Two planes collide over SF bay

A 210 vs. a Sea Fury?

Easy to understand why the 210 lost that fight.
 
Were they playing together or was it a big sky failure?
 
Odd that the hawker didn't stick around and simply continued the hour flight. Doesn't seem very courteous and doesn't seem like there was an emergency for him as he continued flying rather than landing at e.g. Oakland, Napa or Gnoss.
 
Last edited:
frcabot said:
Odd that the hawker didn't stick around and simply continued the hour flight. Doesn't seem very courteous and doesn't seem like there was an emergency for him as he continued flying rather than landing at e.g. Oakland, Napa or Gnoss.
Click to expand...

Wonder what the FAA will think of continuing on with an hour flight after a mid air?
 
lowtimer said:
Wonder what the FAA will think of continuing on with an hour flight after a mid air?
Click to expand...
I don't know that the FAA has anything to say about it. It's the PIC's decision to determine whether the plane is airworthy. However, he seems like somewhat of a schlub unless I'm missing something. Who just continues on the flight after you just got in a mid-air and killed your buddy?
 
frcabot said:
Odd that the hawker didn't stick around and simply continued the hour flight. Doesn't seem very courteous and doesn't seem like there was an emergency for him as he continued flying rather than landing at e.g. Oakland, Napa or Gnoss.
Click to expand...

Huh? You've just been involved in a mid-air crash, and you plan to circle over a bay looking for the other plane?

Go ahead - I guess.
 
frcabot said:
Odd that the hawker didn't stick around and simply continued the hour flight. Doesn't seem very courteous and doesn't seem like there was an emergency for him as he continued flying rather than landing at e.g. Oakland, Napa or Gnoss.
Click to expand...
I can think of a lot of reasons, particularly if it was a good buddy and you already figured he was likely dead, you have a very expensive and powerful plane that is somewhat damaged on your hands, perhaps if it is still flyable you want to burn off fuel, etc...
 
...or he knows that once he puts it down somewhere that thing ain't going anywhere for a while while the FAA and NTSB investigates plus probably need repairs so why not get it to your home field if possible.

My first reaction was that it seemed to be pretty lowlife to fly home but he would have been of no further assistance to the situation if he landed in OAK and been stranded vs his home field if his plane was still airworthy.

...is hit an run in an aircraft a thing while mid air?
 
Last edited:
frcabot said:
I don't know that the FAA has anything to say about it. It's the PIC's decision to determine whether the plane is airworthy. However, he seems like somewhat of a schlub unless I'm missing something. Who just continues on the flight after you just got in a mid-air and killed your buddy?
Click to expand...

It's all about the plane. The Hawker isn't a Cessna, or Piper, the pilot knew it had to be damaged and had he landed at one of the near by airports, the plane would likely be stranded there with repairs difficult to make. By flying it back to home base, it can be fixed with the facilities that maintain it and built it. He knows the plane inside and out, so likely he can tell that the flight critical systems are well enough to continue.

Likely he watched his friend go into the bay and knew he was for certain dead. There is nothing he could do but report to ATC, which he may have done, I don't know. Being a long time air race pilot, he has no doubt seen friends die in wrecks before, so he followed logic instead of emotion. Maybe his way of dealing with the shock.

I personally would have landed ASAP, but I have never seen anybody I know die in a crash and would not be so confident my plane was OK, so I would have gone with emotion and fear over logic. I can totally understand why he did what he did, but it won't play well in the press.

RIP to the lost pilot and condolenes to the family and friends, including the pilot of Dreadnought. Sucks all around. Formation flying (I presume this to be the case) isn't to be taken lightly, even by people who do it all the time. My guess is, this was an ad hoc photo mission by the lone 210 pilot with SF Bay and late afternoon skies as the back drop.
 
Last edited:
Two factors here, first, from another forum it looks like both aircraft were registered to the same company, so it's likely friends were involved. Second, the Sea Fury had TWO occupants including the pilots wife according to the story I saw, and that might complicate the situation a bit.
 
That is a wild story, being involved in a mid air and still being able to fly and none the less still have time to get to an airport and land safely! Rip to the plane with passengers who died, very sad!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
frcabot said:
I don't know that the FAA has anything to say about it. It's the PIC's decision to determine whether the plane is airworthy.
Click to expand...

The FAA has everything to say about it. Just look at the fuss that came about when the BA 747 lost an engine on departure from SFO and continued on to the UK. Only reason those guys didn't get fried is because they were Brits.
 
Dav8or said:
It's all about the plane. The Hawker isn't a Cessna, or Piper, the pilot knew it had to be damaged and had he landed at one of the near by airports, the plane would likely be stranded there with repairs difficult to make. By flying it back to home base, it can be fixed with the facilities that maintain it and built it. He knows the plane inside and out, so likely he can tell that the flight critical systems are well enough to continue.
Click to expand...

That kind of decision making is pretty much guaranteed to result in punitive action by the FAA. And a NASA form won't help you.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That kind of decision making is pretty much guaranteed to result in punitive action by the FAA. And a NASA form won't help you.
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly. Involved in an accident you know the airplane is damaged but chose to continue just because (if I make it home...). It would be world news if he would have passed several airports with more than adequate facilities to land but ended up a smoking hole in elementary school, golf course, or other.

Bad juju.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The FAA has everything to say about it. Just look at the fuss that came about when the BA 747 lost an engine on departure from SFO and continued on to the UK. Only reason those guys didn't get fried is because they were Brits.
Click to expand...

The difference there is that was a 121 flight, which has a whole bunch of other regulations beyond part 91. This was a guy and his wife.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That kind of decision making is pretty much guaranteed to result in punitive action by the FAA. And a NASA form won't help you.
Click to expand...
avoid your million $$ antique being stranded outdoors at a big airport vs a 30-90day break from flying ? not a hard decision for me
 
JHW said:
avoid your million $$ antique being stranded outdoors at a big airport vs a 30-90day break from flying ? not a hard decision for me
Click to expand...

They have these fancy thingamabobs called "hangars" at all the nearby airports. And Oakland has enough maintenance facilities to support an airline (Alaska), plus an air museum with restoration facilities.

As for searching with a broken plane, if he can fly across the state, he can guide rescuers to the crash site.

This is not a guy I would want on my six.
 
MAKG1 said:
They have these fancy thingamabobs called "hangars" at all the nearby airports. And Oakland has enough maintenance facilities to support an airline (Alaska), plus an air museum with restoration facilities.

As for searching with a broken plane, if he can fly across the state, he can guide rescuers to the crash site.

This is not a guy I would want on my six.
Click to expand...
No idea, Not familiar with the details and I won't pass judgement one way or the other. I was just commenting that the specter of FAA enforcement actions really aren't much of a consideration in the grand scheme of things, especially for someone with that type of bank account.
 
JHW said:
avoid your million $$ antique being stranded outdoors at a big airport vs a 30-90day break from flying ? not a hard decision for me
Click to expand...

When you have that kind of money, you trailer it home. There was a Sea Fury just recently trailered home from Reno after an engine failure.

I'm sorry, but the FAA isn't going to agree with you.
 
JHW said:
I was just commenting that the specter of FAA enforcement actions really aren't much of a consideration in the grand scheme of things, especially for someone with that type of bank account.
Click to expand...

Money can pay for a lot of things, and a lot is lawyers, but it won't necessarily protect your certificate.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Money can pay for a lot of things, and a lot is lawyers, but it won't necessarily protect your certificate.
Click to expand...
protect it from what ? lawyers for what ? just take the suspension, say you're sorry, and move on. This isn't a revocation level offense.
 
JHW said:
protect it from what ? lawyers for what ? just take the suspension, say you're sorry, and move on. This isn't a revocation level offense.
Click to expand...

Uh, okay you win. I personally would prefer to avoid a suspension during my flying career.
 
JHW said:
protect it from what ? lawyers for what ? just take the suspension, say you're sorry, and move on. This isn't a revocation level offense.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Suspensions are more an ego thing then real punishment. Have your lawyer get the suspension timed with winter. Buy an ultralight. Go sailing for a few months. Whatever. Biggest risk to aviation is suspending someone like that and having them find something else to do with their spare time and money.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Uh, okay you win. I personally would prefer to avoid a suspension during my flying career.
Click to expand...
wouldn't we all. But in the grand scheme of things is it really a big deal to sit out a couple months ? Heck I already do that every time I go to work on the road. i'm in the middle of an 18 month flying hiatus right now.
 
Certainly I don't expect him to stay there and circle the area with a damaged plane, but I don't expect him to fly it for nearly an hour to Ione when he could have nearly glided it to KAPC or Oakland. You really don't know what kind of damage might have been incurred to the plane even though it may have been flying at the time.

I'm sorry, I have to agree dude is a schlub. If he would have landed, checked the plane out, then continued after determining the plane was airworthy, well then okay.

But as far as who's fault it was for causing the crash, we really don't know yet. It could have just as easily been the 210 that made the fatal mistake.
 
Maybe he just felt it would be safer to land at an airport he knew well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
RyanShort1 said:
Two factors here, first, from another forum it looks like both aircraft were registered to the same company, so it's likely friends were involved. Second, the Sea Fury had TWO occupants including the pilots wife according to the story I saw, and that might complicate the situation a bit.
Click to expand...

It " might' be even worse.. They could have been brothers.....:sad::sad:

Sad deal regardless...:redface:
 
teejayevans said:
Maybe he just felt it would be safer to land at an airport he knew well.
Click to expand...

Then he should have returned to HAF.

I don't buy that argument. Most of the locals with more than 100 hours have landed at Oakland. It's is a TOTAL non-event.

And in an emergency, KSFO is an option. They have enough maintenance facilities there to support United Airlines and a very long list of airline customers for heavy maintenance checks.

I don't see any explanation there except the inconvenience was more important than anything.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Certainly I don't expect him to stay there and circle the area with a damaged plane, but I don't expect him to fly it for nearly an hour to Ione when he could have nearly glided it to KAPC or Oakland. You really don't know what kind of damage might have been incurred to the plane even though it may have been flying at the time.

I'm sorry, I have to agree dude is a schlub. If he would have landed, checked the plane out, then continued after determining the plane was airworthy, well then okay.

But as far as who's fault it was for causing the crash, we really don't know yet. It could have just as easily been the 210 that made the fatal mistake.
Click to expand...
If something on Facebook is correct, there may be substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer. Probably wouldn't have been allowed to take off anyway. If he was over the bay, and determined that he could maintain control in cruise flight, burn off some fuel, then land at home base, I don't see that as horrible decision making. I know the regs about discontinuing the flight, but you also have to try and land safely, and we don't know what all decisions were going through the pilot's head especially if he was good friends with the other pilot, and with his wife in the back.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
My thoughts exactly. Involved in an accident you know the airplane is damaged but chose to continue just because (if I make it home...). It would be world news if he would have passed several airports with more than adequate facilities to land but ended up a smoking hole in elementary school, golf course, or other.

Bad juju.
Click to expand...
No doubt. You know your plane is damaged, but how badly. Is something else in danger of breaking loose or coming off? Keep flying seems crazy and suggests an attempt to conceal something. It may not be, but that's what it looks like. I'd try to direct rescuers if able then find nearest longest runway.
 
Anyone rich enough to maintain an old warbird is rich enough to tractor the plane to Ione from Oakland, Napa, Concord, or wherever else. Seems irresponsible and callous.

And if it was simply wake turbulence and not an actual collision, then perhaps even more callous to abandon wingman and just high-tail it home.

I can't believe that he didn't know his buddy had gone down given that they were apparently flying in formation. Still, I'll suspend judgment until all the facts are known.
 
Sec. 91.7 — Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

Shall discontinue doesn't mean crash, obviously, so it is then up to the pilot's best judgment as to how to safely end the flight. For all we know he might have wanted to do a low pass down the runway so that someone knowledgeable about the aircraft could tell him the extent of the damage say, to the underside of his aircraft, or something along those lines. If I just survived a mid-air, and had my wife on board, I'm SURE that there would be additional considerations I would be running through my head as to how to keep her calm and safe including just a bit more time and burning off fuel.
 
How about going up to altitude and testing how the plane handles in slow flight, landing configuration, etc. before trying it for real? If the plane departs controlled flight, bail out. But it's a lot better figuring this out at 5,000 feet than 500. And if you've got the fuel, and the plane is holding together...what's the problem with running several practice approaches at altitude?

Nothing says you have to circle while doing this testing, either. Could set a course for home. Personally, if *I'm* flying a plane with potential handling or control issues, I'd want to try to land at an airport I've got a lot of experience at.

If nothing else, I don't know where the uninhabited areas are near many of the local airports. But I know darn well where I could dump an airplane near my home airport if it departs controlled flight in the pattern.

Ron Wanttaja
 
What if they never touched,and the wing just fell off the 210. The spitfire never knew the 210 went down. big A/D for wing cracks. Need more facts. You guys are as bad as the media. All speculators of the worst kind. Just saying.
 
Nothing wrong with speculation as long as you don't try to pass it off as fact.
 
Using the info in the Kathryn's Report, http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/04/planes-crash-near-san-pablo-bay-and-one.html I used SkyVector to show the direct route from KHAF to CA20, did a quick screen scrape and edited it to insert a red marker where the collision reportedly occurred. See attachment.

Obviously they didn't take the straight route home through Class B but probably were circling under the shelf around the north.

CA20 is 4000 feet long and 100 feet wide. It also has 1200 ft structural overrun on the north and 2200 ft compacted dirt overrun to the south.

So their destination airport was comfortably long and wide and being a private field, no other traffic would presumably be in the way or involve controller intervention. Feel free to browse the nearby airports, but I could not find any airports that seem to have all those advantages going for them. Besides, it takes time in the cockpit to figure out alternates - sometimes it is easier to complete a flight to a known location than inject another variable that is as likely to add to the danger as subtract.

As most have probably experienced, landing at one's home field presents more known quantities than landing at any other field.
 

Attachments

  • SanPabloCollision.JPG
    SanPabloCollision.JPG
    650.8 KB · Views: 53
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top