See: http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2011/03/20/civil-air-patrol-cessna-crashes-in-puyallup-pilots-unhurt/
Very fortunately no serious personal injuries.
RM
Good work, quick thinking, and likely a little good luck under very trying circumstances. Provided it wasn't fuel starvation or some such pilot error - I hope the paperwork will be light and investigation brief.
Quote from: Smithsonia on March 20, 2011, 09:15:42 PM
Good work, quick thinking, and likely a little good luck under very trying circumstances. Provided it wasn't fuel starvation or some such pilot error - I hope the paperwork will be light and investigation brief.
The plane is totalled. I guarantee you the paperwork will NOT be light and there will be multiple investigations too. (Ours and the FAA)
ouch..
even if it lost the motor though and landing short why did he hit the tail first during landing?
seems to me there is either 1) error on the article or 2) both pilots screwed up and try to extend a glide that wasn't possible. .
I would give a benefit of a doubt to the pilots until the FAA report comes out.
I highly doubt it that as CAP members we will see our own internal investigation findings . Which would be helpful for us pilots either way so we know what happen and try not to replicate it.
It's one of the two Turbo 206s CAP owns. (That's from the online FAA database.)
Until the NTSB comes out with findings, or the pilot(s) speak up as to exactly what they did .. there's no reason to debate what one thinks it was, if you were not in the seat.. some might say you have better odds at picking the Powerball numbers than guessing what went on.
Since you know the crew isn't going to say a word due to the IG process, we'll just have to wait for what the NTSB has to say about it. We'll also likely hear nothing from CAP as they tend to not release anything like that other than to make another type of mandatory safety action, activity, briefing, worship, whatever.
I do have to admit, I've never seen a nose over that did accordionated to the tail section in such a way. Usually most of the energy is bled off by then and it's kinda like a barely able to roll over hand stand.
The secondary picture doesn't make it look like the tail struck first.... The emergency checklist does say slightly tail low touchdown so they might have overdone it. Here's a C206 emergency checklist for those interested.
http://sq23.cawg.cap.gov/downloads/C206G_1980_N50MB_EP_CA.pdf (http://sq23.cawg.cap.gov/downloads/C206G_1980_N50MB_EP_CA.pdf)
.
http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/14_6169Z.txt
Quotewitnesses saying the airplane's tail section hit first, followed by the nose gear and propeller, which dug into the soft ground causing the aircraft flip over on its back.
QuoteWhen the aircraft lost engine power...
Not rushing to judgment or doubting the statements, I look forward to learning more. I am guessing it could be a while. With the heavyness of the 206 nose I can see how the thing could thump down, if the engine did in fact die close to the ground. Must have been quite a busy cockpit to go tail first. Almost sounds like stalled above the ground. Only the pilots have that info.
Such a pity it was the T206. Bad luck it wasn't one of our old beaters.
Glad no one was hurt.
Quote from: a2capt on March 21, 2011, 05:43:18 PM
Since you know the crew isn't going to say a word due to the IG process, we'll just have to wait for what the NTSB has to say about it.
There isn't any IG process for investigation of an accident. See CAPR 123-1 paragraph 7, which states "7. Assessments and Surveys Not Covered By the Authority of the CAP Inspector General System. Personnel who conduct assessments or surveys governed by other policies, directives, instructions and/or regulations will not cite this regulation as their authority to conduct such assessments or surveys. These assessments and surveys include, but are not limited to:
a. Investigations involving allegations of discrimination or violations of the Civil Air Patrol Nondiscrimination Policy. CAPR 36-2, Complaints Under the Civil Air Patrol Nondiscrimination Policy, govern such investigations.
b. Safety inspections conducted under CAPR 62-1, CAP Safety Responsibilities and Procedures.
c. CAP mishap investigations conducted under CAPR 62-2, Mishap Reporting and Investigation.
d. Reports of Survey conducted under CAPR 67-1, CAP Property Regulation.
e. Investigations of CAP employees who have specific appeal rights under law or other Civil Air Patrol policies.
f. Investigations involving violations of criminal laws."
Quote from: simon on March 23, 2011, 07:15:47 PM
Such a pity it was the T206. Bad luck it wasn't one of our old beaters.
I guess it depends on your definition of 'old'. While filling out the accident report, it was noted that this aircraft had entered into service exactly 30 years (to the day) before the accident.
Quote from: FastAttack on March 21, 2011, 04:20:50 AM
even if it lost the motor though and landing short why did he hit the tail first during landing?
seems to me there is either 1) error on the article or 2) both pilots screwed up and try to extend a glide that wasn't possible. .
I've personally flown into this particular airport many times and can tell you that the ground in front of this runway rises at about a 30-degree angle before reaching the flat Runway Safety Area. The 206 struck the ground well short of the RSA and, since the crew knew about the terrain, I'd guess they were trying to touch down in a flat attitude relative to the ground, instead of nose-first.
My unofficial two-cents.
I wish I could find the other related article I read on this.
That article stated they were practicing touch-and-gos. This incident happened on the third one of the day, I believe it said.
Quote from: baronet68 on March 28, 2011, 12:26:43 AM
Quote from: simon on March 23, 2011, 07:15:47 PM
Such a pity it was the T206. Bad luck it wasn't one of our old beaters.
I guess it depends on your definition of 'old'. While filling out the accident report, it was noted that this aircraft had entered into service exactly 30 years (to the day) before the accident.
Quote from: FastAttack on March 21, 2011, 04:20:50 AM
even if it lost the motor though and landing short why did he hit the tail first during landing?
seems to me there is either 1) error on the article or 2) both pilots screwed up and try to extend a glide that wasn't possible. .
I've personally flown into this particular airport many times and can tell you that the ground in front of this runway rises at about a 30-degree angle before reaching the flat Runway Safety Area. The 206 struck the ground well short of the RSA and, since the crew knew about the terrain, I'd guess they were trying to touch down in a flat attitude relative to the ground, instead of nose-first. My unofficial two-cents.
see again can't hold judgement until all the facts come out..
i for sure didn't know about that threshold.
and the article doesn't even mention it.
The articles in general don't mention stuff like terrain, threshold, etc- when it's an airport. They may say "gully", "ditch", "fence", "concrete" .. or such. But the only time you hear about terrain is when it's substantial it seems .. like the crash was in the mountains, the desert, etc.
If it landed tail first I'd think it's about compensating for trying to make that "uphill landing" work out, myself.
I noticed that 30 year anniversary when I looked up the data.
Not trying to point fingers but the prop tips looks bent as if the engine was running when the nose came down. Maybe they were doing simulated engine failure to a landing and the pilot was too low and tried to stretch the glide to the runway, Fm 5 perhaps. It's happened before to CAP airplanes. Big bucks to fix!
...and I've seen bent props on airplanes that had known "dead" engines. the thing hits the ground with a blade in a direction, it gets knocked, and bent. If that thing went nose over, based on the spinner damage, it would have bent all three blades just in that activity, too. They're bent straight back as if the prop was feathered, vs. bent in a spiral, from what I can see.
But thats photo bias, so we'll see what the engine was really doing with the diagnosis.
Quote from: scooter on March 28, 2011, 10:37:51 PM
Not trying to point fingers but the prop tips looks bent as if the engine was running when the nose came down. Maybe they were doing simulated engine failure to a landing and the pilot was too low and tried to stretch the glide to the runway, Fm 5 perhaps. It's happened before to CAP airplanes. Big bucks to fix!
Did you read the article?
They were doing Training so the pilot could get his instrument rateing.......and secondly....."lost power" does not mean "engined stopped".
We need to all stop speculating and allow the accident team do the investigation.
I am from WAWG and I have actually ridden in that exact plane at an activity. I am very glad the pilots are all right.
I'm just a few hours south of where it crashed. I remember hearing about it shortly after it happened.