TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12535 times:
I'm posting this in Mil/Space as while the plane is GA, the object it struck was military. Plus who cares about GA crashes in Civil Av? Move it f you need to mods..
Quote: It appeared the Cessna 182 (file photo of type, above) hit a cable tethering a large government radar surveillance blimp, said police. The cable was not sliced and the blimp does not appear to be damaged, according to Monroe County sheriff's spokeswoman Becky Herrin.
The site has a camera trained on the blimp and the camera captured the crash. The plane reportedly hit the cable about halfway between the ground and the blimp itself, reported the Associated Press
Notice that strange radial in the upper right cornerof the sectional? That is where the blimp is. What I don't get is how these morons could hit that wire when there is so much information warning them about it?
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3248 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12463 times:
Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter): What I don't get is how these morons could hit that wire when there is so much information warning them about it?
It's easy if you don't have a current sectional or if you have one and don't use it. An all too common occurence with GA pilots.
Is the blimp lit at all?.
The pilots luck/karma must have been really bad to inadvertently find that, relatively, tiny bit of cable in all that airspace and hit it in such a way that he couldn't recover.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3248 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12258 times:
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 5): Given the weight of the tethered vehicle involved, quite the opposite is true. You'd be lucky to hit it in such a manner that you could fly away.
Relative size & weight does not necessarily dictate which airframe survives a midair, ex: Gol 737 v. Embraer in Brazil a while back.
Could just as easily have ripped off a wheel pant or a wingtip and flown away..... Had a buddy a few years back who had a midair with a 152 while flying his 182. He hit dead on center from below and behind the 152, lost his engine and he ate the windshield. He managed to pull the windshield out of his face in time to flare and deadstick into a wheat field. He walked away. 152 pilot wasn't so lucky, he was dead prior to impact due to 182 prop strikes in the cockpit.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
BHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12248 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 1): It's easy if you don't have a current sectional or if you have one and don't use it.
The Aerostats have been there at least 30 years. It's actually much simpler than it used to be, they used to run them from ships as well and the locations would of course vary considerably.
I love the headline calling it a weather balloon - clueless.
3DPlanes From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 167 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12246 times:
I wouldn't expect them to be lit at night (there's two ballons, iirc)... And there's certainly no beacon or strobes during the day. The chart says "Caution: Unmarked balloon on cable to 14,000 MSL."
Also, a 14,000 cable would have to be fairly sturdy, given the size of the balloons.
Given that it's well marked on charts (and has been since at least the 1980s), I'd say they either didn't have/read the chart, or they weren't quite certain of their position. One excellent reason to, at the least, have a portable GPS...
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12246 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 6): Relative size & weight does not necessarily dictate which airframe survives a midair
I think you mis read what I said; I was referring to size/weight of the tethered vehicle, not the flying vehicle. Rationale being that if the tethered vehicle was lightweight and small; the chances are the tether would be severed by any vehicle are increased. My point was that unless the impacting vehicle was VERY significant in size/mass or just BARELY clipped the wire, any vehicle would likely suffer a fatal result as is evidenced by this crash.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12246 times:
Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 7): The Aerostats have been there at least 30 years. It's actually much simpler than it used to be, they used to run them from ships as well and the locations would of course vary considerably
I remember seeing the TAS (Tethered Aerostat System) at Cape Canaveral throughout the late 70s and early 80s. I think that setup is the one which moved to the Keys.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12224 times:
Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 3): It probably is lit at night, but during the day if you aren't paying attention you probably won't see the cable until its to late.
I flew out of Key West this afternoon. The Aerostat is very easy to see, even sitting in the back of an ATR.
BHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12210 times:
Quoting 3DPlanes (Reply 8): Also, a 14,000 cable would have to be fairly sturdy, given the size of the balloons.
The winch assembly is very substantial.
Quoting Thorny (Reply 10): I remember seeing the TAS (Tethered Aerostat System) at Cape Canaveral throughout the late 70s and early 80s. I think that setup is the one which moved to the Keys.
I don't think so unless you're talking about one of the ship based ones. They were definitely based at Truman Annex in the 80s.
I did a little checking and it seems that Cudjoe was activated in '78. That sounds about right to me as well.
Corey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2519 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12188 times:
Does anyone have a picture of these things? I've always seen them on sectionals and thought about the possibility of pilots hitting them... I believe there is another one up the West coast of Florida, up north a bit more as well...
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12126 times:
Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 12): Quoting Thorny (Reply 10):
I remember seeing the TAS (Tethered Aerostat System) at Cape Canaveral throughout the late 70s and early 80s. I think that setup is the one which moved to the Keys.
I don't think so unless you're talking about one of the ship based ones. They were definitely based at Truman Annex in the 80s.
I did a little checking and it seems that Cudjoe was activated in '78. That sounds about right to me as well.
That's about when the Cape Canaveral TAS went in, too, I think. It disappeared around 1982. I always figured they moved it further south. I stand corrected.
Corey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2519 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12079 times:
BHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11940 times:
Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 13): I believe there is another one up the West coast of Florida, up north a bit more as well...
There is another active site in FL - Horseshoe Beach, just a bit north of where the Suwanee River hits the Gulf.
Quoting Thorny (Reply 15): That's about when the Cape Canaveral TAS went in, too, I think. It disappeared around 1982. I always figured they moved it further south. I stand corrected.
No problem, you've corrected me a few times as well and I likewise would rather have it right than not.
Sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1779 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11881 times:
Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 16): Certainly more substantial than I thought!
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13336 posts, RR: 64 Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11725 times:
The thing looks like one of the barrage balloons used to deter low altitude attacks in WW2. Back then the balloons had additional wire cables hanging down. The wires would slice the wings straight off an aircraft trying to fly below them.
RAF barrage balloons over Cardington airfield in the UK in WW2:
From http://www.bbrclub.org/, a British veteran's organisation's website of former barrage balloon crews.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13336 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
