Fly It to the Ground

A Lancair was involved in a fatal accident near Dalton, GA yesterday. It
crashed in the median of a divided 4 lane highway. The airplane had engine
problems and had time to radio distress calls. Depending on the news source,
it appears that there might have been as much as 10 to 20 minutes between
the first distress call and the crash. One story indicated that the
aircraft crashed almost 10 minutes after emergency crews had been notified
of a plane in distress.

Apparently the pilot was trying to reach the Dalton airport, which was about
3 miles from the crash scene. The airplane didn't make the airport and the
pilot was almost certainly trying to land on the road. Having seen pictures
of the aftermath, it appears that the aircraft was not under control when it
hit the ground. Perhaps the pilot stalled trying to avoid landing in traffic
(this is a busy road), clipped a utility wire, or lost control trying to
avoid wires.

Plane crashes in north Georgia, kills 1 - Examiner.com

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/sha...06/109692.html
(may require registration)

Anyway, the point that this accident brings home is that unless you have the
opportunity to land on a road that is free of vehicular traffic and which
you know to be free of utility wires, land the airplane in a field if you
have the chance. Even more important is that you need to fly the airplane
all the way to the ground and touch down as slowly as possible. Losing
control at 50' almost guarantees a bad outcome.

I fly over the crash area all the time and can tell you that there is a fair
amount of open land nearby. That pasture (or whatever) may not look as
airplane friendly as a paved road, but for a deadstick pilot a road is like
a sucker hole for a VFR pilot. It can be a killer when something that looked
good from afar goes to you-know-what when you get a look at it up close and
personal.

KB

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..
A Lancair was involved in a fatal accident near Dalton, GA yesterday. It
crashed in the median of a divided 4 lane highway. The airplane had engine
problems and had time to radio distress calls. Depending on the news
source, it appears that there might have been as much as 10 to 20 minutes
between the first distress call and the crash. One story indicated that
the aircraft crashed almost 10 minutes after emergency crews had been
notified of a plane in distress.

Apparently the pilot was trying to reach the Dalton airport, which was
about 3 miles from the crash scene. The airplane didn't make the airport
and the pilot was almost certainly trying to land on the road. Having
seen pictures of the aftermath, it appears that the aircraft was not under
control when it hit the ground. Perhaps the pilot stalled trying to avoid
landing in traffic (this is a busy road), clipped a utility wire, or lost
control trying to avoid wires.

Plane crashes in north Georgia, kills 1 - Examiner.com

Fixed Link:
http://www.examiner.com/a-382498~Pla...kills_1.htm l


http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/sha...06/109692.html
(may require registration)

Anyway, the point that this accident brings home is that unless you have
the opportunity to land on a road that is free of vehicular traffic and
which you know to be free of utility wires, land the airplane in a field
if you have the chance. Even more important is that you need to fly the
airplane all the way to the ground and touch down as slowly as possible.
Losing control at 50' almost guarantees a bad outcome.

I fly over the crash area all the time and can tell you that there is a
fair amount of open land nearby. That pasture (or whatever) may not look
as airplane friendly as a paved road, but for a deadstick pilot a road is
like a sucker hole for a VFR pilot. It can be a killer when something that
looked good from afar goes to you-know-what when you get a look at it up
close and personal.

KB

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
I fly over the crash area all the time and can tell you that there is a
fair
amount of open land nearby. That pasture (or whatever) may not look as
airplane friendly as a paved road, but for a deadstick pilot a road is
like
a sucker hole for a VFR pilot.

Sucker holes can work. It depends on the pilot's familiarity with the area.
The only part of your blanket statement I can agree with is the part about
flying it all the way down. I disagree that fields are better than roads
when used as a blanket statement. Every crash scene is different.

D.

I read a statistic somewhere that if you touch-down at 50 mph, assuming
a constant 9G deceleration (Easily Survivable), you only need 10 feet
to come to a full stop.

Increase to 70mph, and you need 40 something feet.

Fly her all the way into the ground, make a shallow, full stall
landing, and you'll probably survive... The real danger comes when
people place too much value on not harming the aircraft.

EridanMan wrote:
I read a statistic somewhere that if you touch-down at 50 mph, assuming
a constant 9G deceleration (Easily Survivable), you only need 10 feet
to come to a full stop.

Increase to 70mph, and you need 40 something feet.

Fly her all the way into the ground, make a shallow, full stall
landing, and you'll probably survive... The real danger comes when
people place too much value on not harming the aircraft.

I'd been told some time ago that once something really bad starts to
happen, it's no longer your aircraft--it belongs to the insurance
company. Your job is to keep yourself and your passengers healthy.

wrote:
EridanMan wrote:


I'd been told some time ago that once something really bad starts to
happen, it's no longer your aircraft--it belongs to the insurance
company. Your job is to keep yourself and your passengers healthy.

That's only true for aircraft that have hull insurance. But your point
is valid that one should not try to save the aircraft.

One of my instructors STRONGLY suggested that I "do not try to save
an aircraft that was trying to kill me"....

Dave



On 7 Nov 2006 19:34:39 -0800, "Andrew Sarangan"
wrote:

wrote:
EridanMan wrote:


I'd been told some time ago that once something really bad starts to
happen, it's no longer your aircraft--it belongs to the insurance
company. Your job is to keep yourself and your passengers healthy.

That's only true for aircraft that have hull insurance. But your point
is valid that one should not try to save the aircraft.

wrote in message
oups.com...

EridanMan wrote:
I read a statistic somewhere that if you touch-down at 50 mph, assuming
a constant 9G deceleration (Easily Survivable), you only need 10 feet
to come to a full stop.

Increase to 70mph, and you need 40 something feet.

Fly her all the way into the ground, make a shallow, full stall
landing, and you'll probably survive... The real danger comes when
people place too much value on not harming the aircraft.

I'd been told some time ago that once something really bad starts to
happen, it's no longer your aircraft--it belongs to the insurance
company. Your job is to keep yourself and your passengers healthy.


If the engine has just done something nasty like throw a rod, the best thing
financially is to have an off field landing and total the plane. If you
land on a runway without damage, the insurance company pays nothing.

Danny Dot

"Danny Dot" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

EridanMan wrote:
I read a statistic somewhere that if you touch-down at 50 mph, assuming
a constant 9G deceleration (Easily Survivable), you only need 10 feet
to come to a full stop.

Increase to 70mph, and you need 40 something feet.

Fly her all the way into the ground, make a shallow, full stall
landing, and you'll probably survive... The real danger comes when
people place too much value on not harming the aircraft.

I'd been told some time ago that once something really bad starts to
happen, it's no longer your aircraft--it belongs to the insurance
company. Your job is to keep yourself and your passengers healthy.


If the engine has just done something nasty like throw a rod, the best
thing financially is to have an off field landing and total the plane. If
you land on a runway without damage, the insurance company pays nothing.

Danny Dot

I'd prefer to pay to fix an engine than to have someone get hurt or killed
in an effort to total the airplane.

KB

"Danny Dot" wrote in message
...
If the engine has just done something nasty like throw a rod, the best
thing financially is to have an off field landing and total the plane. If
you land on a runway without damage, the insurance company pays nothing.

If you land on the runway without damage, what would there be for the
insurance company to pay?

I don't know about you, but my insurance policy doesn't distinguish between
accidents that occur off-airport and on-airport (well, other than a
different deductible depending on whether the airplane is in-motion and/or
moored). Even if damage *did* occur, the question of landing on a runway
versus not is irrelevant. It would be pretty foolish for a person to buy an
insurance policy that encourages a less-safe decision.

But your comment about landing on a runway *without* damage is just silly.
Of *course* the insurance company would pay nothing if there was no damage.
I have no damage every time I go flying (so far ), and every single time,
my insurance company refuses to pay. Oddly enough, I don't have any problem
with this.

Pete