Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5 Dead in Plane Crash in Oklahoma Park

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Praehapt Bubtah View Post
    I am wondering if they turned into a tailwind, lost airspeed, and then when the stall warning went off, they pulled up sharply?
    Well, that's more unlikely than overweight and density altitude... unless the pilot was you know who

    --- 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


    • #17
      Originally posted by gabriel View Post
      the pilot filed a instrument flight rules flight plan from riverside airport (krvs), tulsa, oklahoma, to dallas love field (kdal), dallas, texas.

      To begin with, i'd say that while it's not 100% certain, there is a very good chance that the pilot was instrument rated.
      And
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      a perfectly qualified IFR pilot flying a plane
      Seems to be contradicted by the quote below.

      dr. Stephen lester, 47, had had a private pilot's license since 1987 but was not instrument-certified, federal aviation administration data show.

      However, the flight plan lester filed for saturday morning was for ifr, or instrument flight record. Certain weather conditions require that type of flight plan instead of a visual flight record.
      Source
      http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic...1_Ivsiao460016

      IMAO
      It seems the pilot was reckless because he was flying beyond his ability and certification.
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      Woman: 180lb (dressed) + 20 lb (luggage) = 200 lb
      2 girls each: 130 lb (dressed) + 20 lb (luggage)
      20 lb a luggage for a woman? Somehow I get the suspicion that you’ve never traveled with a woman before. Haven’t you ever dated or been married or traveled anywhere with female family members? It’s very seldom that I known a woman to take less than 20 pounds of luggage for an overnight.

      I’ve jokingly complained that I’ve had to have a pickup truck or a station wagon to carry my woman’s luggage; and that she spends hours packing her luggage and that all the transport and packing and unpacking subtracts a lot from the work or recreation time.

      Even flying commercially we’ve had to spend extra money on several occasions because the woman I was traveling with had too many pieces of luggage and/or their luggage was excessively heavy or oversized.

      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      misstated his emergency saying "engine failure" instead of "vacuum failure",
      And

      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      One report has the pilot declaring an emergency on the radio that his engine had failed.
      You and possibly others have made the assertion that he made a radio call stating that he had an engine failure; yet so far you have yet to support the assertion. If there was such a radio call; please support the claim. I find it strange that so far there is no official mention that I can find of an alleged radio call of that sort. I would think if there was such a radio call that it would be prevalent in the news.

      I find it strange that if there was an alleged radio call; why was the alleged radio call of an engine failure not in the preliminary investigation report?

      Preliminary investigation report.
      http://tulsaworld.com/ntsbprelimreport

      As far as I’m concerned a vacuum failure would qualify as an engine failure. As far as I’m concerned a vacuum failure is a type of engine failure. I’m assuming by vacuum failure but that would mean fuel vacuum.

      Originally posted by Praehapt Bubtah View Post
      I am wondering if they turned into a tailwind, lost airspeed, and then when the stall warning went off, they pulled up sharply?
      The wind speed or direction shouldn’t be that much of a factor. An aircraft flies based on the air speed relative to the aircraft; not on airspeed relative to the ground. You seem to be making a false assumption that is commonly made by modelers and/or layman flight Sim pilots. I think there was some early flight Sim models that had a flaw because they often based flight model lift based on ground speed rather than relative airspeed to the aircraft.

      On some of the early flight Sims you could take off downwind just as easily (and to the same specifications) as up wind. Yet you would stall and have other flight characteristics based on ground speed even when the aircraft was airborne; rather than flight characteristics based on indicated/relative airspeed.

      Comment


      • #18
        ATFS:

        I know I am wasting my time with this friendly advice, but you need to lose your "expert attitude" and stop picking at folks comments.

        So, you have done some reading and learned some big words, like "Density Altitude", and IFR and IMC.

        But then you show that you don't have a clue what "vacum failure is" (Better do a lot more reading) (Actually you don't have a clue about density altitude either- it is not a factor at low alitidues on days with reasonable temperatures)

        And, Oh my 60 lbs of luggage.....do you have any idea what the luggage capacity is on the plane....or on any light plane for that matter? Oh, I forgot the guys....ok 90 lbs of luggage, 5 passengers.....yeah, certain overload Gabriel- why are you such a closed-minded dummy...no need to check out baggage capacities, or what it typically takes to overload an airplane.

        And, ATFS, what might be the implications of a pilot filing an IFR flight plan? Maybe he had an instrument license? Oh, the news says he wasn't certified....do you trust the news.....or is it possible he had a licence but wasn't certified? Maybe he had a ton of instrument training? Am I drunk? Maybe? Maybe not?

        Never mind, let's huge leap and say he was wreckless.....

        If it's true he did file a flight plan without being IFR licensed and current- it does open the door for lots of speculation (yes, I've lost some respect for him if this is true- rule breakers TEND to be "bad), BUT, he might have been an incredibly skilled and competent pilot- who simply didn't respect rules. His flight might have been going into excellent VMC weather.

        Yes, we ALL KNOW that EVERY ONE OF US is speculating- yes, it's what discussion boards are for....just do a little more listening and somewhat less discounting of other folks comments.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          you need to lose your "expert attitude" and stop picking at folks comments
          Hypocrisy. Do you know everything about everything? No. Using your “reasoning” unless you know everything then you’re not an expert. No one knows everything. Therefore using your “reasoning” you should lose your own “expert attitude” and “stop picking on folks comments“.

          Everyone has their own expertise and experience. Therefore almost anyone potentially can contribute and criticize intelligently.
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          But then you show that you don't have a clue what "vacum failure is"
          As I tried to assert with my post I wasn’t quite sure in what context the “vacuum failure” was being used.
          I don’t normally use it in the context of fuel; however other people on message boards I think maybe even this one has referred to a vacuum failure as a fuel issue; where there is a loss of vacuum because of a vacuum leak in the fuel pickup line, a fuel pump failure, or excessive vacuum such as a clogged filter or fuel sump.

          I would normally consider a vacuum failure to be an instrument or a control problem; but in the context that is posted in this thread it seemed to be posted as a causation and related to the alleged engine problem; thusly in the context of this thread, to me it seemed to be in the context of a fuel problem. It was not clear to me the context that was being used in this thread; that's why I use the word "assuming".

          There is more than one context and type of vacuum failure. Sometimes fuel pumps are referred to as vacuum pumps.

          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Maybe he had an instrument license? Oh, the news says he wasn't certified....do you trust the news.....or is it possible he had a licence but wasn't certified?
          So you criticize me when I name the source and give a link; yet you give others and yourself a free pass that didn't even give a link to a source? Seems to be a hypocritical double standard.

          So it seems hypocritical that you chastise me for using a link to a news source; yet you seem to expect that your own word be taken as empirical gospel. Even after I requested that you give a link to a source backing your claims (radio distress of engine failure); you still haven't. Perhaps the reason for your ranting personal attack on me is because you can't support your claims because you were taking liberties with the truth. Perhaps to draw attention away from your own indiscretion; you are attacking me as a diversion?

          What makes you think I'm wasn't considering the possibility that he might be instrument rated but overlooked?

          You seem to think I think the news is a reliable source. You are ignoring the fact that I have a history of ridiculing and questioning what is reported.

          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Am I drunk? Maybe? Maybe not?
          By your post I would suspect you are drunk.

          Comment


          • #20
            Generic question: When a fascist liberal dies in a plane crash, can it be considered "political cleansing"?

            Comment


            • #21
              In my area of knowledge when I worked on planes for the Navy and here at Boeing common terms were

              Vacuum Failure - A loss of the Pitot/Static system.

              Vapor Lock - a vacuum or void on the fuel system cause by air vapor.


              Just for information.

              Be that as it may, this seems to be a tragedy caused by a pilot going over his head. But the NTSB or FAA will issue an official report and that will be the best known cause postulated by experts.

              Comment


              • #22
                ATFS:

                My primary source was the NTSB preliminary report, the same of your link, only that I accessed it through the accident database at www.ntsb.gov instead of http://tulsaworld.com, but it's the same report.

                Then I googled for the specifications of a Piper PA-32R-300. I don't remember which of the hits I clicked.

                In case you didn't notice, my response to 3WE was ironic. I don't know anything about a radio call for an engine failure or anything else, except what 3WE said in his post, what I'd qualify as not highly reliable (not because of 3WE, but because he just cited "one report", and I don't trust that report of unknown origin.

                Then 3WE said "the vacuum pump might have failed and he blew it on partial panel" and I joked saying that the pilot misstated his emergency as "engine failure instead of vacuum failure, then lost control in about the same time than the zero IFR time pilots". And you say that the interpretation of that depends on the context????

                I'm sorry to say this, but in the the only possible interpretation to that is that "the vacuum pump failed" (that's verbatim from 3WE). The vacuum system is what drives the gyros of the attitude indicator and the gyroscopic compass, so if the vacuum fails then the attitude indicator and the gyroscopic compass fail too, so there are two instrument less in your panel, and that's called a partial panel. That's why 3WE says "he blew it on partial panel".

                So, in short, the only possible interpretation that makes any sense out of that is that, while flying in instrument meteorological conditions, the vacuum pump filed, so the pilot was left was left with a partial panel to control the airplane, and he was not up to the task, lost control and crashed.

                Do you at least agree that density altitude is discarded?

                Then let's move to overweight. How much luggage do you think that they were carrying in the baggage compartment of a Piper Lance? (a big, full, heavy suitcase weights around 45 pounds). Re-do the weight estimation using your assumptions instead of mine, and show me how much overweight they could have been.

                In the meantime, I keep the overweight as a contributory cause in the "very unlikely" zone.

                Finally, your finding of the news report that the pilot was not IFR rated is very good. If it is confirmed, things started bad that day well before the take-off. (as a side note, the same news report says "...IFR, or instrument flight record...", which is of course incorrect)

                ----------------

                3WE,

                You've said "His flight might have been going into excellent VMC weather."

                Maybe later down the road. The take-off was in IMC with a 600ft overcast.

                -----------------

                The plane seems to have crashed with the wire fairly under control, or at least with a good bit of horizontal speed (which is typical of being fairly under control), since the wreckage was located more than 1500ft away from the tower and some 300ft away from the point of initial contact with the ground. This basically discards a stall/spin, an in-flight break-up, and a fairly vertical dive or fall. Density altitude and overweight are in the very low probability side of my list as a cause for the plane failing to climb above 600ft 8NM off the airport.

                Simply by discarding other possibilities, because there is no direct evidence to what follows (that I'm aware of), loss of engine power or scud-running under the clouds look like good prospects. As circumstantial evidence, for the loss of power we have "one report" cited by 3WE, and for the scud-running we have the news report of the pilot lacking an instrument rating with the NTSB reporting overcast at 600ft.

                Yes, it's speculative.

                --- 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


                • #23
                  ATFS- you are NOT invited to reply to this. Please go read about denisty altitude and vacum systems.

                  Gabe: The "article comment blog" a day after the crash (an incredibly reliable source of course) had the dude "Declaring a engine-failure emergency", while another comment had him VFR-rated only. I offered them up solely for discussion since they offered somewhat different possibilities for what might have happened.

                  So, let's be totally clear- the report of an "Engine failure radio call" is from a LOUSY source, and has yet to have any sort of confirmation.

                  Now, the issue of him filing an IFR flight plan has all sorts of fuel for speculation!

                  Did he have enough IFR training to be competent to fly in light IMC- keep the plane upright and fly to sunny DFW? Apparently he had enough IFR training to "halfway fake it" with the flight service folks and get a flight plan filed.

                  Again- competent is not the same as legal.

                  And, why did he file an IFR flight plan? It would be somewhat odd to file it and not fly it? He took off in genuinely challenging weather....of course I'm not sure if he OPENED the flight plan or any of that?

                  A sad fact is that someone with SOME IFR training might be more comfortable in MARGINAL weather.....or might even be enticed to cheat: Flying through some clouds, tracking a VOR for 50 miles towards good weather and breaking out reasonably high does not require near the precision of shooting an ILS to minimums!

                  Finally- to make a dangerous-jump-to-a-conclusion statement- Is this the classic, overly-bold, rules-are-for-someone-else, medical doctor in his high-performance single (just not a V-tailed Bonanza this time)?????

                  Youch- it is, in fact:
                  -a medical doctor
                  -in his high-performance single in relatively challenging weather
                  -and, I guess it's a fact that he was pretty darn bold enough to file a flight plan
                  -bold enough to depart in what appears clearly questionable weather
                  (I GUESS he had 1-mile clear of clouds from the FAR/legality standpoint).......
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    What can I say? May be yes, may be not, but the most likely is I don't know.

                    If he was, regardless of the legality of the situation, more or less competent in light IFR enough to fly through some clouds for a short time until getting good weather and then go on VFR, what the hell was he doing less than 600ft AGL 8 miles from the departure airport?

                    If he was scud-running skimming the base of the clouds just below 600ft, why the hell did he filled an IFR flight plan?

                    I have no answer for those questions, but an engine problem fits nicely: He filled an IFR plan, took off and climbed into IFR into the clouds, according to his IFR plan, reaching maybe a couple thousand feet when the engine quit or lost power, that forced him to descend and in fact he was doing it quite well until he encountered the antenna and its guide wire.

                    It's highly speculative. And I'll go further. Why would the engine fail (if it did fail to begin with)?

                    Of course we don't know, but statistically the most frequent causes are fuel mismanagement and carburetor ice.

                    Fuel mismanagement is something that should never happen, but particularly at take-off, where you are supposed to have checked the existence of fuel in each tank and the correct selection of a tank with fuel as part of the walk around and before take-off checks. However it has happened before, and it wouldn't surprise me that a pilot that fills an IFR flight plan when he is not IFR rated wasn't very rigorous with the checklists.

                    Carburetor ice: To begin with, I'm not sure if this plane has a carburetor or injection type engine. While the temperature was well over freezing at 22°C, the air temperature in the carburetor's venturi descends a good bunch due to the lower pressure. Flying in clouds, where the air is saturated with water, is a perfect scenario for carburetor ice.

                    A temp of 22°C and a dew point of 19°C would put it in the "moderate icing @ cruise power / serious icing @ descent power" zone of this carburetor icing probability chart. If we thing that a few thousand of feet above ground and into the clouds the temp might have been a few degrees lower, the point would move closer to the "serious icing @ any power" zone of the chart.

                    --- 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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Verbal View Post
                      Generic question: When a fascist liberal dies in a plane crash, can it be considered "political cleansing"?
                      Excellent one !!!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Verbal View Post
                        Generic question: When a fascist liberal dies in a plane crash, can it be considered "political cleansing"?Simple interest calculator calculation rates mortgage compound high interest savings account
                        Very nice one .

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X