Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

User avatar
AJV
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:30 pm

Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by AJV » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:11 pm

Light twin off the end of the runway into the bushes, no one hurt.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AJV
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:30 pm

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by AJV » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:16 pm

how do you post pics on here?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by Shiny Side Up » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:19 pm

---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AJV
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:30 pm

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by AJV » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:22 pm

I think I got it
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attachments
front.jpg
front.jpg (126.4 KiB) Viewed 3104 times

User avatar
AJV
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:30 pm

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by AJV » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:23 pm

one more
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attachments
side.jpg
side.jpg (92.22 KiB) Viewed 3103 times

User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by Shiny Side Up » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:38 pm

Airplane's home is in CYRP, registered to "Touch n' Go Aviation" according to the registry database.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2985
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by CpnCrunch » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:49 pm

Seems a bit short of a runway to be landing a 310 on...I guess they were stopping there to save 10c on avgas. Anyway, glad nobody was hurt - could have been worse.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5858
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by ahramin » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:40 pm

Wet runway.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by AirFrame » Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:43 pm

Can't see the second prop, but if it's as intact as the first prop, then neither engine was running when it stopped... Either that or it stopped against something and the props never touched ground. TWO overhauls would be expensive.
---------- ADS -----------
  

GUMPS
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by GUMPS » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:49 pm

Shiny Side Up wrote:Airplane's home is in CYRP, registered to "Touch n' Go Aviation" according to the registry database.
The joke's already there....
---------- ADS -----------
  

170 to xray
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:48 am
Location: cyyz

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by 170 to xray » Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:00 pm

---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5858
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by ahramin » Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:28 pm

Maybe it sold and that's the new owner off the end.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by AirFrame » Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:23 pm

Change the ad to say "Bush pilots look here!"
---------- ADS -----------
  

crazy_aviator
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:13 am

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by crazy_aviator » Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:51 pm

Touch and No Go aviation ? :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Redneck_pilot86
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: between 60 and 70

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by Redneck_pilot86 » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:24 pm

AirFrame wrote:Can't see the second prop, but if it's as intact as the first prop, then neither engine was running when it stopped... Either that or it stopped against something and the props never touched ground. TWO overhauls would be expensive.
Judging by all the leaves and crud on the aircraft in the pic of the left engine, it was running when it went into the brush...
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Rookie50
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1819
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:00 am
Location: Clear of the Active.

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by Rookie50 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:46 am

Ouch. Both props and engines pretty low time. Double Ouch actually.
---------- ADS -----------
  

J31
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1057
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:21 am

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by J31 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:29 am

CpnCrunch wrote:Seems a bit short of a runway to be landing a 310 on...I guess they were stopping there to save 10c on avgas. Anyway, glad nobody was hurt - could have been worse.
1800 feet of wet asphalt in a C310R? Hmmm...a bit of a challenge.
---------- ADS -----------
  

HighT5
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:22 am

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by HighT5 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:45 pm

Is that one of Seneca's old 310s from the 80s?
---------- ADS -----------
  

CFR
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: CYAV

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by CFR » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:58 pm

HighT5 wrote:Is that one of Seneca's old 310s from the 80s?
The registry shows it as being imported in 2009.
---------- ADS -----------
  

godsrcrazy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:12 pm

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by godsrcrazy » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:01 pm

HighT5 wrote:Is that one of Seneca's old 310s from the 80s?

Manufactured in 1979 according to the registry.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Dash-Ate
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1760
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:15 pm
Location: Placarded INOP

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by Dash-Ate » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:01 pm

170 to xray wrote:http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 265349.htm


May have to adjust the price. :oops:
But that'll buff right out. :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
  

HighT5
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:22 am

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by HighT5 » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:37 pm

godsrcrazy wrote:
HighT5 wrote:Is that one of Seneca's old 310s from the 80s?

Manufactured in 1979 according to the registry.
All their planes had KW_ registrations I believe because Ken Wilson sold them the planes.

Not a big deal, just curious.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by Colonel Sanders » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:21 pm

1800 feet of wet asphalt in a C310R?
With

1) VG's (essential, at least for me) and
2) no obstacles on approach and
3) light weight

I'd try it :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by AirFrame » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:25 pm

Colonel Sanders wrote:2) no obstacles on approach and
Biggest possible obstacle on approach at Courtenay is a tall person on the walking path that runs across the end of the runway. Or maybe the waist-high fence beside him, that starts about a foot below runway grade. You can make a rather flat approach.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5092
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Twin down at Courtenay Airpark

Post by Big Pistons Forever » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:39 pm

The owner and I looked at taking the company Cessna 340 into this airport. We decided against it as getting in was doable but the departure was too tight.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”