Plane down in Tampa

Image from the linked story.....

plane-crash_1458317251634_1034113_ver1.0.jpg
 
The initial report was that there was 2 planes involved but I'm not seeing evidence of a second crash.
 
Reported to be a Cessna 310. FlightAware shows a C340 scheduled to depart TPF at around that time.
 
Anyone got the Live ATC from this? Local news here just said 2 planes also, but yea, I only see 1 aircraft down on any of the pictures
 
What an awful scene :(

RIP
 
Something not adding up here. No mention of other aircraft other then we are investigating?

Very sad for anyone involved.

Does make me wonder, how do mid-air collisions happen in controlled airspace. I could see if there was some type of emergency before hand but to collide in separated airspace?

Not saying this is what happened, hair how it was repeated
 
mulligan said:
Does make me wonder, how do mid-air collisions happen in controlled airspace
Click to expand...

Peter O'Knight field is not a towered airport, and it could have happened in G airspace. It's pretty close to a Class D and it's also under a Bravo shelf. Also, looks like there is a TFR really close by that was probably active at the time (covers part of the field), so it's MORE than likely they were talking to ATC because of the TFR, but normally there'd be no need to do so.
 
BigBadLou said:
No LiveATC coverage at KTPF.
A mid-air? That would suck.
Click to expand...

You might be able to find something on the Tampa approach frequencies if this was a mid-air. Not many planes try scud running under the Bravo, especially over water in that area, but some do I suppose. I HAVE done it, but I don't like it.
 
Caramon13 said:
Peter O'Knight field is not a towered airport, and it could have happened in G airspace. It's pretty close to a Class D and it's also under a Bravo shelf. Also, looks like there is a TFR really close by that was probably active at the time (covers part of the field), so it's MORE than likely they were talking to ATC because of the TFR, but normally there'd be no need to do so.
Click to expand...
TFR is for Macdill AFB by coincidence this weekend is the Airfest on the base, it's pretty busy here today with lots of arrivals.

Personally still unsure of the mid air reports, only one aircraft on the crash site, looks more likely that something catastrophic happened on initial climb out, no doubt all will be revealed in due course.
 
One article I read stated it was taking off and had trouble there. 2 souls on board. No survivors.
 
Peter O! Night can be a tough airport. Have to consider the air fest at McDill. May they rest in peace,
 
We had intended to fly into Peter O'Knight today and get a ride down the road to MacDill for Airfest, naturally after yesterday's tragic accident that trip hasn't happened

RIP and condolences to the families of those involved.
 
mulligan said:
...

Does make me wonder, how do mid-air collisions happen in controlled airspace. I could see if there was some type of emergency before hand but to collide in separated airspace?

Not saying this is what happened, hair how it was repeated
Click to expand...

Who is responsible for providing separation in "controlled airspace"?
To aircraft operating under which flight rules?

Who is responsible for actually maintaining separation?
Under what flight conditions?

(As with your question, my response is not in regards to this accident, but in general)
 
Twin_Flyer said:
The mid air hasn't been confirmed but witnesses reported the that second plane was able to land safely. Both took off at the same time on intersecting runways. So sad... Condolences to the families and may they rest in peace...

A later report...
http://wfla.com/2016/03/18/emergency-cr ... t-airport/
Click to expand...

Reports of a second airplane taking off appear to be confirmed by NTSB now. However, it is not yet concluding or confirming involvement in the reason for the crash.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...off-before-fatal-peter-o-knight-crash/2270034
 
JoeSelch said:
Who is responsible for providing separation in "controlled airspace"?
To aircraft operating under which flight rules?

Who is responsible for actually maintaining separation?
Under what flight conditions?

(As with your question, my response is not in regards to this accident, but in general)
Click to expand...

It's a non towered field and by the sound of it, they both departed simultaneously off intersecting runways. The pilots are required to maintain their own separation.
 
Last edited:
The NTSB have now released a preliminary report and confirm another aircraft taking off at the same time on an intersecting runway did contribute to the accident, no details of the other aircraft involved, they just confirm the fatal aircraft dived into the ground while attempting to take evasive action.
 
Xscaliber said:
The NTSB have now released a preliminary report and confirm another aircraft taking off at the same time on an intersecting runway did contribute to the accident, no details of the other aircraft involved, they just confirm the fatal aircraft dived into the ground while attempting to take evasive action.
Click to expand...

The full Prelim actually has a lot of details about the other plane (a C172) including the N-number. There were two persons onboard, a CFI and his student who had just passed his PPL checkride at TPF earlier that morning. The newly-minted pilot was the one flying.

Damn...

From the report: "The Cessna 172 pilot-rated passenger, in the right seat, stated that as his airplane climbed through about 200 feet, he heard another airplane. He looked out the right window and saw the Cessna 340 almost directly below, "stall and crash." The PIC of the Cessna 172, in the left seat, stated that he heard but did not see what he thought was a twin engine airplane, then saw a fireball at the departure end of the runway he just departed."
 
I'm just here to speculate so skip my post if it hurts your feelings (president said if I like my internet I can keep my internet and well, this is how I do my internet :D) but somebody had low SA on this one. We just don't know who. No way these two make time-conflicting takeoffs to converging runways whilst aware of each other. That'd be one messed up game of chicken. If I were to take the FBO witness at face value, the 340 called first and the 172 had no clue (brand new PPL, on an attention valley right after the elation of passing a checkride and on his way home? ..plausible) and off it goes into the 340 flight path. The other guy isn't here to defend himself, so the 172 gets to skate by forfeiture.

I also like how the CFI CYA'ed up real quick LOL. "Pilot rated passenger"... you mean, other than incidentally happened to be the newly-minted PPL's CFI up until that morning? You know, the guy who legally flew the candidate to the checkride? That passenger? Good Lord man we get it, you want no heat from this boo boo, but I've seen Peter give Jesus more acknowledgement than that on "bring your mentor to carpentry class" day o_O:D
 
hindsight2020 said:
I'm just here to speculate so skip my post if it hurts your feelings (president said if I like my internet I can keep my internet and well, this is how I do my internet :D) but somebody had low SA on this one. We just don't know who. No way these two make time-conflicting takeoffs to converging runways whilst aware of each other. That'd be one messed up game of chicken. If I were to take the FBO witness at face value, the 340 called first and the 172 had no clue (brand new PPL, on an attention valley right after the elation of passing a checkride and on his way home? ..plausible) and off it goes into the 340 flight path. The other guy isn't here to defend himself, so the 172 gets to skate by forfeiture.

I also like how the CFI CYA'ed up real quick LOL. "Pilot rated passenger"... you mean, other than incidentally happened to be the newly-minted PPL's CFI up until that morning? You know, the guy who legally flew the candidate to the checkride? That passenger? Good Lord man we get it, you want no heat from this boo boo, but I've seen Peter give Jesus more acknowledgement than that on "bring your mentor to carpentry class" day o_O:D
Click to expand...

Please allow me to retort :D

First of all condolences to all involved. This was a very unfortunate accident.

I just read the report myself. The FBO reports hearing both planes talking. In addition, the 172 was in the air before the 340. So both had communicated something on the radio (we don't know what because it was not recorded). The 172 was already in the air when the 340 took off and the 340 appeared to take an evasive action and stalled/VMC rolled in the process.

I have a problem understanding your point of view that the 172 was in the fault here. He made a call. He took off. He was already in the air.
 
Last edited:
Oh no, I have no idea if he was at fault, I was just basing my speculative scenario on the idea the 340 announced first. If that is not the way it went down then my theory is out of the water.
 
bikert said:
Please allow me to retort :D

First of all condolences to all involved. This was a very unfortunate accident.

I just read the report myself. The FBO reports hearing both planes talking. In addition, the 172 was in the air before the 340. So both had communicated something on the radio (we don't know what because it was not recorded). The 172 was already in the air when the 340 took off and the 340 appeared to take an evasive action and stalled/VMC rolled in the process.

I have a problem understanding your point of view that the 172 was in the fault here. He made a call. He took off. He was already in the air.
Click to expand...

You think the 340 lost an engine?
 
James_Dean said:
You think the 340 lost an engine?
Click to expand...

I didn't want to speculate. I was just repeating the facts on what we do know and that both planes spoke on frequency. The 172 took off first and was already in the air before the 340 took off.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Oh no, I have no idea if he was at fault, I was just basing my speculative scenario on the idea the 340 announced first. If that is not the way it went down then my theory is out of the water.
Click to expand...

The 340 announced first and yet the 172 somehow managed to take off and already be in the air before the 340 took off. He may have announced something but there was obviously a long delay before he started rolling. In the meantime it sounds like the 172 announced intentions.
 
bikert said:
I didn't want to speculate. I was just repeating the facts on what we do know and that both planes spoke on frequency. The 172 took off first and was already in the air before the 340 took off.
Click to expand...

You speculated it might be a 'vmc roll'. That implies he lost an engine.
 
Regardless of the circumstances that is a horrific scene. May the departed find peace
 
James_Dean said:
You speculated it might be a 'vmc roll'. That implies he lost an engine.
Click to expand...

Actually no I wasn't. I said stall/VMC roll to cover a range of possibilities. Maybe I should have said stall/VMC roll/laser-strike-from-alien-spaceship? ;)
 
hindsight2020 said:
I also like how the CFI CYA'ed up real quick LOL. "Pilot rated passenger"... you mean, other than incidentally happened to be the newly-minted PPL's CFI up until that morning? You know, the guy who legally flew the candidate to the checkride? That passenger? Good Lord man we get it, you want no heat from this boo boo, but I've seen Peter give Jesus more acknowledgement than that on "bring your mentor to carpentry class" day o_O:D
Click to expand...
Really dude?
 
RyanShort1 said:
Really dude?
Click to expand...
Uhh, it's the internet. It was sarcasm. My point was merely to lampoon the manner in which the NTSB described their relationship that day.

Hey mods, we're running out of hurt feelings forms down here in aisle 5....
 
hindsight2020 said:
I also like how the CFI CYA'ed up real quick LOL. "Pilot rated passenger"... you mean, other than incidentally happened to be the newly-minted PPL's CFI up until that morning? You know, the guy who legally flew the candidate to the checkride? That passenger? Good Lord man we get it, you want no heat from this boo boo, but I've seen Peter give Jesus more acknowledgement than that on "bring your mentor to carpentry class" day o_O:D
Click to expand...

No butthurt here, but in my experience, "pilot-rated passenger" is typical NTSB-speak for describing... a pilot-rated passenger who wasn't otherwise acting as a CFI or PIC for the flight. No lawyering-up is necessarily implied.
 
Twin_Flyer said:
The mid air hasn't been confirmed but witnesses reported the that second plane was able to land safely. Both took off at the same time on intersecting runways. So sad... Condolences to the families and may they rest in peace...

A later report...
http://wfla.com/2016/03/18/emergency-cr ... t-airport/
Click to expand...

The current story almost makes it sound as if there was no mid-air, but rather a stall/spin scenario that was preceded by the pilot taking evasive action to avoid a mid-air. But, obviously I'm speculating here.
 
bikert said:
Actually no I wasn't. I said stall/VMC roll to cover a range of possibilities. Maybe I should have said stall/VMC roll/laser-strike-from-alien-spaceship? ;)
Click to expand...

A twin does not Vmc rollover unless there is enough asymmetric thrust to overcome rudder authority. In this scenario that would imply engine failure. More plausible than the alien ship theory, but far less likely than an accelerated stall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top