Crash 1 mile off departure end in Carlsbad-KCRQ

FrankieFlyCRQ

Well-Known Member
Geez.. whats up lately??:( I hope they pull through. God bless both of them.


CARLSBAD, Calif. - Two people were seriously injured Monday when their experimental plane crashed at the edge of a golf course in Carlsbad.

Carlsbad police dispatcher Matthew Pinell said the two-seat plane went down shortly after takeoff from Palomar-McClellan Airport around 4:45 p.m. Pinell said the plane crashed into a ravine at the edge of The Crossings at Carlsbad golf course. Officials say there was no fire and no one on the ground was hurt.
A fire dispatcher said both people aboard the experimental aircraft were airlifted to a La Jolla hospital with severe trauma injuries.
Witnesses at the golf course described seeing the plane struggling to gain altitude. They told NBC 7/39 the plane's tail began to yaw back and forth and started heading to the ground. Witnesses said the plane started turning to the right, possibly to head back to Palomar Airport. when it started to plummet toward the ground.
Witnesses also said the plane sounded like it was sputtering before it finally struck a ravine near College Boulevard.
Chris Real and his playing partner ran to the plane to see if they could help the two people inside.
"You could see they had multiple fractures, so I just tried talking to them to keep them awake," Real told NBC 7/39. Firefighters arrived a short time later and helped pull the victims from the wreckage. They were taken by Mercy Air to Scripps La Jolla Hospital.
Airport workers told NBC 7/39 the plane was registered out of Long Beach and was heading back there when it crashed.
Palomar Airport was shut down following the incident.
The cause of the crash is under investigation.

Link : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26844922/
Source: msnbc.com
 

SierraPilot123

Well-Known Member
Wow, sounds like they were lucky to survive. We fly out of there often and it is a pretty good drop off the departure end.

I don't know about those experimentals. Their accident rate must be very high.


Good luck to the two people involved.
 

BillErvin

Peddling as fast as I can
I don't know about those experimentals. Their accident rate must be very high.
About the same and certain types of expr. aircraft have a better record than commercially built aircraft. The press just likes to play up the experimental part!!

Generally its stupid pilot tricks, not aircraft, (experimental or commercial built) that are the problem.

It does look like a Cessna 150/152 if you look at all the pictures, so much for accuracy in reporting!

Flame on:D
 

SierraPilot123

Well-Known Member
About the same and certain types of expr. aircraft have a better record than commercially built aircraft. The press just likes to play up the experimental part!!

Generally its stupid pilot tricks, not aircraft, (experimental or commercial built) that are the problem.

Flame on:D
I really don't care to argue much but just out of curiosity I decided to look this up. And here is what I found:

"The safety record of homebuilts is not comparable to certified general aviation aircraft. In the United States, in 2003, amateur-built aircraft experienced a rate of 21.60 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; the overall general aviation accident rate for that year was 6.75 per 100,000 flight hours.

[1]" ^ National Transportation Safety Board (2007). "U.S. General Aviation, Calendar Year 2003". Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.

That is more than triple the accident rate of certified GA aircraft.
 

WacoFan

Bigly
I really don't care to argue much but just out of curiosity I decided to look this up. And here is what I found:

"The safety record of homebuilts is not comparable to certified general aviation aircraft. In the United States, in 2003, amateur-built aircraft experienced a rate of 21.60 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; the overall general aviation accident rate for that year was 6.75 per 100,000 flight hours.

[1]" ^ National Transportation Safety Board (2007). "U.S. General Aviation, Calendar Year 2003". Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.

That is more than triple the accident rate of certified GA aircraft.
I do not question your numbers in the least. I have ofter wondered about how much of that increase can actually be attributed to the construction and structure of the plane. My feeling is that a lot of homebuilts are taildraggers - this will lead to an uptick in runway excursions simply because taildraggers are that way. It would be interesting to see what proportion of the homebuilts are taildraggers, and what proportion of the the accidents are loss of directional control on the ground. I would imagine this would count for a lot, but that is just a hypothesis. I would imagine for a true apples/apples you would need to look at the number of accidents that were mechanical and take out pilot error. This would give an idea of production vs. homebuilt.
 

FrankieFlyCRQ

Well-Known Member
It does look like a Cessna 150/152 if you look at all the pictures, so much for accuracy in reporting!

Flame on:D
Sources at CRQ were telling me that it was a 152, but then they wern't sure themselves because the media was reporting it as a experimental!
Who knows, it does look like a 152, I'm pretty sure it is. The damm media as usual talking out of their booty without collecting the facts first.

I was getting calls all night from surrounding skywest stations asking me if it was one of our planes, and than the media showed up at the airport and tryed to interview people. They wern't there for very long because for one, it didn't even happen at the airport so not too many people knew about it anyway.

There are power lines off the departure end of 24 at CRQ, no where really to go if you have a engine failure right after take off unless your high enough to turn right back around to the runway. Now that I think about it, the post that hold up the lines are on the edges of the golf course so the plane just missed em. Our last accident was not too long ago, a king air hit the power lines right after take off and crashed, all died. The visibility that morning was really bad.
 

H46Bubba

Well-Known Member
At least Mercy Air is right there on the field! When I flew out of Palomar my emergency landing spot if I had a engine failure on takeoff from Rwy 24, was Legoland's parking lot or Palomar Airport RD.
 

FrankieFlyCRQ

Well-Known Member
Yea it's a good thing Mercy Air is based out of CRQ. They air lifted the two over to La Jolla scripps hospital.
And yes palomar airport rd would be your best bet in the event of an engine failure, just need to make sure your high enough to clear the power lines and your home free.
 

BillErvin

Peddling as fast as I can
I really don't care to argue much but just out of curiosity I decided to look this up. And here is what I found:

"The safety record of homebuilts is not comparable to certified general aviation aircraft. In the United States, in 2003, amateur-built aircraft experienced a rate of 21.60 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; the overall general aviation accident rate for that year was 6.75 per 100,000 flight hours.

[1]" ^ National Transportation Safety Board (2007). "U.S. General Aviation, Calendar Year 2003". Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.

That is more than triple the accident rate of certified GA aircraft.
Huh... I must be reading the wrong stuff (EAA):D

Below is from EAA website (They tend to keep up on things like accident rates). Since 1/1/08 there have been 740 accidents in certified GA aircraft and 170 in Experimental aircraft. That a broad statement, but statistics can be what ever you want them to be.

Like you I don't feel like a long drawn out flame war so we'll just agree to disagree. There is more, but I don't feel like digging for it tonight.

How Safe Are Amateur-Built/Homebuilt Aircraft?
Studies by FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) show that Amateur-Built/Homebuilt aircraft have an accident rate less than one percentage point higher than the general aviation fleet. In fact, the accident rate for Amateur-Built/homebuilt aircraft is dropping. The total number of registered homebuilt aircraft is increasing by about 1,000 per year, while the total number of accidents has stayed virtually the same. Another good barometer of safety is insurance rates. Companies that insure both homebuilts and production aircraft charge about the same rates for owners of either type of airplane. That indicates a similar level of risk.
 

flyinkibblez

New Member
not to get in the middle of your debate, because i really dont follow those type of numbers, but i wanted to share a thought

i am from bakersfield ca, where the harmon rocket is built. we have had a pretty high fatality rate of those aircraft here in the past couple years, but my thought is this...

are the deaths due to poor building in these aircraft, which i dont think is the issue, or due to the manner in which pilots choose to fly many of these experimental aircraft? again, just a thought
 

BillErvin

Peddling as fast as I can
not to get in the middle of your debate, because i really dont follow those type of numbers, but i wanted to share a thought

i am from bakersfield ca, where the harmon rocket is built. we have had a pretty high fatality rate of those aircraft here in the past couple years, but my thought is this...

are the deaths due to poor building in these aircraft, which i dont think is the issue, or due to the manner in which pilots choose to fly many of these experimental aircraft? again, just a thought

Like I said "Stupid pilot tricks" more often than not in both type of aircraft.
 
Top