Lancair down SanDiego county

[bonal]

On the news today a Lancair went down on I215 killing one passenger riding in the back seat of a car that it struck from behind. Pilot and passenger of the plane were minor to moderate injuries. Google plane crash today for stories but surprised to see how much more damage to The car than plane. Car was off the side of the road when it was struck. Not Good

[kerry]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plane-crashes-san-diego-area-freeway-killing-1-injuring-5-n549676

Not good for the Nissan that's for sure.  Same result as a 1000lb wrecking ball hitting the back of it.  Unfortunate accident. 

[Shadrach]

I am sure this pilot did the best he could. If he had another option, I really wish he had picked somewhere free of cars and people.  As it stands he still hit a 3000lb stationary object, it's just that this object was holding people.   I would have a tough time living the rest of my life knowing that I took a life trying to put a plane on the ground.

[Tom]

2700 pounds at 33 meters per second
 vs
2700 pounds at 6.4 meters per second

666 Kj
 vs
25 Kj

Condolences to the all those involved.

[MB65E]

Some strange facts...it's the Second time the airplane landed on the same freeway! Through a friend of a friend that was at the crash site, the driver pulled over to reset his Bluetooth hands free device. 

Sad loss. 

Some things just happen that way. 

-Matt

[Piloto]

I always buy american cars. Take a look at police and taxi fleet cars and you will notice that they are american made, mostly Ford. American cars are more rugged, durable and lower cost to maintain than foreign cars. Check with Fidel Castro on this.

José

Edited April 3, 2016 by Piloto

[Yooper Rocketman]

Just for the record, it was a "Lancair".  It was either a IV or a IVP (four place non-pressurized or 4 place pressurized).  It appears to be a Continental powered (most were, and used the 350 HP TSIO550) Lancair.  It is terribly unfortunate that someone outside the airplane got hurt, especially killed.

We had a couple builders work together, building their IVP's, that I networked with a lot back in the early 2000's, when I was in the early stages of my build.  One of them, after completing his plane, had a prop failure (actually departure) near Hilton Head, SC on a flight from Florida to Virginia.  He ended up putting it down on the beach and because of an oil saturated windshield, didn't see a jogger as he landed.  The jogger didn't make it.  The NTSB wouldn't let him remove the plane from the water for several days, and by the time he did get it out of the ocean, it ended up being salvage.  I don't believe Ed (the Lancair pilot) ever flew again.

I learned two things over that accident.  One, don't walk or run anywhere with music pumped into your ears.  You can't hear anything and in a rare case, it could cost you your life.  Not sure it would have made a difference here, but if someone was warning him or the plane made any noise at all, he would not have heard it.   Also, prop strikes are serious, and the fall out from one may come many years and hours later.

Tom

[Tom]

3 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

He ended up putting it down on the beach and because of an oil saturated windshield, didn't see a jogger as he landed.  The jogger didn't make it.  

Engine-out beach fatalities and injuries to people on the ground are common enough. 

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20140727/BREAKING/140729716

An aircraft with a 36' wingspan may cut a swath of airspace right above the ground of more than 10,000 ft^2 just before touchdown to point when it comes to a rest.

The same aircraft with a vertical to near vertical decent under a chute cuts a swath using 75-90% less airspace carrying as much as 25 times less energy into the impact with ground objects.

 

[MyNameIsNobody]

19 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I am sure this pilot did the best he could. If he had another option, I really wish he had picked somewhere free of cars and people.  As it stands he still hit a 3000lb stationary object, it's just that this object was holding people.   I would have a tough time living the rest of my life knowing that I took a life trying to put a plane on the ground.

How about Mathew Broderick?  Gets drunk, kills someone with his car, makes millions...

[MyNameIsNobody]

14 hours ago, Piloto said:

I always buy american cars. Take a look at police and taxi fleet cars and you will notice that they are american made, mostly Ford. American cars are more rugged, durable and lower cost to maintain than foreign cars. Check with Fidel Castro on this.

José

Good for you.  I would prefer a Gelandawagen.  I will not be checking in with Fidel for anything.

EVER.

[jetdriven]

Take a look at a Chevy Cruze, or a comparable American car after a NHTSA crash test. Then look at the BMW 3 or Mercedes C class.  Those American cars fold up like cheap suitcases.  

[orionflt]

I was talking to the CEO of Lancair last night, he only had the basic info that has already been reported, but what I find interesting is more the history of the aircraft and the pilot. I haven't researched it for verification but it doesn't sound like this plane flew much since the pilot bought it in 2010 (when the owner got his license) I would even question if the conditional inspection was current. as everyone knows current registration is required for an A&P to sign off a conditional inspection. registration was lapsed since 2013 and unless the owner holds an A&P or he was the original builder and received a repairman's certificate for that individual aircraft, it probably would have been caught. given the benefit of the doubt he could have just renewed it and the database hasn't reflected the change yet, but that just reinforces my statement that the plane hasn't been flown until recently. My hopes are when the investigation is complete we find this is just a tragic accident that could not have been foreseen VS a black eye to general aviation because of lack of good judgement. I will be waiting for more information to come out and as we all do, try to learn from someone else's mistake so we do not repeat it in the future. in the meantime my thoughts and prayers go out to everyone involved.

 

Brian    

[1964-M20E]

Condolences to those involved.

 

On the other hand if you figure plastic airplane traveling at 70MPH+/- rear ends an SUV.  The airplane shows relatively little damage (although most likely totaled) while the SUV shows major damage.  This tell me Lancairs are pretty stout.

[Shadrach]

18 minutes ago, 1964-M20E said:

Condolences to those involved.

 

On the other hand if you figure plastic airplane traveling at 70MPH+/- rear ends an SUV.  The airplane shows relatively little damage (although most likely totaled) while the SUV shows major damage.  This tell me Lancairs are pretty stout.

Looked more like a Nissan Versa than an SUV.  I'd not infer too much about the airframe from the accident. It was basically a collection of people, plastic, fiberglass and metal following about 700lbs of power plant assembly down the road and into the back of a small vehicle

[jetdriven]

When you choose to land on a road, you also cause great hazard to motorists as well,  you signed up for the risks of flying, but they did not. I never saw any civilians killed while landing in an open field, however.  

[MyNameIsNobody]

12 hours ago, Tom said:

Engine-out beach fatalities and injuries to people on the ground are common enough. 

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20140727/BREAKING/140729716

An aircraft with a 36' wingspan may cut a swath of airspace right above the ground of more than 10,000 ft^2 just before touchdown to point when it comes to a rest.

The same aircraft with a vertical to near vertical decent under a chute cuts a swath using 75-90% less airspace carrying as much as 25 times less energy into the impact with ground objects.

 

You are persistent.  I will give you that.

[DXB]

13 hours ago, Tom said:

Engine-out beach fatalities and injuries to people on the ground are common enough. 

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20140727/BREAKING/140729716

An aircraft with a 36' wingspan may cut a swath of airspace right above the ground of more than 10,000 ft^2 just before touchdown to point when it comes to a rest.

The same aircraft with a vertical to near vertical decent under a chute cuts a swath using 75-90% less airspace carrying as much as 25 times less energy into the impact with ground objects.

 

No doubt the chute-less scenario potentially dissipates more energy over a wider area, but it also can afford the pilot superior control of how that energy is dissipated all the way up to the moment of landing, and sometimes beyond. The chute allows the pilot to mitigate danger to people on the ground prior to pulling it but relinquishes all such control from the moment it is pulled. In absence of conclusive data, I'm sure anecdotes and selective stats can be cited ad nauseam to support either approach as safer for people on the ground. But I bet that pilot preparedness and judgement are the far more important risk-mitigating factors, chute or no chute. Either way, the pilot is faced with decisions to prevent hurting people on roads, beaches, or homes. 

[Shadrach]

22 hours ago, Tom said:

2700 pounds at 33 meters per second
 vs
2700 pounds at 6.4 meters per second

666 Kj
 vs
25 Kj

Condolences to the all those involved.

Tom, if he'd come down under canopy on top of that stopped car, we'd likely be talking about 3 dead.