Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Small Plane Crash In TX Yesterday Bit Of A Mystery  
User currently offlineCHQIAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 71 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7923 times:

I first heard of this from my roommate who was expecting this flight to come in by 4pm because one of the guys was a major buyer from his company.

Story here: http://www.khou.com/topstories/stori...080422_tj_planecrash.8e43088b.html




My main question or what I am wondering about is that Cirrus SR22's are equipped with CAPS, are they not? And the chute can be deployed by anyone in the a/c, so what happened? It was never deployed. Possibly too close to the ground to make a difference?


If you fly fast enough, the sun never sets
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6411 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7900 times:



Quoting CHQIAH (Thread starter):
My main question or what I am wondering about is that Cirrus SR22's are equipped with CAPS, are they not?

Affirmative.

Quoting CHQIAH (Thread starter):
And the chute can be deployed by anyone in the a/c, so what happened?

Hard to say, the NTSB will do an investigation, though to try and determine the cause of the accident.

Quoting CHQIAH (Thread starter):
It was never deployed. Possibly too close to the ground to make a difference?

Total speculation here on my part, but many fighter jets have crashed with a total loss of crew because pulling an ejection handle in the military can be a career-ending move, so many jet jocks have tried to save the ship rather than preserving their own life and bailing out...

Could have been the aircraft owner thinking about things like preserving his pilot's license and what the insurance company would say  Sad

Interesting side note: isn't the Toledo Bend reservoir where the shuttle main engines came to rest after the Columbia disaster?



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7887 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
Total speculation here on my part, but many fighter jets have crashed with a total loss of crew because pulling an ejection handle in the military can be a career-ending move, so many jet jocks have tried to save the ship rather than preserving their own life and bailing out...

Could have been the aircraft owner thinking about things like preserving his pilot's license and what the insurance company would say

You might be on to something there as many Cirrus pilots have surely heard the criticism that some of them were too quick to pull the chute.

The articles siad the engine sputtered, out of fuel?

Anyway, RIP to the victims.



This looks like the flight:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N729SR



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineCHQIAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7855 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
Could have been the aircraft owner thinking about things like preserving his pilot's license and what the insurance company would say

Firstly, yes RIP to the occupants.

But this is where the mystery remains and I should have stated this from the get-go............the pilot had several years and hours under his belt and was the owner of a few a/c (according to my source first stated). Could have been a certificate issue, and I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would think with the experience he would be more worried about possibly a controlled crash if no other options to save the passengers moreso than saving his license.



If you fly fast enough, the sun never sets
User currently offlineCubastar From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 410 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7714 times:



Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 2):
many fighter jets have crashed with a total loss of crew because pulling an ejection handle in the military can be a career-ending move,

No criticism on this but just wonder why this would be so. Back when I was in the Navy years ago, there was no such stigma attached to a necessary ejection. Just wonder if/when this changed?


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6411 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7555 times:



Quoting Cubastar (Reply 4):
No criticism on this but just wonder why this would be so. Back when I was in the Navy years ago, there was no such stigma attached to a necessary ejection. Just wonder if/when this changed?

The operative word on my part is "can", and the operative word on your part is "necessary."  Big grin I know of an instance where an Air Force F-4 pilot overstressed the airframe (hot doggin' it) and blacked himself out from the G loads. Someone pulled the magic handle (probably the pilot, when he came to), and the pilot punched out. The backseater was able to land the aircraft back at base (BSM sticks out in my mind, Bergstrom Air Force Base...). I don't know the F-4's ejection system at all, so I couldn't begin to describe why the front seater punching out didn't also activate the backseater's ejection seat. The pilot was "invited" to leave the USAF...  Wink I learned all this from a former USAF ejection seat mechanic. The bird's cockpit was trashed, and she spent the next year as a hangar queen...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7450 times:



Quoting CHQIAH (Reply 3):
But this is where the mystery remains and I should have stated this from the get-go............the pilot had several years and hours under his belt and was the owner of a few a/c (according to my source first stated). Could have been a certificate issue, and I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would think with the experience he would be more worried about possibly a controlled crash if no other options to save the passengers more so than saving his license.

Here's another link with pictures and video of the crash scene, and this was an extreme high speed impact.

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=8214628

With the witness report of the engine sputtering and then coming out of the clouds straight into the lake, we may just be looking at a simple stall and dive. The pilot, although experienced, could have just gotten slow while trying to get the engine running in the clouds and passengers possibly starting to panic behind him causing further distraction. The flightaware track log does not give any altitude or speed figures for the last moments of the flight. Hopefully, enough evidence will be available to the NTSB to determine the cause.



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7435 times:

It's always a tragedy when the plane goes down.

May they rest in peace.

[Edited 2008-04-25 06:24:22]


"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5428 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7406 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
Could have been the aircraft owner thinking about things like preserving his pilot's license and what the insurance company would say

I'm not sure why it would be any different in crash landing the plane, or pulling the chute, in terms of his license and/or insurance company.

It's not neccessarily a good comparison to an ejection. When you eject - the pilot if often safe, but the aircraft is always toast. When you pull the chute in a Cirrus, the end result is potentially far less damaging to both aircraft and occupants, and things on the ground.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
The operative word on my part is "can", and the operative word on your part is "necessary." I know of an instance where an Air Force F-4 pilot overstressed the airframe (hot doggin' it) and blacked himself out from the G loads. Someone pulled the magic handle (probably the pilot, when he came to), and the pilot punched out.

Right, he wasn't "invited" to leave the Air Force simply because he ejected from an out of control F-4.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6411 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7294 times:



Quoting Bond007 (Reply 8):
It's not neccessarily a good comparison to an ejection. When you eject - the pilot if often safe, but the aircraft is always toast. When you pull the chute in a Cirrus, the end result is potentially far less damaging to both aircraft and occupants, and things on the ground.

Cirrus does tell the pilot to not expect the airframe to come away from a CAPS activation unscathed-in fact, the landing gear are designed to take the load of a parachute landing by breaking free from the airframe(!). Also, IIRC, the parachute lanyards are built into the composite airframe (on what would be, if it were a car, the A and B pillars), and a partial delamination (by design, a couple of layers of composite are laminated over the lanyards) has to happen for them to extend once the 'chute is fired. I've heard (second-hand knowledge) that this makes the plane pretty costly to return to flight, and makes insurance companies start to compute replacement values versus repair costs pretty closely.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineCrjflyer35 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 668 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7274 times:



Quoting CHQIAH (Thread starter):
My main question or what I am wondering about is that Cirrus SR22's are equipped with CAPS, are they not? And the chute can be deployed by anyone in the a/c, so what happened? It was never deployed. Possibly too close to the ground to make a difference?

That's a good point, but what some people fail to realize is that just because an aircraft has a chute, it can't be deployed in every aspect of flight. I just recently read in "Flying" of an NTSB report of an SR-22 that got stuck in icing conditions due to a bad forecast, and after the pilot did everything he could to get out of it, he deployed the chute while in a dive, and over the operating airspeed of the chute and it's accompanying rigging, and thus the system failed...and even so, in this case, over water, the chute is practically useless, because the gear and seats are designed to take a brunt of the impact on contact with the ground...not water.

Sad story though, RIP to the victims.



Ok, wait for the RJ to pass, cleared to push tail south Mike, and you're cleared to spin #2 in the push.
User currently offlineType-Rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7239 times:

Looking through the NTSB files it sure does seem like a lot of the Cirrus aircraft end up in crashes. I'm trying to figure out if these are due to inexperienced pilot issues or is the Cirrus an overly complex aircraft to fly. Or is it one that can simply bite you butt if you aren't careful with it.
What is the general concencus on this?


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6411 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7209 times:



Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 11):
Looking through the NTSB files it sure does seem like a lot of the Cirrus aircraft end up in crashes. I'm trying to figure out if these are due to inexperienced pilot issues or is the Cirrus an overly complex aircraft to fly. Or is it one that can simply bite you butt if you aren't careful with it.
What is the general concencus on this?

It's a really hot, slick, airplane (the kind that inexperienced pilots get into trouble with). It's not you're firendly neighborhood Skyhawk or Cherokee, and it's also kind of a trendy playtoy for the "Noveau" rich...people who feel that money can buy anything, and kinda forget the part about experience and avoiding excessive risk taking, although it sounds like the accident pilot in this case was somewhat outside this particular mold, at least going by what the OP says. I've heard from my flight instructor buddy that there's guys in this world who buy a Cirrus before they have a license and then go down to the local FBO and demand PPL instruction in nothing but their own personal Cirrus.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5428 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7178 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 9):
and makes insurance companies start to compute replacement values versus repair costs pretty closely.

I have no doubt, and agree. But a crash landing in a residential area, even with full control of the aircraft, isn't going to end up with a flyable aircraft except in exceptional cases. Most cases where you 'should' pull the chute, are in scenarios where you have loss of control, and the outcome isn't going to pretty however you look at it.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineCHQIAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7171 times:



Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 11):
Looking through the NTSB files it sure does seem like a lot of the Cirrus aircraft end up in crashes. I'm trying to figure out if these are due to inexperienced pilot issues or is the Cirrus an overly complex aircraft to fly. Or is it one that can simply bite you butt if you aren't careful with it.
What is the general concencus on this?

From what little information I do know about this a/c (I personally am a Cessna guy as they are more honest planes IMO), most pilots who fly them say they are easy to handle and the electric trim is a big hit with landing phases and all. The glass cockpit is also a plus. So in essence this is a complex a/c that is supposedly easy to handle. And here's where I'm getting to my hypothesis.....a lot of pilots who fly this a/c are fairly experienced, some professional and some not, but there is always the possibilty of the overconfidence factor. Flying others in the same vicinity as you are trying to fly the airplane can sometimes get a little distracting and that mixed with levels of high confidence can cause an impediment in judgement. It's hard to say, until investigation is complete, if this was pilot error (over-undercorrection if this was a stall) or if infact the plane was a lemon.



If you fly fast enough, the sun never sets
User currently offlineCHQIAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7158 times:



Quoting Crjflyer35 (Reply 10):
just recently read in "Flying" of an NTSB report of an SR-22 that got stuck in icing conditions due to a bad forecast

Don't they have a restriction into flying into known icing conditions?



If you fly fast enough, the sun never sets
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6411 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7129 times:



Quoting CHQIAH (Reply 15):


Don't they have a restriction into flying into known icing conditions?

All GA aircraft that don't have de-icing equipment are forbidden to fly into KNOWN icing conditions, however, I can tell you from personal experience getting my instrument rating, that it's impossible to predict exactly where the icing level will be, minus PIREPS... (especially up here in the Pacific NW). If you catch yourself picking up ice, the important thing to do is to immediately change altitude.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineCHQIAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7106 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 16):
All GA aircraft that don't have de-icing equipment are forbidden to fly into KNOWN icing conditions, however, I can tell you from personal experience getting my instrument rating, that it's impossible to predict exactly where the icing level will be, minus PIREPS... (especially up here in the Pacific NW). If you catch yourself picking up ice, the important thing to do is to immediately change altitude.

Yeah I meant GA, just rushed through my response w/o elaborating. The reason I asked though is b/c he mentioned "bad forecast". In that case I would be double dependent on PIREPS knowing I'm going into the *you know what*.



If you fly fast enough, the sun never sets
User currently offlineCrjflyer35 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 668 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7041 times:

Cirrus icing article

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050222X00211&key=1

A bit from the full narrative,

"Investigators from BRS examined the parachute and associated components, which were recovered in the Sugar Bowl ski resort area about 4,000 feet north of the accident site.

The BRS investigators determined that the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) parachute assembly had separated from the airplane almost immediately after deployment.

Examination of the parachute revealed that the parachute separated from the airplane under extreme high loads. Both risers were separated from the parachute assembly. The parachute separated from the suspension lines. The ends of the suspension lines were broomstrawed.

The representatives from BRS concluded after the inspection of the BRS system that the extent of damage was consistent with a high-speed deployment. The deployment was outside of the operating envelope of the system. The placarded deployment speed on the Cirrus SR22 is 133 knots indicated airspeed.
"

Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 11):
Looking through the NTSB files it sure does seem like a lot of the Cirrus aircraft end up in crashes. I'm trying to figure out if these are due to inexperienced pilot issues or is the Cirrus an overly complex aircraft to fly. Or is it one that can simply bite you butt if you aren't careful with it.
What is the general concencus on this?

I have about 35 hours in an SR-20 (I finished my private in it) and have no bad words to say about it. Before that I had about 15 hours in a 172, and the Cirrus to this day is still #1 on my wish list, such an amazing airplane, you can make an RJ jealous with the amount of avionics in it.I think what ends up happening is that a low time pilot who has his Cirrus, will, in a moment of not being totally sure of what he's flying into, will forge on because of his CAPS system. So yes, I think some cirrus pilots will unintentionally put themselves in a bad situation, thinking they have a catch-all back up should something go wrong.



Ok, wait for the RJ to pass, cleared to push tail south Mike, and you're cleared to spin #2 in the push.
User currently offlineCHQIAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6999 times:



Quoting Crjflyer35 (Reply 18):
So yes, I think some cirrus pilots will unintentionally put themselves in a bad situation, thinking they have a catch-all back up should something go wrong.

Good point, hadn't thought of it in that perspective. But wow, I would hate to think any pilot thinks that way.



If you fly fast enough, the sun never sets
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6955 times:



Quoting CHQIAH (Thread starter):
My main question or what I am wondering about is that Cirrus SR22's are equipped with CAPS, are they not? And the chute can be deployed by anyone in the a/c, so what happened? It was never deployed.

There have been very few successful CAPS deployments. I remember the first near Dallas just a few years ago - when an aileron came loose on the first flight after maintenance. The aircraft was a write-off after the parachute set it down. Cirrus give the pilot a new aircraft because he was the first to use the CAPS successfully.

The pilot will have to pull the parachute only when he is positively sure the aircraft cannot be saved. Because the aircraft will be damaged and probably unrepairable after it lands.

There is a limited envelope in which to pull the chute - otherwise there is a great risk of causing other failures.

The AOPA magazine has published two or three articles over the CAPS system in the past few years. The general consensus is that pilots wait too late in the emergency to pull the chute system. That no pilot is ready to give up and destroy an aircraft until he / she has tried everything possible.

Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 11):
Looking through the NTSB files it sure does seem like a lot of the Cirrus aircraft end up in crashes. I'm trying to figure out if these are due to inexperienced pilot issues or is the Cirrus an overly complex aircraft to fly. Or is it one that can simply bite you butt if you aren't careful with it.
What is the general concencus on this?

The accident rate isn't significantly higher than other aircraft types. It's a very, very popular aircraft - selling at near or above the levels of the Cessna in recent years.

But the glass cockpit is a steep learning curve. There are people who make their living just teaching the glass systems to GA pilots. One of their big pushes, according to AOPA, is to remind the pilots they have to look outside the windows. It's easy to get overloaded with all the available information and not FLY the aircraft.

Quoting CHQIAH (Reply 15):
Don't they have a restriction into flying into known icing conditions?

As noted above - did he KNOW there was icing ahead?

Also - many Cirrus models include an anti-icing system as standard equipment and optional on others

Quote:
The Cirrus TKS ice protection system provides an effective way to help you make a safe retreat from unexpected encounters with airframe icing. The innovative glycol-based anti-ice solution* is delivered via durable titanium panel 'weeping wing' micro-hole technology. Unlike lesser systems, TKS provides a clean solution to the prevention and removal of airframe icing. A slinger ring also directs TKS fluid onto the propeller, preventing ice build-up and keeping your windshield clear for a safe approach and landing.

There is plenty of history of pilots with some deicing capability flying into heavier icing than the aircraft can handle. I don't know if that was the case in the instance reported - but it's happened in the past and will happen again in the future.


User currently offlineCHQIAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6942 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 20):
As noted above - did he KNOW there was icing ahead?

Referring to Crjflyer's statement of a reading he did about a pilot, I'm assuming the pilot knew......

Ref:

Quoting Crjflyer35 (Reply 10):
I just recently read in "Flying" of an NTSB report of an SR-22 that got stuck in icing conditions due to a bad forecast




If you fly fast enough, the sun never sets
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6877 times:



Quoting CHQIAH (Reply 21):
Ref:

Quoting Crjflyer35 (Reply 10):
I just recently read in "Flying" of an NTSB report of an SR-22 that got stuck in icing conditions due to a bad forecast

Bad forecast as in forecasting bad weather

or

bad forecast as in the forecasted weather conditions did not match the actual conditions encountered.

The second is a reason the FSS records your weather brief.


User currently offlineJayDub From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6805 times:



Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 6):
http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=8214628

Judging from the pics in the article...looks like someone at KSLA-TV in Shreveport found A.net.


User currently offlineJetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1652 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I was told by a Cirrus rep at the NBAA show last year that the CAPS system is designed not to save the airplane, but to save the pilot.

He also told me it also depends on the weight of the airplane, at max weight the airplane will land after CAPS deployment with enough force that will destroy the fuselage, but it is designed that way so the fuselage, landing gear and seats absorb most of the impact. He also said that there has been one case where the airplane was very light at CAPS deployment and the airframe hardly had any impact damage so it was repaired and returned to service.


25 JCS17 : The CAPS system is somewhat worthless unless the plane is under a certain speed and a couple other parameters which I forget (I took a Cirrus factory
26 Jetstar : As in Corey Lidle, the Yankees pitcher who flew his Cirrus into an apartment building in New York City. I have also read that in some accidents, the
27 KELPkid : Cirrus does *NOT* offer the TKS system as a FIKI (Flight into Known Icing) certified solution-I'm sure that they don't want the legal liability assoc
28 KELPkid : I would like to know how a parachute is going to save a plane from crashing into a high rise apartment building when the owner makes a 90 degree turn
29 Crjflyer35 : Yup. My CFI on my first flight in the SR-20 pointed to the chute handle and said "if you're going to use this, make sure it's to save your own live o
30 JetJeanes : Does anyone have any idea have been lost since mfg... vs how many are flying
31 Post contains links RFields5421 : The first successful CAPS usage was Oct 3, 2002 - http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...eltxt=&cmndfind.x=13&cmndfind.y=15 According to the GAMA Date
32 F9Animal : Wow, that impact looks very high speed. I wonder if the CAPS would have even worked at such high speed. Icing perhaps? Someone said it came out of the
33 CHQIAH : What type a/c was it? Piper cub?
34 F9Animal : I believe it was a cub. Crosswinds were sudden, about 10-15 knots is what I would estimate. Once he recovered, it yawed at an amazing rate.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Small Plane Crash In Frisco, TX Outside Dallas posted Wed Jul 9 2003 00:46:13 by DeltaBoy777
Small Plane Crash's In Alberta posted Fri Mar 28 2008 12:02:48 by YWG747
Small Plane Crash In East TN posted Mon Sep 3 2007 21:56:40 by ComairGuyCVG
Small Plane Crash In Sarasota (SRQ) posted Fri Apr 13 2007 17:35:12 by XJramper
Small Plane Crash In N.J. posted Thu Jan 18 2007 05:26:25 by Aileron11
Small Plane Crash In Greenfield, CA. posted Wed Mar 22 2006 08:05:05 by Silver1SWA
Pilot Dies In Small Plane Crash In Skagit County posted Sun Jan 8 2006 04:25:02 by Thepilot
Small Plane Crash In Water Off Miami posted Mon Dec 19 2005 21:03:49 by LUVRSW
Small Plane Crash In Missouri posted Mon Jul 18 2005 19:12:52 by STLGph
Small Plane Crash In Texas posted Mon Nov 15 2004 07:38:20 by AAplatnumflier
Small Plane Crash In Linden, NJ posted Sun Dec 21 2008 17:18:43 by Contrails15
Small Plane Crash In Manitoba; No Fatalities posted Sun Nov 23 2008 19:03:02 by PlaneInsomniac
Small Plane Crash In Wisconsin posted Wed Sep 3 2008 15:09:57 by Acey559