Hi 53hotel,
Good posts..
I am in the infancy of my flying "career" or at least I hope so ...and as such "know it all" doesn't apply to me , and frankly, I hope it never does...things get boring without new challenges and learning involved!:wink: fact is most generally call me "know nothing" or words to that effect!
I do have a soft spot for cubs of all sorts (even butt ugly cut back sprayers of the past) but notice I did say "every modern day Ag plane "

Take care, Rob

Well I was not there, I do not know the facts, but if the piper was on final and the stinson was on the ground, the plane landing would have right of way, not to say that they could not go around and that the responsibility is not with both pilots. To be the owner of either plane it would stink to lose your plane in this manner.

Ag planes are low wing because of vis-ability in the turn. period, Tail wheel for rough strip use and honestly mostly because of tradition. There are tri cycle gear ag planes, but no "successful" one yet. Honestly, it's probably over due for a trike ag plane. Good tail dragger pilots are getting scarce, kinda like kids that know how to drive a standard transmission truck.

Zane, I'm sure glad it wasn't me, too! Hated to see that Stinson banged up. I hope I'm safe enough that you guys don't ever see me or my plane on the news. At least I try to be.
Matt

a64,

"Ag planes are low wing because of vis-ability in the turn. period".

Gotta be careful with those "always" kinda statements .

I suspect the PRIMARY reason for using a low wing design in ag aircraft is to provide a place to mount those VERY long booms. Look at the boom hangers on an Air Tractor, for example. If you had to attach those to a high wing airplane of comparable size, they'd have to be ten feet long. Or the boom would have to be cantilevered, which would add a lot of weight and expense.

Ag Cats are still pretty darn popular, and very well liked by every sprayer I've met, and they have a high wing. To go with their low wing. I've never heard an Ag Cat driver complain about visibility in turns.

MTV

We don't know much about the accident.

Here is a curve ball. What if the Warrior had an engine failure and was dead-sticking it to the runway when the Stinson pulled out on to the runway?

Who is the bad guy now? We could go round and round on this all day, like a bunch of hens,...

Long-time lurker, first time poster.

Lost a good family friend in an accident much like this one (but it didn't turn out nearly so well). Friend was an old hand, tons of hours (USAF, ATP, MES, lots of back-country time). He was giving a BFR in a 180 at a strip like the one shown here. (I've heard elsewhere that at the airfield pictured, trees partially block the view of the runup area from final, and vice versa.)

The 180 launched, got to about 50-100 feet, and collided with a landing cherokee (who'd flown an odd pattern.) Our friend and his student were both killed, occupants of cherokee survived. NTSB findings: the 180 never broadcast on CTAF. I don't know if they just flat didn't get their radios on (hard to believe), or if they were on the wrong freq.

Assigning blame? You could put all of it on the 180, or some on the cherokee (for the weird pattern). I don't think it matters. Our friend and his student are just as dead, and the kid in the Cherokee has to carry that with him forever.

And it could have been prevented at a lot of points along the way.

(my 2c)

What strikes me most about this accident is just how freaking cool it is that the planes ended up the way they did! Try doing that on purpose...

If I had a lot of money I'd buy both planes and put them as-is in a glass-fronted hangar as an airport display. Lot more interesting to look at than some old warbird mounted on a post.

Tailwheel or nosewheel, high or low wing, ALL these things are amazing if you think about it.

If you want a refresher on just how amazing ANY airplane is, try carrying a piece of plywood across a parking lot on a windy day. Next find a hill and see how long it takes you to climb a thousand feet. Maybe I'm simple, but these two exercises never fail to make me reappreciate the miracle of a flying machine.

As for the high wing, low wing, nose or tail wheel debate...there's no denying that pilots are an opinionated bunch, often loyal and biased to the point of tribalism. In most aspects of my life I'm pragmatic and utilitarian to a fault, yet it never occurred to me to own anything but a tailwheel, despite the 30~40% more you have to spend to own one. Probably makes about as much sense as spending a couple grand on a typewriter because computers don't excite you...

Looks like it belongs to a flight school...any questions...

http://www.treataviation.in/iAirplaneSpecs.html

7853H wrote:I do know piper low wings work well in Alaska but they are still BUTT UGLY!!! .

But their mothers love them !!!!!

Gump

A crusty ol' freight hauler ( maybe it was gump ) once told me " Flying nosegear is a lot like playin' with yourself, it's ok if your involved, but it's not much fun to watch... "

BTW, the use of & means it's a friggin' joke, so don't be gettin' your panties all in a wad...

MTV, there has been and are still high wing AG planes. You mount the booms like they are mounted on a helicopter. The primary reason AG planes are low wing is the reason I gave, But then I guess I wouldn't know.
On edit, the reason I guess Cats are Biplanes is for maneuverability and strength. They are fine aircraft if you don't need a big hopper or have to ferry long distances. In a small irregularly shaped field the only thing (almost) that can beat a Cat is a helicopter, and we all know how inexpensive they are to operate.
Did somebody say anything bad about a Cat? Air Tractor was brought up, they would for one love to have the Cat's service record. So far as I know there are very few AD's on Cat's, none I think on the wings.

As pointed out by many, none of us were there and by virtue of that we could second guess this thing to death.... but really that's not all bad. By doing so we remind ourselves (at least I do) of common, and not so common pitfalls.
My initial post bagged on the Piper driver for the simple reason that even though the fault was likely the Stinsons, the Cherokee still was in the game for a much longer period....
Look, leave your Compton apartment unlocked with your wallet on the table, and when it gets stolen the theif is still to blame, wrong, and will suffer legal consequences...but in my book You screwed the pooch...

The way I see it indian plane should have at some point (down wind, base, final?) been able to see the Stinson loitering, the same may not be true for the Stinson... My guess is the Piper assumed the right of way, just like most folks assume that everyone is on the radio...
If the Stinson pulled out on really short final? Well heck we're not talking a 747 heavy here, how hard is it to slow a cherokee down and land a tad shorter? Too risky? ok, how about arresting the decent for a sec and buzzing the offending Stinson and landing long ahead of him? Way to cowboy for your taste? how about a sidestep? I even see enough grass there to land "if his engine was out" Definitely a curve ball I hadn't thought about, Thanks Splaspilot...No, none of these are ideal, but all of them have got to beat the option of just settling down on top of another aircraft. The mere fact that they are alive is just as amazing to me as the fact that he chose the stinson as his touchdown point...

A64,
Sorry I had that reversed, you are correct of course. The Primary reason for low wing Ag planes (initially) was the vis in the turn. The secondary reason, and in todays world of monstrous 1000 gal. two hole jumbo sprayers probably equal or more important reason is the boom height. After all you can only afford to release a 50 micron droplet from so high And... of course there are those who fly ag at night and can't see the ground in the turns anyhow....The only high wing ag planes I can think of currently operating with any success are the kinds with the rotary wings... although beavers, 180s and all sorts of off shore stuff has been, and to a smaller degree continues to be used... I am no expert... and this is only my observation...

I couldn't disagree more with the "need for trike ag planes" let me see if I have this right, what you are proposing is that since young pilots won't take the time to learn to fly precisely we should hand them a plane that makes up for their flaws (in one mode only)?:roll:

MTV, ditto on the cat...but if you think the turn vis is obscured you should see what happens to the fwd vis when you are entering a field or following the terrain into a depression. That top wing is actually way out in front of you, and it is all you see looking fwd with the nose down. I know up close and personal of one wire strike related to such a situation...

Yeah... it's alot easier to monday morning QB these things than figure them out on the fly...but it's also a lot less costly

BTW...my comments on the cherokee were not meant to offend anyone, you certainly will not be offending me if you think cubs suck
Take care, Rob

You guys are getting more and more pissy with each other. I guess this thread needs a good LOLCAT. <br><br> <img src="http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/soon.jpg?w=500&h=442"/>

lowflybye wrote:Looks like it belongs to a flight school...any questions...

http://www.treataviation.in/iAirplaneSpecs.html

Are you sure

Serial Number 28-8116083 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name PIPER Certificate Issue Date 03/13/2003
Model PA-28-161 Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 52652547
MFR Year 1980 Fractional Owner NO


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


Registered Owner

Name RTJE BACH ENTERPRISES LLC
Street 2110 KILPS DR
City WAUKESHA State WISCONSIN Zip Code 53188-4711
County WAUKESHA
Country UNITED STATES

mr scout wrote:

lowflybye wrote:Looks like it belongs to a flight school...any questions...

http://www.treataviation.in/iAirplaneSpecs.html

Are you sure

Serial Number 28-8116083 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name PIPER Certificate Issue Date 03/13/2003
Model PA-28-161 Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 52652547
MFR Year 1980 Fractional Owner NO


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


Registered Owner

Name RTJE BACH ENTERPRISES LLC
Street 2110 KILPS DR
City WAUKESHA State WISCONSIN Zip Code 53188-4711
County WAUKESHA
Country UNITED STATES

Most likely the info that you have found on the aircraft is correct concerning registration to RTJE Bach Enterprises. However, take a look at the certificate date above. The copywright on the flight school website shows 2007 which is fairly current so I would bet that it is a leaseback to the flight school. This is a very common deal deal that we see all the time in the insurance industry and the registration would indeed show a different name than the company operating it under leaseback...in this case a flight school.

1SeventyZ wrote:You guys are getting more and more pissy with each other. I guess this thread needs a good LOLCAT.

Oh sure, bring up cats !!!

If there's one thing I hate more than a nosedraggin, hersheybar winged, indian aeroplane, it's a damn cat.

Again, just kiddin !

I don't think anybody takes this stuff too serious, besides I know I'm still the fastest retard at BCP no matter what JMTGT says...

Lowflybye,

You may be correct, but, like the general pilot population, flight schools and students within those schools are all over the place regarding their skill levels, and procedures.

I've been really impressed with the level of attention our students pay to airplanes in the pattern as they taxi out, and with planes on the ground as they fly the pattern.

And, frankly, I see deteriorating skills and more forgetfulness of basic operating procedures as a potentially serious problem that needs to be addressed in this era of $5 gasoline.

I've done some flight reviews with folks that were pretty rusty, and frankly, weren't doing as good a job at flying the airplane as many of our students.

But, who knows?

MTV

mtv wrote:Lowflybye,

You may be correct, but, like the general pilot population, flight schools and students within those schools are all over the place regarding their skill levels, and procedures.

MTV

Agreed...however, flight schools have more losses on average simply due to the amount of hours they fly, the various skill levels, etc. etc. so it is not surprising that it was a flight school aircraft.

It could have happened just as easily to a high time, complacent pilot though as you have mentioned although those losses normally seem to be in the areas of gear up landings, fuel starvation, CFIT, etc. instead of this type of event.

MTV,

What you say is true for just about any training. Aside from technique and feel, many students are far better informed and better with checklists, procedures and drills than a pilot approaching his BFR.

The cobwebs slowly creep in as time passes and the unvisited corners of your training can be downright cluttered by the time your BFR rolls around. I have no problem with thorough BFR's to tidey up those corners.