Crashes in the News - Thread

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

wktaylor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
493
Location
Midwest USA
Mooney down in Illinois. Embedded TV news had ATC recording... Pilot reported '...maybe 10 gallons fuel remaining, doubtful they could reach a runway'... .
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
14,275
Location
Fresno, California
I don’t know if anyone picked this up and posted it elsewhere, but here the prelim narrative about the SIC pilot that jumped from a CASA inflight:

NTSB issues the preliminary report into the fatal accident involving a CASA C-212 Aviocar 200, N497CA, that occurred July 29, 2022, at Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU/KRDU), Morrisville, North Carolina:

On July 29, 2022, about 1404 eastern daylight time, a Casa 212-200, N497CA, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Raeford, North Carolina. The pilot-in-command was not injured, and the second-in-command sustained fatal injuries during the subsequent diversion to the Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU), Durham, North Carolina. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 skydiving flight.

The pilot-in-command (PIC) reported that they flew two skydiving runs then descended to the Raeford West Airport (NR20), Raeford, North Carolina, to pick up a third group of skydivers. The second-in-command (SIC) was flying the approach to NR20 and was “on heading, altitude and airspeed” until the airplane descended below the tree line and “dropped.” Both pilots called for a go-around maneuver, which the SIC initiated; however, before the SIC could arrest the airplane’s sink rate and initiate a climb, the right main landing gear (RMLG) impacted the runway surface. The PIC assumed the flight controls upon the airplane reaching 400 ft agl, then flew a low approach over NR20 to have airfield personnel verify damage. The personnel subsequently called the PIC to let him know that they recovered the fractured RMLG on the runway. The PIC directed the SIC to declare an emergency and request a diversion to RDU for landing.

While enroute to RDU, the crew coordinated with air traffic control, operations, and their customer, and planned their approach and landing at RDU, with the SIC responsible for communicating with air traffic control while the PIC flew the airplane. The PIC reported that there was moderate turbulence during the flight, and that about 20 minutes into the diversion to RDU, after conducting approach and emergency briefings, the SIC became visibly upset about the hard landing. Review of preliminary air traffic control radio communication information from the Federal Aviation Administration indicated that the SIC had been communicating with air traffic control up to that point in the flight. In his final transmission, the SIC acknowledged a course heading from air traffic control. The PIC described that about this time the SIC opened his side cockpit window, and “may have gotten sick.” The PIC took over radio communications, and the SIC lowered the ramp in the back of the airplane, indicating that felt like he was going to be sick and needed air. The PIC stated that the SIC then got up from his seat, removed his headset, apologized, and departed the airplane via the aft ramp door. The PIC stated that there was a bar one could grab about 6 ft above the ramp; however, he did not witness the SIC grab the bar before exiting the airplane. The PIC then turned the airplane to the right to search for the SIC. In a radio transmission to air traffic control about 1 ½ minutes after the SIC’s radio acknowledgement of the course heading, the PIC notified air traffic control that his copilot had departed the airplane without a parachute. The PIC proceeded on course to RDU, where he performed a low-approach and then emergency landing. Upon landing, the airplane departed the right side of the runway and came to rest upright in the grass.

Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the RMLG, landing gear fittings, and the airframe structure where the fittings attach.

The airplane was retained for further examination.
 

Hawk81A

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2021
Messages
322
So they now say that the co-pilot INTENTIONALLY jumped. Apparently very upset over the hard landing that damaged the gear. He supposedly apologized, left his seat, opened the rear hatch / ramp, and jumped. What a shame. Dennis
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
11,129
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
I have done many things in an airplane that I was embarrassed about, but not embarrassed enough to do that.

From the referenced report, there is still a mystery to me whether the "jump" was intentional. He may have been thrown off balance by the "moderte turbulence", or he may have been using both hands to hold an airsickness bag and a bump accidentally tossed him out of the airplane.

I am also aware that the PIC could potentially have been so abrasive and abusive toward the SIC (because of the botched landing), that the SIC became far more despondent than he really should have been. There's a famous (now cliche') old saying in the entertainment business "You'll never work in this town again!"... I can imagine there is an equivalent of that in commercial aviation, and SIC could have had his entire career threatened by a pissed off cranky old jump pilot.

Anyway, this is a tragedy and IMHO should be considered as such.
 

P-Chapman

New Member
Joined
May 28, 2022
Messages
3
Regarding pilots wearing parachutes and the 'co-pilot fell/jumped out' accident:

[Much as I wrote in another forum, as an experienced skydiver but not jump pilot]

Parachutes for jump pilots not always required in US.
Commonly used in smaller planes, less so in bigger ones. (Similar in Canada. May differ in Europe etc.)

So it would be 'normal' for the CASA pilots to NOT have emergency bailout parachutes on board.

I'm not absolutely sure of the rules but this seems to be the case:

Parachute not required by FAA. Some STC's or 337's or what have you do require it, e.g. the flip-up in-flight door modifications for typical single piston engine Cessna used for skydiving. Some dropzones may require pilots to wear a chute. There's more of a push to wear one for low tail aircraft (e.g., Caravan), but less so for higher tail aircraft (e.g., Twin Otter, Skyvan, CASA), where there's less chance of a premature parachute opening by a skydiver taking out the tail or catching on the tail and causing control problems.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
11,277
Location
USA.
Never wore a parachute when hauling jumpers. Sometimes might be a good idea when one of the crazy jumps would turn the mag switch off and jump with the key in the C-182. Never cared much for hauling jumpers. I just liked to go with a load of jumpers in the right seat of the B-18 and get to fly it back home.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,152
Location
US
I have done many things in an airplane that I was embarrassed about, but not embarrassed enough to do that.

We are all pretty complex, and it is impossible to know what thoughts and motivations might be running through another person's head. Like everyone, I've experienced some "Oh NO!" events that, in the moment, can seem devastating and hopeless. Usually, after a night of good sleep the future looks brighter and after a couple of years maybe you can even laugh about it with friends. But this guy won't get that chance, unfortunately.
When getting mad, it helps to count to ten before acting. When tempted to send a blistering email, it helps to wait overnight to send it. When the future looks dark and humiliating, just take the hit and don't do anything drastic. Heck, within a year of his "incident" Jeffrey Toobin was back on CNN.
 
Last edited:

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
2,217
Location
Seattle, WA
Maybe it was 91.307, all “occupants” must wear a parachute if intentional bank exceeds 60° or pitch 30°.
I've always been a bit confused by the wording:

(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds....

I always think that the "other than a crewmember" phrase means that a parachute is not required, even if the bank and pitch limits are exceeded, if only the required flight crew is aboard.

Ron Wanttaja
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,982
Location
Port Townsend WA
I always think that the "other than a crewmember" phrase means that a parachute is not required, even if the bank and pitch limits are exceeded, if only the required flight crew is aboard.
Agree. I never noticed the part in parentheses. The FAR's almost always require some time other than a fast scan! It is hard to remember a rule that contains no train of logic.
 
Top