Bo down Pembroke Pines, FL

This is about as bad a scenario as there could be in GA. Sounds like the airplane had an engine failure on take off, or departing airport. Crashes into city street hitting car. Fortunately the two in the car survived, hope they are ok. The plane occupants didn't make it.
 
Well crap. Appears the child in the car didn't make it.
 
FlightofTwo said:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/SW+13th+St+&+SW+72nd+Ave,+Pembroke+Pines,+FL+33024/@25.998171,-80.2331875,964m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88d9a92a123c6449:0x6c53e8104c536625!8m2!3d25.9985027!4d-80.2313438

Here's where they made it to when attempting to return to the airport after apparent engine failure.
Click to expand...

Any idea which runway they departed from ... 10R or 10L?

That's about as tough an environment as I have ever seen. Zero options once you cross the numbers on the far end.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Any idea which runway they departed from ... 10R or 10L?

That's about as tough an environment as I have ever seen. Zero options once you cross the numbers on the far end.
Click to expand...
10L was their departure runway. There's a Live ATC clip of them being cleared for takeoff and a left downwind departure. You don't hear the pilot's response, or if he called back in in trouble or anything.
 
That is hard to watch. Didn’t look like a stall to me, appears he had plenty of speed but all that can be calculated by the investigation.

altitude is your friend.
 
Apparently the child in the car didn't make it, and has passed away. :(
 
PiperW said:
That is hard to watch. Didn’t look like a stall to me, appears he had plenty of speed but all that can be calculated by the investigation.

altitude is your friend.
Click to expand...

If he wasn’t stalled he was sure coming down at a steep angle. I know bonanzas aren’t the best gliders but damn.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Sad about the child :(

There was a mention of the plane maybe clipping a wire which might explain the attitude it was in.
 
Looks like he may have hit the palm on the far side of the road - you can see it shake and the plane veers right and down at that instant.

*then again slow mo he's already pretty darn nose and wing down so maybe not

Ugly mishap with tragic results.
 
Dang... they were so close to at least making wide open space.

the car didn’t even attempt to make an evasive maneuver either..
 
A Ring doorbell got a pretty good view of it. Warning, the following is NOT safe for the squeamish...

 
Works better if you keep the aircraft under control. Neighborhood streets are a nightmare, but the outcome is likely to be better if you don't stall the aircraft. I'll pick the best street I can rather than trying make it back to the airport. Or if I try for the airport I WILL watch my airspeed. I keep telling myself that at least. RIP for the occupants. Tough deal.
 
When it hit the car, the amount of fuel spill was incredible (paused at 4 second mark). I'm assuming that was full tanks.
 
Ugh. I literally had this what if conversation on Saturday at my home airport. What if it fails on takeoff on 27. New neighborhood off the end of the runway extending far to the north, and to high tension wires to the South. Impossible turn but he had zero other options. My condolences
 
Ed Haywood said:
Any idea which runway they departed from ... 10R or 10L?

That's about as tough an environment as I have ever seen. Zero options once you cross the numbers on the far end.
Click to expand...
Unforgiving yes. Basically every airport in the LA area.
 
simtech said:
I'd say it wasn't fuel exhaustion based on the fire spread. However, doesn't mean it wasn't fuel a starvation issue.
Click to expand...

The plane had very limited hours on it over the past 10 years in a corrosive environment out in Florida. I think it averaged 4.9 a year since a major rebuild and only had 350ish hours total time. Then again, it could be any number of things. I just always feel a plane being flown a lot is a safer plane to fly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Peter Anderson said:
The plane had very limited hours on it over the past 10 years in a corrosive environment out in Florida. I think it averaged 4.9 a year since a major rebuild and only had 350ish hours total time. Then again, it could be any number of things. I just always feel a plane being flown a lot is a safer plane to fly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
Agreed I was just commenting on the fact I doubt it was fuel exhaustion but rather starvation of fuel related AND possibly fueled with the wrong type.

But fully agree the age if the engine and lack of flying is like a high probability of internal engine failure too.
 
Seems to be a more ballistic path than an aerodynamic one at the end. Wire strike out of frame would account for that, after a strike, you have no control. So would a stall trying to stretch a glide path. Tragic for all involved and the car has the added burden of if they were just a second quicker or left home a second sooner. . . random chances. So the fuel comments, lack of use over the years comments. . . may not account for the final footage. At this point we have no idea why the turn back or anything else that the RING cam didn't show. There are airplanes at any given airport that are flying less than 20 hours a year and when you think of the average pilot doing less than 50 hours a year, it's really not that unusual. And there are high hours per year planes that have engine failures too. Time to wait for the structures and engine report from the NTSB.
 
Last edited:
DesertNomad said:
They build airports on cheap rural land and then they come and build homes right up to the edge of them. I hate these types of airports where there is simply nowhere to go after takeoff.
Click to expand...
Mine is like that. I brief every takeoff. At my home airport the brief is always the same. If the engine quits on takeoff it's going to hurt real bad. Taking off to the west maybe I can get around and land in the cow pasture west of the airport. Taking off to the east I'm looking at crowded neighborhoods. The one saving grace in all this is my airport has parallel runways, so I only have to do a 180. In this sort of situation I'd be happy to make it back to the airport environment. Heck, in this sort of situation I'd be glad to make it to clear patch of ground.
 
Racerx said:
Ugh. I literally had this what if conversation on Saturday at my home airport. What if it fails on takeoff on 27. New neighborhood off the end of the runway extending far to the north, and to high tension wires to the South. Impossible turn but he had zero other options. My condolences
Click to expand...

In this case it looks like a 180 to land opposite direction on the parallel runway, which in theory improves the odds somewhat versus the Impossible Turn back to the departure runway. But you still need altitude...

As it stands, it looks like they still would have come down in the tennis complex even if they managed to avoid the powerlines... and the car. "Encroachment Kills" probably wouldn't be a particularly effective slogan toward defending airports from the NIMBY crowd, but it's hard to argue against in this case.

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.998...4!1syL8dO_tJv0KvYIkQjdGF0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
 
Brief an engine out on takeoff every time. If reaction time is there and the disclipline is there to lower the nose to get a good rate of turn without death spinning it, the "turn" is not "impossible". And most of the time, not making it to the runway pavement is no big deal. The airport environment is full of flat spaces without obstacles...... most of the time.

I'm not the best at it yet, but I'm trying to develop a habit of assuming the engine is going to quit on every takeoff. I don't mind being wrong.
 
The county just approved a new neighborhood in our downwind. A bunch of us attended multiple meetings but they completely ignored everything we said and ended the meetings stating incorrect facts as the reason for their decision to allow the zone change. Facts like “planes landing and taking off aren’t flying over this land, as it’s to the side of the runway not at the ends”.... this is despite me spending my whole three minutes explaining what a pattern is and how the FAA recommended approach to the airport would put aircraft over the neighborhood constantly.

It was very frustrating.
 
Salty said:
The county just approved a new neighborhood in our downwind. A bunch of us attended multiple meetings but they completely ignored everything we said and ended the meetings stating incorrect facts as the reason for their decision to allow the zone change. Facts like “planes landing and taking off aren’t flying over this land, as it’s to the side of the runway not at the ends”.... this is despite me spending my whole three minutes explaining what a pattern is and how the FAA recommended approach to the airport would put aircraft over the neighborhood constantly.

It was very frustrating.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a classic case of "our minds are made up...don't confuse the issue with facts".
And watch, they will will build new houses, people will move in, and then complain about the noise from the airport!
 
Racerx said:
Ugh. I literally had this what if conversation on Saturday at my home airport. What if it fails on takeoff on 27. New neighborhood off the end of the runway extending far to the north, and to high tension wires to the South. Impossible turn but he had zero other options. My condolences
Click to expand...

RIP for all concerned. This is a tragedy, but these damn cities need to keep the urban sprawl away from the airport approach and departure ends of runways.

Where I am based they are building a new 5 story motel right under the 27 approach path, probably only a couple hundred feet below the RNAV approach path. Sigh.... some day a tragedy will occur, but hey, the FAA said it was all legal.
 
Jeff Szlauko said:
Sounds like a classic case of "our minds are made up...don't confuse the issue with facts".
And watch, they will will build new houses, people will move in, and then complain about the noise from the airport!
Click to expand...
The only thing they did that made any sense was insist on a rider to the deed stating that they understand there is an airport next door. I doubt most people will notice or understand the ramifications.
 
KeepWatch said:
Brief an engine out on takeoff every time. If reaction time is there and the disclipline is there to lower the nose to get a good rate of turn without death spinning it, the "turn" is not "impossible". And most of the time, not making it to the runway pavement is no big deal. The airport environment is full of flat spaces without obstacles...... most of the time.

I'm not the best at it yet, but I'm trying to develop a habit of assuming the engine is going to quit on every takeoff. I don't mind being wrong.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the impossible is just that. We don't know when it quit. We don't know his altitude or anything. I agree that you don't need to make it to the runway to be able to walk away but it's easy to play Monday morning quarterback. Maybe he did everything textbook and just didn't have the altitude or the energy. A Cherokee Six isn't going to pull off what a Cub can.
 
Racerx said:
Sometimes the impossible is just that. We don't know when it quit. We don't know his altitude or anything. I agree that you don't need to make it to the runway to be able to walk away but it's easy to play Monday morning quarterback. Maybe he did everything textbook and just didn't have the altitude or the energy. A Cherokee Six isn't going to pull off what a Cub can.
Click to expand...

I was posting more from the perspective of personal mindset as opposed to pointing out what the pilot did wrong in this case. You're exactly right, not sure about a lot of things in this case.
 
Jeff Szlauko said:
Sounds like a classic case of "our minds are made up...don't confuse the issue with facts".
And watch, they will will build new houses, people will move in, and then complain about the noise from the airport!
Click to expand...
One of my employees was a former ATC from Hawthorne, CA. He says his boss specifically bought a house that was near the airport so it would be a short commute to work, and then proceeded to gripe to his coworkers about the airplane noise.
 
I watched this video a few months ago, I missed the other thread on it, but I thought it would fit well here. I thought it might be good for some discussion as to crashing an airplane and what it means to fly to the crash, especially in light of some of the comments here.

This is a well done video, with footage from inside during the crash. Start at just before 7 minutes if you don't want to watch the build up stuff, but even that is good to watch I think as the pilot is bringing people who have never flown in a small airplane before, they are nervous and excited. He makes some claims about flying safety that frankly I would not say to a passenger as I don't think they are true.

Anyway, just before the crash, the pilot starts trying to stretch the glide, you start hearing the stall horn. It looks to me that about 25 to 50 feet above the terrain, he stalled it and hit. Tough to tell, but he looked too high for the stall horn to be making so much noise. The first time I watched it, I kept saying to the screen, "put the nose down, don't let it stall".

The outcome for this accident was ok, one or two have long term injuries, but no one died.

Just wanted to see what others think, it just seems like a tall order to fly perfectly to the crash site.


Kathryn's Report: Cessna T210M Turbo Centurion, N761RG: Accident occurred August 07, 2020 in Hanna, Duchesne County, Utah
 
Mooney best glide speed is not close to stall speed. Is there any planes where the stall horn would be going off when at best glide?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top