Spanaway crash

In article l6Tkb.837378$uu5.148065@sccrnsc04,
Bob Gardner wrote:
When you get your twin rating, Ben, and I know that you will, remember this:
Below 200 feet with an engine out, put it down somewhere...anywhere...do not
even think of going around.

One key thing I've learned about flying it's that there are plenty of
things that sound easy on the ground but are much harder in practice.
For example, it's better to run off the end of the runway at 20kts than
to hit the tops of the trees at 60kts. But when actually confronted
with landing long on a runway with trees obstructing the go-around it's
a lot harder to commit to landing and overrunning than it is to try the
go-around.

When I read about an accident like this one I try to take away not only
the obvious lesson but also put myself in the position of the pilot and
think about why he didn't make the right decision. A decision he probably
could have made and argued for in an FBO lounge the day before but was
unable to make in flight.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

This Luscombe belongs to John Russo, an older gentlemen who lives at
the Spanaway airpark. I flew back from central Oregon with him (as a
flight of two) last summer. Really sad to hear about the accident.

Mike

(Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:_QXkb.827736$YN5.865593@sccrnsc01...
In article l6Tkb.837378$uu5.148065@sccrnsc04,
Bob Gardner wrote:
When you get your twin rating, Ben, and I know that you will, remember this:
Below 200 feet with an engine out, put it down somewhere...anywhere...do not
even think of going around.

One key thing I've learned about flying it's that there are plenty of
things that sound easy on the ground but are much harder in practice.
For example, it's better to run off the end of the runway at 20kts than
to hit the tops of the trees at 60kts. But when actually confronted
with landing long on a runway with trees obstructing the go-around it's
a lot harder to commit to landing and overrunning than it is to try the
go-around.

When I read about an accident like this one I try to take away not only
the obvious lesson but also put myself in the position of the pilot and
think about why he didn't make the right decision. A decision he probably
could have made and argued for in an FBO lounge the day before but was
unable to make in flight.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 05:39:55 GMT, "Chris Hoffmann"
wrote:

A guy's got an engine out, and he has to go around? Is this normal, or was
there some ball-dropping involved?

Scappoose is uncontrolled and *busy*. Not as busy as Aurora State a
bit further south, but still, I haven't been in there at any time in
the last year when there wasn't at least one other aircraft in the
pattern.

Folks are right, tho. You can put a light single down on the taxiway,
there's flat grass on the field, and there shouldn't have been a go
around.

I haven't seen more than a blurb on the radio news and a three
paragraph thing on oregonlive.com. Any better place to go for a report
on the Scappoose accident?

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie...ash.17360595.h
tml

This from KGW, the site requires registration.

SCAPPOOSE, Ore. -- A preliminary report from the National Transportation
Safety Board says investigators don't know why a small plane crashed in
Scappoose last weekend, killing everyone on board.

The Cessna 340 crashed near the Scappoose Airport late Saturday afternoon
and burst into flames.

Columbia County authorities Monday identified the victims as James
Gillespie, 72, and Jessie Gillespie, 73, of the Steilacom, Wash. area. The
relationship of the victims was not immediately clear.

Federal aviation records indicate that James Gillespie, an accomplished
pilot registered as a flight instructor, owned the plane.

NTSB investigators spent much of Sunday sifting through the plane's charred
wreckage. They said witnesses are providing clues to what may have happened.

Witnesses said that as the Cessna was about to land, another plane took off
from the same runway. The Cessna's pilot then decided to go back around to
again attempt landing.

The plane crashed in a field near the intersection of Moore and Ring-a-ring
Road, northeast of the airport.

NTSB investigator Debra Eckrote said everything appeared normal until the
Cessna's pilot turned back toward the airport.

"It then started to lose altitude as it completed not quite a 180-degree
turn and then the witness saw that the nose dropped, the left wing
dropped.it started an inverted altitude," said Eckrote.

It is not known whether the two pilots were communicating. Scappoose Airport
is uncontrolled, meaning pilots are not required to communicate with one
another in the airfield.

--
Chris Hoffmann
Student Pilot @ UES
40 hours

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:45:57 GMT, "Chris Hoffmann"
wrote:

(from the KGW report)
It is not known whether the two pilots were communicating. Scappoose Airport
is uncontrolled, meaning pilots are not required to communicate with one
another in the airfield.

News to me. I thought the regs stated that if you had a radio, you had
to use it.

The KEX radio report I heard the following Monday reported "The pilot
was under 'visual flight rules' which means he was flying by reference
to what he could see, rather than using the onboard instruments."

(And to think, I spend time in every pattern looking at that
altimeter...)

Clearly most reporters need to get the *&^&*%^%^& out of aviation
reporting.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Robert Perkins wrote:


News to me. I thought the regs stated that if you had a radio, you had
to use it.

No, the radio is optional.



The KEX radio report I heard the following Monday reported "The pilot
was under 'visual flight rules' which means he was flying by reference
to what he could see, rather than using the onboard instruments."

That's accurate.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:03:07 GMT, Newps wrote:

The KEX radio report I heard the following Monday reported "The pilot
was under 'visual flight rules' which means he was flying by reference
to what he could see, rather than using the onboard instruments."

That's accurate.

It's difficult, in a written medium, to convey the level of confidence
the reporter has in saying that, that flying VFR was more risky than
flying by reference to the instruments.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Robert Perkins wrote in message . ..

News to me. I thought the regs stated that if you had a radio, you had
to use it.

Would you mind sharing with us what regulation
says this?

Thanks,
Sydney

Robert Perkins wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:45:57 GMT, "Chris Hoffmann"
wrote:

(from the KGW report)
It is not known whether the two pilots were communicating. Scappoose Airport
is uncontrolled, meaning pilots are not required to communicate with one
another in the airfield.

News to me. I thought the regs stated that if you had a radio, you had
to use it.

Nope. It's pretty dumb NOT to use the radio you have (especially at a field
like Scappoose that's often pretty busy), but it's not reequired by the regs.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

"David H" wrote in message
...
Nope. It's pretty dumb NOT to use the radio you have (especially at a
field
like Scappoose that's often pretty busy), but it's not reequired by the
regs.

Surely, being dumb is a violation of 91.13?

-- David Brooks

(not sure whether to add the smiley or not :-) )