new to complex,
there are factors you may not yet be familiar with.

He was westbound, Spokane to Seattle, so he wasn't into the mountains yet.
Nothing has been said about an engine out, but "unable to maintain altitude"
doesn't make sense if both engines were running...and there certainly wasn't
any ice in Eastern Washington that night.

AirPac is a good outfit, great people to work for.

Bob Gardner
"steve" > wrote in message
...
> Just heard about this on the morning news. Apparently pilot with 4 months
> with the company had trouble maintaining altitude and attempted a landing
> at the Easton, WA airstrip. It sounds like he came up short and crashed
> into some trees, then cartwheeled and burst into flames.
>
> This is tragic, and I have to wonder if he should have gone for the
> freeway, which is also nearby. My instructor for BFR grilled me on what
> alternative sites are available if it become apparent you aren't going to
> make your emergency touch down point.
>
> My deepest condolences to the family and friends of the pilot.
>
> I was planning to fly to Bozeman, MT next weekend for fishing, but this
> has my wife saying a definite no-way to my flying out there. She does have
> somewhat of a point though. I just got checkout out for my complex rating,
> and will have at best, 4 hours of time in type as PIC before going on this
> trip.
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
> with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
> you will always long to return"
> - Leonardo Da Vinci
>
>

Hi John,

It is a piper Arrow with retractable gear and constant speed prop.

I have 4 hours as training for my complex rating, and will have an
additional 4-6 hours on Monday because I will be taking it out to practice
most of the day.

My total time flying is 120 hours, 100 of which happened 20 years ago. The
good thing is that I am much more thorough and aware of my own mortality
than I was when younger.

Also, the other person going with me has his complex rating also, so we will
have to pilots in the plane.
"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> I was planning to fly to Bozeman, MT next weekend for fishing, but this
>> has
>> my wife saying a definite no-way to my flying out there. She does have
>> somewhat of a point though. I just got checkout out for my complex
>> rating,
>> and will have at best, 4 hours of time in type as PIC before going on
>> this
>> trip.
>
> What airplane?
> Statistically, you are more likely to have an incident with less than 10
> hours in type, but I think it depends more on total time and familiarity
> with other aircraft. However, as you mentioned, you are new to complex,
> there are factors you may not yet be familiar with.

In article >,
"steve" > wrote:

> It is a piper Arrow with retractable gear and constant speed prop.

What year model is it?
Is it a 180 or 200 HP model?
Hershey bar or taper wing?
T-tail or straight tail?

Download the Piper Cherokee and Arrow document
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/highlights.html

This is a good review document for the PA28 series

> I have 4 hours as training for my complex rating, and will have an
> additional 4-6 hours on Monday because I will be taking it out to practice
> most of the day.

Go to http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/
Source of lots of good refresher material

> My total time flying is 120 hours, 100 of which happened 20 years ago. The
> good thing is that I am much more thorough and aware of my own mortality
> than I was when younger.

Essentially, you are starting over and can be considered a low-time
pilot. Although you have over 100 hours, which is probably the minimum
required by insurance for checkout, all your experience is very recent,
by your own admission. The Arrow will take you more than 10 hours be
really comfortable with.
It has a high sink rate with the power off. The main landing gear is
six-inches shorter than a fixed gear Archer, meaning that you have to
manage your energy on short final to make a smooth arrival. You do not
want to drop it in.
There are two ways to look at your proposed trip.
One, you have to try new things to learn. There is nothing like flying
off to a new destination in a new/different airplane.
Two, what you don't know can kill you. Get some more time in the
airplane, then take your wife.
The checkout requirement for the Turbo Arrow IV belonging to the club I
am a member of has the following checkout minimum:

150+ hours total, 25+ hours retract, 10+ hours (or 5+ dual) make and
model and complex endorsement required.

> Also, the other person going with me has his complex rating also, so we will
> have two pilots in the plane.

That can be both good and bad.
How much time in the Arrow does the other pilot have?
How much total complex time does the other pilot have?
Two pilots, no cockpit resource management training, right?
Prior to flight, be sure to define each persons roles and
responsibilities during the flight.

Bob Gardner wrote:
> He was westbound, Spokane to Seattle, so he wasn't into the mountains yet.
> Nothing has been said about an engine out, but "unable to maintain altitude"
> doesn't make sense if both engines were running...and there certainly wasn't
> any ice in Eastern Washington that night.
>
> AirPac is a good outfit, great people to work for.

I've flown with the this pilot a couple of times. He and his friend,
who I've also flown with, joined AirPac a few months ago.

I understand from the news that AirPac had another crash a few months
ago.

"steve" > wrote in message
. ..

> My total time flying is 120 hours, 100 of which happened 20 years ago. The
> good thing is that I am much more thorough and aware of my >own mortality
> than I was when younger.

I would think that this might be a potential problem given a recent checkout
in a complex airplane. (For perspective, I have about 30 hours in an PA-28R
and 240 total hours which have been spaced over fifteen years, so we have a
bit in common.) But, you've got an extra pilot with you which seems
reasonably sufficient.

The only real difference other than possibly switching tanks is during
approach and landing, right? As long as BOTH of you don't forget the GUMPS
check, it seems like it ought to be a piece of cake.

Personally, typical go/no-go issues aside, I'd have a difficult time opting
out of this flight.

-c

rps wrote:
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> He was westbound, Spokane to Seattle, so he wasn't into the mountains yet.
>> Nothing has been said about an engine out, but "unable to maintain altitude"
>> doesn't make sense if both engines were running...and there certainly wasn't
>> any ice in Eastern Washington that night.
>>
>> AirPac is a good outfit, great people to work for.
>
> I've flown with the this pilot a couple of times. He and his friend,
> who I've also flown with, joined AirPac a few months ago.
>
> I understand from the news that AirPac had another crash a few months
> ago.
>

I also have flown with him, and knew him. Man it is depressing finding
out the pilot is someone you know.

AirPac had a crash earlier this year, and a failed nose gear recently.
However, I would not speculate on the cause, until the NTSB does their
job. I am fairly sure that the FAA/NTSB are looking at all aspects of it.


Len
KBFI

On 12 Jul 2006 09:49:50 -0700, "rps" > wrote:

>Bob Gardner wrote:
>> He was westbound, Spokane to Seattle, so he wasn't into the mountains yet.
>> Nothing has been said about an engine out, but "unable to maintain altitude"
>> doesn't make sense if both engines were running...and there certainly wasn't
>> any ice in Eastern Washington that night.
>>
>> AirPac is a good outfit, great people to work for.
>
>I've flown with the this pilot a couple of times. He and his friend,
>who I've also flown with, joined AirPac a few months ago.
>
>I understand from the news that AirPac had another crash a few months
>ago.

The other (previous) AirPac crash was at Bayview (KBVS, Eric Beard was
the pilot).

JFYI, the Easton wreckage has been recovered. Engine tear-downs
/ inspections are commencing as I type this (word has it neither
propeller was feathered at the time of the crash). Hopefully
the NTSB will be able to determine what went wrong....

Bela P. Havasreti

As reluctant as I am to assign blame before all the facts are in, it does
appear that Eric Beard was "ducking under" on a nonprecision approach,
making it hard to point fingers in any other direction. The Easton crash
sounds to me (again, without any factual knowledge), like a mechanical.

I've known Greg and Michelle Thompson since the 1980's, and I know that
losing any of their pilots is like losing a member of their family.

Bob Gardner

"Len" > wrote in message
...
> rps wrote:
>> Bob Gardner wrote:
>>> He was westbound, Spokane to Seattle, so he wasn't into the mountains
>>> yet.
>>> Nothing has been said about an engine out, but "unable to maintain
>>> altitude"
>>> doesn't make sense if both engines were running...and there certainly
>>> wasn't
>>> any ice in Eastern Washington that night.
>>>
>>> AirPac is a good outfit, great people to work for.
>>
>> I've flown with the this pilot a couple of times. He and his friend,
>> who I've also flown with, joined AirPac a few months ago.
>>
>> I understand from the news that AirPac had another crash a few months
>> ago.
>>
>
> I also have flown with him, and knew him. Man it is depressing finding out
> the pilot is someone you know.
>
> AirPac had a crash earlier this year, and a failed nose gear recently.
> However, I would not speculate on the cause, until the NTSB does their
> job. I am fairly sure that the FAA/NTSB are looking at all aspects of it.
>
>
> Len
> KBFI
>
>

Can I go?

steve wrote:
>
> I was planning to fly to Bozeman, MT next weekend for fishing,

"gatt" > wrote

> I would think that this might be a potential problem given a recent
checkout
> in a complex airplane. (For perspective, I have about 30 hours in an
PA-28R
> and 240 total hours which have been spaced over fifteen years, so we have
a
> bit in common.) But, you've got an extra pilot with you which seems
> reasonably sufficient.

As long as he guards against the "I thought you did it" trap, or the "you
were the PIC, so I didn't want to question your decision" trap.

Double check each other, completely, all of the way down the checklist,
right?
--
Jim in NC

Sure come on over the mounatins a little farther towards Billings. I
know of a local wrecked Maule whose parts you can peruse. Get here
before the farmers do.



Maule Driver wrote:

> Can I go?
>
> steve wrote:
>
>>
>> I was planning to fly to Bozeman, MT next weekend for fishing,

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Sure come on over the mounatins a little farther towards Billings. I
> know of a local wrecked Maule whose parts you can peruse. Get here
> before the farmers do.

Is that the one that happened at the flyin last weekend?
There is no preliminary report in on the FAA website.

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
. ..
> As reluctant as I am to assign blame before all the facts are in, it does
> appear that Eric Beard was "ducking under" on a nonprecision approach,
> making it hard to point fingers in any other direction. The Easton crash
> sounds to me (again, without any factual knowledge), like a mechanical.

I agree that the events leading up to the crash suggest a mechanical problem
(especially with the pilot radioing about what sounded like some sort of
mechanical issue). But even if they determine what mechanical problem
existed, if any, it doesn't explain how the pilot failed to make a
successful emergency landing.

While forested, it's not as though there are no clear areas in which to
land. Even the area shown in the news footage appears reasonably landable
with plenty of space between the trees and open terrain generally. Given
the terrain, if the airplane had struck a tree during the landing roll, or
had come to rest against a tree or something like that, I think it would
have been understandable. But one witness they interviewed for the news
said that he saw the airplane descending upside down, meaning that it had
struck a tree (losing the wing) prior to landing.

The question of why *that* happened will be much harder to answer, assuming
it's answered at all. :(

Pete

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>Sure come on over the mounatins a little farther towards Billings. I
>>know of a local wrecked Maule whose parts you can peruse. Get here
>>before the farmers do.
>
>
> Is that the one that happened at the flyin last weekend?
> There is no preliminary report in on the FAA website.

Is that right? Funny how that works.

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Newps > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sure come on over the mounatins a little farther towards Billings. I
> >>know of a local wrecked Maule whose parts you can peruse. Get here
> >>before the farmers do.
> >
> >
> > Is that the one that happened at the flyin last weekend?
> > There is no preliminary report in on the FAA website.
>
> Is that right? Funny how that works.

You forgot to add... :-))

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>john smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Newps > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sure come on over the mounatins a little farther towards Billings. I
>>>>know of a local wrecked Maule whose parts you can peruse. Get here
>>>>before the farmers do.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is that the one that happened at the flyin last weekend?
>>>There is no preliminary report in on the FAA website.
>>
>>Is that right? Funny how that works.
>
>
> You forgot to add... :-))

No I didn't.

It is a 2200HP Hershey bare wing and straight tail.

PA28/R-200

Thanks to everyone for your input and recommendations. The other pilot and I
will definitely make sure we both go through all checklists and CCGUMPS
independently to ensure we don't have to point broken fingers at each other
later.

The go/no go is now based on weather outlook. I am just starting to learn
IFR and will cancel our flight if there is even a hint of rain, clouds, or
thunderstorms during the 4 day trip on the entire route. I'll have plenty of
opportunities for future trips and already have tickets on Alaska Airlines
in case we do cancel.

Better to be safe than sorry.


Again, my deepest sympathies to those of you who knew the pilot in eastern
Washington.

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "steve" > wrote:
>
>> It is a piper Arrow with retractable gear and constant speed prop.
>
> What year model is it?
> Is it a 180 or 200 HP model?
> Hershey bar or taper wing?
> T-tail or straight tail?
>
> Download the Piper Cherokee and Arrow document
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/highlights.html
>
> This is a good review document for the PA28 series
>
>> I have 4 hours as training for my complex rating, and will have an
>> additional 4-6 hours on Monday because I will be taking it out to
>> practice
>> most of the day.
>
> Go to http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/
> Source of lots of good refresher material
>
>> My total time flying is 120 hours, 100 of which happened 20 years ago.
>> The
>> good thing is that I am much more thorough and aware of my own mortality
>> than I was when younger.
>
> Essentially, you are starting over and can be considered a low-time
> pilot. Although you have over 100 hours, which is probably the minimum
> required by insurance for checkout, all your experience is very recent,
> by your own admission. The Arrow will take you more than 10 hours be
> really comfortable with.
> It has a high sink rate with the power off. The main landing gear is
> six-inches shorter than a fixed gear Archer, meaning that you have to
> manage your energy on short final to make a smooth arrival. You do not
> want to drop it in.
> There are two ways to look at your proposed trip.
> One, you have to try new things to learn. There is nothing like flying
> off to a new destination in a new/different airplane.
> Two, what you don't know can kill you. Get some more time in the
> airplane, then take your wife.
> The checkout requirement for the Turbo Arrow IV belonging to the club I
> am a member of has the following checkout minimum:
>
> 150+ hours total, 25+ hours retract, 10+ hours (or 5+ dual) make and
> model and complex endorsement required.
>
>> Also, the other person going with me has his complex rating also, so we
>> will
>> have two pilots in the plane.
>
> That can be both good and bad.
> How much time in the Arrow does the other pilot have?
> How much total complex time does the other pilot have?
> Two pilots, no cockpit resource management training, right?
> Prior to flight, be sure to define each persons roles and
> responsibilities during the flight.

The other issue is that Interstate 90, with two full lanes in each direction
was right next to the Easton airstrip, and parallel to his direction of
flight.

That would have given him a nearly unlimited landing strip, albeit with cars
scampering out of the way.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> As reluctant as I am to assign blame before all the facts are in, it does
>> appear that Eric Beard was "ducking under" on a nonprecision approach,
>> making it hard to point fingers in any other direction. The Easton crash
>> sounds to me (again, without any factual knowledge), like a mechanical.
>
> I agree that the events leading up to the crash suggest a mechanical
> problem (especially with the pilot radioing about what sounded like some
> sort of mechanical issue). But even if they determine what mechanical
> problem existed, if any, it doesn't explain how the pilot failed to make a
> successful emergency landing.
>
> While forested, it's not as though there are no clear areas in which to
> land. Even the area shown in the news footage appears reasonably landable
> with plenty of space between the trees and open terrain generally. Given
> the terrain, if the airplane had struck a tree during the landing roll, or
> had come to rest against a tree or something like that, I think it would
> have been understandable. But one witness they interviewed for the news
> said that he saw the airplane descending upside down, meaning that it had
> struck a tree (losing the wing) prior to landing.
>
> The question of why *that* happened will be much harder to answer,
> assuming it's answered at all. :(
>
> Pete
>

ok, long day, just got in from SFO for work. lol

200HP hershey bar wing.
not a bare wing, lol

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "steve" > wrote
>
>> It is a 2200HP Hershey bare wing and straight tail.
>
> Damn, that must be one powerful HP additive you are putting in your fuel!
> <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>

"steve" > wrote

> It is a 2200HP Hershey bare wing and straight tail.

Damn, that must be one powerful HP additive you are putting in your fuel!
<g>
--
Jim in NC

"steve" > wrote in message
. ..
> The other issue is that Interstate 90, with two full lanes in each
> direction was right next to the Easton airstrip, and parallel to his
> direction of flight.
>
> That would have given him a nearly unlimited landing strip, albeit with
> cars scampering out of the way.

People talk about landing on highways all the time. But IMHO, a busy
highway like I-90 is just not a viable option. Sometimes, there is space in
the median, or along the cleared right-of-way to either side. But landing
on the paved portion where motorists are driving simply endangers innocent
bystanders. I would only choose the paved highway if it were literally the
*only* possible place to land.

(Though, on the bright side, at least a big highway like I-90 is less likely
to have obstructions such as power lines and whatnot).

There are a variety of things to question about the way things unfolded in
this accident, but the pilot choosing to not land on I-90 doesn't seem to me
to be one of them.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "steve" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > The other issue is that Interstate 90, with two full lanes in each
> > direction was right next to the Easton airstrip, and parallel to his
> > direction of flight.
> >
> > That would have given him a nearly unlimited landing strip, albeit with
> > cars scampering out of the way.
>
....
>
> There are a variety of things to question about the way things unfolded in
> this accident, but the pilot choosing to not land on I-90 doesn't seem to me
> to be one of them.

The pilot was a reasonably experienced CFII. When I last flew with
him, I think he probably had at least 2000 hours. Landing on a freeway
when there's a perfectly good strip nearby might be a little
embarassing to a professional pilot, but my guess is that he probably
thought he had the airstrip made. While going through the emergency
procedures checklist (or trying to control the descent without
stalling), he could have failed to see the tall tree that he ultimately
clipped with one wing. I wouldn't expect such a mishap to cause fatal
injuries because he was sufficiently low and slow that impact forces
could have been survivable, but I'm still unaware of the full set of
facts and the preliminary NTSB report is not yet published.

"rps" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The pilot was a reasonably experienced CFII. When I last flew with
> him, I think he probably had at least 2000 hours. Landing on a freeway
> when there's a perfectly good strip nearby might be a little
> embarassing to a professional pilot, but my guess is that he probably
> thought he had the airstrip made.

I agree that's a good guess. A guess nonetheless, but a good one.

> While going through the emergency
> procedures checklist (or trying to control the descent without
> stalling), he could have failed to see the tall tree that he ultimately
> clipped with one wing.

I also agree that this is a good guess. It doesn't look like in that area
that it would have been impossible to avoid all trees, at least during the
emergency approach.

> I wouldn't expect such a mishap to cause fatal
> injuries because he was sufficiently low and slow that impact forces
> could have been survivable, but I'm still unaware of the full set of
> facts and the preliminary NTSB report is not yet published.

As I mentioned, an eye-witness reported that the airplane was already upside
down well before actually crashing. That is, it's likely that the airplane
had already struck a tree quite early in the approach. That completely
changes the nature of the accident, and being "low and slow" as he might
normally have been isn't necessarily helpful as it normally might be.

Of course, there is also the unsettling thought that he may well have
survived the impact, only to be consumed in the fire with the rest of the
airplane. :(

But back to the impact issue...it is a bit of "luck of the draw". A few
years ago, at Thun Field near here, a Lake Buccaneer pilot aborted an
approach and then screwed up the go-around. He wound up crashing into a
stand of 75' evergreen trees just to the left of the runway centerline.
Broke the very top of a tree off as he entered the stand and came down at a
very steep angle (at the crash site, you could see the path the airplane
took just by noting the broken trees and branches). The airplane turned
around 180 degrees during the final descent, but didn't flip over. It was
basically totaled, but the pilot and his passenger (to whom the pilot was
demonstrating the airplane in hopes of selling it) walked away with
relatively minor injuries (one of them wound up with a hairline fracture in
his hip...the pilot, if I recall correctly).

Comparing the two accidents (with the suspect assumption that they are
comparable), one major difference is that where the people walked away, the
entire accident took place within a dense stand of trees. They lucked out
and failed to hit any tree directly, so with each tree what happened is that
more and more energy was removed gradually from the airplane, reducing the
impact forces. In that respect, it seems that one might conclude that it's
better to hit a couple dozen trees at the end of the approach than to hit
just one. Of course there were many other lucky aspects, including that the
airplane did not flip over, and that there was no post-crash fire.

And of course, it's better to not hit ANY trees, and of course in the case
of the Lake accident here, the cause wasn't due to mechanical failure.
There was no good reason for the airplane to have wound up in the trees in
the first place in that accident.

But still, all of this just reinforces that during an emergency, the pilot
MUST keep "aviate" as the very highest priority. Something that ought to be
a "walk away" accident can turn into a deadly event, if one's attention is
distracted even for just a moment.

Pete

Steve

Day VFR only.
No landings/takeoffs at short back woods fields or high altitude
fields.
No overloaded bird. Don't bring all the fish back in one trip :o)
Plenty of gas for each leg.
Have co-pilot run a verbal checklist each take off and landing.

Straight and level point A to point B should be a piece of cake.

Good fishing.

Big John
``````````````````````````````````````````````

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:10:30 -0700, "steve" >
wrote:

>Just heard about this on the morning news. Apparently pilot with 4 months
>with the company had trouble maintaining altitude and attempted a landing at
>the Easton, WA airstrip. It sounds like he came up short and crashed into
>some trees, then cartwheeled and burst into flames.
>
>This is tragic, and I have to wonder if he should have gone for the freeway,
>which is also nearby. My instructor for BFR grilled me on what alternative
>sites are available if it become apparent you aren't going to make your
>emergency touch down point.
>
>My deepest condolences to the family and friends of the pilot.
>
>I was planning to fly to Bozeman, MT next weekend for fishing, but this has
>my wife saying a definite no-way to my flying out there. She does have
>somewhat of a point though. I just got checkout out for my complex rating,
>and will have at best, 4 hours of time in type as PIC before going on this
>trip.