Too many in here as well. Why don’t all these “experts” work for the NTSB? Could it be they aren’t actually experts? Wait for the real investigation.
The fire truck is housed on the field. A firefighter is at the field during air carrier operations. With Skywest sitting there that should have been the case.
According to the airport diagram, there is a “Fire Station” located at Z-Z2 on the south side of 08-26. The Tower called CFR-74 (Crash Fire Rescue unit 74?) about 30 seconds after the crash, receiving a garbled response (CFR-74’s read back?) nine seconds later. The tower then clears CFR-74 to: " … proceed as requested." It seems that the ARFF unit was already manned and ready to go, plus, it seemed that Lewiston Tower expected them to be so. It appears that they may have some enhanced form of ARFF capability above and beyond the requirements of 139.319 that you cited … or maybe an unscheduled charter was due. I’m rambling here, but I guess the gist of my comment is that I agree with your interpretation of the standard and that the response time wasn’t all that bad.
The three minute response time that you cited includes arrival and beginning application of extinguishing agent. They missed that mark by about 40 seconds. What really puzzles me about the ARFF response is the apparent timid approach to the burning wreckage. The ARFF vehicle appeared to stand off quite a ways and shoot foam from that position. This indicates to me a lack of familiarity with ARFF techniques. In the ARFF drills I’ve witnessed, extinguishing agent application began as the unit neared the target and continued as the unit approached the target as closely as possible. I guess that according to the book, the ARFF response was O.K.; however, in my opinion, it could have been better.
Many years ago, I ruefully admit, I flew a Bonanza from HPN to RDG with a somewhat similar control-lock system still locked. (My only excuse is that there were two of us, both pilots, and we hurriedly shared the preflighting. Both of us missed the control lock.). Obviously the Bonanza didn’t have a stick, so maybe the lock only affected the rudder pedals; I don’t remember. In any case, there was enough flexibility in the system that I was perfectly able to taxi and fly the airplane. It was my first time flying a Bonanza, so perhaps an experienced Bonanza pilot would have recognized stiffness in rudder operation; I didn’t.
My only point in relating this embarrassing story is that maybe we shouldn’t assume that a control lock of this sort prevents taxiing. It sure didn’t in my case.
Yes, the front seat rests on Cessna-type rails, but in that specific airplane, there was only one notch of seat travel, because the rear seat had not only a full set of controls but a full instrument panel, and the front seat only moved an inch or so before its back came up against the back side of the rear-seal panel. Not enough travel to make continued flight anything more than a minor difficulty.
If you weren’t in the cockpit you really don’t know what happened.
If you think this response is lacking speed, watch this for even more of a skin crawl.
While at a Airshow briefing, I sat next to and conversed with Eddie a couple of years earlier. He was an interesting fellow and easy to like.
https://www.avweb.com/news/audio-of-rescue-calls-during-andreini-airshow-crash-released/
Excellent information. Having experienced a sudden seat “release” on rotation that cause was my first thought on viewing the video, but obviously that could not be the case. Coupled with someone else pointing out the roll & liftoff was essentially all from a 3-point attitude it does seem there was some other elevator issue.
That was my exact thought as I watched people running around… finally someone approached and the aircraft slowly began to catch on fire. It did look like a very hard hit, but I have to wonder… could he have been saved?
Yes, most airports don’t have fire trucks… but every aircraft has a fire extinguisher.
Sad that one guy ran to the crash long before it began to burn. No one had a fire extinguisher?
Yes, it looked like people were on the commercial plane sitting on the ramp.
Naval Aviators fly strictly via AOA. “Snort” was a Naval Aviator’s “Naval Aviator”. I am sure his flight controls were locked. Hopefully, how they were locked will be determined. How much baggage was in the back seat? Was it secure? Did the flight controls become frozen due to a mechanical failure? What was the CG during the final flight?
I did not see a “pitch up”. What I saw was a takeoff, in an unusual three point attitude followed by a a continuous, ever increasing nose up attitude until the airplane finally stalled. Not even a bobble or hint of any control movement to correct an ever increasing AOA. A Naval Aviator, especially one of his caliber, would be fine tuned to AOA making almost instinctive, corrective nose down inputs far in advance of exceeding the critical AOA. Just seeing him take of in a three point attitude was the first warning something was going wrong with out any apparent corrective inputs. This whole flight was a smooth, gradual yet ever increasing AOA without any change in attitude including no visually discernable control deflections of the elevator or ailerons.
Sickening video of a fine aviator’s last, helpless moments.
Based on his age, angle of impact, and g forces upon impact…its incredibly unlikely he survived the impact.
Eyeball down, even with a dual should strap restraint the survivability is about 20-25 G’s max.
RIP to a true aviation role model.
Something went wrong…be awaiting results to see what truly happened. Sadly with the post crash fire, if it were medical related we will probably never know.
The regulation says 15 minutes before until 15 minutes after a takeoff OR landing. It doesn’t require that the vehicle be manned and ready while the aircraft is sitting on the ground outside of those parameters.
I agree with you that the amount of time between the ARFF truck’s arrival and the time it started discharging agent is puzzling, as well as the fact that it came to a complete stop before discharging agent. We train vehicle operators to be able to put the wet stuff on the red stuff on the roll, so I’m sure that the investigators will be asking those questions, it’ll be interesting to hear what happened.
And yet, the elevator was obviously “locked” and never budged, even when the plane was slapped onto the ground the elevator never moved.
The NTSB has been abysmal in investigating small aircraft accidents for many years. Honestly I’d trust PIC’s with time in type over the NTSB when it comes to small aircraft.
Kevin, unless it also locked the toe brakes, you can taxi. It was an intersection takeoff not far from the ramp on level pavement in calm winds. It was a perfect setup for not needing the flight controls until getting to flight speed.
Every time I watch this video, I keep thinking the same thing–he was “behind” the aircraft, distracted. He made an incorrect response to the ground controller. He was not on tower freq. when cleared for takeoff. He was still switching radio freqs and making radio calls JUST before rotation. SEEMS like he got complacent–way too casual with the radio calls, that’s for sure. Listen to his calls, again and again. You’ll see.
He said, in response to his taxi instructions, “Understand cleared for takeoff?” Dude. Wrong freq, NOT cleared for takeoff. I watched the video yet again–he made a radio call just after rotating/taking off. I could be way wrong, and RIP Mr. Snodgrass, but if a student pilot made these radio calls, acted like this, and didn’t crash, the instructor should scold him or her. His voice on the radio screamed complacency. Good lesson for me–if HE can become complacent, I could, too.