Alton Bay Bonanza crash

[Shadrach]

Looks to me like he was trying to make a short field landing and ran out of energy just before the threshold.

 

 

[aviatoreb]

Ugh.

[toto]

Eek. Comments said it was the first landing of the day

 

[MB65E]

Why are we landing on Ice in a complex airplane? 
-Matt

[Ragsf15e]

Ouch, but survivable.  Definitely stopped quickly!

[Shadrach]

24 minutes ago, MB65E said:

Why are we landing on Ice in a complex airplane? 
-Matt

Well, I might agree with you if I thought that the retractable gear and prop had anything to do with this mishap. I’ve landed my plan on ice many times it’s just that there’s always been asphalt underneath. 

[toto]

1 hour ago, MB65E said:

Why are we landing on Ice in a complex airplane? 
-Matt

@201erdid this a couple years ago with plenty of preparation, and iirc it was a good experience.

I don’t think there’s any particular reason to avoid ice in a complex airplane. Hell, if you know the right people, you can take an Airbus to Antarctica

 

[TangoTango]

It won't be a fun operation to extract the Bonanza now. Not exactly any warm hangars to work in out on the ice.

[chrisburdzy98]

Tough weekend in Alton, Beech went short, Cessna went long. Runway is pure glass ice, no traction at all. The Cessna at the end of the runway happened late on Saturday. Could have been a mental factor for the beech going short Sunday morning. Hats off to the folks that want to do this with their plane because i love watching, but i no longer have any interest in taking mine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ragsf15e]

I wonder if there are insurance exclusions for ice runways? That looks expensive but not totaled.

[jetdriven]

We called our insurance company and were covered because it is an FAA listed airport so we went there. It's fine.

 

[MooneyMitch]

46 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

We called our insurance company and were covered because it is an FAA listed airport so we went there. It's fine.

 

You two have darn good looking Mooney!!!! 

[Ragsf15e]

47 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

We called our insurance company and were covered because it is an FAA listed airport so we went there. It's fine.

 

I can see landing, and I can see slowing down after landing… how did you taxi and stop?

[PeteMc]

22 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Looks to me like he was trying to make a short field landing and ran out of energy just before the threshold.

I had just seen him hit the snow berm the first time I watched it.  Totally missed the wabbling wings and sudden increase in the sink rate in those last few seconds.

But even so...  I hope there's a new note for those that maintain B18 that there will be no snow berms at either end of the Rwy. 

 

[aviatoreb]

I have thought of flying there - I kind of want to but I am wary.  I have landed on very ice runways and once I landed on a runway that was so icy at Hartford Barinard that the most treacherous part of the day was walking from the airplane to the fbo since it wasnt just ice but polished ice since there had been a recent freezing rain on the ice.  With zero zero braking action if you even tap the brakes it skids.  So all you can do is let the pressure in the tires let it roll out - it will stop eventually.  I only attempted the zero braking action runway because it is 4000ft long if I remember.  And think about the effect of cross winds too if the tires arent gripping at all.  Fly it to a stop.

[201er]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

I can see landing, and I can see slowing down after landing… how did you taxi and stop?

Have you ever gone ice skating?

[philiplane]

I've landed several different planes at Alton Bay. A Piper Apache, a Cessna Skyhawk, a Cirrus SR22, a Super Cub, and more.

It's really not that hard to slow and stop. It's much harder to taxi around, especially with a castering nose wheel like a Cirrus or Grumman single has. You plan your turns based on rough patches in the ice where you can get some traction. Twins are easy since you have differential thrust.

It's best to land when the runway has been freshly plowed, so it's rough. Landing later on a sunny day will get you some really slick conditions.

[Ragsf15e]

27 minutes ago, 201er said:

Have you ever gone ice skating?

Well yeah, and I ski a lot, but an idling prop pulls pretty hard, no?

I started my work airplane (PA-46T) on ice once and off we went with the brakes set.  I had my hand on the cutoff, but enough room to try reverse first which stopped us.  It was a delicate dance to the taxiway.

[201er]

20 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Well yeah, and I ski a lot, but an idling prop pulls pretty hard, no?

No, it would stay still without brakes at idle. But you sure as heck couldn't do a runup! You can spin the plane around in a circle by hand on the spot.

 

[GeeBee]

We wonder why our hull coverage is so high.

 

[wombat]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

We wonder why our hull coverage is so high.

 

Maybe you do but I don't.   

We have pilots with large ranges of experiences, skills, missions, and risk tolerances.  All of these are pooled together to mitigate each individuals' risks and we also pay overhead for the insurance companies to manage this for us.  The risk profile for each individual is not predictable enough to accurately price each pilot's risk and price accordingly within the risk pool although they do price individual policies differently.   You apparently disagree with the risk profile and therefore the cost that your insurer has assigned to you.   That's really between you and them.   Don't like it?  Don't buy it.

There are not enough of us to bucket the risk pools into smaller and more similar risk pools which would have 'safer' pilots together with lower premiums and 'riskier' pilots together with higher premiums. 

I sometimes feel frustration that I am bucketed with people who are much less healthy than I am for health insurance.    I have paid significantly more premiums than I am likely ever going to receive in benefits.   The same goes for much of my tax money; my money into programs that I won't personally benefit from.   As has my parents, grandparents, and I suspect further into the past.  I will for my entire life be a net exporter of money to programs that aggregate money for 'special' cases or 'social' uses.

Maybe there is money to be made in a more precisely targeted insurance policy for those of us who are safer but I doubt it.   Particularly when you consider the cost of government requirements and oversight.

[GeeBee]

17 minutes ago, wombat said:

Maybe you do but I don't.   

We have pilots with large ranges of experiences, skills, missions, and risk tolerances.  All of these are pooled together to mitigate each individuals' risks and we also pay overhead for the insurance companies to manage this for us.  The risk profile for each individual is not predictable enough to accurately price each pilot's risk and price accordingly within the risk pool although they do price individual policies differently.   You apparently disagree with the risk profile and therefore the cost that your insurer has assigned to you.   That's really between you and them.   Don't like it?  Don't buy it.

There are not enough of us to bucket the risk pools into smaller and more similar risk pools which would have 'safer' pilots together with lower premiums and 'riskier' pilots together with higher premiums. 

I sometimes feel frustration that I am bucketed with people who are much less healthy than I am for health insurance.    I have paid significantly more premiums than I am likely ever going to receive in benefits.   The same goes for much of my tax money; my money into programs that I won't personally benefit from.   As has my parents, grandparents, and I suspect further into the past.  I will for my entire life be a net exporter of money to programs that aggregate money for 'special' cases or 'social' uses.

Maybe there is money to be made in a more precisely targeted insurance policy for those of us who are safer but I doubt it.   Particularly when you consider the cost of government requirements and oversight.

All insurance has exclusions. Maybe there should be an exclusion for landing on a runway made of ice. There is no reason to land here for most folks, especially in a wheeled aircraft. Medivac, sure.  Maybe other urgent needs but for a 100 dollar hamburger? Really? Tell me, would you land on a runway covered in ice in a solely wheeled aircraft under any other circumstances? I consider landing here in a solely wheeled aircraft high risk. Back in my younger days I've flown off a few ice covered places in a 185 on skis. I would never think of taking a wheeled aircraft onto ice so slick I could  push the airplane around on the ramp. Sure I get the challenge, but I don't get the risk.

If we want to "experience" these kind of places for less than public safety reasons and operating conditions, don't complain about your insurance rates. That is all I am saying.

[wombat]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your statement and reading it through the lens of the attitude I've gotten from others here.  If so, my apologies.  But what it sounded like you were doing was complaining about the effect on your insurance rates of those that want to "experience" these kinds of places that you don't. Your statement reminds me of the guy who says that everyone who drives slower than him is an idiot and everyone who drives faster is a maniac.

 

There is no reason to fly a Mooney at all for most folks.  Or to get a $100 hamburger to begin with.  Most people in the world would consider flying any aircraft high risk.   Flying as PIC or SIC when you are over the age of 65 is such high of a risk the FAA has banned it for air carriers.   Why don't we complain about how all us old people are ruining the rates for those young folks?

It sounds like you want to exclude any activity that you don't personally partake in because the activities you choose not to do have 'no valid reason'.  In other words, you want to be the riskiest person in your insurance pool.  From a pure financial perspective I'm right there with you.   I want to be paying the least and to be the most likely to collect.  But from a reasonable risk management perspective we should all expect to have some that are riskier than us.

All of our expenses related to light GA aircraft are 100% optional.   If the insurance costs are taking someone over the edge of financial capability then this hobby is out of their budget to begin with.

For commercial aircraft that are US based air carriers, the people who think it's risky are 100% wrong but that doesn't affect this argument.   Also, the vast majority of medivac flights are a huge waste of money and the patients had no health benefit to being flown Vs. transported on the ground so those are actually 'no valid reason' too.

[MikeOH]

4 hours ago, 201er said:

Have you ever gone ice skating?

Nope. And I sure don't intend to learn how in my Mooney

[Hank]

4 hours ago, 201er said:

Have you ever gone ice skating?

I have. Also been snow skiing.

I much prefer water skiing, which requires liquid water rather than either form of frozen water, and a boat.