C-140 Two Fatal 4/18/21

RIP
Very sad.
Were they using a borrowed 140? Doesn't look at all like theirs.
 
That sucks, RIP. Due at Grand Canyon at 9 AM. Family calls it in at 6 PM. Wonder if a Flight Plan would have made a difference. Probably not, but it's food for thought.
 
luvflyin said:
That sucks, RIP. Due at Grand Canyon at 9 AM. Family calls it in at 6 PM. Wonder if a Flight Plan would have made a difference. Probably not, but it's food for thought.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t look like a survivable impact, does it?
 
Tim also was jazz musician in Los Angeles swing dance at Disneyland.
Tim often played in the Jonathan Stout big band and the Campus Five.
Tim, your music will be missed
 
Wow that’s super sad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
RyanShort1 said:
Yeah, that. I'm sure I could be on the other end of this someday, but it kills me to see the wreckage. They are such forgiving airplanes if you fly them correctly, and that doesn't look like terrible terrain for a forced landing, either.
Click to expand...

man as a 140 pilot it seems to hit harder when it’s your make and model, your words are my thoughts exactly. Made me wonder what happened to cause such tragedy- terrain looked survivable but certainly not that impact. I too am not cocky enough to naively believe “that couldn’t happen to me”...
 
Watching one of their videos they appeared to enjoy flying low and slow. Anything goes wrong and you haven't many options. RIP, they seemed like lovely people. Quite a tragedy.
 
Nothing inherently wrong with flying "low and slow" (most of us have to do some of that on every landing approach). But we all know it means being even more alert to such things as airspeed decay.

From their videos I gather they had a Cessna 140, so presumably quite familiar with the type. I wonder if there was something about the way this new-to-them 140 was rigged or otherwise configured that caused it to behave differently than what they were expecting. Perhaps the indicated airspeed at stall was higher than their former airplane - after 70 years who knows if both wings are rigged equally, or if the pitot system is reading as it once did.

I was surprised at how inaccurate the indicated stall speeds were on the 1996 Husky I purchased a few years ago. I had heard they varied from plane to plane but I spent time on the first flights in it exploring, at altitude, how it behaved at the margin and recording the indicated airspeeds for various stall configurations. Quite a bit off the book numbers.
 
This really hits close to home. Although I never met Tim and Joy, I considered them friends after contacts over the internet. They had just started construction of a Hatz Classic and were looking forward to what help I could offer them. They were genuine in their love of aviation, and more importantly their love for each other.

I can’t believe they are gone. Rest in piece friends.
 
I was saddened immensely when hearing of this accident this morning. They were based nearby and I’d emailed with Tim after enjoying their uplifting videos more than any other similar ones. We had some friends in common, discussed selling the Piet locally, the forthcoming C140 purchase and meeting up. We’d shared the pattern at Borrego and both wondered about the ‘unusual’ other plane. It was with great sadness that I told my wife tonight that it isn’t to be.

One can conjecture on the cause and obviously there are some factors that come to mind, but I’m not going to do it. RIP
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Nothing inherently wrong with flying "low and slow" (most of us have to do some of that on every landing approach). But we all know it means being even more alert to such things as airspeed decay..
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I must disagree. Flying at low altitude and low power is necessary to land, and you routinely it right next to an airport where you can easily land if things go south. Low and slow away from the airport carries inherent risk not seen in most other flight regimens. Anything goes wrong and options can be very limited.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
I'm afraid I must disagree. Flying at low altitude and low power is necessary to land, and you routinely it right next to an airport where you can easily land if things go south. Low and slow away form the airport carries inherent risk not seen in most other flight regimens. Anything goes wrong and options can be very limited.
Click to expand...

Of course, low and slow carries more risk. And the implications that "you can easily land if things go south" when you are low and slow "right next to an airport" has been disproven repeatedly; the number of fatal airport proximity accidents posted on this forum over time is ample evidence. The airplane is closer to the limits of the flight envelope and as I stated "...it means being even more alert..."

However, when it comes to low and slow what might be imprudent in your Mooney might be quite different from what some others determine is prudent in their airplanes, including what I do in my Husky. It was acquired for the specific purpose of flying "low and slow" in the back country. There are numerous others on this forum that do the same with their airplanes. Yes, that can present inherent risk not seen in other flight regimes. But no airplane suddenly acquires different flight characteristics just because it's "away from the airport" or closer to the ground.

The mere act of getting into any light airplane and leaving the ground presents inherent risks that are absent otherwise. Piloting an airplane includes continually judging conditions and circumstances, and managing those risks appropriately. If, for you, that means staying high and fast, I completely respect that.

This accident has saddened all of us. It is especially mystifying because the pilots owned a previous airplane of the same type and would have been familiar with it. We can only speculate that something may have broken on the airplane, or something was different about the characteristics and flight envelope limits of this airplane (prior modification, rigging...?) compared to the previous one. Regardless, I am compelled to believe they were flying their new-to-them Cessna 140 for what it does well and what they intended - a leisurely flight, exploring interesting visual terrain on a beautiful flying day.
 
Last edited:
I think the only issue with low and slow for a Cessna 140 near Williams AZ last Sunday was density altitudes likely 8,000 or 9,000 ft on the ground and winds picking up during the day. That is not a judgement on what may have happened on this flight, only background info as I understand it. Any C140 with two people and some gear on board is likely near gross weight, particularly as I wonder if they stopped at KCMR for cheap gas to get them 300 nm home later that day. 90 HP planes loaded to gross weight in that area do require careful strategic flying. I believe this instrument rated commercial pilot with a lot of very light aircraft experience knew that very well, so this is a mystery.

In my experience, any 70+ year old plane is likely to have some quirks when you buy it, things that become apparent in early flights and need to be sorted out. That could also be a factor here, or not.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Of course, low and slow carries more risk. And the implications that "you can easily land if things go south" when you are low and slow "right next to an airport" has been disproven repeatedly; the number of fatal airport proximity accidents posted on this forum over time is ample evidence. The airplane is closer to the limits of the flight envelope and as I stated "...it means being even more alert...".
Click to expand...

If you're doing it right you can get to the airport or the airport environment if things go south the pattern. It has happened successfully far more times than not.

GRG55 said:
However, when it comes to low and slow what might be imprudent in your Mooney might be quite different from what some others determine is prudent in their airplanes, including what I do in my Husky.
Click to expand...
The only real difference is in the speeds involved. Actually, there is a more more important difference. If things go south in my Mooney I am surrounded by a steel roll cage and one of the stoutest GA aircraft ever built. So long as I keep it under control and don't crash head first into anything really solid I'll come out all right. Your Husky is wood and cloth, you go down in hostile terrain and the outcome might not be so benign.

Do what you want, I don't care. I'll do me, you do you. But if you think flying your Husky at low speed and low power over hostile terrain is safe, I truly think you're delusional. The Husky is just an airplane like any other, it isn't a TARDIS.
 
Here is a Husky fuselage, the one that's pulled along at low speed by either 180 or 200 HP, providing dramatic performance in its intended low altitude operating environment.

husky_aircraft_fuselodge-400x400.jpg
 
steingar said:
I'm afraid I must disagree. Flying at low altitude and low power is necessary to land, and you routinely it right next to an airport where you can easily land if things go south. Low and slow away from the airport carries inherent risk not seen in most other flight regimens. Anything goes wrong and options can be very limited.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree. It just requires more planning and diligence in following the plan.
 
steingar said:
...The only real difference is in the speeds involved. Actually, there is a more more important difference. If things go south in my Mooney I am surrounded by a steel roll cage and one of the stoutest GA aircraft ever built. So long as I keep it under control and don't crash head first into anything really solid I'll come out all right. Your Husky is wood and cloth, you go down in hostile terrain and the outcome might not be so benign.

Do what you want, I don't care. I'll do me, you do you. But if you think flying your Husky at low speed and low power over hostile terrain is safe, I truly think you're delusional. The Husky is just an airplane like any other, it isn't a TARDIS.
Click to expand...

Your lack of knowledge is showing more clearly now...
 
Tusayan said:
I think the only issue with low and slow for a Cessna 140 near Williams AZ last Sunday was density altitudes likely 8,000 or 9,000 ft on the ground and winds picking up during the day. That is not a judgement on what may have happened on this flight, only background info as I understand it. Any C140 with two people and some gear on board is likely near gross weight, particularly as I wonder if they stopped at KCMR for cheap gas to get them 300 nm home later that day. 90 HP planes loaded to gross weight in that area do require careful strategic flying. I believe this instrument rated commercial pilot with a lot of very light aircraft experience knew that very well, so this is a mystery.

In my experience, any 70+ year old plane is likely to have some quirks when you buy it, things that become apparent in early flights and need to be sorted out. That could also be a factor here, or not.
Click to expand...
If that was the DA I can’t imagine flying loaded with sub 100 horses to pull ya along.
 
benyflyguy said:
If that was the DA I can’t imagine flying loaded with sub 100 horses to pull ya along.
Click to expand...

I concur as a 140 pilot... I’ve taken off at 8600 ft DA solo, full gas, light pack- so under gross but not tons- it did pretty decent but definitely took discipline to nurse it up...

However with thAt under my belt I tried 9600ft exact configuration... that was a mistake. I gently nursed her in a wide gentle arc and landed with a tail breeze to avoid a pattern. It was a mistake to launch in hindsight. It was a long runway with gentle down-sloping terrain away from it and doing ok with 8600 gave me a sense of security that it was doable. If DA was that high then it’s possible they made the same mistake I did, I just happen to be lucky enough to make it back down... wow... :/

It’s eerie being in a plane that you can feel doesn’t really want to fly...

Of course it’s still speculation that that may have been the cause, whatever it was RIP to the two that were lost
 
DenverDave said:
I’d put it in the maybe category. Based on the blurried areas on the only photo I’ve seen, it looks like the left seat occupant hit the glareshield pretty hard. It also looks like they were under control until they hit something with the left wing, likely a tree behind the photographer. Landing sideways explains the failed gear. I don’t see this being a loss of control and spin pancaking type crash.
Click to expand...
100% not against seatbelts, just doesn't look that survivable to me.
 
Today a set of Hookers cost $540 plus a few hours install. Put them in at my first annual. Best thing I ever did for the plane.

I’ll be waiting for the NTSB report. The 120/140 is a very honest airplane, it’s sad to see an accident like this.
 
DenverDave said:
I think this is exactly the kind of accident where shoulder belts might have made the difference, rapid longitudinal deceleration from a moderate speed.

It makes me mad as hell that people are still getting killed by 2 point belts, the kit to put 3 point belts in this plane was $141 in 1992. But no, (I suspect) the owner saved the money, and it got sold on and on until people died for $141 in 1992 dollars. Dan Gryder can be the loss of control blowhard and I’ll be the seatbelt blowhard.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. My father-in-law died from the injuries he suffered when he crashed his C-175. The drs fixed his internal injuries and bones, but he was in a vegetative state for a month before succumbing. Seeing the indentation his head made in the panel was sobering.
 
Van Johnston said:
I'm with you. My father-in-law died from the injuries he suffered when he crashed his C-175. The drs fixed his internal injuries and bones, but he was in a vegetative state for a month before succumbing. Seeing the indentation his head made in the panel was sobering.
Click to expand...

Wow :(

hookers were the first upgrade I did... my IA told me he had repaired two planes for families to sell after fatale and the planes didn’t need “that much work” both took it to the forehead. After that story I ordered them that week.
 
DenverDave said:
I’d put it in the maybe category. Based on the blurried areas on the only photo I’ve seen, it looks like the left seat occupant hit the glareshield pretty hard. It also looks like they were under control until they hit something with the left wing, likely a tree behind the photographer. Landing sideways explains the failed gear. I don’t see this being a loss of control and spin pancaking type crash.
Click to expand...

The left wing's full span accordion crushing isn't the result of hitting a tree. That damage and the visible crushing destruction of the fuselage forward of the door opening are indications of an almost vertical impact with the ground with little forward speed. The absence of airframe debris around the aircraft's final resting position further supports that conclusion.

It appears to me the crash involved exactly what you have discounted, a LOC and spin.

The loss of these two young and enthusiastic aviators is tragic. We as pilots might be guilty of ignoring or dismissing the impact of fatalities on the families and friends of those lost in crashes, focusing instead on the aircraft and its bent aluminum. I try to reflect on that aspect a bit, and thus gain resolve to be a better person with more empathy toward those that experience these losses.

May they rest easy.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
The left wing's full span accordion crushing isn't the result of hitting a tree. That damage and the visible crushing destruction of the fuselage forward of the door opening are indications of an almost vertical impact with the ground with little forward speed. The absence of airframe debris around the aircraft's final resting position further supports that conclusion.

It appears to me the crash involved exactly what you have discounted, a LOC and spin.

The loss of these two young and enthusiastic aviators is tragic. We as pilots might be guilty of ignoring or dismissing the impact of fatalities on the families and friends of those lost in crashes, focusing instead on the aircraft and its bent aluminum. I try to reflect on that aspect a bit, and thus gain resolve to be a better person with more empathy toward those that experience these losses.

May they rest easy.
Click to expand...

This is a pilots forum. Discussion of what may have caused an accident can be done without any loss of empathy. Things learned from discussion might prevent another similar accident. If I ever buy it, please discuss it. Guess, speculate and what if it. If just one person learns something from it that prevents another accident, I will rest easier.
 
luvflyin said:
This is a pilots forum. Discussion of what may have caused an accident can be done without any loss of empathy. Things learned from discussion might prevent another similar accident. If I ever buy it, please discuss it. Guess, speculate and what if it. If just one person learns something from it that prevents another accident, I will rest easier.
Click to expand...


I concur. If I’m a stat someday- learn from me and don’t end up in same spot. I think sometimes it does come across as we are speculating had it been us at the yoke we wouldn’t have ever let that happen. And some may have that attitude, but my arm chair quarterbacking is done knowing that I’m not above a mistake myself and am trying to grow from it.

we lost another member of the c140 community last summer, the findings came out- her freaking seat belt bracket broke. It should not have been fatal... There were some aluminum ones and others steel and the aluminum ones should be scrapped and replaced. I had checked mine personally when I bought it- but after I found that out about hers I went and took a magnet to mine again... it was the least I cud do to honor her tragic loss.
 
Last edited:
Huckster79 said:
I think sometimes it does come across as we are speculating had it been us at the yoke we wouldn’t have ever let that happen. And some may have that attitude, but my arm chair quarterbacking is done knowing that I’m not above a mistake myself and am trying to grow from it.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

I try to keep in mind that when highly experience pilots make mistakes that cause serious injury or death that I should really pay attention and realize that I too could make such an error. It's foolish for anyone to think that it couldn't happen to them.

I was recently flying with a pilot that had an issue with the transponder. When ATC called to say they had lost the signal he began troubleshooting. The distraction of recycling the transponder, as brief as it was, caused him to climb past his assigned altitude by a few hundred feet. No harm and no foul but I witnessed how easily a distraction can cause a seasoned pilot to make an error.
 
3393RP said:
The mind can be easily persuaded certain things have occurred, and in this instance, the court found a sexual assault indeed happened. The victims had years of doubt, unsure what had transpired.

I hope they find closure, and are able to put the assault behind them. It was a terrible thing.
Click to expand...
?????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top