Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Large" Plane Crashes North Of Reno  
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 23128 times:

No news on the scene yet, but a good-sized airplane crashed, apparently northwest of the old Stead Airport near Reno.

I was talking to my wife when she heard airplane noises then an explosion and the power went out. Local TV stations have emailed photos of a rather large smoke plume, though it doesn't look like there is any real post-crash fire. Unconfirmed report that it is a P-2V Neptune air tanker that had been fighting a fire earlier in the day. There was also a P-3 at Stead today but the report is of a P-2.


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 23067 times:

1st followup: They are now confirming that one person has been killed and that it was an air tanker. The P-2V of course, flies with a crew of two, so I will be watching this story.

My wife said she could smell fuel from where she was - about two miles away.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 23067 times:

I wonder if it was fighting the forest fires in Utah? My condolences to all those involved.


Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 22938 times:

Yea, I just saw the wreckage, not much left, you couldn't even tell it was tanker. All that is left is the cockpit and some of the wing.

It's sad because I saw the plane the last two days heading down to fight a fire south of Lake Tahoe. It flew right over my house and was so loud and beautiful.

RIP  Sad


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 22619 times:

2nd: They are now reporting three people dead and confirming that it was a P-2V that had been released from the fire in Hope Valley and had refueled and loaded up with retardant for a fire in Inyo County CA.

The hopper full of retardant may have played a role in the crash (very heavy stuff) but it may also have acted to keep the fire from spreading.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21500 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 22301 times:



Quoting Lexy (Reply 2):
I wonder if it was fighting the forest fires in Utah? My condolences to all those involved.

There is a large fire south of Tahoe.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRNOcommctr From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 827 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 22025 times:

The aircraft took off from runway 14, developed engine trouble, and crashed trying to get back to the airport. It crashed through the airport perimeter fence and wound up just off airport property. Three SOB, all fatalities. The regional power company is now on the airport trying to repair the power lines the aircraft cut in its descent.


I'm sorry, ma'am, I don't work for the airline.
User currently offlineBingo From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 21958 times:



Quoting RNOcommctr (Reply 6):
The aircraft took off from runway 14, developed engine trouble, and crashed trying to get back to the airport. It crashed through the airport perimeter fence and wound up just off airport property. Three SOB, all fatalities. The regional power company is now on the airport trying to repair the power lines the aircraft cut in its descent.

This hasnt been a good year for forest fire fighters. Prayers to the families...


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 20309 times:



Quoting Bingo (Reply 7):
This hasnt been a good year for forest fire fighters.

What were the causes of the other ones?
regds
MEL.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineDavestanKSAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 1678 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19544 times:

 Sad Well I'm sorry to hear this. The firefighters that go up in the tankers and the pilots that fly them are very heroic (IMO). The put their own lives at risk to help save others. This is just a shame. May the rest in peace, and get the recognition they deserve.  pray 

Dave



Yesterday we've sinned, today we move towards God. Touch the sky....love and respect...Safe Star!
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13617 times:



Quoting RNOcommctr (Reply 6):
took off from runway 14,

I assume you mean runway 32? Otherwise it would have been down over Golden Valley somewhere when this happened. Or did it take off southeast and fly a full downwind while apparently on fire?

The local news is pretty much useless as usual. The "back engines" were on fire. Brilliant!

Don't know for sure but it sounds like it took off with a load of retardant for the fire south of Tahoe and enough fuel to continue from there to Inyokern. Heavy takeoff and Stead airport is 5046 feet above sea level. It was probably in the high 70s at the time.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13509 times:



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 10):
I assume you mean runway 32? Otherwise it would have been down over Golden Valley somewhere when this happened. Or did it take off southeast and fly a full downwind while apparently on fire?

I think he means 32, because that is what is being said from other witness. Also the way it looked it fits the departure profile of 32 perfectly.


User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2736 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 9350 times:

RIP to the 3 who perished.  Sad

Also sad that another classic aircraft has came to a tragic end. Do any of you know how many P2V Neptunes Neptune Aviation owns? And what tail number the involved aircraft was?



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 8481 times:

I believe it was N4235T:
http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...gsearch=N4235T&distinct_entry=true


User currently offlineRNOcommctr From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 827 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6459 times:

As to which runway was used, all I can say is that the airport manager told me the departing runway was 14. Not that he couldn't have been wrong, though...


I'm sorry, ma'am, I don't work for the airline.
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2914 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5000 times:



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 10):
The local news is pretty much useless as usual. The "back engines" were on fire. Brilliant!

Perhaps they meant the aux. turbines, and the reporter messed it up as backup engines?



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2567 times:



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 15):
Perhaps they meant the aux. turbines, and the reporter messed it up as backup engines?

I don't have any reason to believe that, because as of this moment we still don't know whether the "fire" was in the radials or the jets or something else. But that is not why I'm scornful of the journalism. Here's why:

My trash collectors don't drive down the street sideswiping one parked car after another.
My hardware vendors don't try to sell me ball pein hammers for use as paintbrushes.
My proctologist doesn't look up my nose.

These people are professionals and they are supposed to know at least something about what they do. A journalist, to be a professional cannot be expected to know great amounts about every topic on which they might have to write, but they SURE AS HELL should have at least an adult's understanding of the English language.

Now honestly - have you EVER seen a plane with "front" and "back" engines?

Okay, as aviation afficionados you and I could cite the Dornier DO-X and a few others but no local TV website journalist would have thought of that - they'd have thought of Airbus and Boeing and nothing else.

It was probably nothing but an uninformed remark by some unqualified witness which the journalist reported and the editor accepted as having come from a burning bush. They should know better. That is what [sic] is for. If a witness talks about the dog's antlers the editor at least should know the dog doesn't have antlers.

Same thing with the airport manager (I know and respect him) with the "runway 14" quote. I cannot tell you how much I doubt that is true and as an airport manager he should understand the difference between 14 and 32 despite their being the same strip of concrete and, knowing he is likely to be quoted, state it correctly.

Joe Sixpack who saw the smoke plume from his back porch can be granted a lot of leeway in his reportage, but these people I feel justified in holding to a higher standard.

Of course if the plane did take off on 14 and fly a downwind three people I know who live under that flight path did not see it go over - despite the report that it was dropping burning pieces. But if that is what happened I'll come back and retract my statement.

Meanwhile, though, I'm betting it took off on 32, and made either a left turn (to be followed by a right turn) to maneuver back to the runway but didn't get very far into the turn or it made an intial slight right turn, followed by a long left back toward the runway - getting partway through that turn. In any event it seems to have come to rest well to the left of the runway 32 extended centerline about three and a half miles from brake release.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2533 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 16):
These people are professionals and they are supposed to know at least something about what they do. A journalist, to be a professional cannot be expected to know great amounts about every topic on which they might have to write, but they SURE AS HELL should have at least an adult's understanding of the English language.

The idiocy and ineptitude of the media could be solved if only they would report in a disciplined manner, presenting FACTS only as FACTS when they can be positively confirmed.

Example:

1) Examine a particular detail of the story you'd like to report

2) Find out if this detail can be positively confirmed

3) If it CAN be positively confirmed, report it as fact

4) If it CANNOT be positively confirmed, it may ONLY be reported as SPECULATION. Do NOT present it as fact.

------------------------------------------------

In addition, reporters should only increase the level of detail in their reports when that level of detail can be positively confirmed.

Example:

If you know for certain that an airplane has crashed, and you THINK but cannot CONFIRM it was an Airbus DC-10, DON'T report that an Airbus DC-10 has crashed.

Instead, report that an airplane has crashed, and if you must speculate as to the aircraft type, present speculation as speculation.

Seems like simple logic to me. But then, things like logic and discipline seem to continually evade our friends in the media.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
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...
Slippery Slope Of Plane Crashes posted Mon Sep 4 2006 19:30:18 by TTailSteve
"Nonhijackable Plane" posted Fri Aug 11 2006 13:35:16 by NWDC10
What Will Happen To The "Pink Plane"? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 20:18:18 by DL4EVR
Help On AMS "spy Plane" Flights posted Mon Nov 21 2005 14:17:34 by BuyantUkhaa
Is An "alliance Plane" Viable? posted Tue Sep 27 2005 22:44:44 by Ken777
High Amount Of Plane Crashes posted Wed Aug 17 2005 05:09:23 by Phxplanes
High Amount Of Plane Crashes posted Sat Oct 23 2004 06:03:31 by COAMiG29
"Futuristics":The Once Imagened Future Of Aviation posted Sun Aug 1 2004 00:27:09 by Zanadou
Boeing's "New Plane" Website posted Mon Jul 19 2004 05:51:32 by Kalakaua
"The Plane That Fell From The Sky" posted Sun Jul 18 2004 02:21:50 by BlackBox