Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cargo Plane crashes off Chicago Midway

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cargo Plane crashes off Chicago Midway



    Mis-fueled?

    Or the ole deal that a twin engine plane = double the risk of engine failure + hard to keep going straight = greater fatality risk than a single (depending on how you slice the data).

    ...and for the political types...Is it a good idea to keep an airport open that is near-totally surrounded by residential areas?...You know a crash will occur, and when it does, it will likely take out a house.

    ...would this be allowed in a wealthy neighborhood?

    Do we need new FARs?
    Last edited by 3WE; 2014-11-19, 16:39. Reason: Fixed brain fart typo for Gabriel
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  • #2
    The "Richard Collins" hypothesis eh?

    Look at the airport in the center of DC, London, LaGuardia and many others. I live on one of the approach paths for Newark though we are miles and miles away so the aircraft indeed fly over many neighborhoods of different economic persuasions.

    New FAR/CFR's that say what, don't screw the pooch?

    I often wonder why people, including some friends and associates, will buy a home close to an airport and then start writing letters and drafting petitions to limit the times of traffic or operations and that includes almost every small to medium airport close to me. The knuckle head that bought 10 acres off the end of our club strip built a home dead center off our most active runway and then started turning his lawyers lose? In every case, the airport was there well ahead of the homes and quite rural at it's genesis.
    Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
      the "richard collins" hypothesis eh?

      Look at the airport in the center of dc, london, laguardia and many others. I live on one of the approach paths for newark though we are miles and miles away so the aircraft indeed fly over many neighborhoods of different economic persuasions.

      New far/cfr's that say what, don't screw the pooch?

      I often wonder why people, including some friends and associates, will buy a home close to an airport and then start writing letters and drafting petitions to limit the times of traffic or operations and that includes almost every small to medium airport close to me. The knuckle head that bought 10 acres off the end of our club strip built a home dead center off our most active runway and then started turning his lawyers lose? In every case, the airport was there well ahead of the homes and quite rural at it's genesis.

      +1

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
        ...The knuckle head that bought 10 acres off the end of our club strip built a home dead center off our most active runway and then started turning his lawyers lose?....
        Sort of my point.... One dude raises hell while MDW, Newark, etc are surrounded by hundreds of Archie Bunker bungalos and remains in operation.

        New FARs was a jab at the JP regulations committee.

        By the way, who is Richard Collins?
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          a single engine plane = greater fatality risk than a single
          I demand an explanation!

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            I demand an explanation!
            I think he meant twin vs single = yaw, spin, crunch. But weigh that against redundancy and I think you get a safer overall outcome with a twin.

            I've experienced a lot of carrier landings at Midway. It was like, houses, backyards of houses, roof shingles, bbq grills, what's cooking on the bbq grill, runway, 90G braking. Madness. Somewhat like the recently closed Tempelhof in Berlin. Housing prices have soared around those approach towers since they closed it. Despite the longer runway being only a stitch longer than Midway's 13C/31C, Pan Am once landed a 747 there.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm going to go on record as saying "The probable cause is the failure of the pilot in command to maintain adequate flying speed resulting in a stall following the failure of both engines due to fuel starvation."

              I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this comment--obviously the investigation has just started and we (I) do not have all the facts. I'm making the statement purely to see how close my guess is when the final report does come out. I'm basing my assumption on two things.

              First: There appears to be no post-crash fire. Quite often (again, not always), a lack of post-crash fire indicates a lack of fuel. I think it's a pretty fair assumption that the fuel tanks were breached, and it's also a pretty fair assumption that electrical lines in the home were breached as well, which would have provided an ignition source. Of course, I could be wrong.

              Second: The stall assumption. I'm basing that on the pinpoint debris field, pretty much limited to that one house and yard, indicating a near-vertical descent.

              So, my theory is that he ran out of fuel and tried to stretch the glide. Do I know that to be a fact? Of course not, but I'll be interested to see how my assumption fits the true probable cause when the final report does come out.
              The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                Sort of my point....

                By the way, who is Richard Collins?
                http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Collins_(actor)

                ....or.....



                ....or....



                ....or....



                ....or....



                Can't think of any others that would particularly interest us here.

                ....but, getting back on topic.
                I think I would tend to go along with Snydersnapshots for the time being with the low-no fuel / loss of power / glide / stall / crash theory.
                Last edited by brianw999; 2014-11-19, 07:11.
                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                Comment


                • #9
                  Richard Collins was the editor of Flying Magazine until a "few" years back and he started the great debate, or at least, brought it out of the closet, when he published a column in which he announced that after a review of accident data, he would not fly in a light twin (including commuter types if my memory is correct) because there were damned few pilots who maintained sufficient proficiency in order to control the ac in an engine out scenario. He maintained out that the task of identifying the engine out and then making the turn back to the airport required a lot more then the current training required hence he would no longer fly in a twin. Turning into the dead engine and failure to maintain coordinated flight was a problem. Immediately the Buffalo crash came to mind when that happened.

                  Some of you are very adept at searches and I'll certainly stand corrected of course if I got the thrust of his articles, that ran for quite some time and generated a lot of mail and controversy, wrong. It's been at least 25 years since that series. The "big three" back then were Gordon Baxter (Bax Seat), Len Morgan who was a Braniff captain (Left Seat) and Collins. Les Abend is often seen as an aviation commentator on the tube, seems to have taken their place.

                  Sorry, I thought Collins was well known or I'm just getting old?
                  Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
                    I'm going to go on record as saying "The probable cause is the failure of the pilot in command...
                    That much is a pretty safe bet as he was flying solo. But why fuel exhaustion if he had just departed the airport? Somehow they forgot to refuel the plane and the pilot somehow missed this?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Pretty much the same platform that Bob Hoover flew in his air shows and there is an interesting comment on the the certification of this plane; it was flown to DC on a single prop to demonstrate the stability of the plane under engine out conditions. Of course you have to ask how much does the prop drag account for since they removed the prop for the demo?

                      They mention that he was circling the airport while he was calling for an emergency landing. Gotta' wonder how long he was circling for? If he was out of or running on contaminated fuel he wouldn't last long circling.
                      Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                        Richard Collins was the editor of Flying Magazine until a "few" years back and he started the great debate, or at least, brought it out of the closet, when he published a column in which he announced that after a review of accident data, he would not fly in a light twin (including commuter types if my memory is correct) because there were damned few pilots who maintained sufficient proficiency in order to control the ac in an engine out scenario.
                        Flying (or not flying) in any airplane is his business, but what bothered me a lot more about his articles is that he held himself out to be a consummate expert in all sorts of flying, despite having flown only a P210 for decades. Then, of course, he went on to scrap said P210, despite years of repeating that it was the greatest airplane ever in any and all respects whatsoever.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ATLcrew, I agree with your comment regarding the ego of Collins but still think his presentation of the stats regarding twins, drill and stick time along with the inherent dangers in that sector (lower time pilots on demanding routes) was as valid as any accident stats can be. Much of it is "anecdotal" guesswork after many crashes such as the early Beech V-tailed Bonanze/Doctors airplane crashes but his linkages seem reasonably valid.

                          I thought he "trashed" his plane because it had some problem? I remember that but don't remember why. Like you, I wasn't a big fan of Collins and it was just "same old, same old" ... "flew the P-210 to Orlando to meet" ... repeat, repeat, but I guess that cemented his tax deductions?

                          Like the fellow in this crash, with a grain of salt of course, the comment that he "circled" and waited to land. Would he circle if it was a matter of fuel contamination or starvation? I doubt it so that narration may be inaccurate. Circling implies that he had time.
                          Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                            Flying (or not flying) in any airplane is his business, but what bothered me a lot more about his articles is that he held himself out to be a consummate expert in all sorts of flying, despite having flown only a P210 for decades. Then, of course, he went on to scrap said P210, despite years of repeating that it was the greatest airplane ever in any and all respects whatsoever.
                            A few things here:

                            I'm sure Richard had the ratings and did the flight reviews for twins...and it would seem he got to make a lot of test flights of all sorts of airplanes, and they probably pulled lots of engines at altitude...and then, his magazine covered lots and lots and lots of engine failures on twins and crashes...so that gives him some expertise (and probably a lot more than most of us on this forum- with you and a few others being exceptions).

                            I didn't know that Richard got the credit- but 1) depending on how you slice the data, you may very likely be statistically safer in a single than a light twin. And 2) there are so very many data points of folks crashing engine-out twins that- on paper- are flyable. My expertise is soley MSFS...I found it way too easy to let my airspeed decay...I want to believe that in a real twin, I would have it trimmed and not "relentlessly pull up"...but again, lots of "proverbially-good" pilots have made smoking holes in the ground. Easy on paper, doable when you know it's coming and have practiced and stay current, not so easy when you are other-than-full-time and it hits you in the face like a wet rag.

                            Regarding this crash- I THOUGHT the dude was departing...it would be rare for THAT to be a fuel STARVATION...Maybe I better read the interim report.

                            As to Richard and his love of the P210...again, context context context. For the time frame it was just about the coolest, most capable SINGLE engine aircraft around***...retractable gear, turbocharged, pressurized, anti-ice, weather radar, stormscope, could do almost everything an airliner could do (ok, don't get literal on me )...very cool for the time and very cool for a single, and, remember- singles cost a LOT LESS to operate- so that's cool too...so I get him being complimentary on his very capable P210.

                            ...then again if one engine quits...

                            ***and OK, don't go bringing up single-engine fighter jets...of course the P210 could still carry more foliks
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                              ...Sorry, I thought Collins was well known...
                              ...crickets chirping...
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X