Fatal in Houston ARCOLA

Looks like it was parked next to other airplanes, the hangar is untouched except for burn marks, no skid marks from the runway direction; ??
 
This is really odd. There are no impact marks on the hangar and the plane is facing away from the hangar, like the other planes. No skid marks to indicate the plane was in motion on the ground. It almost looks like it just caught fire while parked, but doesn't make sense why there would be a fatality, as the person would have likely had time to get out.

Maybe this video says more about what happened (can't hear the audio at work)...
http://abc13.com/news/hangar-fire-possible-plane-crash-at-houston-sw-airport-in-arcola/1181934/
 
Last edited:
Cajun_Flyer said:
This is really odd. There are no impact marks on the hangar and the plane is facing away from the hangar, like the other planes. No skid marks to indicate the plane was in motion on the ground. It almost looks like it just caught fire while parked, but doesn't make sense why there would be a fatality, as the person would have likely had time to get out.

Maybe this video says more about what happened (can't here the audio at work)...
http://abc13.com/news/hangar-fire-possible-plane-crash-at-houston-sw-airport-in-arcola/1181934/
Click to expand...
It is odd, but if you look at the video when they pan out to include the view of the 172 tied down next to it, the empennage of that airplane is pretty crumpled (although both wings are still tied down).

They probably hit that 172 and then spun around and ended up with the tail against the side of the hangar and then burned.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
This is really odd. There are no impact marks on the hangar and the plane is facing away from the hangar, like the other planes. No skid marks to indicate the plane was in motion on the ground. It almost looks like it just caught fire while parked, but doesn't make sense why there would be a fatality, as the person would have likely had time to get out.

Maybe this video says more about what happened (can't here the audio at work)...
http://abc13.com/news/hangar-fire-possible-plane-crash-at-houston-sw-airport-in-arcola/1181934/
Click to expand...

The audio keeps referencing a crash, but I'm with you - This looks like a fire on the ground. It says 1 fatality and 1 flown to the hospital. I wonder if it may have been a fueling incident?
 
ifly4fun said:
The audio keeps referencing a crash, but I'm with you - This looks like a fire on the ground. It says 1 fatality and 1 flown to the hospital. I wonder if it may have been a fueling incident?
Click to expand...
In addition to the damaged tail of the 172 next to it, if you look closely at the video, the tail of the accident airplane is piercing the hangar wall. This was no fueling incident.

The original article said the accident happened when they clipped a parked airplane during takeoff. I suspect what they meant was that they somehow lost control on takeoff and ended up colliding with that parked 172 next to the hangar.
 
Fearless Tower said:
In addition to the damaged tail of the 172 next to it, if you look closely at the video, the tail of the accident airplane is piercing the hangar wall. This was no fueling incident.
Click to expand...

Unless the plane shot backwards from an explosion up front either when the fire initiated or as it spread.

It looks like one of the wings separated and was still burning when this video was shot. The other wing is further back, lined up more where it should be if still attached to the plane.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
In addition to the damaged tail of the 172 next to it, if you look closely at the video, the tail of the accident airplane is piercing the hangar wall. This was no fueling incident.

The original article said the accident happened when they clipped a parked airplane during takeoff. I suspect what they meant was that they somehow lost control on takeoff and ended up colliding with that parked 172 next to the hangar.
Click to expand...

Looks like its just up against it to me - I don't see anything that looks like it went through the sheet metal. I would think the aluminum would crush long before it would pierce sheet metal.
 
Yikes... look at the aerial of this hangar from google maps (Houston Southwest Airport). The planes are pretty much parked on top of each other. Makes sense if a fire occurred on one why it would blow a wing tip off another. :/


ETA: Two COMPLETELY different stories on this incident... this one says it was a maintenance fire:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/aircraft-hits-hangar-bursts-into-flames-at-arcola-airport

The plane was receiving maintenance. The deceased and injured may have actually been working on the plane, not in it.


This one says it was a plane crash involving an instructor and student...

http://abc13.com/news/one-dead-another-injured-in-arcola-plane-crash-fire/1181934/


Nothing confusing or conflicting here! geez. Maybe the media could wait until all the facts are in before saying it's one thing or another.
 
Last edited:
Dang, that is sad. Instruction flight ending in such a tragedy.
And the dumb blond bimbo does not help when her hen brain produces c*ap like "they were in the air when somehow it crashed". Dumb statements like these don't help with the dignity of the deceased.

It is very windy here in TX today, one can wonder whether this was a bad x-wind takeoff or whether something on the plane went wrong. Too early to speculate?

R.I.P., instructor and get well soon, student. :(
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Maybe the media could wait until all the facts are in before saying it's one thing or another.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the aviation world Cajun! :D

Anytime news is aviation related, sensationalize, screw the facts, or getting them. :nonod:
 
ifly4fun said:
Looks like its just up against it to me - I don't see anything that looks like it went through the sheet metal. I would think the aluminum would crush long before it would pierce sheet metal.
Click to expand...
I have no more clue than anyone else, but SOMETHING smacked the right side of that 172 that is tied down.
 
I can't see the damage that you're referring to. Possibly the wing tip (plastic) on the tied down C172 caught on fire after the crashed 172 stopped and burned?
 
Last edited:
Interesting that the prop seems barely damaged.
 
mscard88 said:
I can't see the damage that you're referring to. Possibly the wing tip (plastic) on the tied down C172 caught on fire after the crashed 172 stopped?
Click to expand...

Look at the fuselage where the N #'s are. Its pretty crinkled up. But that plane has been sitting there a while (based on Google Map pic), so who knows if thats prior damage.
 
mscard88 said:
I can't see the damage that you're referring to. Possibly the wing tip (plastic) on the tied down C172 caught on fire after the crashed 172 stopped?
Click to expand...
Watch the video. When they pan out you can see the right side of the 172 - the damage is just forward of the tail.
 
See some damage/dent on top, just before the tail. I've looked at both vids above, which one you referring to?
 
They are doing a conference now. It was a Tecnam P9? (He says 90, but i'm guessing 92). Says it clipped one parked airplane wing and landed on top of another. So the tail section we see against the hangar was the other parked airplane. There doesn't appear to be much left of the accident airplane at all. Except the white wing, you can see the parked wings on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Now they're saying 3 planes involved, refueling, mechanic working on a plane, who knows.
 
BigBadLou said:
An early 177? I don't see the slots in the stabilator. Let's hope it wasn't a red bird, that would suck even more. (not many around these days)
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the first though I had was a Warrior.

It would need to be a first-year 177, as that's before the slot was added.
 
One of the news stories says it was a Technam. There are clearly two sets of landing gear in the burned area. One looks like an older model 172.
 
RyanShort1 said:
One of the news stories says it was a Technam. There are clearly two sets of landing gear in the burned area. One looks like an older model 172.
Click to expand...

You're right. I missed it the first time I watched it, but there are actually TWO airplanes in that pile of ashes: I can see two distinct sets of wings and horizontal stabs.

I think the one with the tail against the hangar is an early 177. Doesn't look like a PA28 to me.
 
Last edited:
"...student in the co-pilot seat..." No way, I hate how they make up the news.

I find it impossible by the way that the airplane ended up in that position from an assumed take-off.
 
Last edited:
TK211X said:
I find it impossible by the way that the airplane ended up in that position from an assumed take-off.
Click to expand...

I find that more believable than two airplanes becoming one in a pile of ashes than a fueling or maintenance accident.

A stall/spin on climb out could easily bring an airplane down right on top of a parked airplane like that.
 
MAKG1 said:
It would need to be a first-year 177, as that's before the slot was added.
Click to expand...
The slot would not necessarily be apparent in such low-res images, especially from that angle and discolored from soot. The overall proportions of the stabilator, the shape of the tips, and the width of the anti-servo tab = C-177.
 
RIP to the deceased.

I got my TW endorsement at Arcola. When I first saw this thread I thought "oh no, not Joy!"
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Yikes... look at the aerial of this hangar from google maps (Houston Southwest Airport). The planes are pretty much parked on top of each other. Makes sense if a fire occurred on one why it would blow a wing tip off another. :/


ETA: Two COMPLETELY different stories on this incident... this one says it was a maintenance fire:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/aircraft-hits-hangar-bursts-into-flames-at-arcola-airport

The plane was receiving maintenance. The deceased and injured may have actually been working on the plane, not in it.


This one says it was a plane crash involving an instructor and student...

http://abc13.com/news/one-dead-another-injured-in-arcola-plane-crash-fire/1181934/


Nothing confusing or conflicting here! geez. Maybe the media could wait until all the facts are in before saying it's one thing or another.
Click to expand...


The story in the first link above was updated at 11:59 PM Monday February 1st. It quotes the student as saying they lost control on takeoff due to a crosswind and crashed.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I find that more believable than two airplanes becoming one in a pile of ashes than a fueling or maintenance accident.

A stall/spin on climb out could easily bring an airplane down right on top of a parked airplane like that.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Now that I see its clearly two airplanes, I'm fairly certain it wasn't a fueling accident. Granted, that would have been pretty impressive result had it been.
 
3393RP said:
The story in the first link above was updated at 11:59 PM Monday February 1st. It quotes the student as saying they lost control on takeoff due to a crosswind and crashed.
Click to expand...

Wow, it's a completely different story now. According to this, the student is a 20 year old Air National Guardsman. Here's his full explanation from the article...

Thomas said things went very wrong when they caught a strong crosswind just after takeoff.

"Me and my instructor are trying to correct and after that we didn't have enough thrust to climb anymore, so the nose went down and next thing you know you've got three seconds, you hit the ground. It was at a pretty bad angle too," Thomas said.

He was able to save himself, crawling out of the flaming wreckage, but his 68-year-old instructor died.

Very sad.
 
The other link has been changed too and is more focused on the instructor (Johnny Michael Johnson, 68). It says the instructor was at the controls during the incident.

So, I'm still a student and things like this obviously make me nervous. I am wondering if some of you more seasoned pilots can explain to me how this happened. What could the PIC have done to prevent this accident? Anything?
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
What could the PIC have done to prevent this accident? Anything?
Click to expand...

This is very rare. Accidents happen, but I don't remember anything like this recently. The statement from the student is interesting... "Me and my instructor are trying to correct." This could have made it worse. You need to have an action plan with your instructor. If something goes wrong, he/she takes over and you let go. Two pilots often equals no pilots.

Cajun_Flyer said:
What could the PIC have done to prevent this accident? Anything?
Click to expand...
 
It's not rare for instructors to keep their hands on the controls and 'assist' during take offs, landings and maneuvers. If they need full control they usually yell 'My controls' so you know to let go... not sure what happened in this case.

However this doesn't sound like a crosswind incident... on the surface looks like a stall maybe induced by mechanical trim or other control authority issues. Will have to see what the NTSB says.
 
Yeah most likely a stall/spin, hopefully they weren't 'fighting' over the controls causing the plane to get into an unusual attitude, to a stall/spin. I've had students freeze on takeoff/climbout in a steep climb attitude and had to yell 2-3 times 'my controls', not saying this is what happened. 68 years old, so sad. RIP
 
Last edited:
OkieAviator said:
However this doesn't sound like a crosswind incident... on the surface looks like a stall maybe induced by mechanical trim or other control authority issues. Will have to see what the NTSB says.
Click to expand...

I don't know the cause of this tragic crash, but I agree that it's not a crosswind incident. I've taken off in crosswinds gusting far beyond what they experienced, and, while it's never comfortable, it's not dangerous if performed properly.

It will be interesting to see what the NTSB says about this one.
 
Another sad day for aviation,may he rest in peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top