C-GLFP Lancair IV-P down - destroyed - minor injuries . .

[bizjets101]

FlightAware Flight Tracker 2001 Lancair IV-P C-GLFP.

The Wetaskiwin RCMP and the Transport Safety Board Canada are investigating after a single-engine aircraft crashed near a local airfield Sunday evening.

Police reported that the 54-year-old pilot from Red Deer and his 42-year-old passenger from Wetaskiwin escaped the crash with only minor injuries.

The aircraft was returning from Edmonton and attempted to make a landing at the Wetaskiwin Regional Airport when the aircraft struck an unknown object or communication tower. The aircraft spun out of control and crash-landed in a field south of the airfield.

Police say the aircraft was completely destroyed in the crash, except for the cabin,which remained intact. Investigators say weather may have been a factor in the crash.

CTV Edmonton

C-GLFP Lancair IV-P.jpg (87.82 KiB) Viewed 4076 times

C-GLFP Lancair IV-Pressurized.jpg (98.39 KiB) Viewed 4068 times

[PanEuropean]

Most unfortunate. There ought to be a law about those goddamn unknown objects or towers.

[bizjets101]

Don't know what the hit, but I see this under airport remarks,

Caution: light stands 40 AGL along the highway short of the theshold of runway 30.


Reminds me of the Gulfstream II that was landing at Hobby Airport to pick up George Bush Sr. when it struck a light pole with tragic results.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 20041122-0

[alctel]

Oh man, they were lucky to walk away from that one!

[AirFrame]

Yep, those amateur-builts are tough airplanes... Sacrificed all the extraneous bits to save the cabin. I'm not sure I'd trust a Cessna to fare as well.

[mag check]

I would say the only reason that aircraft survived as well as it did is because it is pressurized.
That cabin is way stronger than a "normal" homebuilt. I have seen the wreck of an unpressurized Lancair after it did one bounce through a ditch, and it was COMPLETELY destroyed, with 6" deadly shards of carbon and fibreglass sticking into the cockpit.

I'll take a bunch of 4130 around me, thanks.

[matrix]

The Lancair IV-P is a high-performance, turbo-charged machine, built to be flown above the weather, twice as high and twice as fast as most small planes. It’s only a 14-minute flight from downtown Edmonton to Johnson’s home in Wetaskiwin. If weather gave them any trouble, they could land in Red Deer and head north by car.

The flight instruments were acting up a bit that evening, but Leinweber — experienced and certified to fly at night by visual reference — wasn’t worried. About 20 kilometres from their destination, he radioed the tower to obtain a visual approach. He could already see Wetaskiwin, so finding the runway would be no problem.

A few seconds later, however, he found himself right “in the damn soup.” Fog and snow swallowed Wetaskiwin’s city lights and the airport beacon.

Eyes may be Leinweber’s livelihood, but pilots never rely on vision alone. Staring out the cockpit glass can lead to vertigo, disorientation, a poor sense of altitude. In other words, disaster.

Leinweber decided to “fly by the numbers,” trusting his instruments to guide him to a safe altitude while Johnson looked for the runway. If they could spot it, they’d try to land. If not, they’d put their nose up and head south to Red Deer.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Pil ... story.html

Flying into IMC with unreliable instruments. Brilliant!

[Lowjack]

I'm never one to judge before the report is released, but I don't think that article is doing him any favours.

[into the blue]

Oh no, another flying doctor! What a good laugh I had reading that article...

[Shiny Side Up]

Flying into IMC with unreliable instruments. Brilliant!

Flying into IMC not IFR rated and not on an IFR flight plan even more so.

Leinweber decided to “fly by the numbers,” trusting his instruments to guide him to a safe altitude

What numbers?

All my instruments told me I was 200 metres off the ground, right where I should be.”

Not sure why he would have a metric altimeter, but even at 200m agl he's well below the 25nm MSA off the Wetaskawin approach plate (apprx 1900' agl or 633m). Out of the CFS the 5nm OCC the lowest of the 4 numbers is approx 1100' agl which he'd be below, not to mention the MEF from the VNC which is approx 1000' above the aerodrome elevation. 200m (approx 600') puts him at the decision/circling height for either of the published approaches for Wetaskawin... Cruising around, looking for the runway.

Now if the article's author made a mistake and the pilot was cruising around at 200 feet agl....

What on earth says to someone that it would be a good idea to do?

[kevind]

most reports will convert to metric if you give them numbers in imperial. Occasionlly they even get the conversion correct

[Shiny Side Up]

Either way you slice it some very poor decision making.

[_vti]

After the accident, Leinweber has opted out of high flying a year early. He still owns two planes, which he’ll use for flights he deems “mundane” — low altitudes, low performance, strictly under visual flight rules.

“From now on, it’s pretty simple,” he says. “I’ll no longer fly dangerously.”

lol...what a jackass

[Expat]

I flew a lot a night, and always thought that to be safe, one needed hood time, and some IFR proficiency. You never know when you will lose all visual references at night. Clouds are not visible.

[Heliian]

So his static port iced up and he flew into the ground? Poor decision making for sure. And then the article says that he'll stick to the much "safer" low altitude, low performance flying. RUFKM.