OWLS HEAD, Maine — The airplane that crashed at the Knox County Regional Airport last week had lost a key part when it struck a truck that was crossing in front of it on a runway, according to a preliminary report from a federal agency.
The National Transportation Safety Board said the Cessna 172 single-engine plane lost its right elevator, also known as the right horizontal stabilizer, when it struck the pickup truck owned and operated by Stephen Turner, 62, of Camden.
The loss of the stabilizer amounted to substantial damage to the plane, according to the report.
The crash claimed the lives of two University of Maine students and a UMaine alumnus.
NTSB safety investigator Shawn Etcher told the Bangor Daily News on Wednesday that interviews with witnesses found the Cessna had its navigational lights on as it was taking off. The plane had traveled about 1,000 feet on the 5,000-foot runway when it struck the truck.
Turner told investigators he had announced his intention to cross the runway over a radio he had in his truck that used the common air traffic frequency used at the Knox County Regional Airport. Turner said he heard no response and did not see anything on the runway and crossed.
“He subsequently saw something grayish in color, continued to cross the runway, and then got out to inspect what he saw at which time he observed an airplane attempting to climb. He continued watching the airplane drift to the left of the runway and make a left turn as if attempting to return to the airport. Subsequently, the airplane was then observed in slow flight and then it began to spin,” the report states.
Nothing in the report indicates whether Turner felt or heard the collision with the plane. Turner has not returned calls seeking comment about the accident.
The plane crash was reported at 4:44 p.m. Friday, Nov. 16.
Examination of the airplane revealed that it struck the ground nose down, next to a tree approximately 2,200 feet from where it hit the truck, according to the preliminary report. The plane caught fire and was destroyed.
Airport Manager Jeffrey Northgraves said Wednesday he recovered the right horizontal stabilizer from the runway that evening along with some debris from the truck to allow the Cape Air commercial flight to land at 7:30 p.m.
Northgraves told members of the Knox County Airport Advisory Committee at a Wednesday evening meeting that the airplane pilot had been heard before the incident talking on the common frequency.
The lights for the runway were also on, according to Northgraves.
The weather was clear and it was dark when the crash occurred.
The NTSB investigator said Turner’s truck did not have a lighted beacon on it. Lighted beacons are customary for use on airports although Etcher said the investigation would determine whether this was a requirement.
According to another eyewitness statement, who was not identified in the report, “the airplane was observed departing to the west and appeared to be doing a left climbing ‘chandelle’ type maneuver. The airplane also had what appeared to be a high angle of attack. About 200 feet above ground level the navigation identification lights were observed rotating slowly counter clockwise. The airplane then appeared to pitch down and descended behind trees.”
Etcher stressed that the preliminary report is subject to change, and may contain errors.
The final report is expected to be completed in six to 12 months.
The three men killed in the crash were William B.J. Hannigan III, 24, of South Portland, who is believed to have been the pilot of the Cessna; David Cheney, 22, of Beverly, Mass.; and Marcelo Rugini, 24, of Muliterno, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The three men were members of the fraternity and had left Bangor International Airport at 11:30 a.m. Friday for a day of flying.
Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed, according to the NTSB preliminary report.
About an hour before the crash, the plane flew over Spear’s Vegetable Farm in Nobleboro, which Rugini has called home since coming to the United States six years ago through a program called Communities for Agriculture.
The Knox County airport is a noncontrol airport, meaning it does not have a control tower. Airplane pilots do not have to get permission to land nor do they have to log in when landing or taking off.
Northgraves said planes are not required to have radios although he said all 85 aircraft that use the airport on a regular basis have radios except for the antique planes maintained by the Owls Head Transportation Museum. He said an ultralight airplane that flies out of the airport even has a radio.
Planes do not have to file flight plans nor is there any recording equipment on the planes, he said.
He said, however, pilots are trained to communicate their positions and intentions using the common radio frequency. He said the same rules for flight are used at 34 other airports in Maine that have no control tower.
Bangor International Airport and the Portland Jetport have control towers.
Hannigan was certified to fly both during the day and night.
Did the driver of the truck forget to describe what he was doing and seeing at the time of plane on truck impact? The story sounds like he was just a witness to the planes final seconds.
I wasn’t there and as such cannot fairly judge but it seems odd to not know you have just been hit by a plane.
agree with you ;)
I don’t care if your crossing a road if you see something greyish in color and am unsure stop. What does it hurt to wait a few moments to make sure nothing is there and if the rear stab gets ripped off an airplane by hitting your truck seems odd not to notice it. I am sure mr Turner feels awful but this just shouldn’t have happened, we all need to slow down a little in life when we’re unsure of things.
I have a hard time believing that anyone would be possibly unaware that their vehicle had just come in contact with a plane……..
Even if Cutler is found at fault of this runway incursion doesn’t warrant a stupid comment like that.
A little condescending are we?
This new info should put to rest those insane comments on these posts that the pilot was at fault. He was on the radio, had the lights on, was using a lit runway and was taking off. The plane was in a nose up attitude and part of the tail hit the truck. 100% responsibility for the needless tragedy falls on the truck driver.
Re-read the story. The truck driver had announced his intention to cross the runway and the pilot never replied, in violation of airport rules.
That is not a violation these are advisory calls and other reports have both of them making the same radio call at the same time. If this happened neither one would have heard the other.
It was a violation of the local rules, not of law.
You should review FAA rules first and have you ever flown an airplane in a uncontrolled environment
You should learn to read. I wrote AIRPORT rules, not FAA.
FAA rules supersede the airport rules you have no idea what you are talking about. A runway incursion is wrong no matter what
Perhaps he was already on the roll when the driver stated his intentions.
If so, that should have caused an immediate response.
DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND? The plane has the RIGHT OF WAY!! When a plane is rolling the pilots hands are full–rudder, yoke, throttle, airspeed, etc. etc., talking on the radio at rotation is NOT a good idea. The truck driver clearly was in the wrong. You obviously have never flown an airplane, but it sounds like you know how to drive a truck.
By the way–here’s a quote from the FAA: “Before you cross a runway, ensure that no potentially conflicting aircraft are taxiing, landing or taking off. Be aware of aircraft at non-towered airports that frequently make touch-and-go landings (immediately after landing, full power is applied and the aircraft takes off again.”. This is just a brief excerpt.
Another thing–when the Interstate System was designed, the engineers made long sections of the roadway with no obstructions to planes in distress would have a place to land. Yes, planes even have the right of way on highways–but trucks NEVER have the right-of-way on a runway.
Thumbs up to you sir, thumbs up!!
Are you serious the airplane would be at liftoff speed where they hit at that point flight is your option. You clearly have no clue about aviation and the truck can stop a lot quicker tan the airplane
How much time does a pilot have to react to a radio call when he is rolling down the runway, and the vehicle in question is only 1000 feet down the runway, and who knows how far into the take off roll the Skyhawk was. “Immediate response” would be either max effort stop, or take it airborne. Sounds like one of decisions was taken and it didn’t work out. The max effort stop may not have either, so I’m not sure what other “immediate action” could have been taken.
I’m not sure what your agenda is unless purely to be a troll. Even if the plane had no radio it’s still 100% the responsibility of the crossing vehicle to avoid the plane taking off. Things like sun angle, lights, loud music in truck, dirty windows, etc. might have hindered the driver, but none of them even slightly relieve him of the responsibility to be SURE the runway is clear before proceeding onto it.
No worries, tyko will be leaving us all shortly
with his lack of compassion and respect for human life, it couldn’t happen soon enough
What a sweet caring thing to say about a seriously ill man in his 80’s who just recently lost his wife of over 50 years.
Karma WILL bite you in the posterior as you deserve.
That was totally uncalled for and downright rotten.
You aren’t much of a human being by writing that.
“Investigators say the driver of the pickup truck that collided with an airplane that crashed at Knox County Regional Airport last week followed proper safety procedures.”
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Federal-investigation-says-truck-driver-in-fatal-plane-crash-followed-protocols.html
I am simply quoting people who know what they are doing rather than listening to anonymous online fools.
Tyke, how can you be so wrong? When you nothing about a subject, why do you feel the need to show your ignorance? The pilot has no need to reply to the truck driver. In fact, how do you know if the pilot even heard the truck driver? The antenna for that plane is on the BOTTOM of the plane, and quite often radio transmissions are poor. And if, IF, the truck driver didn’t hear a response, then he MUST make double sure there are no aircraft landing for taking off. Do your research and then comment….
The airport rules are clear and obvious;ly you do not understand them.
I understand rules quite well–I have flown in and our of Knox County Airport many times. The airport has no RULES! They may have suggestions and advisories, BUT NO RULES! You just keep digging deeper and deeper into gibberish. In your reply you didn’t even address the potential antenna problem. The truck driver likely had a hand-held radio–transmission could be difficult.
It’s ironic, you say others don’t understand. Oh yes, we do! You obviously are NOT pilot. SO, how are you in any position to talk about anything concerning aviation. A runway is for planes–that truck should NOT have been there–it’s that simple–why don’t you just stick with things that you know something about–this certainly is not one of them.
You are wrong. It is not a violation of airport rules for the pilot not to reply. In fact, radio traffic on the CTAF/Unicom freq is not required by FAA. It is only recommended procedure.
The truck driver “said” he announced his intention…there is no one to confirm or deny his assertion. There are witnesses who did hear the plane on the radio but no one at this point to confirm the trucks assertion. I have to agree with many others…how did he not feel or hear that plane hit his truck? And, why did he not stop when he saw a “grayish object” on the runway? I have been following this story and hoping for the best for all but it’s beginning to look like the truck driver may have been grossly negligent.
You got it!
Is there a BDN moderator any longer or is the job of screening out the genuine filth left up to the robots? You are scum, Samuel Norton, using this commentary space to link to a porno site..
Parts of this story do not ring true. It sounds to me like the pilot may have seen the truck and attempted to get the plane in the air to avoid a collision. In doing so the
the right elevator (rear of plane) struck the truck and was ripped off. The plane will
just not fly without it and he did not have enough speed to get airborne prior to
impact. This is where it gets “muddy”.
That truck driver wants us to believe that his vehicle was struck by a Cessna 172
travelling 70 or 80 miles an hour that weighs 2300 pounds, was at max power
setting, with a 160 HP engine, @ 2200RPM (+-), and he heard NOTHING and
SAW nothing until the plane had gone by him and was attempting to climb out?
And he never did hear or feel anything? I’m not buying it. I think he screwed
up & is trying to cover his butt.
……and ” appeared to be doing a left climbing ‘chandelle’ type maneuver.”
That is NOT something that is done at take-off speed. Recommended speed
for that manuver is 105 knots. NOT something you do in a 172 with 3 people
on board at 80mph.
As someone who seems to be familiar with the operation of small aircraft
I am surprised at the one glaring omission in your comment. If you have
been around this type of aircraft you will know that they are very
loud, even when idling.
Now if you use your hypothetical situation
above and say that the engine was at approx. 2200 rpm, how would the
truck driver hear a moderate impact to his vehicle? The engine noise
would surely drown out the noise of the impact, since I have never seen a
motor in a plane that is equipped with a muffler. I say moderate impact
because its not like the prop or wing hit the truck resulting in a major impact, which would have
moved the truck a substantial distance.
I am not passing judgement on
either the pilot or the man driving the truck, I am just saying that we
do not have all the info (nor will we ever have it all) so why are
people posting like they know every last detail of what happened during
this tragic incident.
I don’t “know” the answers. Hell if I did the FAA would have called me before this. It may just be the way the articles I have read are written. I
just think (IMO) that some things just don’t add up. I am NOT an expert and have only a few hours in a 172 and that was years ago. Even so things haven’t changed as far as the basic flying goes. According to the
articles the driver has heard NOTHING yet. Makes no sense.
There is nothing in this article to say whether or not the truck driver felt the impact. Nothing. It simply says the report does not discuss that issue either way.
Comments posted here are claiming that, but the facts are not the same as the comments imply.
I’m combining the info in this article as well as others to form
MY OPINION. I’m sorry if you are offended by my take on the subject. Are we not supposed to voice “opinions” and exchange ideas? Tyke ole boy
relax. Let everyone contribute but don’t get offended by their posts.
We all know that we really don’t know all the answers. I DO know something about flying a 172 and I know if one hit my truck I would
hear it too.
The plane DESTROYED the front grill of his truck. He felt the impact.
I agree completely Rocky4. I’m not a pilot so I want to ask if a pilot incurs a vehicle at the last moment prior to liftoff is the only option to attempt that takeoff? It seems so as I can’t imagine a plane is able to brake or swerve the same way a vehicle can. What would you have done had it been you in the pilot’s seat?
I would be just as dead as they are.
Yeah, I suppose that is what would have happened Rocky. It’s so sad as the pilot didn’t really have much of a chance with either option; hit the truck at 80 mph (planes aren’t designed for head on collisions) and likely kill everyone or try to become airborne. It sounds like he almost made it too.
Not reported here, but in other news reports, is a witness report that the airplane’s lights where not on but the runway lights were.
.
Depending on the angle of the setting sun, and under the very bright runway lights it would be difficult to see the airplane until it was right on top of you.
.
The the airplane’s lights did not automatically go on as soon as it began to taxi for liftoff that would indicate a possible mechanical defect.
The lights on that airplane do not automatically come on when you lift off. The gear are fixed and it was reported in the article they saw the navigation lights flashing. Even if the lights weren’t on a truck is more maneuverable on the ground than an airplane and the right away on a runway belongs to the airplane.
Isn’t there a possibility that the 11 y/o child saw the plane w/o lights because of contact w/ the truck being on the runway and the plane becaming damaged? And, a child that age out walking on roads in the dark , what’s up w/that anyway?
It was twilight which occurs very early.
Thank you for setting me straight. I guess the kid didn’t need that flashlight she was carrying then, huh?
First of all, the right horizontal stabilizer and the right elevator are TWO different parts of the tail surfaces and NOT known as the same part, but, then again, I rarely see aircraft accident reporting correct. At this point the other comments are conjecture (not muddy) because the items reported in the “report” are not complete. If you re-read the article you dont know if the truck driver did, or did not, hear or feel something.. because that is not reported. As far as the Chandelle is concerened, it is very likley if the right stabilizer and elvator were missing the pilot had nothing to do with whatever maneuver was going on at the time. We may never know exactly what happened but if you are drawing conclusions from the reporting to date that is is most likely responding to ‘noise’ at this point as well. Most accidents like this are caused by multiple failures of the system to work and I suspect, once we get the final report from the NTSB we will find that the case as well here.
You & I know that the elevator is a “moving part” that is attached to
or an integral part of the horizontal stabilizer. The “chandelle” may have
been the pilot’s manuvering in panic mode or control surface failure after
impact, or a glancing blow from the truck. Who knows. I don’t know why you
are chastizing others for conjecture when that is exactly what you are doing.
Other’s comments, ideas, or opinions are just as valid as yours. You may not
agree but are we not supposed to have an exchange and have some
fun here?
Too much football to watch to go on here Rocky…
;+)
Betts states in the first paragraph that the airplane “had lost a key part when it struck a truck”. That means that the airplane had lost the part before it hit the truck. So was equipment failure responsible for the crash? The headline and a statement farther along in the story means that the part was lost in the collision. So which was it?
Hitting the truck caused it to lose the “key part.”
(I would also argue that most parts on a plane are “key.” )
The headline says the plane HAD lost a key part when it hit the truck. The means the part was lost before impact. Had the part been lost on impact, the headline would have been “Plane lost key part when it hit truck.”
The copy desk hasn’t been doing a good job lately, so we don’t really know.
If you reread the article you’ll note that the impact caused the loss of the part, not the other way around.
It’s not clear. That’s because the writer used the past participle “had lost” when he probably should have used the simple past “lost”. I say that for two reasons: I’ve noticed that this reporter has trouble with grammar and, from all I’ve read about the accident, the “key part” was lost because the airplane hit the truck.
Sounds like new rules are needed when it’s dark at that airport.
That’s a common instinct to think that if only we had more rules, then accidents would cease and It’s true that occasionally a new rule does have the intended effect. But in this situation no new rules are warranted because current rules are already adequate if they are followed. Much better to have a few rules that are simple enough to remember and abide by than to have many rules that are frequently disregarded. This accident happened because one individual didn’t follow an existing rule that requires you ensure the runway is clear before attempting to cross.
If the truck driver announced his intention to cross the runway and heard no response, why did he not announce again? Why would he cross without an acknowledgement?
If the truck driver’s statements are true, he could have thought there was no airplane getting ready to takeoff, in which event he would not have expected an acknowledgement.
This is a “airport runway”, not a “highway”. The airplane belonged there, the truck did not. I was not there, but hitting the truck is what killed those young people. You can “spin” it anyway you want, the the fact are in evidence.
The noise a 172 makes on take-off was loud enough to hear from 1,000 feet. The pilot probably could have landed after hitting the truck. Much easier making decisions while typing in comment section than under pressure!!
The statement about the truck making a radio call seriously calls into question the credibility of the driver. I have heard radio calls come from ONE entity at the airport, and that’s the men who maintain it. NEVER the Airport Manager, NEVER the FBO, and CERTAINLY not the company that this driver worked for. They make calls like they should in their planes, but their trucks are silent, and now unfortunately deadly.
I will leave it with this. How fast does a truck have to be traveling to come in contact with an airplane that is going 100 miles per hour? More importantly, how fast does a truck have to be going to miss the wing of an airplane going 100 mph and make contact with the elevator? There within hides the true story.
Particularly at rotation, the wing of a 172 would be higher than the cab of the truck and that would explain hitting the horizontal stab even if he were driving at moderate speed. That said, it really doesn’t matter how fast or slow he was going when he hit the plane, it still had the right of way.
I’m as uninformed as to the facts as everyone else, but I find it more than curious that the truck apparently missed the propeller, the wing struts and gear of the aircraft and supposedly only carried away the right stabilizer with his grill. What was the angle of attack of the airplane at the time of the collision and how fast was the truck moving for this to play out the way it did? You can bet the NTSB will running models on their computers to figure this one out.
Turner is just trying to cover his butt.
But WHY did Turner drive across the runway.
WHY?
As a shortcut to get home?
To do some maintenance?
To remove debris from the runway?
Just because he could?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
This could have been a freak collision. If, as the FAA says, the collision took place 1,000 feet down the runway, that’s almost exactly the 960′ published “ground roll” for a 172, which is the distance it takes to get up to takeoff speed, which is 60 mph.
IF the truck was going exactly perpendicular to the plane’s track, and IF it was going 41 mph, and IF the driver didn’t see the plane approaching on his left,
THEN the truck would miss the wingtip and clip the rear control surface.
Is it possible that this happened without the driver knowing he had hit an airplane?
Dunno. airplanes are not very heavy compared to a pickup truck, 2,500 Lbs vs 6-7,000 Lbs, and the tail structure is very light. So there might not have been much of an impact.
BUT, the noise of driving right past the rear of an airplane running at full power is considerable. While the noise of the approaching plane would be much less. So, much easier to believe he didn’t see it coming than that he didn’t know he’d hit it.
In any event, the duty to avoid collision probably falls entirely on the truck, and the only possible item of contributory negligence would be the failure of the plane to have its nav lights on.
My guess is that the driver of the truck, and his employer, is in for some very long days in civil court, and they seem to be in full defense mode, with the driver not saying nothing, and the employer saying what a wonderful human being he is.
“The weather was clear and it was dark when the crash occurred …” Why did the truck not have a lighted beacon on it?
In reading all the comments posted relating to this article/event, I am not surprised by all the remarks made by all the “armchair pilots”.
Now, as a former AF pilot, and current commercial, multi-engine, instrument rated pilot with over 3,000 logged hours, I would first state that none of us were there or witnessed the incident.
Second, it would appear that the truck was crossing the runway perpendicular to, or at a ninety degree angle, to the take off path of the 172. And since the aircraft lost the right elevator, that would indicate that the truck was crossing from right to left in relation to the aircraft.
In that the point of impact was the right portion of the empenage, and subsequent departure of the right elevator, would seem to indicate that the truck moved into the path of the aircraft AFTER the aircraft’s nose and right wing passed the front of the truck, thus only the right horizontal stabilizer impacted the front of the truck.
Now, IF that were the case, the PIC had two options.
1. Abort the take off ,depending on airspeed and length of remaining runway.
2. Continue the take off, which occured in this instance
Now, without knowing the amount of damage sustaind at impact, it MAY have been possible to recover using the remaining or left elevator, operated by the yoke, and opposite, rudder.
In other words, continued back pressure on the yoke, yet not so much as to induce a stall, and adding right rudder.
I’m not saying it would have worked, but it may have. And since the PIC was a low time, new private pilot may have had an adverse impact on the incident.
Just my opinion.