|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > March 2006 > OT - 4 killed in Seneca II crash Branson MO
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT - 4 killed in Seneca II crash Branson MO
|
|
|
| Piper Seneca II took off from Pt. Lookout airport in Branson, Missouri,
around noon, crashed short distance from the field apparently trying to
return, killing four Texans on board. CNN reported no unusal weather
conditions..........
Yeah right; fog, mist, 1/4 mile visibility, and a 100' overcast aren't
unusal at all when you're flying a fully fueled twin, with four passengers
and luggae in hilly terrian..
I'm only 25 mi. south, and the clouds have been on the ground all day.
Branson has a jinx going for Texans, 4 more were killed in a Piper Arrow (?)
at the same airport maybe a little over a year ago.
| |
| Beech45Whiskey 2006-03-24, 2:02 pm |
| CRaSH <sorry@aint-here.spam.com> wrote:
quote:
> Yeah right; fog, mist, 1/4 mile visibility, and a 100' overcast aren't
> unusal at all when you're flying a fully fueled twin, with four passengers
> and luggae in hilly terrian..
Someone in the rec.aviation.piloting posted this accident, too. According
to the CNN and local news reports (links in those groups), the aircraft
reported some engine trouble and was attempting to return to the airport.
A witness reported seeing erratic maneuvers, suggesting a possible stall at
low altitude.
No mention of weather being a problem and if the witness accounts are
believable, then apparently weather was much greater than 1/4 mile
visibility at time of the accident.
quote:
> I'm only 25 mi. south, and the clouds have been on the ground all day.
25 miles south can be a big difference as far as the weather is concerned.
--
Peter
| |
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN 2006-03-24, 2:02 pm |
| CRaSH wrote:
quote:
> Piper Seneca II took off from Pt. Lookout airport in Branson, Missouri,
> around noon, crashed short distance from the field apparently trying to
> return, killing four Texans on board. CNN reported no unusal weather
> conditions..........
> Yeah right; fog, mist, 1/4 mile visibility, and a 100' overcast aren't
> unusal at all when you're flying a fully fueled twin, with four passengers
> and luggae in hilly terrian..
The Seneca II has a 225 fpm single engine climb rate when everything's perfect.
I doubt anything was. This was unfortunate, as all accidents are, but launching
in such conditions severely limited the pilot's options. This is not to say I
haven't done it myself, but flying in weather like that is a crap shoot.
I assume the intent was to fly to improving weather.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerd@carolina.rr.com.REMOVE
| |
|
| Beech45Whiskey wrote:
quote:
> CRaSH <sorry@aint-here.spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Someone in the rec.aviation.piloting posted this accident, too.
> According to the CNN and local news reports (links in those groups),
> the aircraft reported some engine trouble and was attempting to
> return to the airport. A witness reported seeing erratic maneuvers,
> suggesting a possible stall at low altitude.
>
> No mention of weather being a problem and if the witness accounts are
> believable, then apparently weather was much greater than 1/4 mile
> visibility at time of the accident.
>
>
> 25 miles south can be a big difference as far as the weather is
> concerned.
They've been showing some local news shots, and a few hours after the crash
the overcast was still down around a few hundred feet, with fog and mist.
Several of the news choppers refused to fly in it. Pt. Lookout field sits
in a valley, so they may have had a little better on the ground visiblity.
Springfield airport, 40 mi north had 900' ceiling, but here in Harrison, 25
mi south, it's been 100' all day. Apparently it was a very hard diving
crash, shaking houses 1/4 mile away, and a huge fireball - they hit directly
into a site of commercial storage sheds, destroying 34......
| |
| Beech45Whiskey 2006-03-24, 2:02 pm |
| CRaSH <sorry@aint-here.spam.com> wrote:
quote:
> Apparently it was a very hard diving
> crash, shaking houses 1/4 mile away, and a huge fireball - they hit directly
> into a site of commercial storage sheds, destroying 34......
Reads like a classic stall/spin scenario. There's no way a Piper Seneca
would have fallen out of the sky like that otherwise unless a wing broke
off, engines running or not.
But, I am sliding down the slippery slope called speculation, so perhaps I
should keep my keyboard quiet until the NTSB releases their report.
Unfortunately a high profile crash like this just continues to reinforce
the notion that "those little airplanes are too dangerous" in the
non-flying public's minds.
--
Peter
| |
| donbutts 2006-03-24, 2:02 pm |
| Sad news CRaSH
quote:
> Yeah right; fog, mist, 1/4 mile visibility, and a > 100' overcast aren't
> unusal at all when you're flying a fully fueled >
> twin, with four passengers and luggae in hilly terrian..
no problem going up but big problem coming back ? :-o
Butts
| |
|
| donbutts wrote:
quote:
> Sad news CRaSH
>
>
>
> no problem going up but big problem coming back ? :-o
>
Kinda sounds like the scenario - unconfirmed reports say he tried to
contact the Springfield tower (40 miles away, Pt. Lookout has no tower) that
he had a mechanical. Pt. Lookout is a 3,700' strip, tucked into the hills,
with the only nav device a NDB, so if you got up in the soup, which was
hilltop level, you don't have too many options if you have to come back down
real quick...
| |
| Mad Mike 2006-03-24, 2:02 pm |
| Brings to mind that little hypothetical discussion we had about engine
failure shortly after takeoff.
MM
"Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@ZZgmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ux3l308gd22h.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
quote:
> CRaSH <sorry@aint-here.spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Someone in the rec.aviation.piloting posted this accident, too. According
> to the CNN and local news reports (links in those groups), the aircraft
> reported some engine trouble and was attempting to return to the airport.
> A witness reported seeing erratic maneuvers, suggesting a possible stall
> at
> low altitude.
>
> No mention of weather being a problem and if the witness accounts are
> believable, then apparently weather was much greater than 1/4 mile
> visibility at time of the accident.
>
>
> 25 miles south can be a big difference as far as the weather is concerned.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter
| |
| Dallas 2006-03-24, 2:02 pm |
|
"CRaSH"
quote:
> Kinda sounds like the scenario - unconfirmed reports say he tried to
> contact the Springfield tower
Turns out the pilot was a dentist from Lubbock named Johnson. He's actually
an acquaintance of a friend of mine.
Small world.
Dallas
|
| |
|
|