October 19, 2017
Bangor Latest News | Poll Questions | Haunted Maine | Obamacare | National Anthem Protests

Comments for: Plane lost key part when it hit truck on Owls Head runway, says report

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    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.

  • joetaxpayer

    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 ;)

  • Anonymous

    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.

  • Anonymous

    I have a hard time believing that anyone would be possibly unaware that their vehicle had just come in contact with a plane……..

  • Anonymous

    Even if Cutler is found at fault of this runway incursion doesn’t warrant a stupid comment like that.

    • Ryan Robbins

      A little condescending are we?

  • Anonymous

    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.

    • Tyke

      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.

      • Anonymous

        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.

        • Tyke

          It was a violation of the local rules, not of law.

          • Anonymous

            You should review FAA rules first and have you ever flown an airplane in a uncontrolled environment

          • Tyke

            You should learn to read. I wrote AIRPORT rules, not FAA.

          • Anonymous

            FAA rules supersede the airport rules you have no idea what you are talking about. A runway incursion is wrong no matter what

      • Anonymous

        Perhaps he was already on the roll when the driver stated his intentions.

        • Tyke

          If so, that should have caused an immediate response.

          • Anonymous

            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.

          • Rocky4

            Thumbs up to you sir, thumbs up!!

          • Anonymous

            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

          • Anonymous

            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.

      • Anonymous

        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.

        • Anonymous

          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

          • Tyke

            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.

          • Guest

            That was totally uncalled for and downright rotten.
            You aren’t much of a human being by writing that.

        • Tyke

          “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.

      • Anonymous

        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….

        • Tyke

          The airport rules are clear and obvious;ly you do not understand them.

          • Anonymous

            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.

      • Anonymous

        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.

      • Jamie Rathbart

        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.

  • Ryan Robbins

    You got it!

  • Anonymous

    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..

  • Rocky4

    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.

    • Anonymous

      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.

      • Rocky4

        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.

    • Tyke

      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.

      • Rocky4

        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.

    • Jamie Rathbart

      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?

      • Rocky4

        I would be just as dead as they are.

        • Jamie Rathbart

          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.

  • Tyke

    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.

    • Anonymous

      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.

    • Anonymous

      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?

      • Tyke

        It was twilight which occurs very early.

        • Anonymous

          Thank you for setting me straight. I guess the kid didn’t need that flashlight she was carrying then, huh?

  • Anonymous

    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.

    • Rocky4

      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?

      • Anonymous

        Too much football to watch to go on here Rocky…

        • Rocky4

          ;+)

  • Anonymous

    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?

    • Anonymous

      Hitting the truck caused it to lose the “key part.”

      (I would also argue that most parts on a plane are “key.” )

      • Anonymous

        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.

        • Anonymous

          If you reread the article you’ll note that the impact caused the loss of the part, not the other way around.

    • Anonymous

      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.

  • Anonymous

    Sounds like new rules are needed when it’s dark at that airport.

    • Anonymous

      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.

  • Anonymous

    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?

    • Anonymous

      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.

  • Anonymous

    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.

  • Anonymous

    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.

    • Anonymous

      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.

  • Anonymous

    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.

  • Anonymous

    Turner is just trying to cover his butt.

  • tedcohen

    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?

  • Anonymous

    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.

  • Anonymous

    “The weather was clear and it was dark when the crash occurred …” Why did the truck not have a lighted beacon on it?

  • Anonymous

    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.

You may also like