Beech Baron down in Georgia

[disamuel]

There is a mention of CAP glider ops during the crash:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/three-killed-when-plane-trying-avoid-collision-crashes-n36371

[Garibaldi]

GAWG has asked us to refrain from commenting or speculating about what happened. I have no comment.

[a2capt]

Aside from what would appear to be a stall and nose dive, and a possible runway incursion, the NTSB will figure out the rest.

[ColonelJack]

I'm in a rather unique position on this.  I am a member of the squadron based in LaGrange, where the accident took place, and am the radio news anchor for two stations in the area.

After getting Col. Greenwood's e-mail, I made sure that there were no references to CAP in my story on the accident, and fixed solely on the events of the crash and the occupants' demises. 

I hope I handled it the right way ...

Jack

[RiverAux]

I'm sure CAP is happy with it, though I'm not sure your real job would like to know that you left out some relevant information. 

[ColonelJack]

I'm sure CAP is happy with it, though I'm not sure your real job would like to know that you left out some relevant information.

I ran it (and Col. Greenwood's request) past my general manager before going on the air with it.  He was fine with leaving it out, since the basic facts were in the story.

Jack

[Cliff_Chambliss]

From another site it would appear that the CAP Glider just happened to be at the same airport and was not a factor in the accident.  Here are some of his comments.

"OK guys. I guess it's time to post some of what we really know. I'm the president of Southern eagles Soaring Club at LaGrange. We were not operating Saturday and I was not at the field. The Civil Air Patrol had been operating their L23 towed by their 172, for several hours from runway 3.

The Baron had been doing ILS low approaches to runway 31. They landed and refueled. There were various reports of what the Baron was doing before it crashed, including a missed approach from a practice ILS, a take off, and a go around. With all these reports, you can judge for your self the accuracy. Everyone agreed that they did not hear any radio calls from the Baron.

The 172 and L23 were stopped on runway 3, south of runway 31. They never crossed the runway. The crews were very experienced, with 2 CFIG's in the L23 and a retired Air Force pilot and now Delta Captain flying the 172. One of the CFIGs is also a club member.

The crews saw the Baron at low altitude along runway 31. It pulled up very nose high, rolled to the left from 100-200 feet, and crashed in an approximate 60 degree nose down attitude. The front seat pilots were killed on impact. The passenger in the back later died at the hospital.

We do not now, nor will we ever know what made the PIC take the action that he did. They could have been flying simulated instruments, practicing single engine, had an engine failure, or any of a number of things.

Since the names have been release, we do know that the two co-owners were in the aircraft along with another pilot. Records show one of the co-owners was multi-engine rated. No records on the other co-owner. The third person did hold an ATP and instructors rating. We do not know the seating arrangement or who was at the controls.

All the noise about a glider being involved was from one person that was interviewed by two TV stations. He said the Baron was trying to avoid a glider. It unclear as to his actually seeing the crash. The only glider operating that day was sitting on runway 3 behind the tow plane.

Also to show the accuracy of the reporting, one of the stations reported the Baron had flown from Panama City, FL to LaGrange that morning. They used a screen shot from flightAware.com to confirm it. When we checked flightaware, it did indeed show a flight from Panama City as being the last flight they had recorded. Of course, That flight took place in October, 2013!

If any FACTS become available, I'll let you know. However, conjecture will not accomplish anything and could hurt our sport.

Charlie "

In a later post the writer states that the one "eye witness" quoted by the news media has admitted he only heard the crash but did not see it.  Sounds like a witch hunt in progress?

[NIN]

and that, ladies and gents, is why we avoid conjecturing until you have legit facts.

We see this all the time in skydiving accidents.  You know how many parachutes actually "fail to open"? Few. But to hear it from the media, they *always* fail to open.

[a2capt]

Hence why I said "possible" runway incursion, "not who" and the NTSB will sort it out.

Because it's not uncommon at all for aircraft to be on intersecting runways with one holding short of the intersection, so to hear someone say "they were on the runway at the same time" is practically meaningless in and of itself.

[Panache]

Because it's not uncommon at all for aircraft to be on intersecting runways with one holding short of the intersection, so to hear someone say "they were on the runway at the same time" is practically meaningless in and of itself.

Anybody who's ever flown as a passenger in a commercial jet from a busy airport has firsthand experience with that.

"Hi, this is your Captain speaking. It's a busy day here at JFK so we have to wait a bit here on the taxiway.  We're scheduled to be the 20th to depart so you might want to sit back and relax..."

[JeffDG]

I'm sure CAP is happy with it, though I'm not sure your real job would like to know that you left out some relevant information.

I ran it (and Col. Greenwood's request) past my general manager before going on the air with it.  He was fine with leaving it out, since the basic facts were in the story.

Jack

Wow...good thing.  Would have put you in one helluva ethical corner had your station management insisted on having that in the story.

One thing we forget sometimes is that we can have conflicts-of-interest between our "day" jobs and CAP, and resolving those conflicts is not a simple process at times.  Glad this one could be resolved simply.

[Eclipse]

Wow...good thing.  Would have put you in one helluva ethical corner had your station management insisted on having that in the story.

Why? 

Stating facts poses no ethical dilemma for anyone.   The issues start when people start trying to
shape or "non-disclose" information, because that request raises more questions then just having
the facts reported.

The fact (appears to be), that two CAP aircraft were in relative proximity to this incident.
Nothing more complicated then that.

The FAA & NTSB will determine the cause of the crash, if those CAP aircraft are determined to
be in any way involved, it will be public knowledge, if it's determined they weren't, then
being mentioned is a non-issue, but who was around isn't going to change, and
no one should have been trying to suppress that information.

[JeffDG]

Wow...good thing.  Would have put you in one helluva ethical corner had your station management insisted on having that in the story.

Why? 

Stating facts poses no ethical dilemma for anyone.   The issues start when people start trying to
shape or "non-disclose" information, because that request raises more questions then just having
the facts reported.

The fact (appears to be), that two CAP aircraft were in relative proximity to this incident.
Nothing more complicated then that.

The FAA & NTSB will determine the cause of the crash, if those CAP aircraft are determined to
be in any way involved, it will be public knowledge, if it's determined they weren't, then
being mentioned is a non-issue, but who was around isn't going to change, and
no one should have been trying to suppress that information.

As stated, the Wing Commander asked members not to discuss CAP involvement.  The story included a mention of CAP involvement.  If the station management had said "You need to discuss that" then you have a conflict-of-interest...do you follow the Wing Commander or the Station manager.

Me, I'd follow the direction of my day job.  But there is a conflict that commanders need to consider sometimes when issuing such directives.

[Eclipse]

Those "directives" should never be issued.

A Wing CC, PAO, or IC, is within his rights to release / disclose / hold back anything they want,
and even ask for professional courtesy in terms of the CAP-Press relationship, 
but it's a boundary violation to be asking in the context of the CAP-CAP relationship.