Lancair down at KVUO Pearson, Vancouver WA

http://www.columbian.com/news/planecrash.html

....and...

http://snurl.com/204r

We had a pretty bad traffic snarl yesterday when Bob Cody, a 70-ish
year old pilot with years and years and years of experience, brought
his modified Lancair down on Washington SR 14, right next to the
airport.

He walked away from the crash, a testament to his skill as a pilot.
But before that he also took off while another airplane was on an
approach to land, forcing a go around, which is I guess a testament to
the fact that we all miss one now and then. Then something went wrong,
there was smoke in the cockpit and a loss of power

I was caught in traffic on that highway yesterday, about two hours
after the crash. The authorities were still investigating. They
diverted us off the highway onto side streets, and I, not knowing that
it was a plane crash [1] I decided to divert myself another half-mile
to the airport to ask for weight and balance numbers for their rental
172's.

When I pulled up, all the parking spaces were taken. "That's odd, I
thought, I guess the flight school is doing well!". Then I saw two
very nice helicopters on the grass. "That nice, I guess they've added
some helicopters to the training fleet!" I thought.

Then I went in. There was a respectable looking older woman asking
questions about the radio to the CFI at the desk, whom I had met the
year before. She had a small notebook, which was the first clue that
something was out of character. Then I noticed that their phone was
ringing off the hook, and that this nice woman wouldn't stop asking
questions. That was my first clue. [2]

Then the TV trucks started pulling up, and people started setting up
cameras outside.

After completing my errand, I continued on across the river into
Portland, and kept the radio on. The half-hour and top-hour news
reports made mention of the crash and the traffic problem and were
sure to point out that the airplane was "experimental" without
explaining what that means, and that the airplane had a non-certified
engine modification, without pointing out for the first two hours that
the mod was legally done.

We've discussed KVUO's peculiar class-D designation and requirements
before. I suppose in hindsight that the airspace is a good thing;
otherwise we would have had those choppers aloft at 500 AGL, right
over the pattern, training cameras on this guy's totalled airplane.

I can't help considering that if this were an AUTO accident where
people actually died on the scene, it would not have generated a
two-chopper news alarm. But thankfully, all it was was a destroyed kit
airplane with a Buick engine modification, a bent garbage truck, and
no injuries nor fatalities. Everyone walked away.


Rob

[1] I thought it was an "ordinary" auto accident, you know, the kind
that doesn't cause the entire media corps of a whole class-Charlie
city to descend upon your reliever airport...

[2] Sometimes it takes a couple of minutes for me, what can I say? ;-)

After completing my errand, I continued on across the river into
Portland, and kept the radio on. The half-hour and top-hour news
reports made mention of the crash and the traffic problem and were
sure to point out that the airplane was "experimental" without
explaining what that means, and that the airplane had a non-certified
engine modification, without pointing out for the first two hours that
the mod was legally done.


The media has a way of describing kitbuilt planes in the MOST negative
context possible. I almost wish the FAA would allow us to change the term
EXPERIMENTAL to KITBUILT or HOMEBUILT after the test flying is done. We
pilots know what experimental planes are...but to the public it sounds as if
this guy was doing some sort of wild flight testing right there over
downtown!

In article ,
"Jeff Franks" wrote:
The media has a way of describing kitbuilt planes in the MOST negative
context possible. I almost wish the FAA would allow us to change the term
EXPERIMENTAL to KITBUILT or HOMEBUILT after the test flying is done. We
pilots know what experimental planes are...but to the public it sounds as if
this guy was doing some sort of wild flight testing right there over
downtown!


I'm not sure that "homebuilt" or "kitbuilt" would generate a more
positive perception.



JKG

I'm not sure that "homebuilt" or "kitbuilt" would generate a more
positive perception.


Maybe we could come up with a better term, but at least KITBUILT or
HOMEBUILT doesn't sound like some X-plane that only Chuck Yeager should be
flying.

Heck when I read the placard on the panel of experimental planes (the one
about it being a owner-built plane and doesn't conform to the governments
guidelines), even I get scared to fly lol.

In article ,
"Jeff Franks" wrote:
Maybe we could come up with a better term, but at least KITBUILT or
HOMEBUILT doesn't sound like some X-plane that only Chuck Yeager should be
flying.

"Homebuilt" sounds like some idiot put it together in his garage from
parts he bought at Home Depot. "Kitbuilt" is better, but not by much.
Out of the three, I think that "Experimental" is the most respectable.

We all know how the news media misreports on aviation (hint: they
misreport on most other things too), but the solution is education of
the general public to counter any negative images of aviation that the
general public may be fed by the media outlets. Unfortunately, we also
have to own up to the fact that, in most cases, PILOTS are responsible
for crashes. For some reason, other pilots seem to have a hard time
accepting the fact that some of our brethren do really stupid things in
an airplane and get caught by gravity. AOPA and EAA consistently
attempt to put a positive spin on high-profile crashes where pilot error
is clearly implicated as the cause.

The bottom line is that flying is risky business, but it would sure help
if more pilots used better judgment. Remember, accidents usually aren't
the result of just one or two errors in judgment, but rather multiple
errors that eventually compound and catch someone.



JKG

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:10:21 -0500, "Jeff Franks"
wrote:



I'm not sure that "homebuilt" or "kitbuilt" would generate a more
positive perception.


Maybe we could come up with a better term, but at least KITBUILT or
HOMEBUILT doesn't sound like some X-plane that only Chuck Yeager should be
flying.
I know I usually have a different opinions than every one else, but
"to me" Experimental sounds a whole lot better than "kit built, " or
Home built".

The home built and kit built "sounds" like something thrown together
in some ones garage or back yard (which they are), while experimental
sounds more...well...like something being developed by the big boys.
(even though they were put together in some one's garage or back yard)


Heck when I read the placard on the panel of experimental planes (the one
about it being a owner-built plane and doesn't conform to the governments
guidelines), even I get scared to fly lol.

Depends on who built it. Many experimentals are far, far stronger
than the factory built spam cans...although OTOH the crash
survivability is no nearly as good. ... No give or crumple zones in
glass.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

OBAM is becoming more common...

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message