Another Airplane crash, this time all survived

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
http://www.baynews9.com/content/new...icles/bn9/2014/9/15/small_plane_crashes_.html

I'm grateful all survived. I heard of the news that there was a plane crash near where I frequent so I stopped by find out what was going on. The news said it was an engine out while landing. But aren't we suppose to learn and know how to handle a situation like that?

I also noticed the wing came off with no trace of fuel anywhere around the wings, no liquid at all. Maybe it evaporated or maybe the crash was because of fuel starvation? Four people, Hot day plus luggage? What is the useful load on a Piper PA28?

Here is some photos that I took at the crash site.

20140915_172947.jpg

20140915_173032.jpg

20140915_173011.jpg

20140915_172749.jpg

What do you folks think?
 
FloridaPilot said:
What do you folks think?
Click to expand...
I think it looks like you're where you shouldn't be (inside the perimeter) taking photos. Or you have a super telephoto on your cell phone, or your local law enforcement is really lame and didn't set up a proper perimeter to keep the crash site from being contaminated.

As far as the rest of the questions. The FAA/NTSB will be answering them in a few months.
 
timwinters said:
I think it looks like you're where you shouldn't be (inside the perimeter) taking photos. Or you have a super telephoto on your cell phone, or your local law enforcement is really lame and didn't set up a proper perimeter to keep the crash site from being contaminated.

As far as the rest of the questions. The FAA/NTSB will be answering them in a few months.
Click to expand...

pretty sure he's behind the tape and the pictures are just digitally zoomed in.
 
timwinters said:
I think it looks like you're where you shouldn't be (inside the perimeter) taking photos. Or you have a super telephoto on your cell phone, or your local law enforcement is really lame and didn't set up a proper perimeter to keep the crash site from being contaminated.

As far as the rest of the questions. The FAA/NTSB will be answering them in a few months.
Click to expand...

Sigh

Facts not in evidence
 
timwinters said:
I think it looks like you're where you shouldn't be (inside the perimeter) taking photos. Or you have a super telephoto on your cell phone, or your local law enforcement is really lame and didn't set up a proper perimeter to keep the crash site from being contaminated.

As far as the rest of the questions. The FAA/NTSB will be answering them in a few months.
Click to expand...

I was behind the line but I zoomed in with my camera. I didn't smell fuel or see any signs of liquid on the floor or on the plane. Where he landed was fairly lucky because there is no room there to land an airplane and about 50-100 feet away there is a drop into the water which a ton of boats reside. Luckily, no one was hurt on the ground because people frequent that area all the time.
 
Good for you!

Yeah, they said there was both a yoga class and a mom's fitness class going on in the park when he dropped in for a visit.
 
timwinters said:
I think it looks like you're where you shouldn't be (inside the perimeter) taking photos. Or you have a super telephoto on your cell phone, or your local law enforcement is really lame and didn't set up a proper perimeter to keep the crash site from being contaminated.
Click to expand...

Oh please.
 
James331 said:
Sigh

Facts not in evidence
Click to expand...

20140915_173035.jpg


I took a shot further away, as you can see the plane came from right to left and hit the trees before it landed on the ground. When the wing separated there was no sign of fuel anywhere. I didn't get there exactly when it happened, (3 hours) but as you can see the ground is fairly dry. I'm guessing here but it seems like they didn't have much fuel left in the tanks. The final destination was Key West.
 
timwinters said:
I think it looks like you're where you shouldn't be (inside the perimeter) taking photos. Or you have a super telephoto on your cell phone, or your local law enforcement is really lame and didn't set up a proper perimeter to keep the crash site from being contaminated.

As far as the rest of the questions. The FAA/NTSB will be answering them in a few months.
Click to expand...

Wow. Talk about jumping to conclusions! And isn't this the guy chastising posters for speculating in the TBM thread? And here he is making all kinds of speculation about someone who is just trying to share some information.
 
timwinters said:
I think it looks like you're where you shouldn't be (inside the perimeter) taking photos. Or you have a super telephoto on your cell phone, or your local law enforcement is really lame and didn't set up a proper perimeter to keep the crash site from being contaminated.

As far as the rest of the questions. The FAA/NTSB will be answering them in a few months.
Click to expand...

What a dick...
 
Clearly, the cause of the accident is the missing wing.
 
No fire would be a sign (but not a sure sign) of possible fuel exhaustion. Ground not being wet 3 hours later doesn't tell me much though. 100LL evaporates very quickly, and breaking off a wing would spread it out enough to allow that to happen pretty easily in that time frame.

As for useful load, it varies between models, but I flew one last weekend with 550lbs worth of passengers, light luggage, and 34 gallons of fuel in a 160hp warrior and was within weight and balance. A 180hp one would have a bit more to spare.
 
Any gas spilled during the crash sequence will kill or stress the vegetation.
 
Not in 3 hours. I've spilled a LOT of gas in my backyard and still have vegetation. I wont say grass, cause really it's weeds.
 
The FAA came in last night and they completed the investigation and removed the Airplane. This afternoon I took a walk to the site to check out the damage. It did rain a little bit so unfortunately I couldn't prove that there wasn't any fuel anywhere on the ground.

Ground.jpg

The black spots was water that rained a few mins ago but if you look at the previous photos the sidewalk was very clear.

The best skid photo.jpg

This is where the airplane skidded

Where airplane skidded.jpg


First place the airplane hit the ground.

The first place the airplane hit the ground.jpg
 
Wow that was quite the short field, soft field, over a 50ft obstacle, power-off landing. Lucky they managed to not die. Fly the plane. Keep flying the plane all the way to scene of the crash. Then land the plane, even if it doesn't look pretty. They clearly did that, and didn't succumb to the urge to "pull up", stall and lawn dart.

As for the fuel... It does evaporate quickly. Not seeing evidence of fuel hours or days after the crash doesn't mean there wasn't fuel. Examining the tanks tell the tale for real, but you certainly notice a plausible possibility.

They're also lucky there wasn't anyone else playing football in that park!
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Wow that was quite the short field, soft field, over a 50ft obstacle, power-off landing. Lucky they managed to not die. Fly the plane. Keep flying the plane all the way to scene of the crash. Then land the plane, even if it doesn't look pretty. They clearly did that, and didn't succumb to the urge to "pull up", stall and lawn dart.

As for the fuel... It does evaporate quickly. Not seeing evidence of fuel hours or days after the crash doesn't mean there wasn't fuel. Examining the tanks tell the tale for real, but you certainly notice a plausible possibility.

They're also lucky there wasn't anyone else playing football in that park!
Click to expand...

Not many football players in Vinoy Park, just Yoga/Aerobic types!
 
Good place for a park from a pilot's perspective. Very fortunate no one was hurt.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Wow that was quite the short field, soft field, over a 50ft obstacle, power-off landing. Lucky they managed to not die. Fly the plane. Keep flying the plane all the way to scene of the crash. Then land the plane, even if it doesn't look pretty. They clearly did that, and didn't succumb to the urge to "pull up", stall and lawn dart.

As for the fuel... It does evaporate quickly. Not seeing evidence of fuel hours or days after the crash doesn't mean there wasn't fuel. Examining the tanks tell the tale for real, but you certainly notice a plausible possibility.

They're also lucky there wasn't anyone else playing football in that park!
Click to expand...


Agreed 100%.....

I witnessed this crash and was on scene with 60 seconds and stood right next to the wreckage... Not a bit of moisture or wetness on the ground.. The plane had just refueled and had 49.6 gallons at impact.. I saw a plume of what I thought was dust and then realized it was all the fuel vaporizing after both tanks ruptured in a millisecond.....
 

Attachments

  • RV-7 crash 003.jpg
    RV-7 crash 003.jpg
    5.3 MB · Views: 69
I read the thread about that accident. A very sad incident, but also a perfect example of why once cannot make a conclusion based on one aspect of a crash. Lots of things to consider and investigate.
 
N801BH said:
Agreed 100%.....

I witnessed this crash and was on scene with 60 seconds and stood right next to the wreckage... Not a bit of moisture or wetness on the ground.. The plane had just refueled and had 49.6 gallons at impact.. I saw a plume of what I thought was dust and then realized it was all the fuel vaporizing after both tanks ruptured in a millisecond.....
Click to expand...

So if that is the case how does the FAA determine the cause of the accident correctly?
 
You can tell if there was fuel in the tanks. It's not like every drop vaporizes. They thoroughly inspect the tanks, fuel lines, fuel sump, etc. They can sometimes tell what the gauges red at impact based on needle impacts. They can review records at the departure airport and prior airports for fuel purchases. They can interview the pilot (duh). They have the radio recordings if there are any where the pilot stated what he believes the problem is or amount of fuel on board.

The same applies to investigating any failure, not just a lack of fuel. Walk backwards in time. Where was the plane, who did what, when did they do it. Sometimes it is mechanical failure that could not be prevented or detected by anyone. Sometimes it can be traced back to mechanic's error or fueling error. Sometimes it can be traced back to a pilot's error.
 
Last edited:
Pedals2Paddles said:
You can tell if there was fuel in the tanks. It's not like every drop vaporizes. They thoroughly inspect the tanks, fuel lines, fuel sump, etc. They can sometimes tell what the gauges red at impact based on needle impacts. They can review records at the departure airport and prior airports for fuel purchases. They can interview the pilot (duh). They have the radio recordings if there are any where the pilot stated what he believes the problem is or amount of fuel on board.

The same applies to investigating any failure, not just a lack of fuel. Walk backwards in time. Where was the plane, who did what, when did they do it. Sometimes it is mechanical failure that could not be prevented or detected by anyone. Sometimes it can be traced back to mechanic's error or fueling error. Sometimes it can be traced back to a pilot's error.
Click to expand...

All that............ and MORE.....

Stay tuned....
 
According to Flight Aware they traveled 226 sm. So unless they took off without full tanks fuel exhaustion shouldn't be an option. But they did fly with 4 passengers and luggage so they might've been heavy.

What do you folks think?
 
This is why we can't have nice planes. The trees keep reaching up and tearing the wings off them.
 
FloridaPilot said:
According to Flight Aware they traveled 226 sm. So unless they took off without full tanks fuel exhaustion shouldn't be an option. But they did fly with 4 passengers and luggage so they might've been heavy.

What do you folks think?
Click to expand...

Easy to calculate.... All persons survived and were probably weighed at the hospital ER... The luggage is /was still in the plane so those weights are known too...:yes:
 
This crash caused the editorial board of the local newspaper to write an editorial suggesting the city is StPetersburg might want to reevaluate the safety and location of the airport. This is in spite of local voters passing a referendum to keep the airport a permanent local fixture.

I really wish they hadn't run out of gas, but I do wish them a speedy recovery.
 
I'm sure the first people to complain were the people who most recently moved in next to the airport, and now complain daily about airplane noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top