Collision at Sea?

[AjariBonten]

Well, here's something you don't see every day ...

Kirby '11, Greenwald '81 survive plane crash - The Daily Princetonian

How many of you have had a collision with an airplane???

[sailingdog]

Wonder why there's no mention of what happened to the sailboat. I'd imagine having an airplane clip the mast at 100 MPH is bound to have caused the sailboat some troubles..

BTW, in most cases, the water near the end of a runway is off limits to boats for this very reason among others... was the sailboat ignoring the navigation restrictions??? I'd be curious to see who gets jurisdiction over the case, since airplane accidents are FAA turf, and boat accidents are USCG turf.

BTW, the thread title is a bit off... there's no way a boat close enough to the end of a runway is considered "at sea" IMHO... that's clearly coastal waters.

[PalmettoSailor]

Damn! An Extra 300 is not your run of the mill Cessna. Its a high performance Aerobatic airplane as seen in the Red Bull Air Races.

Its a mid wing, tandem seat (front/back) design and the pilot generally flies from the rear seat. Downward visabilty would be restricted by the wing as the plane approached for landing. His last chance to see the boat would be prior to turning final and who's looking out for sailboats in the airport pattern anyway?

Its a miracle those guys survived.

[tommays]

Well

It does get a bit dicey when the seaplanes land in Northport during races

[AjariBonten]

LOL yea, that's why I put the "?" at the end of the title. I wasn't really sure what to call it.

Originally Posted by sailingdog

BTW, the thread title is a bit off... there's no way a boat close enough to the end of a runway is considered "at sea" IMHO... that's clearly coastal waters.

Yes, I would like more info about both what happened to the boat, and what it was doing there.

[sailingdog]

I'm also curious as to how big the boat was... It had to be fairly sizable to down an aircraft... since, the runway is probably at least a few feet above the water...and the plane was at supposedly 50' above the runway. That means the mast was probably at least 60' or so.

[US27inKS]

I did a quick google search about this, and I looked at a satellite map of the airport. The boat suffered a dismasting, but no injuries. The boat appears to have had a 50 foot mast, and the plane must have been landing on runway 21 based on one article stating that the aircraft was heading southwest and 21 is the only runway going that direction. I also read that the plane struck the mast about 10 foot below the top. The channel where the boat was motoring appears to be a well used shipping channel, with cruise ships and cargo ships traveling it daily. Those ships would have a much higher profile than the 50 foot mast on the sailboat.

My guess is that this guy was hot dogging his little sport plane, and screwed up. The pilot did state that he has the right of way. I'll bet that the FAA will inform him differently. One has to ask, WTF was this guy doing less than 50 feet off the water, over a known shipping channel, with the seawall at least 10 feet above water level. I never found anything indicating how far away the boat was from the seawall, but the pilot's description makes me think he was able to exercise at least some control over the plane before hitting the sea wall. At any kind of speed at all, that would put the boat in the middle of the channel.

My dad is a corporate pilot, and flys to tampa all the time. I'll have to ask him about this wreck. My dad told me when I was a kid that many doctors have trouble buying insurance on their airplanes, because of the high accident rate with them. That same day we went to pick up a doctor (in the dr's plane) and my dad and the doc argued about who was going to fly us back. The doctor flew us back, and we landed about 100 feet short of the runway. I still don't know how we missed the lights.

[sailaway21]

Mr. Greenwald is a perfect example of why one should not talk with the media even when one thinks one knows whereof he speaks.

He is completely wrong to imply that the sailboat has any type of give-way responsibility. The only possible violation the boat was capable of was entering restricted waters.

The aircraft pilot, on the other hand, would seem to be wholly responsible. Given the inherent limitations of his aircraft, as mentioned above, it would be contingent upon him to ascertain a clear landing path in all circumstances by a method that made allowances for his restricted vision.

Being on board ship in such a situation is not a comfortable feeling. Those in the Boston area can view the Castle Island Marine Terminal and see the freighters there with their jumbo derricks reaching over one hundred feet above the water and the 747's seemingly clearing them by yet another one hundred feet while landing at Logan International. On the bridge of such a ship, it appears and certainly sounds like they are going to land right in the wheelhouse! It's worse at night; when you look out the wheelhouse window and those millions of candlepower landing lights are shining right in your eyes you imagine just how the deer in the road must feel seconds before impact. We used to take the ship's logbook down from the bridge to the deck office while in port there. It was just too disconcerting to write while those lights were coming seemingly right at you.

[sailingdog]

If the boat had a 50' mast, and there was a 10' high seawall, and the plane hit the mast 10' down from the top... he was clearly not 50' above the runway as stated.

[Valiente]

You guys should read the comments...man, some of those insinuations are harsh.

Yes, the article did have the air of "I'm sorry, Mr. Vice-President, I am at fault for having my face in front of your gun."