Person jumps from aircraft landing at RDU

It seems I remember one of those crime shows where a husband and wife went up for a flight and she "jumped."
Don't know about that scenario. There was the Columbo episode "Swan Song" where Johnny Cash played a singer-pilot and bailed out and left his wife to crash in the plane. I primarily remember this because the LAPD plane shown in the episode was a Navion (Just step on the seat, sir).
 
Tweet from a WRAL reporter

BREAKING: Pilot who made emergency landing
@RDUAirport
on Friday told air traffic control his co-pilot "just jumped out" of plane mid-air. FAA employee told 911, "I am sure the pilot is going to be shaken up...He literally just said, ‘my pilot just jumped out.'"
@WRAL
"I'm going for help. You stay here."
 
It had to have been an intentional act by the copilot to depart the aircraft.
Possible ≠ probable ≠ definite. I'll buy that it's the only conclusion you can reach based on the assumptions you've made with the information you've heard/read/divined so far.

The reporting on whatever cockpit communication occurred has been abysmal, but the intent of the copilot to jump into a lake has been reported, presumably by the pilot.
"Presumably." Why do you believe what's being reported if the reporting is 'abysmal'? To paraphrase @Fearless Tower, there's an awful lot of distrust in media *until* they post something we agree with, then it's gospel.

Nauga,
carpe datum
 
^^^This^^^

Years ago, the aeroclub at the Army APG had an incident where a C-130 flipped over an occupied Cessna 150. The pilot of the 150 said he wasn't injured until he released his seat belt while dangling upside down. I apparently told that story around my stepson and when his father rolled his car and Ian and his sister were dangling from his belts, he remembered the story and made sure both he and his sister braced themselves before releasing the belts.
 
Possible ≠ probable ≠ definite. I'll buy that it's the only conclusion you can reach based on the assumptions you've made with the information you've heard/read/divined so far.

"Presumably." Why do you believe what's being reported if the reporting is 'abysmal'? To paraphrase @Fearless Tower, there's an awful lot of distrust in media *until* they post something we agree with, then it's gospel.

Nauga,
carpe datum

I said that for two reasons - one, it is obvious the reported ATC transcripts and aviation details have not been vetted and corrected by pilots. Minor point, yes, but as we pilots know, it’s hard to trust aviation reporting when there are even minor details that are wrong. Maybe talk to some pilots and see that there are more questions to ask, or at least shut down the non-plausible avenues.

Two, it’s abysmal in that it lacks information from a live witness. Granted, that may be beyond what the reporters have access at this point, but the fact remains, the reporting is abysmal due to the lack of info, whether it’s the reporters fault or not.

I have no biases against media in general, just extra scrutiny when it comes to reporting any specific, technical subject. Need a lot of water to absorb those grains of salt.

I’m not divining anything - I’m coming up with scenarios and questions based on all the things that have been reported. I’ve not said that anything is definite, just that it doesn’t add up. The only way to make it add up at this point is to fill in the large series of blanks that still exists with theories. The lake postulate is the element that creates the most questions to me.

It’s a wild story, no matter what. When they answer the outlying questions and fill in all these wild blanks, it will be more believable.
 
ETA: I’m also curious when the remaining pilot closed or secured whatever door/ramp was ajar.

The ramp is hydraulically actuated, and presumably controllable from the cockpit. Doors are manual. Doors and ramp are closed in post-landing photos. Most plausible explanation is the co-pilot departed the ramp, and then the pilot raised it for landing. Highly unlikely that a door was involved, IMO.

That fits well with "fell out while inspecting the wheel" scenario. Having done similar activities on similar aircraft, the most likely method would be to kneel a few feet aft of the ramp hinge and stick your head out the gap. On a C130 with a huge ramp that is no big deal. CASA 212 ramp is only a few feet long and you would be right at the edge. That would scare the poop out of me.

Also, I vaguely remember from my CASA 212 rides that the floor sloped alarmingly downward, and the ramp even more so. Felt like we were going to be dumped out the back. I assume that has to do with the AoA and flap configuration necessary to fly at jump airspeed, but I seem to recall that impression even as a pax with cargo. Note that seems to be confirmed by the photo below.

CASA 212.PNG
 
To add to my last, I’m just trying to put myself in either person’s shoes based on what I know from what’s been reported. There are a ton of gaps that would be filled if certain questions were asked and answered. Since this wasn’t a double-fatal, we don’t need to divine anything. Just… ask. But with the implications, the public is rightfully asking those questions now, and the answer to those questions could range from the somber and mundane to crazy and dangerous.
 
Tweet from a WRAL reporter

BREAKING: Pilot who made emergency landing
@RDUAirport
on Friday told air traffic control his co-pilot "just jumped out" of plane mid-air. FAA employee told 911, "I am sure the pilot is going to be shaken up...He literally just said, ‘my pilot just jumped out.'"
@WRAL

That is the quote that I caught. If the wording is accurate, he stated:

A. "my pilot" - Something that I would infer means the speaker was not the Captain, PIC, etc. I can't imagine a Captain, PIC, left seater, saying my "pilot", I would presume they would say "co-pilot" or some other term. There is also a lot of talk about the "Co-pilot" making the radio calls, landing the airplane. Seems to be an odd reference. May be attributed to the media telling the story wrong, but the use of the term "Co-pilot" seems widespread in this event, not just one reporter standing on the tarmac.

b "just jumped out" - Says it all. Not fell out, slipped out, etc.

I'm going to make one of those obtuse internet forum broad statements:

All flights involve returning to Earth, one way or another.

[No fair mentioning orbiting in space.]

Aviation has a perfect record, we haven't left anyone up there yet!
 
Last edited:
Awfully quick to condemn given the complete lack of facts. What if he was wearing a harness and it failed? or going off of this crazy wild murder theory, what if the other pilot unclipped or cut it? To call him stupid without ANY credible information says more about the poster than the intended target...

Mtns2skies,
who sometimes agrees with Nauga.

The credible information I am going off is as follows:
1. There was a plane, in the air.
2. A commercial pilot with a CFI certificate exits the aircraft mid-air
The information I am presuming, but that seems highly likely:
1. The flying pilot didn't murder him
2. The pilot who fell/jumped most likely had some experience with the harnesses, etc., used
3. The failure of jump harnesses in planes is rare

If the guy didn't use a harness, that was stupid.
If the guy used a harness that he didn't know how to use, that was stupid.

If the guy used a harness that broke, you're right, that's not stupid. But I couldn't find a single recorded instance of a jump plane's harness breaking. I may be missing something, and maybe the harnesses on a jump plane fail all the time. But from what I can tell, it hardly ever happens, so assuming that it happened here seems a bit extreme. Both of the "simple" explanations require some stupidity, thus my conclusion. I may be wrong. There is always that chance!
 
The credible information I am going off is as follows:
1. There was a plane, in the air.
2. A commercial pilot with a CFI certificate exits the aircraft mid-air
The information I am presuming, but that seems highly likely:
1. The flying pilot didn't murder him
2. The pilot who fell/jumped most likely had some experience with the harnesses, etc., used
3. The failure of jump harnesses in planes is rare

If the guy didn't use a harness, that was stupid.
If the guy used a harness that he didn't know how to use, that was stupid.

If the guy used a harness that broke, you're right, that's not stupid. But I couldn't find a single recorded instance of a jump plane's harness breaking. I may be missing something, and maybe the harnesses on a jump plane fail all the time. But from what I can tell, it hardly ever happens, so assuming that it happened here seems a bit extreme. Both of the "simple" explanations require some stupidity, thus my conclusion. I may be wrong. There is always that chance!

But why did the pilot who landed the plane tell ATC that the other guy jumped? Not fell, not harness broke, “jumped.” If you were flying and had this issue and the other guy said “I’m going to go harness in and stick my head out the ramp,” then suddenly he was no longer on the plane, why in the world would you say “he jumped out?”
 
But why did the pilot who landed the plane tell ATC that the other guy jumped? Not fell, not harness broke, “jumped.” If you were flying and had this issue and the other guy said “I’m going to go harness in and stick my head out the ramp,” then suddenly he was no longer on the plane, why in the world would you say “he jumped out?”

I wouldn't. But I was trying my best to give every single benefit of a doubt that I could.
 
I wouldn't. But I was trying my best to give every single benefit of a doubt that I could.

No, I get that - nothing against you. It’s just that the latest from the 911 call, I believe between the controllers and emergency responders, said that the pilot told the controller that he “just jumped out.” Which goes back to the question of intent - suicide or panic/escape? I tend to believe the former, because the latter would have seemingly required more thought and conversation, calm the guy down, give him options.

But then the lake story comes back into play.

Wild.

edit to begin the quote in the right place
 
…That fits well with "fell out while inspecting the wheel" scenario.…
I understand the logic, but left of bang is where my mind is.

The plane is flying. Where’s the ADM that takes us to the point of opening the ramp? Hell, where’s the ADM that said “go around!” to begin with. That was probably a knee jerk to the bounce/skip/whatever it was that led up to it.

Which makes me wonder who was minding the store on the approach. I think that’s the real question to answer because that can help understand everything else that happened afterwards.
 
I listened to our local North Carolina news on the radio at 11:00AM today...they are still reporting this as a man jumping...not falling.
 
I listened to our local North Carolina news on the radio at 11:00AM today...they are still reporting this as a man jumping...not falling.

In the last few hours, the AP and major networks are all keying on the 911 call from controllers in which they told emergency responders that he jumped.
 
This just doesn’t make sense, and I would be thinking murder if I was investigating until the facts ruled it out.
 
Where’s the ADM that takes us to the point of opening the ramp?

These type outfits do a lot of contract support for special operations by DoD and "other government agencies", both training and downrange. Plenty of night blackout operations on unimproved dirt strips with questionable or non-existent ATC and NAVAID support and very limited maintenance support. Requires aircrew with a mentality to adapt, improvise, and overcome. I can totally see opening the ramp for visual inspection of damage to be part of their problem solving process. There is nothing inherently dangerous about it if conducted with adequate precautions, eg safety harness or chute. As stated earlier, this aircraft type flies around with the ramp open all the time. It is no big deal.
 
But then the lake story comes back into play.
Pilots are notoriously bad at physics. Stacking a bunch of “ifs” in front of this, I could envision a pilot thinking that at 120 knots, a falling trajectory would cover two miles in a minute. Being wrong by a mile and a half could easily happen.
 
This just doesn’t make sense, and I would be thinking murder if I was investigating until the facts ruled it out.

It doesn’t make sense. I think that scenario, as unlikely as it is, would have to be on the table as well.
Pilots are notoriously bad at physics. Stacking a bunch of “ifs” in front of this, I could envision a pilot thinking that at 120 knots, a falling trajectory would cover two miles in a minute. Being wrong by a mile and a half could easily happen.

I don’t think any of us could even discern the “lake” in question from 3,000 AGL and 120 knots. At least not in any way that you could discern a person’s intention to jump into it.

Now, it could be that the whole lake notion got injected during the game of “operator” during the initial reporting and it’s just a red herring, but it was communicated by someone at some point.
 
I disagree.

Initial reports were that they were searching around a lake near West Lake Middle School. Initial reports were also that he exited toward a body of water.

Find all the lakes between where the body was found and the “lake” near that school and assert whether that “lake” could have either been selected as a target by the jumper or discerned as a target by the remaining pilot, given the altitude and speed. There are larger lakes within a few miles, but why start in that area, given those reports, specifically?
 
What was said, what was meant, and what actually happened are different things.
 
Initial reports were that they were searching around a lake near West Lake Middle School. Initial reports were also that he exited toward a body of water.

Find all the lakes between where the body was found and the “lake” near that school and assert whether that “lake” could have either been selected as a target by the jumper or discerned as a target by the remaining pilot, given the altitude and speed. There are larger lakes within a few miles, but why start in that area, given those reports, specifically?
You’re changing your assertion to something other than what I responded to.
 
Obviously a wild story for many reasons... from an engineering / materials strength perspective HOW IN THE CRAP do you completely shear off a main landing gear on a fixed wing aircraft from a "hard landing"?? And then successfully go around and get airborne again. Like the aircraft in question must have sustained more damage from an impact like that right? There has to be more to that story. I feel like they would have had to hit some kind of debris on the runway or maybe departed the runway into an obstacle to shear a landing gear off. I guess metal fatigue is a thing too. But still, landing gear struts are going to be designed with a generous safety factor (just like wing struts) to account for cyclical loading and fatigue. Maybe that part of the story isn't as insane as I'm thinking?
 
You’re changing your assertion to something other than what I responded to.

You’re saying you can spot a lake of that size from that speed and altitude? No disagreement there, if you’re set on looking for it.

However, the very next sentence, which you cropped, was that it would be difficult to discern that it was the intended target.

The entire assertion is what I responded to, regardless of whether you cropped that part out or not.
 
You’re saying you can spot a lake of that size from that speed and altitude? No disagreement there, if you’re set on looking for it.

However, the very next sentence, which you cropped, was that it would be difficult to discern that it was the intended target.

The entire assertion is what I responded to, regardless of whether you cropped that part out or not.
If you can spot the lake, you can say I’m going to try to jump into it.
 
These type outfits do a lot of contract support for special operations by DoD and "other government agencies", both training and downrange. Plenty of night blackout operations on unimproved dirt strips with questionable or non-existent ATC and NAVAID support and very limited maintenance support. Requires aircrew with a mentality to adapt, improvise, and overcome. I can totally see opening the ramp for visual inspection of damage to be part of their problem solving process. There is nothing inherently dangerous about it if conducted with adequate precautions, eg safety harness or chute. As stated earlier, this aircraft type flies around with the ramp open all the time. It is no big deal.

Opening the SIDE DOOR to inspect main gear would make a lot more sense than opening the RAMP for same. ;)
 
Opening the SIDE DOOR to inspect main gear would make a lot more sense than opening the RAMP for same. ;)

Not on a C212. The troop door is on the left side of the aircraft. On the copilot/right side is an emergency hatch iirc.
 
Opening the SIDE DOOR to inspect main gear would make a lot more sense than opening the RAMP for same. ;)

Except that A) there is no SIDE DOOR on the right side of the aircraft, which is the side that the gear was damaged on ... that is an emergency egress hatch; and B) the view of the gear leg structure is blocked from above by the gear well fairing, but visible from the ramp when it is lower than the floor.

view.PNG

:p
 
Obviously a wild story for many reasons... from an engineering / materials strength perspective HOW IN THE CRAP do you completely shear off a main landing gear on a fixed wing aircraft from a "hard landing"?? And then successfully go around and get airborne again. Like the aircraft in question must have sustained more damage from an impact like that right? There has to be more to that story. I feel like they would have had to hit some kind of debris on the runway or maybe departed the runway into an obstacle to shear a landing gear off. I guess metal fatigue is a thing too. But still, landing gear struts are going to be designed with a generous safety factor (just like wing struts) to account for cyclical loading and fatigue. Maybe that part of the story isn't as insane as I'm thinking?

Was the "landing gear sheared off on landing" an official report?

I wonder if maybe they hit something on approach or departure that took out the wheel?
 
Obviously a wild story for many reasons... from an engineering / materials strength perspective HOW IN THE CRAP do you completely shear off a main landing gear on a fixed wing aircraft from a "hard landing"?? And then successfully go around and get airborne again. Like the aircraft in question must have sustained more damage from an impact like that right? There has to be more to that story. I feel like they would have had to hit some kind of debris on the runway or maybe departed the runway into an obstacle to shear a landing gear off. I guess metal fatigue is a thing too. But still, landing gear struts are going to be designed with a generous safety factor (just like wing struts) to account for cyclical loading and fatigue. Maybe that part of the story isn't as insane as I'm thinking?

Especially considering it is an aircraft specifically designed and routinely employed for operation on unimproved surfaces.
 
Except that A) there is no SIDE DOOR on the right side of the aircraft, which is the side that the gear was damaged on ... that is an emergency egress hatch; and B) the view of the gear leg structure is blocked from above by the gear well fairing, but visible from the ramp when it is lower than the floor.

View attachment 109401

:p


Yeah, still seems like a bad idea to open the back door to look at the side of an airplane. Unless you’re planning on jumping out. ;) (Does it make more sense now?)
 
ah, yes straight to the limit. no. i'm saying that the only thing we care about in this accident is why the pilot fell out. as far as why that is, we have zero information. so we can be "responsible" in discussing things.


well the following...........
Ok, my comment on the pilot giving him a shove wasnt serious...at all. It was not meant to add more speculation. More to highlight the fact that we know nothing.

A young man passed away. Tragically. That's what we know and all we know. My condolences to the family.

I've seen the reports that he told atc his copilot jumped. Would that not be in the recordings? I haven't actually listened to the recordings to know. It would be odd if he didn't say something to atc, but I would have thought Juan would have mentioned it in his vid if the pilot said it.
 
I thought the comment about the pilot causing the co-pilot to fall out so he could blame him for the hard landing was evil genius.
 
Back
Top