Not to be morbid, but does anyone have any info on the West Yellowstone crash today that is not being published in the lame stream media. I think it was a Bonanza, but not sure? Does not sound good.....

DBI wrote:Not to be morbid, but does anyone have any info on the West Yellowstone crash today that is not being published in the lame stream media. I think it was a Bonanza, but not sure? Does not sound good.....

Googling "Yellowstone small plane" returns several short news stories about the crash, but there's no definitive information.

I have not heard anything down here, and West is close enough to make the local news.

I do know it has been one long stretch of high winds up here at my place, my wind turbine inverter has a history function, in effect telling me not only how windy it's been, but for how long. And, since my day work is down in the valleys, it is interesting to see the difference from my place (wind all day, all night, and in the AM) and then to go down 1,000' to the valley and find it calm, or nearly so. Point being, the last few days have been not good for mountain flying in my area, not good as in really not good. Hot as hell also, smokey too. All of this may have little or no effect on the cause of the crash of course.

It was a Bo, registered in North Dakota. Condolences to those affected.



http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_b02e2768-0390-11e3-80f9-0019bb2963f4.html

I wonder if they had shoulder harnesses? I don't know if Bo's come with them. I know that around 20% of fatal accidents could be prevented if they where used correctly. Blunt force trauma to the head from the panel is probably the cause of death here. It's so sad to see a plane so intact and with a livable space still showing, yet a death still occcured. Also I wonder if the plane actually hit to the left of the picture and turned around once it stopped. Cuase for such little damage there really isn't much for a ground scar to the right. Only time & the NTSB will tell. Sad day.

That's a '54 E model, built in '53, so it wouldn't have come with shoulder harnesses from the factory. I think it's a good lesson, though, that all of us who fly older airplanes need to spend the money and time to have shoulder harnesses retrofitted. Seatbelts just aren't enough, especially because airplane panels aren't very forgiving--little or no padding, lots of knobs and switches, etc. Even a relatively benign forced landing with a sudden stop can be pretty damaging to front passenger heads and faces.

A hundred years or so ago when I was on active duty in the USAF, the idea of using seatbelts in cars was still pretty foreign to most people, although by then they were standard equipment (shoulder harnesses weren't, though). The USAF passed a reg that seatbelts must be used on base, and there were a lot of stupid arguments raised against them. You could literally see people pass through the gate going off base and take off their seatbelts, or have to be told by the gate guards to buckle up as they came on base. I was assigned to be our office safety officer among other things, so my weekly safety briefing often included a comment about seatbelt use. I asked an engineer to calculate for me some statistics, and here's the stat I gave which caused literally everyone in the office to start wearing seatbelts all the time: The face of an average 6' man who falls forward from a standing position and does not catch himself with his hands will hit the ground at 7.8 mph. Imagine the damage to his nose, teeth, etc., from only a 7.8 mph collision. Now imagine the damage to your nose, teeth, etc., from a 30 mph collision with the dashboard of your car.

Soon after I bought my LRB, built in '62, I bought a set of BAS harnesses for the front seats. They hadn't yet been installed when I had my one and only forced landing after the engine threw a rod, but fortunately I picked a pretty good field and there were no sudden stop forces. You can bet that they were installed during the downtime for the new engine! The nice thing about them is the inertial reel system, which allows some freedom of movement to do things like pull on the manual flaps but will lock in the event of a sudden stop.

Of course, we won't likely know until the NTSB's report comes out how the one person died and the other was seriously injured in this crash, but I think it's a pretty good bet that colliding with the panel did it.

Cary

Great post Cary. I agree totally. Also a good reason to pop that helmet on.

We experimental/kitplane fliers take shoulder harness's for granted, even my Kitfox 1 back in '88 came with shoulder harness's. It's always a bit of a shock when I see an older cert plane with just a lap belt!

When I read the local paper and their reporting on car accidents ( a lot of them, all the time) it's interesting to see whether or not a seat belt was worn, and results if so. Lot's of needless deaths seem to be the result for those not wearing them.

The local TV had a brief report this AM on the crash, all I learned was that it took place AT the airport, sounds like a landing or takeoff incident.

I wonder if they had shoulder harnesses? I don't know if Bo's come with them. I know that around 20% of fatal accidents could be prevented if they where used correctly. Blunt force trauma to the head from the panel is probably the cause of death here. It's so sad to see a plane so intact and with a livable space still showing, yet a death still occcured. Also I wonder if the plane actually hit to the left of the picture and turned around once it stopped. Cuase for such little damage there really isn't much for a ground scar to the right. Only time & the NTSB will tell. Sad day.

I hate to make a quick judgment from just one photo but to be honest, the very first thing I thought about when I saw this photo was my BAS shoulder restraint system.

BAS harnesses saved my life. That's a fact. Right after that accident, I installed a set in my airplane. When Mainenance was setting up a "loaner" airplane for me to use till a replacement could be ordered, they asked if I had any special requests for equipment. I to.d he Chief of Maintenance "Just a set of BAS harnesses". His response was "Well, Duh!"

I'm always amazed at ho manylanes there are flying out there without harnesses, let alone GOOD harnesses

I hope this wasn't the case in this accident, but in any case, another loss of an aviator is a loss for us all.

MTV

DBI wrote: the very first thing I thought about when I saw this photo was my BAS shoulder restraint system.

The Hooker Harness is half the cost, a "Y" style instead of the diagonal, and reasonably comfortable as well. ~100 bucks for replacements.

BAS doesn't use a diagonal belt either. The big thing with BAS is their inertial reel and the way it's installed, up inside the headliner.

It is FAR superior to any other harness system, including Hookers, which are second best.

The BAS is an expensive system, but they WORK, and they KEEP working. I've flown planes with these harness systems for well over a couple thousand hours, with perfect function throughout.

MTV

Pictures of BAS shoulder harnesses:

http://www.basinc-aeromod.com/cessna.htm

lc

BAS are good people, too. They're a father and son small company based in WA and they've donated for the BCP raffle in the past. I met them at Puyallup this year and they were very friendly and helpful. Buy from them.

I was planing to install BAS harness in the experimental I am looking at but I recently noticed that the attachment for the shoulder harness is set up for a single diagonal belt. There is a tab welded to the structure in the top corner of the cabin just behind each front seat; not really conducive to installing a BAS system. I imagine I could cut out part of the headliner and find some structure to attach the reel to.

The panel is really close to my head in this plane and will completely destroy my face in an accident so I want to be sure I have a good system. Will it be worth the extra effort to install a BAS type system over a diagonal belt?

Whee,

That all depends on whether you crash or not.....

BAS Harnesses work. I have always been pretty skeptical of single diagonal shoulder belts, but they work in cars....

MTV

mtv wrote:Whee,

That all depends on whether you crash or not.....

BAS Harnesses work. I have always been pretty skeptical of single diagonal shoulder belts, but they work in cars....

MTV

I would rather have a harness, but haven't yet found that as an option for my Maule.

Having wrecked a car and had the bruises and scrapes on my chest from the shoulder belt, I have a lot of confidence in them for doing a pretty effective job when hitting something straight on. I'd still probably upgrade the maule if I could though since so many airplane wrecks end up hitting a wing and putting other forces into the body.

Diagonal shoulder belts fastened to the wing root (some Cessnas) can be BAD news if/when the pilot sacrifices the wings in trees/other to dissipate energy.
No, I have not seen it myself, but reports from a couple of accidents-plus the logic of it......
Well, I installed BAS belts in my 182....

Whenever you can, stack the deck in your favor....
lc

mtv wrote:Whee,

That all depends on whether you crash or not.....

BAS Harnesses work. I have always been pretty skeptical of single diagonal shoulder belts, but they work in cars....

MTV

I figure there are two kinds of pilots, those that have bent an airplane and those that are going to. I'll see if I can figure a way to install a BAS system in the plane if I buy it. If I keep my Luscombe I suppose I better install BAS in it.

Lost a good friend a couple of months ago. Survivable impact, no shoulder harness. Another friend spent a month in ICU after coming out of the Cessna diagonal harness. Lots of facial reconstruction on that one (but it did slow his noggin down some). That was 20+ years ago. I am the proud user of the BAS harness three years ago. Not a scratch. Best mod ever!!!!(even better that 31 or 35 ABW's!)