piper cargo twin crashes in eastern washington

"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

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

"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