Mid-air collision

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" wrote

That was the damage to the Cessna that landed at an airport.

Yep, I didn't catch that, the first time around.

I think I've got it now! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

"cavelamb himself" wrote

If the Cessna is claimed to have a "bent landing gear", I'd real quick
go looking at the gear mount area of the fuselage.

That steel leg can take a lot more impact that the aluminum fusleage.

Yep. I would think that it would get a VERY good inspection before it takes
off again. One would hope, anyway.

Who knows. That much damage to the gear may mean enough damage was done to
the fuselage, that it could have to be totaled out.
--
Jim in NC

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:26:23 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

If the Cessna is claimed to have a "bent landing gear", I'd real quick
go looking at the gear mount area of the fuselage.

That steel leg can take a lot more impact that the aluminum fusleage.

The newspaper link I posted the other day had a photo that included both the
gear and the fuselage, and there was a definite wrinkle/bend in front of the
gear leg....

Ron Wanttaja

On Nov 20, 8:57 pm, "flash" wrote:
Mid-air collision

http://www.townhall.com/news/us/2007..._collide_in_wa...

Somebdy must have said their prayers before takeof. Three people, no serious
injury or loss of life. Loss of one craft in the bay, the other landed
safely.

Flash

I'm thinking a well-answered prayer would have kept the aircraft from
striking each other in the first place. It IS great that nobody was
physically harmed, but I'm sure there was a strong emotional impact.
R

On 2007-11-22 20:26:23 -0800, cavelamb himself said:

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote


Maybe not, but the Citabria was missing its vertical stabilizer. :-)

Well, that makes more sense. The early reports given here said that
the only damage was a dent and bent landing gear.


That was the damage to the Cessna that landed at an airport.



If the Cessna is claimed to have a "bent landing gear", I'd real quick
go looking at the gear mount area of the fuselage.

That steel leg can take a lot more impact that the aluminum fusleage.

People who have seen the plane say there is also a nasty dent below the door.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

I question the 182 pilot's decision to go on to Thun rather than Tacoma
Narrows which was close by. He said he didn't remember the freq and his
charts had been scattered. I would have yelled Mayday on 121.5 and landed at
TIW I think.

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
KPLY

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:59:18 -0800, "Tri-Pacer" wrote:

I question the 182 pilot's decision to go on to Thun rather than Tacoma
Narrows which was close by. He said he didn't remember the freq and his
charts had been scattered. I would have yelled Mayday on 121.5 and landed at
TIW I think.

Might have been better, might not have been. No doubt any of us, right after a
major event like this, are going to be fairly rattled.

One way to handle this is sticking with routine, as well as you're able. While
I fly in the accident area all the time, I've landed at Tacoma Narrows airport
precisely once in twenty years. Given an emergency situation where the aircraft
was apparently still controllable and showing no distress, my preference would
be to land at an airport I'm more familiar with. It may have been the case with
the accident pilot.

Other factors may have come to mind, like feeling that repairs/support might be
easier to easier to access at Thun (having friends there, having used the shops
located there, etc.). It's certainly takes a far second place to any safety
considerations, but once it looks like the plane will hold together, it's
something that'll cross any owner's mind.

I once discovered a bad magneto during runup on a nearby island airport. I
could have left the plane there (not having any tiedowns along nor the cockpit
cover, on a near-abandoned public strip), hitched a ride to the ferry terminal,
caught a ferry, rode to the mainland, ordered a new magneto, waited for it to
arrive, then brought an A&P across on the ferry to install the new mag (never
having timed an aircraft before...), then wave tootles to the A&P for him to
drive back while I flew the plane home.

Instead, I cranked up the airplane, climbed to the highest legal altitude over
the island, crossed the two-mile stretch of water to the mainland, and landed
back at my home field about ten minutes later.

I'm not proud of it, but I think given the same circumstances, I'd probably do
it again.

Ron Wanttaja

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:23:37 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:59:18 -0800, "Tri-Pacer" wrote:

I question the 182 pilot's decision to go on to Thun rather than Tacoma
Narrows which was close by. He said he didn't remember the freq and his
charts had been scattered. I would have yelled Mayday on 121.5 and landed at
TIW I think.

Might have been better, might not have been. No doubt any of us, right after a
major event like this, are going to be fairly rattled.

One way to handle this is sticking with routine, as well as you're able. While
I fly in the accident area all the time, I've landed at Tacoma Narrows airport
precisely once in twenty years. Given an emergency situation where the aircraft
was apparently still controllable and showing no distress, my preference would
be to land at an airport I'm more familiar with. It may have been the case with
the accident pilot.

More data garnered at EAA tonight: The 182 pilot indeed flew to Thun instead of
Tacoma Narrows because he wasn't familiar with the Tacoma Narrows airport.

Also, he stayed in the area as the Citabria went down, transmitting a Mayday on
121.5. He kept circling until the pilot and passenger had been rescued. By
then, you can figure he was pretty confident in the condition of the Cessna and
flying an extra five minutes to reach his preferred field wasn't a risk. I
don't disagree with his decision.

Ron Wanttaja

Plus, he was pilot in command of his ship so the decision was his alone.
I think he did a great job! We all can play the "what if" game, but
since everyone is OK, no need to play the what if scenario. Just glad
everyone is OK. Weren't so lucky here this weekend...a fellow classmate
from the University of WI Stout perished in a plane crash this past
Sunday. She was 19. All four aboard died in Faribault, MN when they
crashed on landing at the airport No details yet...

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)



Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:23:37 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:


On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:59:18 -0800, "Tri-Pacer" wrote:


I question the 182 pilot's decision to go on to Thun rather than Tacoma
Narrows which was close by. He said he didn't remember the freq and his
charts had been scattered. I would have yelled Mayday on 121.5 and landed at
TIW I think.

Might have been better, might not have been. No doubt any of us, right after a
major event like this, are going to be fairly rattled.

One way to handle this is sticking with routine, as well as you're able. While
I fly in the accident area all the time, I've landed at Tacoma Narrows airport
precisely once in twenty years. Given an emergency situation where the aircraft
was apparently still controllable and showing no distress, my preference would
be to land at an airport I'm more familiar with. It may have been the case with
the accident pilot.


More data garnered at EAA tonight: The 182 pilot indeed flew to Thun instead of
Tacoma Narrows because he wasn't familiar with the Tacoma Narrows airport.

Also, he stayed in the area as the Citabria went down, transmitting a Mayday on
121.5. He kept circling until the pilot and passenger had been rescued. By
then, you can figure he was pretty confident in the condition of the Cessna and
flying an extra five minutes to reach his preferred field wasn't a risk. I
don't disagree with his decision.

Ron Wanttaja

--