As for the accident, there were actually two aircraft damaged, No one was hurt, not counting egos.One is a C-180 the other a Piper Lance, It will be disassembled and trucked out. I think that it was totaled, the right wing was severely damaged the main gear was torn off on a large rock, the left wing had some damage and the fuselage had a kink in it. My camp was about a third of the way down the runway, when the Lance went by us it looked like he was taxing fast, He was not making power. I took a quick look and thought, it's a six passenger aircraft with only two people, it’s got to fly. There was another aircraft on final at the same time, a C-180 (in the opposite direction) as this airplane was trying to take off, He said that he heard no radio call from the departing aircraft. He was on short final when he saw him; He banked hard to the right to avoid the departing aircraft, hitting a tree with his horizontal stabilizer, the guy is damn lucky to be alive. When the aircraft ran off the end of the runway, I realized there was another aircraft in the pattern and people and vehicles rushing to give aid to the pilot and occupant, I ran to my aircraft, turned on the radio and informed Johnson Creek traffic that there was an aircraft and personal on the field. He replied that he had just averted a head on and was aware of the situation. A common comment at the moment was this is why doctors and attorneys should not be pilots. The pilot that ran off the end of the runway said that he made his radio calls, the pilot of the aircraft that hit the trees said that there were no radio call from the departing aircraft. When I called to give warning, the pilot that hit the trees responded to my radio call. (he the C-180 pilot must have been on the correct frequency) Witness said that the departing aircraft never developed sufficient speed to take off. Just guessing, the Piper pilot, made some mistakes that precipitated these events. 1. Ether he was on the wrong frequency, or he did not make his radio calls (technically and legally He does not have to in class G airspace, but if you don't in My opinion your playing Russian Roulette) 2. His aircraft was not making sufficient power to fly, but he continued. I was there, several days earlier, when the Piper arrived, many people including my self thought that he was going to overrun the end of the runway, he did not get his tires on the runway till the last 1/3-1/4 of the strip. The C-180 will be partially disassembled on sight (horizontal Stab removed) parts taken back to Boise repaired and reassembled on the field. Exciting vacation eh? And there by the grace of God go I.

Lessen learned make your radio calls and ck freq. 172Heavy

Yikes!! Glad no one was hurt. I'll be curious to hear what the story was with the Piper. Sounds like it could have been much worse had he actually gotten off the ground. Funny how this happened right in the middle of the all the discussion about landing and departing JC. Why can't they publish procedures in the AFD like a lot of other strips do??

AvidFlyer wrote:Why can't they publish procedures in the AFD like a lot of other strips do??

If you're the kind of guy who intends on landing a new-to-you unconventional airport without doing a little research first (Google, BCP, SF, ask a local at McCall or Cascade...), why would you check an AFD?

In my opinion, JC is an easy place to observe from the air. Check it out from overhead and if there's someone running up who doesn't answer on the CTAF, maybe that should raise an eyebrow.

Lets not paint all doctors and attorneys with the same brush. They are individuals just like you and I, and we are not immune to screwups either.....(sadly). Appears to me they can get in to aviation 'over their heads' a little quicker since they can afford more airplane than they have the experience for....(Ok, which in itself shows poor judgement, too.....)

I don't know anything about him, but his landing was the talk of the camp when I came in Sat morn.....so no mater what else he had, or didn't have, going on, his pilot skills were substancially sub standard. Maybe we can leave it at that?

lc

p.s. spellcheck, where are you?

Holysh#t.

I happened by JC the day after the accident/s and I think I heard 5 different accounts, all from pilots, all were eye witnesses, but all slightly different. Maybe the Lance pilot made a one in a hundred, horrendous landing when he came in, maybe all his landings are like that, we don't really know. As of now, I haven't heard if an engine teardown was or is going to be made. Maybe there was a problem - we don't know. At least 3 people saw the 180 on a high downwind. I don't think any of us would like to be judged on our worst landing/approach from here on out. Analyzing the situation when we don't have all the cards doesn't help. We don't learn from incorrect assumptions. Lessons from assumptions may be helpful, but why drag possibly innocent people in to be a fall guys. Is it worth it?

BTW, I know of a couple of doctors who have no problems at all in the backcountry, and a few airline pilots that have their hands full out there.

Littlecub wrote:
p.s. spellcheck, where are you?

I've been using Fire Fox for this forum and Facebook.

Resky wrote:I happened by JC the day after the accident/s and I think I heard 5 different accounts, all from pilots, all were eye witnesses, but all slightly different. Maybe the Lance pilot made a one in a hundred, horrendous landing when he came in, maybe all his landings are like that, we don't really know. As of now, I haven't heard if an engine teardown was or is going to be made. Maybe there was a problem - we don't know. At least 3 people saw the 180 on a high downwind. I don't think any of us would like to be judged on our worst landing/approach from here on out. Analyzing the situation when we don't have all the cards doesn't help. We don't learn from incorrect assumptions. Lessons from assumptions may be helpful, but why drag possibly innocent people in to be a fall guys. Is it worth it?

BTW, I know of a couple of doctors who have no problems at all in the backcountry, and a few airline pilots that have their hands full out there.

Good points All.

172heavy wrote:

Resky wrote:I happened by JC the day after the accident/s and I think I heard 5 different accounts, all from pilots, all were eye witnesses, but all slightly different. Maybe the Lance pilot made a one in a hundred, horrendous landing when he came in, maybe all his landings are like that, we don't really know. As of now, I haven't heard if an engine teardown was or is going to be made. Maybe there was a problem - we don't know. At least 3 people saw the 180 on a high downwind. I don't think any of us would like to be judged on our worst landing/approach from here on out. Analyzing the situation when we don't have all the cards doesn't help. We don't learn from incorrect assumptions. Lessons from assumptions may be helpful, but why drag possibly innocent people in to be a fall guys. Is it worth it?

BTW, I know of a couple of doctors who have no problems at all in the backcountry, and a few airline pilots that have their hands full out there.

Good points All.

I'm interested, what were the other five accounts, how did they differ?

I did not intend to bag on any one, We all make mistakes, it’s true, the point that I wanted to make is if you have a radio use it, and if no one responds ck your freq. I fly out of a small airport in the mountains, there have been several times that I listened to my radio entering my air space and heard nothing, and then when I got close, I made my announcement two or three other aircraft in or close to being in the pattern, made there presence known, they were all listening and waiting for some one else to talk.
I perceive this practice as being a dangerous one. Aircraft are hard to see, it has amazed me that when I am in the pattern and talking to another pilot that I know, and I still cannot see him, kind of scary.

good reasons to shop the strip, rather than "just drop in"...that right hand turn before 17 is a little blind, and i like to stay a little high and circle in the bowl, or better do a normal pattern and circle the whole field and then short approach 17 and then drop in after no bogies are spotted...cant be too safe in there this time of year. u can do the above without blasting the cabin also...i've seen loaded 340's and 206's on floats do it ok gettin' out, the lance should have been fine as i believe most of those run a 540 lyc...glad all are ok and just some bent metal, congrats to the 180 driver for reacting quick and just bending some metal and not people! jo

The one other thing I hadn't read by any one is pattern speeds (unless I missed it). All too often I see and hear planes blasting into the pattern overhead, or downwind. Slow down well before getting close to the strip (at least within a five miles)! Learn/practice slow flight in your plane. This will give you plenty of time to hear and see other aircraft/obstacles possibly in the pattern or on the field. Two notches of flaps and 70-75 MPH usually works good in my 182 (of course, all planes are different).

Also, most all back country airstrip freq. are 122.9. Some can be 122.8 or even 122.7. Before I fly into any unfamiliar strip/airport, I do exactly what Z had mentioned above. I read the sectionals (taking special attention to the topo lines of the canyon/hill lines, if that's the proper term), Google Earth and of coarse, Shortfield.com for any video and pictures. And of course, any advice from local pilots and some trusting souls on this forum.

Anyway, I'm just now noticing my comments aren't specifically related to this thread. So I'll stop here.

While at JC last week, I spoke with the 180 pilot. Nice fellow that we met a few years back that has been coming up from Nevada for some time. He told me that he made 3-4 calls minimum and, due to the shadows on the east side, he flew a tighter downwind leg which gave him a straight down look at the runway. He said that he saw no aircraft preparing to takeoff. He first saw the aircraft on short final, when he saw the landing lights blinking on and off (I'm not sure if the pilot was doing this or if he had pulsing lights). The 180 pilot told me that he thought that the Lance pilot was airborne, flying low and planning a pull-up at the end of the runway, thus the evasive maneuver that resulted in a tree strike. From the 180 pilot, Paul the caretaker, and a walk down the runway, the Lance pilot didn't get on the brakes until the last 600 ft of runway. The tracks from the locked brakes were still very much evident a week later. The Lance pilot had no insurance and the mechanic told the 180 pilot that he'd be keeping the aircraft until it was fixed (apparently it was not totaled, but damaged substantially). Paul said that the engine/prop survived the rock encounter, so it will be interesting to see what is found. Also, the 180 pilot said that the Lance pilot was on the wrong frequency and pictures to that effect were taken. The 180 pilot had some trouble finding someone to fix his horizontal stab. Finally the company out of Boise that was hauling the Lance out agreed to take it off, repair it and bring it back up.

Talking to him, I couldn't help but to feel for him. I was glad he survived it, but it was a shame. He had been there over a week waiting for it to get fixed so he could get home. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe I saw him takeoff right before we left on the 22nd, but I was breaking camp and didn't get a good look and forgot to notice on the takeoff roll if his plane was still there or not.

Regardless of whether this guy was a doctor (which he was and his passenger was a judge) or not, obviously he didn't do his homework on JC. I'm just glad that no one was hurt because it could have definitely been worse. It will be interesting to see what the NTSB comes up with.

Here is my closing thought, you may not believe in angels, or divine intervention. But,
All that witnessed the Lance attempting to take off said that it was not making sufficient power to do so. The lance pilot stated that he shut it down when he saw the C-180 landing head on, NOT because he did not have sufficient power or speed to do so. The Lance had made several failed attempts to rotate and fly using up most of the runway.
What might have happened if this take off had not been aborted?
What are the odds that the C-180 would be there at that moment?
It would be interesting to have the odds figured on that one.
What was that saying? I would rather be lucky than good.
My wife and I believe that we and our family are watched over and protected in the same manner.
And on that note, Have a nice day and fly safe.

172heavy wrote:Here is my closing thought, you may not believe in angels, or divine intervention. But,
All that witnessed the Lance attempting to take off said that it was not making sufficient power to do so. The lance pilot stated that he shut it down when he saw the C-180 landing head on, NOT because he did not have sufficient power or speed to do so. The Lance had made several failed attempts to rotate and fly using up most of the runway.
What might have happened if this take off had not been aborted?
What are the odds that the C-180 would be there at that moment?
It would be interesting to have the odds figured on that one.
What was that saying? I would rather be lucky than good.
My wife and I believe that we and our family are watched over and protected in the same manner.
And on that note, Have a nice day and fly safe.

I know Cessna 180 pilot Tom Zindell from Boulder City ,NV. he parks on a tiedown near the entrance to airport. I camped next to Tom at 180-185 flyin in Garden Valley . I left the Monday morning 7/11 to go back home for me and Tom had taken off a hour or so before to go to Johnson Creek,Id. I got home late afternoon and called Tom's wife -that's when I heard he was ok but damaged his 180 on Landing.He over flew the runway and called several times on 122.9 before the incident. I've flown with Tom on numerous occasions -he communicates all the time. Tom was a ex- Alaska Bush pilot and Airline driver for many years,he's a professional pilot .Thru out first week (after 11th.) several people I know were in Johnson Creek and checked on Tom and his dog Molly. I've talked to Tom's wife quite a bit and he may be leaving Friday(July 30th.2010) after repairs . I offered to fly a spare tail assembly up to get him home -the Insurance company apparently decided a Repair station in Boise to repair the 180 at Johnson Creek. There supposed to be flying a 206 from BOI to JC today to replace the tail. I told Tom's wife to have hot shot mech get aboard on test flight . Way too a long vacation for Tom and Molly . I'm not all that convinced that the "repair station" really knows how to work on old airplanes. When I inspect there work in person I'll see what they did.

Would be curious to know what the DA was that day. Low wings have a tendency to float more, etc., however have problems getting out of ground effect on hot days....curious....obviously some will argue that comment but those are facts. In fact low wings are better for short take offs...(on pavement) because of the float factor, but in the BC?

A completely different topic is the High wing vs Low wing. We dont see to many low wings (or any for that matter any) in the Valdez STOL comp or at Lake Hood, etc. JC is great for low wingers, simple grass, however it does increases the ground roll, then consider the DA for the day.....more questions come up. As mentioned, low wings can have problems getting out of ground effect when DA is high.

Not trying to start a "bash low winger" thread but it makes no sense to me on some these inexperienced low wingers flying in the BC. (Bonazaman your a different breed and there are not too many of you)....but would be curious of your thoughts on this of course.

My thoughts are that low wings are for transportation, strip to strip in the city or simple grass. Rocky dirt strips will eat your wings alive. You dont see many or any with big tires. High wings do the same however the BC is there calling.....Big tires, ground clearance with high wings, floats, ski's, you name it.

Just conversation here....

Thankfully know one was hurt in this accident!!!

According to Tom, the accident took place around 0800, so I doubt DA was a factor. The few days we were up there, it was well into the low 40s, upper 30s overnight. Cold enough to make me grab the Mr. Heater from my bag to warm up the tent in the morning!

Not sure when the Lance guy landed and whether or not an afternoon tailwind contributed to his LONG landing.

aktahoe1 wrote:Would be curious to know what the DA was that day. Low wings have a tendency to float more, etc., however have problems getting out of ground effect on hot days....curious....obviously some will argue that comment but those are facts. In fact low wings are better for short take offs...(on pavement) because of the float factor, but in the BC?

A completely different topic is the High wing vs Low wing. We dont see to many low wings (or any for that matter any) in the Valdez STOL comp or at Lake Hood, etc. JC is great for low wingers, simple grass, however it does increases the ground roll, then consider the DA for the day.....more questions come up. As mentioned, low wings can have problems getting out of ground effect when DA is high.

Not trying to start a "bash low winger" thread but it makes no sense to me on some these inexperienced low wingers flying in the BC. (Bonazaman your a different breed and there are not too many of you)....but would be curious of your thoughts on this of
course.

My thoughts are that low wings are for transportation, strip to strip in the city or simple grass. Rocky dirt strips will eat your wings alive. You dont see many or any with big tires. High wings do the same however the BC is there calling.....Big tires, ground clearance with high wings, floats, ski's, you name it.

Just conversation here....

Thankfully know one was hurt in this accident!!!

It was a cool morning about 08:00 and I was loading my plane getting ready to leave.
At this point at the airstrip I have my gear well off the ground and climbing most aircraft do.The Lance almost appeared as if it was taxing to the other end of the runway.
The Lance was not making power when he passed my plane. Why I do not know,
lean mixture,one mag? prop low rpm? It was smooth but it wasent making power. I have been a mechanic , machinist and car enthusist for over therety years, I have an ear for it.

aktahoe1 wrote:
My thoughts are that low wings are for transportation, strip to strip in the city or simple grass. Rocky dirt strips will eat your wings alive. You dont see many or any with big tires. High wings do the same however the BC is there calling.....Big tires, ground clearance with high wings, floats, ski's, you name it.

Just conversation here....

I was concerned about any debris damage when I started taking my Bo off road, coming from the 182. The 182 collected so many nicks and dings to the horizontal tail that I had to put the rubber abrasion boots on it. I've now had the Bo 5 years. The only dings so far are to the prop. I don't know why no damage to the flaps but there isn't any. I didn't expect any to the wings and so far there isn't any there either. I of course can't put on big tires but the standard main is a 7.00x6, I had 8.00 on the 182. I have more prop clearance than the 182 with its 6.00 tire but with a smaller tire so I have to watch out for that.

Tom's wife called several hours ago to inform me Tom made it to Cascade ,ID. this afternoon with 180 ---should be getting back to Boulder City tomorrow afternoon.