Lancair IV Crashes Into Car on Interstate 15 in San Diego

z987k said:
I have to assume it's the typical "Doctor Killer" scenario. Relatively low time pilot who doesn't fly but maybe 100 hours a year with no previous foundation slugging it out to form judgement and muscle memory. Put into a very high performance piston single.
Click to expand...


About 6 or 7 years ago two active 747 pilots killed them self in one near Corona.
 
fholbert said:
About 6 or 7 years ago two active 747 pilots killed them self in one near Corona.
Click to expand...
I can attest that flying a 747 has so little in common with a GA single, one of them shouldn't even be considered flying they are so different.
 
T/O w/FSII said:
For a private pilot with google earth you sure seem like quite the expert.
Click to expand...
etflies said:
I have flown over just about every square inch of San Diego several times over including the area where this happened (and driven that stretch of freeway more times than I care to count.) The entire city offers little in the way of adequate emergency landing areas other than the freeways, the occasional par 5 hole on a golf course and the airports. I can say from years of living in and flying over the city that looking at a satellite picture on a screen doesn't show how difficult the terrain can be or how little room there actually is. Between uneven terrain, car sized boulders hidden by thick scrub brush, trees and houses being seemingly everywhere, the freeway would absolutely make an attractive option on a relatively traffic free Saturday morning, and freeways in SoCal have served as emergency strips many times without a loss of life. Further, I know zero about the glide characteristics of that airplane but I'm guessing they're not as good at it as a 172 or the like which means your options for any survivable crash landing are decreased even further.

You are a pilot, I know that you know better than to pass judgement like that without all of the facts, and certainly without having been in the cockpit with them.
Click to expand...
Not passing judgment, I don't know what the nature of the emergency was or how the plane ended up in that spot. This is a discussion forum, not an investigative board or a tabloid. As a pilot, (a pilot being anyone who can legally fly anything with the capability of smacking someone hard enough to kill them which doesn't discriminate based upon how many lines of text are on your green plastic card), I am genuinely concerned when something like this happens. I don't want to kill anyone with my airplane. Nobody wants to kill people on the ground with their airplane. One doesn't always have a whole lot of time to figure out if or how to avoid doing that in a forced landing. It all comes down to your perspective on how to handle it. A good way to build that perspective is to look at accidents that do not end favorably and determine how they came to that conclusion and how things could have been avoided. We don't know why this plane touched down 40 feet behind a car and hit it. But we know that happened. I'm simply pondering that IF this was an engine failure, and I'm over that terrain which I do not claim appears to have any obvious choices, what could have been an option. A parked car is the same as a tree or anything else. It isn't moving. Freeway or not, almost immediate impact on touchdown is imminent. So now here is where it becomes objective and isn't about hanging the pilot out to dry; IF it was an engine failure, why was this spot chosen? Would I have not noticed the parked car and chosen this spot too? Would I have tried to stall it at a steep angle up a shallow hill rather than put down where he did? Should a busy freeway ever be an option? In those final seconds preparing for impact inside the cabin, does one even take the time to scan and notice a vehicle ahead may be stationary? Taking a quick look at google earth builds perspective, it doesn't entitle one to draw a conclusive opinion of the pilots choice as I so boldly and aggressively appear to have stated earlier. At a glance, there are POSSIBLE options which look more appealing than smacking into a car. If one had control of the airplane. Which we don't know he had. This is all hypothetical anyway predated on if it was an engine failure, as we(or at least I) don't know what the nature of the emergency was or the actions taken up to impact. In fact, the only thing I stated about the pilot himself is that I hope this wasn't an engine failure as I wouldn't wish the resulting heat to follow on the decision process leading up to this on anyone. Death would be a lot less agonizing, for sure. And yes, if it turns out that poor decision making lead to this incident, I will be angry someone was killed as a result. If I ever kill someone when my instincts steer me wrong, I expect people to be pissed at me too. Life would be a living hell. All the more reason to learn about how to stay focused and avoid it if at all possible when presented with a crappy situation.

But everyone get's so up in arms about any kind of discussion revolving around the possibilities of a crash which can help others learn and grow on ideas about purely objective. Or pondering about how horrible the ramifications for the outcome may be on someone and trying to share their perspective out of empathy. It is a shame that any input on a story involving a plane crash is automatically categorized as the poster claiming expertise on the matter and disrespecting the downed aviator.

I don't know that man like that. But I'll stop binge reading NTSB reports and books on aviation safety as it is now clear I'll never gain a true perspective on the matter and be able to analyze information surrounding an incident as a lowly private pilot.
 
ChasenSFO said:
Not passing judgment, I don't know what the nature of the emergency was or how the plane ended up in that spot. This is a discussion forum, not an investigative board or a tabloid. As a pilot, (a pilot being anyone who can legally fly anything with the capability of smacking someone hard enough to kill them which doesn't discriminate based upon how many lines of text are on your green plastic card), I am genuinely concerned when something like this happens. I don't want to kill anyone with my airplane. Nobody wants to kill people on the ground with their airplane. One doesn't always have a whole lot of time to figure out if or how to avoid doing that in a forced landing. It all comes down to your perspective on how to handle it. A good way to build that perspective is to look at accidents that do not end favorably and determine how they came to that conclusion and how things could have been avoided. We don't know why this plane touched down 40 feet behind a car and hit it. But we know that happened. I'm simply pondering that IF this was an engine failure, and I'm over that terrain which I do not claim appears to have any obvious choices, what could have been an option. A parked car is the same as a tree or anything else. It isn't moving. Freeway or not, almost immediate impact on touchdown is imminent. So now here is where it becomes objective and isn't about hanging the pilot out to dry; IF it was an engine failure, why was this spot chosen? Would I have not noticed the parked car and chosen this spot too? Would I have tried to stall it at a steep angle up a shallow hill rather than put down where he did? Should a busy freeway ever be an option? In those final seconds preparing for impact inside the cabin, does one even take the time to scan and notice a vehicle ahead may be stationary? Taking a quick look at google earth builds perspective, it doesn't entitle one to draw a conclusive opinion of the pilots choice as I so boldly and aggressively appear to have stated earlier. At a glance, there are POSSIBLE options which look more appealing than smacking into a car. If one had control of the airplane. Which we don't know he had. This is all hypothetical anyway predated on if it was an engine failure, as we(or at least I) don't know what the nature of the emergency was or the actions taken up to impact. In fact, the only thing I stated about the pilot himself is that I hope this wasn't an engine failure as I wouldn't wish the resulting heat to follow on the decision process leading up to this on anyone. Death would be a lot less agonizing, for sure. And yes, if it turns out that poor decision making lead to this incident, I will be angry someone was killed as a result. If I ever kill someone when my instincts steer me wrong, I expect people to be pissed at me too. Life would be a living hell. All the more reason to learn about how to stay focused and avoid it if at all possible when presented with a crappy situation.

But everyone get's so up in arms about any kind of discussion revolving around the possibilities of a crash which can help others learn and grow on ideas about purely objective. Or pondering about how horrible the ramifications for the outcome may be on someone and trying to share their perspective out of empathy. It is a shame that any input on a story involving a plane crash is automatically categorized as the poster claiming expertise on the matter and disrespecting the downed aviator.

I don't know that man like that. But I'll stop binge reading NTSB reports and books on aviation safety as it is now clear I'll never gain a true perspective on the matter and be able to analyze information surrounding an incident as a lowly private pilot.
Click to expand...

I see no issue with discussion, and please don't stop reading and learning. We need more pilots who do just that.

In all fairness, you did suggest possible landing choices in a manner that could be interpreted to be judgemental:

ChasenSFO said:
You know, not to mention a private airstrip elevated higher than the freeway and right next to it(if it was reachable). Or, you know, the big long dirt road along side the airstrip. Or the grassy hills. Or anywhere that wasn't 40 feet behind an occupied stationary vehicle.
Click to expand...

That was the part I took issue with, simply because it came off as passing judgement without having the facts or having been there. That, followed by the "never go full retard" didn't exactly come off as non-judgemental.

That said, I see no issue in discussing this as the relevant facts come out, and certainly agree that reading the report on this one will be interesting. I just don't see what we can discuss yet because we don't know what led to this accident or why the pilot made the decisions he did.

Also, if I came off as talking down to you that wasn't my intent at all, so if that's the case then my apologies.
 
JordanD said:
Ya did kinda use the word "retard" :p
Click to expand...
Ah, yeah I can see how that was conceived. That joke wasn't meant for this pilot, that was referring to the general situation of people choosing crappy landing spots and seemingly missing out on good options. This video comes to mind. All those options and he slams into the tallest tree on the treeline. That is what I mean by full retard, this mindset not any individual. If you have an emergency, never go full retard. Like my friend who hit the divider at high speed and decided throwing her hands in the air in panic and then rolling a few times on across the freeway was better than keeping the wheel under control. Full retard is within all of us. Never go there.


@etflies no worries, I was just explaining my stance on the matter but I see how my post appeared. In general, I think people should ask "what if" on forums to learn. We don't know what happened to MH370, for example, but in the years of speculation about what MAY have happened on the web, I have learned a ton about everything from cellphone to radar capabilities to ocean tides. Speculation sparks learning. So long as you are not looking to place blame or pass opinion as fact. On this forum it is just a lot more sensitive a subject than others because most of us fly and it could be any of us in the news. But so long as people are respectful, and I get how my sarcasm about the landing spot could have been seen as disrespectful to this guy the way it was written, I see no issue with expanding on general ideas generated from the end result of the crash. Especially with experts on this forum.
 
Last edited:
z987k said:
I can attest that flying a 747 has so little in common with a GA single, one of them shouldn't even be considered flying they are so different.
Click to expand...

Do you think so? I think thats where a lot of folks get in trouble.

I was doing charters all last week and I had a lot of weird legs into small airports. Visual approaches, traffic patterns, hand-copied IFR clearances, short legs, narrow taxiways, short runways, uncontrolled airports, it felt very much "General Aviation".

Airbuses are fairly simple, highly automated but technically complex so it helps a competent pilot do his job better, but can make a pilot with low situational awareness and poor airmanship into a liability with catlike quickness.

We're going to run that checklist. And checklist discipline starts when you're a student pilot.
 
Derg said:
Do you think so? I think thats where a lot of folks get in trouble.

I was doing charters all last week and I had a lot of weird legs into small airports. Visual approaches, traffic patterns, hand-copied IFR clearances, short legs, narrow taxiways, short runways, uncontrolled airports, it felt very much "General Aviation".

Airbuses are fairly simple, highly automated but technically complex so it helps a competent pilot do his job better, but can make a pilot with low situational awareness and poor airmanship into a liability with catlike quickness.

We're going to run that checklist. And checklist discipline starts when you're a student pilot.
Click to expand...
Hand copied clearances? Shock! Horror! ;)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
Derg said:
Do you think so? I think thats where a lot of folks get in trouble.

I was doing charters all last week and I had a lot of weird legs into small airports. Visual approaches, traffic patterns, hand-copied IFR clearances, short legs, narrow taxiways, short runways, uncontrolled airports, it felt very much "General Aviation".
Click to expand...

Did you make landings on runways where you had no localizer or ILS guidance and not die?
 
MikeD said:
Did you make landings on runways where you had no localizer or ILS guidance and not die?
Click to expand...

Whoah whoah whoah there, Sparky. Let's not get EXTREEEEEME right now! :)

I did have a VASI in Pontiac.

(Where da Cadillac? — old, old bad bad joke)
 
Derg said:
Do you think so? I think thats where a lot of folks get in trouble.

I was doing charters all last week and I had a lot of weird legs into small airports. Visual approaches, traffic patterns, hand-copied IFR clearances, short legs, narrow taxiways, short runways, uncontrolled airports, it felt very much "General Aviation".

Airbuses are fairly simple, highly automated but technically complex so it helps a competent pilot do his job better, but can make a pilot with low situational awareness and poor airmanship into a liability with catlike quickness.

We're going to run that checklist. And checklist discipline starts when you're a student pilot.
Click to expand...
I'm not really talking about checklist usage here. That's a different thread and a lancair is a very different animal than a typical trainer.
A large jet pilot with no recent GA experience has no business getting into one of the highest performance single engine piston airplanes out there without some sort of recurrent. Just like you would not climb into your airbus after a 12 month to 6 year hiatus without some training.
FWIW, I do fly GA, as much as I can. And I'm now really good at making coffee in a 747 as well. So while I don't know too much about that side of flying yet with only 2 months on the line, having flow a single engine piston and turboprops and jets on the same day, I feel like I'm somewhat qualified to say that indeed they are very little alike.
 
z987k said:
I'm not really talking about checklist usage here. That's a different thread and a lancair is a very different animal than a typical trainer.
A large jet pilot with no recent GA experience has no business getting into one of the highest performance single engine piston airplanes out there without some sort of recurrent. Just like you would not climb into your airbus after a 12 month to 6 year hiatus without some training.
FWIW, I do fly GA, as much as I can. And I'm now really good at making coffee in a 747 as well. So while I don't know too much about that side of flying yet with only 2 months on the line, having flow a single engine piston and turboprops and jets on the same day, I feel like I'm somewhat qualified to say that indeed they are very little alike.
Click to expand...

I think I've been internetting far too long to not read this as "I made an universal absolute statement that I'm unable to gracefully back out of and, potentially, give the opposing side a possibility of feeling as if they also had a point so I better double down".

If it's not your aircraft, use it.

If it's your aircraft, do what you'd like but please remain clear of my airspace.
 
Derg said:
I think I've been internetting far too long to not read this as "I made an universal absolute statement that I'm unable to gracefully back out of and, potentially, give the opposing side a possibility of feeling as if they also had a point so I better double down".

If it's not your aircraft, use it.

If it's your aircraft, do what you'd like but please remain clear of my airspace.
Click to expand...
Wrong thread. That's the other one. No one's talking about checklists here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top