Two planes collide over SF bay

Using the info in the Kathryn's Report, http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/04/planes-crash-near-san-pablo-bay-and-one.html I used SkyVector to show the direct route from KHAF to CA20, did a quick screen scrape and edited it to insert a red marker where the collision reportedly occurred. See attachment.

Obviously they didn't take the straight route home through Class B but probably were circling under the shelf around the north.

CA20 is 4000 feet long and 100 feet wide. It also has 1200 ft structural overrun on the north and 2200 ft compacted dirt overrun to the south.

So their destination airport was comfortably long and wide and being a private field, no other traffic would presumably be in the way or involve controller intervention. Feel free to browse the nearby airports, but I could not find any airports that seem to have all those advantages going for them. Besides, it takes time in the cockpit to figure out alternates - sometimes it is easier to complete a flight to a known location than inject another variable that is as likely to add to the danger as subtract.

As most have probably experienced, landing at one's home field presents more known quantities than landing at any other field.
 
kkoran said:
Travis AFB has arresting gear?
Couldn't find any mention of them on Airnav for KSUU. My copy of WingX states "No Arresting Systems".

But that detail seems unimportant given the length of the runways there. The biggest issue would seem to be the intimidation at landing at a military base unless compelled to. I just found an article about an emergency landing taking place there just a few weeks ago:

http://www.travis.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123403610

It all worked out for the pilot making the landing - but his engine had died and he had no other option - and even then he says he was hesitant. If he had any power at all I bet the pilot in that story would have gone with an alternate. And there is this quote from the end of the article:

"Had he not made contact with RAPCON, security forces would have to respond as if the aircraft was hostile," Wilson said. "His proper communication allowed us to clear the area for him and notify the appropriate agencies."

....

In one sense the decision to land at CA20 has been vindicated by the fact of success, though not by the universe of probable alternate outcomes (assuming there was damage to the Sea Fury at all.)
 
Fearless Tower said:
I have still not heard a compelling reason that continuing to home base was safer than other closer options.
I don't have any compelling reasons to offer one way or another. The PIC obviously felt the damage hadn't created a time-critical situation.

Not sure if they did any aerobatics, and if they did, whether they departed for home shortly after doing some and so might have been (still) wearing parachutes. That would (to me) place a different color on their decision to continue flying.

By the way, this appears to be the show they had attended:
http://dreammachines.miramarevents.com/

Listed for "All day" on the event schedule: "Jaw-Dropping Flyovers by Historic Military Aircraft"
 
Back
Top