david@infopro.UUCP (David Fiedler) (11/11/85)
This is being written only a few hours after the crash, and only after hearing television reports plus being familiar with the area. Apparently a Piper Cherokee hit a Dassault Falcon 50 bizjet nearly headon, both planes caught fire, and landed in a residential area. The jet hit an apartment house and completely demolished same, plus the kind of fires you would expect with large quantities of jet fuel around. Everybody died, plus an unknown number of people on the ground. Early reports were that the smaller plane involved was a Cessna, possibly due to the "all small planes are Cessnas" disease that tragically affects so many in the general mass media. We have heard that the Falcon had gotten clearance to land at Teterboro on Runway 19 and that the Piper was also in contact with Teterboro tower for transiting their airspace, that each was warned of the other's presence, and that both were flying VFR. The collision seems to have happened over the Hudson River (just 4.5 miles west of Runway 19), so the Falcon must have been making quite a wide pattern. From other reports, the jet was owned by Nabisco Brands (based in East Hanover), and had taken off from Morristown Municipal A/P, about 30 miles southwest of Teterboro. The Piper had taken off from my home base, Caldwell A/P, and apparently was heading east, over Teterboro but under the New York TCA. No names have been released yet; it's quite possible I know someone involved. A local flight instructor was interviewed on Channel 2 news (CBS) about the general safety of that airspace. He said that it was congested (true), that part of the problem at Teterboro is fast jets mixing with slower single-engine prop planes (probably true), and also Sunday pilots trying to get home before it gets dark, since they aren't current for darkness (possibly also true, but a lot of speculation here). At 5:05 PM local when the accident occurred, it had just started getting fairly dark. My feeling about this interview is that people involved in any activity that is easily misunderstood by the general public for technical reasons should be VERY careful when interviewed on television. The distinct impression I would have gotten had I known nothing about flying was that "little" planes had no proper business in this airspace where "only jets belong" (quotes are not meant to imply exact words from interview). You can bet that someone (read: headline-grabbing politician) will move to further restrict light planes in this area after this tragedy. This will no doubt occur no matter who the FAA/NTSB finds at fault (it would have to be both pilots at a minimum since they were both VFR, right?). We have heard both that the Falcon pilot acknowledged seeing the Piper, and vice-versa. This bothers me mostly because I know, as a student pilot, that everyone in this area avoids the TCA like the plague. It is perfectly possible to fly below the TCA (which starts at 3000' MSL), but in the particular area near Teterboro, the TCA floor is only 1800'. Keeping well under this puts you too close to TPA at Teterboro (1000' light, 1500' heavy) for comfort, especially when you mix in the large numbers of sightseeing aircraft going up and down the Hudson at around 1100'. My beef is that we are TAUGHT to avoid the TCA, as if it were totally restricted airspace, yet we casually go through TRSA's even as students on our second cross-countries. It's true that they don't HAVE to let us in, but maybe if more of us felt like we were welcome, we would be able to transit a busy area under positive radar control at a slightly safer altitude. Aside from traffic, there are a lot of tall antennas, bridges, and buildings in this area! Sorry for the occasional cynicism, but I get worried about our airspace rights every time this kind of thing happens, and I'm also upset at people getting killed. Yes, I *have* joined AOPA, the day I soloed.
ron@hpfcla.UUCP (11/13/85)
Concur with the suggestion to take care with your comments.
I would also offer the suggestion to call the media involved if you
find glaring impossibilities/inaccuracies. Eventually they might get the
message.
About 2 years ago a B-767 ( the 2 engine new one, right?) flamed out
over Denver... both engines. Fortunately they were at sufficient altitude to
declare the emergency and relight both engines and make an uneventful
landing at Stapleton airport (the original destination I think).
The story on the 10 pm news went something like this:
" An X airlines Boeing 767 had an unexpected loss of both engines' power
tonite. The plane fell 16,000 feet before the pilots managed to get
the engines restarted. The plane then continued on to land safely at
Stapleton airport. Airline officials say they still have confidence in
the 767. FAA officials have no comment."
I called the newsroom and GOT THE REPORTER ! I made my points politely
and hopefully raised her awareness that accuracy counts.
(Point 1: Airplanes don't fall unless they are in pieces Point 2: The
engine restart is routinely practiced in training. Point 3: Why SHOULDN'T
the airline have confidence in the 767 ??
I have a great deal of distrust of the news media. Just look at all the
things they screw up on in areas I know about. What are they fouling up
on in the areas where I don't ?
Ron Miller
No one has ever gone broke UNDERestimating the intelligence of the American
public !
Service Engineering (Hardware Support)
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Ft. Collins Systems Div.
Ft. Collins Colorado
303-226-3800
at: {ihnp4}hpfcla!ronwanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja) (11/13/85)
> This is being written only a few hours after the crash, and only after > hearing television reports plus being familiar with the area. Apparently a > Piper Cherokee hit a Dassault Falcon 50 bizjet nearly headon, both planes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Another little thing we have to be careful about. Admittedly, in a head-on case it may be moot, but stating the situation this way implies the Piper was at fault. One thing that really pisses me off, is this is exactly the way the media presents the happening. The San Diego PSA/172 midair is a classic example of this problem... in fact a recent Popular Mechanics article says: "... a small Cessna rammed a PSA 727..." (not exact quote). How does a 120 kt Cessna ram a 727 at 200+? And actually, in this case, the 172 was hit from behind! Popular Mechanics must think the 172 backed into the airliner! I don't mean to flame the original poster, but am just emphasising the points he made about how we, the General Aviation public, must take care of what little image we have left... Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja)
don@pecnos.UUCP (Don Hopkins) (11/14/85)
> > This is being written only a few hours after the crash, and only after > > hearing television reports plus being familiar with the area. Apparently a > > Piper Cherokee hit a Dassault Falcon 50 bizjet nearly headon, both planes > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Another little thing we have to be careful about. Admittedly, in a head-on > case it may be moot, but stating the situation this way implies the Piper > was at fault. > As the pieces of this accident come together it seems that the jet overran the Cherokee. Eyewitnesses say the Falcon 50 rammed the Cherokee from the rear. A police chopper pilot flying nearby says both planes were at about 1000 feet. Name........: Donald F. Hopkins Company.....: CONCURRENT Computer Corporation (A Perkin-Elmer Company) US Mail.....: 106 Apple St., Tinton Falls, N.J. 07724 Phone.......: 201-758-7268 UUCP..(work): ...!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!pecnos!don (home): ...!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!pecnos!buslog!don
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/23/85)
In local papers out in Devner, they also talked about an incident with a single engine Navajo (well no wonder, one of the engines was missing), there was even a picture of the plane showing both engines very clearly. In another article describing the death of a mechanic at Roach Aviation, it was stated that he had just finished working on the magnetos of a Mitsubisi MU-2 when he was struck by a propellor (The MU-2 is a turboprop). The other big one they like to pull on private pilots is that the plane had not filed a flight plan with the FAA. The general tone insinuates that a) filing is required and b) that VFR flight plans have something to do with the ability of ATC to maintain aircraft separation. Never believe anything technical in a newspaper. -Ron