Page 1 of 1

Better to be good or lucky?

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:44 pm
by alaskan99669
Be carfeul when landing on ski's to drop off a snowboarder...

Model: BL65 Description: TAYLORCRAFT BL-65
Date: 04/19/2009 Time: 2250

Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
City: TALKEETNA State: AK Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT CRASHED ON LANDING, TALKEETNA , AK

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Pass: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0

Image

Image

Image

Image

Re: Better to be good or lucky?

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:14 pm
by GAHorn
I always thought snowboarding was ill-conceived compared to alpine skiing. :lol:

Re: Better to be good or lucky?

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:19 pm
by Robert Eilers
Someone has been kissing their St. Jude!

Re: Better to be good or lucky?

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:33 am
by 170C
TALK ABOUT PUCKER FACTOR :!: :!: :!:

Re: Better to be good or lucky?

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:46 am
by Barike
Will the plane be recoverable?!?! 8O I sure hope so! (Okay, I know the 'downed' plane isn't a C-170, but it's still a plane! :P ) Or will it either get pushed off or just left there? (I'm from the southern part of the US... You know, where 48 states are bunched together... :P So I don't know these types of things yet ) I'd hate to have been either the pilot or snowboarder, that's for sure!

Re: Better to be good or lucky?

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:12 pm
by cessna170bdriver
Apparently there were no injuries, but I bet there was some laundry to do. It was probably harder to extricate the laundry from the hindparts of the occupants that it was to extricate the occupants from the airplane. 8O

Miles

Re: Better to be good or lucky?

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:26 pm
by GAHorn
I would not have relished exiting that aircraft. Although I suppose staying aboard would be equally distressing.

In discussing insurance with various underwriters, a common remark was that aircraft in AK and Canada frequently have higher insurance rates because of mandatory requirements that all wreckage be removed from wilderness areas. The high cost associated with such removal efforts drives the insurance rates up to the high levels experienced by many of those operators. I was informed that a $10,000 recovery cost was not uncommon due to the need to sometimes employ heavy-lift helicopter operations.

Re: Better to be good or lucky?

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:35 am
by hilltop170
George is correct. Again.

Re: Better to be good or lucky?

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:32 am
by blueldr
The same type of recovery requirements hold true in our National Forests here in the USA. I've seen a number of airplane hulks hauled out of the back country of Idaho by EXPENSIVE helicopters. (For that matter, are there any other kind?)

Re: Better to be good or lucky?

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:40 am
by cfzxo
Richard I heard that they had to go back in to activate the ELT after having exited the aircraft.

Bill CFZXO 55 170B

Re: Better to be good or lucky?

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 12:57 am
by 1SeventyZ
gahorn wrote:I always thought snowboarding was ill-conceived compared to alpine skiing. :lol:
Hey, we finally agree! :) I kinda feel bad for that kid, as this incident has transcended normal aviation circles. I've been getting this email forward from a lot of non-pilots. Bad way to get famous.

-Z