Update on Catalina Baron crash

flyingcheesehead said:
Just be careful with that, too - Because the NTSB has apparently only recently started to learn about root cause analysis, and most of the reports say "The NTSB finds that the probable cause of this crash is the pilot's failure to ..." it's FAR too easy to look at an accident report and say "Well that's just stupid, I would never do that!" and move on, thinking you're impervious to that particular type of accident.

In reality, we need to think deeper. WHY did the pilot do that? What was the decisionmaking process? What information was available? What internal and external pressures may have caused the pilot to make that decision?
Click to expand...
yup…Like most anything in learning to fly, you can learn to do it right or you can learn to do it wrong.
 
Barrett50 said:
If the airport manager had called the deputy and advised them there's a plane trying to use the closed runway, I wonder if the Avalon deputy would have responded? Maybe he was eating a Dunkin' and having a double caf coffee and would run out. Maybe he would have told the mgr he was on his own.
Click to expand...

Not taking anything away from the rest of your post, but in a very real sense the KAVX manager is definitely on his own in a case like this. It's a rough, winding, forty-five minute drive from Avalon (the town) to KAVX; I'd guess the lone deputy on the island would think that by the time they get there the plane will be long gone — and there's probably no legal basis to try to stop the plane taking off anyway. As you note later, maybe the Conservancy could come up with something that puts legal oomph into the situation — something an LA County deputy could actually act on, or something that has physical application — but they're not there yet.
 
Closed per the manager, but he went home. Catalina Island.

Local airport, KCGS, College Park, MD, had a curfew at sundown. Owner and manager is the Maryland National Capital Parks, and the Park Police headquarters then was 2 blocks away.

Homecoming football game had a large fly in attendance, and the owner of a 6 seat twin, Beech, I think, partied beyond the curfew, and his hosts brought him and his fellow graduates to the airport. An officer, tasked with seeing there were no violations of curfew noticed headlights on the access road, and drove over to see that no departure occurred. There was a discussion, and the pilot agreed to remain until next day, his host agreed to put them up, and all left the airport.

An hour later, the pilot returned, quickly fired up his engines, taxied to the runway and initiated a departure.

The previous Police officer arrived, drove onto the opposite end of the runway, with siren and lights on, and accelerated down to meet the plane. They met a quarter of the way down the runway, and he claimed it hit his long whip antenna as it passed over him.

Charges and counter charges flew in both directions, but the police request to the FAA for enforcement against the pilots license was an eye opener for the airport owners, and policeman. If there had been damaging contact with the airborne aircraft, the total liability would have been on the police interference with an aircraft in flight. Consider what the result would have been if the plane had been just 3 feet in the air, and solidly impacted the hood and windshield of that police car. After repeated discussions with the FAA, the officer recanted his claim of impact with his antenna.

The Commission posted a ban on police cars on the runway, and posted it at the police station, and airport office.

All the airport could do was issue a lifetime ban on the pilot flying into KCGS, which they did.

Some details may be poorly remembered, but the story was supplied by the MNCP Police Commissioner, a pilot, close friend, and corporate partner. A true inside source.
 
geezer said:
Closed per the manager, but he went home. Catalina Island.

Local airport, KCGS, College Park, MD, had a curfew at sundown. Owner and manager is the Maryland National Capital Parks, and the Park Police headquarters then was 2 blocks away.

Homecoming football game had a large fly in attendance, and the owner of a 6 seat twin, Beech, I think, partied beyond the curfew, and his hosts brought him and his fellow graduates to the airport. An officer, tasked with seeing there were no violations of curfew noticed headlights on the access road, and drove over to see that no departure occurred. There was a discussion, and the pilot agreed to remain until next day, his host agreed to put them up, and all left the airport.

An hour later, the pilot returned, quickly fired up his engines, taxied to the runway and initiated a departure.

The previous Police officer arrived, drove onto the opposite end of the runway, with siren and lights on, and accelerated down to meet the plane. They met a quarter of the way down the runway, and he claimed it hit his long whip antenna as it passed over him.

Charges and counter charges flew in both directions, but the police request to the FAA for enforcement against the pilots license was an eye opener for the airport owners, and policeman. If there had been damaging contact with the airborne aircraft, the total liability would have been on the police interference with an aircraft in flight. Consider what the result would have been if the plane had been just 3 feet in the air, and solidly impacted the hood and windshield of that police car. After repeated discussions with the FAA, the officer recanted his claim of impact with his antenna.

The Commission posted a ban on police cars on the runway, and posted it at the police station, and airport office.

All the airport could do was issue a lifetime ban on the pilot flying into KCGS, which they did.

Some details may be poorly remembered, but the story was supplied by the MNCP Police Commissioner, a pilot, close friend, and corporate partner. A true inside source.
Click to expand...
I was going to post an analytical response to Barrett that explained exactly this. I'm glad that you had a real example instead. If I owned an airport, I would be very worried about having a manager that thinks that way and I would be actively working to replace him.
 
woywoyboy said:
Not taking anything away from the rest of your post, but in a very real sense the KAVX manager is definitely on his own in a case like this. It's a rough, winding, forty-five minute drive from Avalon (the town) to KAVX; I'd guess the lone deputy on the island would think that by the time they get there the plane will be long gone — and there's probably no legal basis to try to stop the plane taking off anyway. As you note later, maybe the Conservancy could come up with something that puts legal oomph into the situation — something an LA County deputy could actually act on, or something that has physical application — but they're not there yet.
Click to expand...

I don’t think anything needs fixing on the airport side of management. Operations are already “prohibited” at night. It’s not as safe after dark as other airports. Don’t drink battery acid, smoking is bad for you, and all that jazz.
 
woywoyboy said:
Not taking anything away from the rest of your post, but in a very real sense the KAVX manager is definitely on his own in a case like this. It's a rough, winding, forty-five minute drive from Avalon (the town) to KAVX; I'd guess the lone deputy on the island would think that by the time they get there the plane will be long gone — and there's probably no legal basis to try to stop the plane taking off anyway. As you note later, maybe the Conservancy could come up with something that puts legal oomph into the situation — something an LA County deputy could actually act on, or something that has physical application — but they're not there yet.
Click to expand...
I know. I've been there many times. I've driven the road from the airport to the town in a small jitney(in the late 80s), and it's a mega-hassle. We'll see if operational changes are made by the Conservancy.

What I see in my crystal ball is the conservancy deciding that a runway on the island has just become too great of a white albatross and should be permanently closed, which will effectively prevent any more 5 fatal accidents. :mad3:
 
So, College Park MD(strange, I've been there) is publicly owned, and open to the public. MY Personal airport is PRIVATELY OWNED, open to the public. I can and will enforce trespass on private property. By hunters, drivers, walkers, MC riders, and - operators of aircraft. I've run off hunters, drivers, walkers, and MC riders with great success. I'm quite sure, without any reservation that I can and will enforce trespass on private property to an aircraft owner/renter/operator. As for the popo driving directly at an aircraft in takeoff on a publicly owned, public airport, that was stupid, and the popo acted without regard to safety, and also without due process. The aircraft operator was not breaking any 'laws', so technically LEO(Law Enforcement Officer) had no prob cause to try to stop the airplane. If a person is on my private property, they have permission granted by the offer of landing and taking off. Just like parking your car in the Piggly Wiggly parking lot, and shopping in the Piggly Wiggly for ham. Once a person has been notified that access has been revoked, and trespass has begun, then a law is being broken and will - be - enforced. By Johnny Law if it comes to that. But - I'm kind of an ass. I don't want five people dying at my place when they are breaking the law.(unlike College Park)
 
Stevel said:
I was going to post an analytical response to Barrett that explained exactly this. I'm glad that you had a real example instead. If I owned an airport, I would be very worried about having a manager that thinks that way and I would be actively working to replace him.
Click to expand...
Would welcome opinions with a valid law degree in hand. Sans law degree I will give the opinion all the attention it deserves.:cheerswine:
 
Barrett50 said:
Would welcome opinions with a valid law degree in hand. Sans law degree I will give the opinion all the attention it deserves.:cheerswine:
Click to expand...

Q: what are your state statutes as they relate to detaining individuals. In lay language, does your state law allow private citizens to prevent someone from leaving a place that person no longer wants to be?
 
TCABM said:
Q: what are your state statutes as they relate to detaining individuals. In lay language, does your state law allow private citizens to prevent someone from leaving a place that person no longer wants to be?
Click to expand...
They can leave, just not by aircraft. The runway has been closed. Ergo, the Piggly Wiggly parking lot has been closed. Leave by other means, but leave. The person is not being restricted from departing a place they no longer want to be. But - unless they want to disassemble, and trailer the plane, it stays where it is until the runway is once again open for business. AND - when it is open for business, I MAY or MAY NOT allow that person back on the private property to remove their airplane by air. No one is 'detained', unless a LEO says so by actions subsequent to trespass.
 
No but you have taken and posess someone else's property. That could create its own legal problems.

Say I have my property posted, and I find someone driving there. I say you are trespassing and have to leave, but you can't take your car. Don't think it would go over well in front of a judge.

And you say you're open to the public.
 
Mikey52 said:
No but you have taken and posess someone else's property. That could create its own legal problems.

Say I have my property posted, and I find someone driving there. I say you are trespassing and have to leave, but you can't take your car. Don't think it would go over well in front of a judge.

And you say you're open to the public.
Click to expand...
You're making things up now. They can leave, and they can take their property. Just not on the runway. I said it's unsafe, I'm the airport manager, owner of the property, and I have to answer to the deceased relatives that I have authorized a flight in unsafe conditions. Now, if the popo show up, and they demand I allow the owner/renter/operator to take their property along with them, and the popo says I must allow them to leave by air, then it's on the county which has overridden the property owner, manager and now I will not stand in the way. The popo has now ordered the property open for aircraft operations, and it's now the county that will be explaining to the deceased relatives why he/she overrode my closure of the runway.

I have a couple of sawzall if they want help removing the plane by trailer. I have NOT 'taken possession' of anything.
 
TCABM said:
What statute in your state provides enforcement authority?
Click to expand...
Private property rights are enforced on a federal, state, local, and native reservation rights. This has been fought more than once and the property owner wins about 99% of the time.

Keep trying folks, you might eventually find some corner, obscure, non-related AH-HAH! case.

Edit to add: Has anyone else besides me seen a plane on the ramp with a chain and lock wrapped around the prop? The chain and lock do not define 'possession', they just want to be paid before the plane leaves the ramp. I guess, in worst case someone could torch the chain off, and leave, but then one is damaging another persons property.
 
Last edited:
Barrett50 said:
You're making things up now. They can leave, and they can take their property. Just not on the runway. I said it's unsafe, I'm the airport manager, owner of the property, and I have to answer to the deceased relatives that I have authorized a flight in unsafe conditions.
Click to expand...

The question is whether you can use force to prevent them from taking off, or take potentially dangerous action such as attempting to block a moving aircraft. Either course exposes you to significant legal risk, both civil and criminal.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I was wondering, but I don't know much about the Baron.

Yes! I was thinking about the same one when I saw the gear was still down. FWIW, it wasn't just the props - The (diesel) DA42 has electronically controlled engines, dual ECUs on both sides. Checklist for starting off external power says you may start ONE engine off of external power, not both. That accident, they started both from external power, and the battery voltage wasn't even enough to excite the alternator field sufficiently to charge. Pulled the gear up, instant dual engine failure because all four ECUs went offline when the voltage dropped. And yes, all of the diesel TwinStars now have a separate additional backup battery system for the ECUs.

Just be careful with that, too - Because the NTSB has apparently only recently started to learn about root cause analysis, and most of the reports say "The NTSB finds that the probable cause of this crash is the pilot's failure to ..." it's FAR too easy to look at an accident report and say "Well that's just stupid, I would never do that!" and move on, thinking you're impervious to that particular type of accident.

In reality, we need to think deeper. WHY did the pilot do that? What was the decisionmaking process? What information was available? What internal and external pressures may have caused the pilot to make that decision?
Click to expand...
Those of us who do RCA routinely do make the effort. Unfortunately, we don’t always have insight to the information or access to ask the “five why’s.”
 
Barrett50 said:
Private property rights are enforced on a federal, state, local, and native reservation rights. This has been fought more than once and the property owner wins about 99% of the time.

Keep trying folks, you might eventually find some corner, obscure, non-related AH-HAH! case.

Edit to add: Has anyone else besides me seen a plane on the ramp with a chain and lock wrapped around the prop? The chain and lock do not define 'possession', they just want to be paid before the plane leaves the ramp. I guess, in worst case someone could torch the chain off, and leave, but then one is damaging another persons property.
Click to expand...
So are you suggesting disabling a vehicle to prevent trespassing?

Seems like building a fence and closing the gate would be a lot easier to defend.
 
Deadly force to prevent someone from leaving after being notified they're trespassing is an interesting concept.
 
Ed Haywood said:
The question is whether you can use force to prevent them from taking off, or take potentially dangerous action such as attempting to block a moving aircraft. Either course exposes you to significant legal risk, both civil and criminal.
Click to expand...
Ownership, and management of anything is fraught with risk. Ownership and management of an airport is probably on the highest end of the scale of risk, both civil and criminal. However, I have decided to accept those risks, and mitigate them(principally criminal) by knowledge, regulation, and working with those who can and do prevent a person from doing something. Namely, the local law enforcement apparatus. I will use my tractor to stop someone from taking off prior to them accelerating down a runway. That is as far as I will take it, and I'll accept the risk that they plane owner may sue me for some kind of material loss. What material loss is going to be pretty hard to figure unless we're talking about fuel used at 4GPH for the time it takes to shut down the engine, and get the hell off my land.

As far as criminal risk, I don't touch anyone, and I don't threaten with force of arms(my arsenal was sadly lost in a tragic boating accident). Again - as stated, when deputy Fife shows up, and tells me I'm the one in the wrong, on my personal property, and I have to let pilots come and go by air at will, then they assume liability and I'm going to stand aside, and let the crash proceed. In my defense in court, I'm going to point to deputy Fife, and testify that he/she took charge of the operations that I had prohibited, and thus is now in command of the operation. I was duty bound by law enforcement to stand aside, and let the fireworks go on.

Potentially dangerous is also a relative term. It may be minorly dangerous to block my runway at the threshold, and force a pilot to abort while stopped or taxiing. It may be relatively far more dangerous to stand aside and let them use my property in a way that could endanger people and property far more than a tractor in front of a running plane engine.

For those considering the ownership and operation of a public use runway, I strongly advise against it. Follow the warnings, heed all of the speculation above, and be cautious of any kind of support for GA that entails offering a place to operate to and from the NAS.

fini
 
Mr. Barrett50 is ignoring the fact that if the trespassing aircraft reaches 1 foot of altitude before impacting his tractor, it is in Federal airspace, and he is interfering with legal flight. The FAA has sole jurisdiction there.

KCGS learned this the cheap way, contact in the air did not happen, so the owning government body was saved.
Their attorney made that abundantly clear, and outlined the financial impact of a crash involving a land device and an aircraft in Federal air.
It may only be the 1% case, but be certain that you do not find yourself on the wrong side of it.

A refresher, the source for this was the Police Commissioner.

I have flown in to many private airports, some with prior permission required, and understand the issues.
I have landed on a closed Federal Government airport, and the on site LEO attempted to catch me more than once, unsuccessfully, because I was back in the air too soon. Due to angles, I kept them from reading my N number, turning away as soon as I was 10 feet up.
 
Sigh, more making things up again. Wait - weren't those goal posts right here a second ago?? Now they are way over there..........

:lol:
 
I was making the point that the property owner has limited means of enforcement in reference to aircraft. Even the Federal Government.



I might add that one flight in and out was by invitation, and completely legal, a second with member of the Federal LEO. One told me how to prevent being caught landing there.
 
How long is your runway, and where would you place your tractor? Would there be any plane model whose performance could takeoff in the intervening space? Or could I maneuver beyond and takeoff from there? Might you need 10 tractors over a 3,000 runway? Since we’re making up hypotheticals:)
 
Coming back from severe thread drift, once the manager left, there was no way to prevent the takeoff, That was entirely pilot error.
 
Flying Keys said:
Those of us who do RCA routinely do make the effort. Unfortunately, we don’t always have insight to the information or access to ask the “five why’s.”
Click to expand...
Yup. It's hard to read an NTSB report and know whether there were any training deficiencies and such... But it's generally not hard to at least paint a picture of why said pilot might have done something that seems so blatantly stupid in hindsight. That's what instructors really need to get across to their students.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
How long is your runway, and where would you place your tractor? Would there be any plane model whose performance could takeoff in the intervening space? Or could I maneuver beyond and takeoff from there? Might you need 10 tractors over a 3,000 runway? Since we’re making up hypotheticals:)
Click to expand...
Long enough. Where it's needed(in front?). Any brand of helicopter to could take off without my ability to block it. If you can maneuver, I can maneuver. I have 3 tractors, just one driver.

Oh, and I haven't moved my goalposts from my original statement on the powers of an airport owner/manager. I tell them it's closed, I block them with a tractor, I call LEO and enforce trespass. QED
 
Barrett50 said:
Oh, and I haven't moved my goalposts from my original statement on the powers of an airport owner/manager. I tell them it's closed, I block them with a tractor, I call LEO and enforce trespass. QED
Click to expand...
You also tell them it’s dangerous, but don’t say why, so you’re not giving them the ability to make PIC decisions, and that somehow chaining props is appropriate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top