|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 8, 2016 17:48:31 GMT 12
One hurt in light plane near TaurangaLast updated 17:36, May 8 2016  The accident scene near Tauranga. A small plane has crashed into the side of a hill on Waitao Rd, south of Tauranga, injuring a woman. The area where it crashed is not accessible by road and helicopters were sent to retrieve the two passengers. Fire and police were at the Waitao Rd property to deal with a small fuel leak from the plane.  A fire crew at the scene of the crash. Fire communications manager Megan Ruru said the plane had crashed on private land in Tauranga's "boondocks". "It isn't close to town, it's quite a way out," she said. One woman was injured in the crash and there was one other passenger, she said. A witness told SunLive: "We were driving past and the plane looked like it was coming into land and it crashed." Emergency services rushed to the scene. Two witnesses at the scene have told a SunLive Reporter there were two planes on private farmland where a plane crashed. One plane has ended up on its side while the other appears to be parked up alongside the crashed plane. The two witnesses who didn't want to be named say they climbed the side of a hill and could see what was going on. The TECT Rescue helicopter has arrived on the scene and is assisting ambulance staff. The crash will be investigated by the Civil Aviation Authority. - SunLive and Waikato Times - Stuff www.stuff.co.nz/national/79750685/light-plane-crashed-into-side-of-hill-near-tauranga
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on May 8, 2016 17:59:57 GMT 12
Not strictly a "Crash" and not really a "Hillside".... Looks like a fairly minor overrun landing on an Ag strip (Media would never believe it was a runway!). Knowing the people and aircraft involved its well within their capability but such situations don't have much margin for error. Roll on the media circus of Ignorance...
|
|
|
|
Post by noooby on May 8, 2016 18:24:45 GMT 12
Agree Bruce, if that is the aircraft I think it is, then it would be I. or T. S that is flying. Probably T by the sound of it. Both of them are more than capable, but seem to have had an oopsie, as one does on occassion. I've been in and out of a few tight strips with both of them but in the Cessna. Good times!!!
And you are correct, it isn't a hillside, it looks to be Brunskills strip!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 8, 2016 18:56:20 GMT 12
Apologies, I have amended to thread title, although I have left Stuff's words intact as they wrote it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruakituri on May 9, 2016 8:10:26 GMT 12
Hi. Not sure what photo you are looking at. One, it is most certainly a crash. Two it is certainly a hillside. Don't let our over protective nature to protect our peers cloud our judgement. I do however agree that the media's words are wrong, suggesting the aircraft crashed into the side of a hill.
|
|
|
|
Post by noooby on May 9, 2016 10:09:56 GMT 12
I'm looking at the photo of the aircraft that has over run the airstrip (visible in the foregound, with an aircraft on it in fact) and is resting just to the right of the two hangars (one with walls, one without). Now, for me, hangars usually reside at airstrips. Yes, this airstrip is not flat, but it is still an airstrip. The media would have you think that this aircraft has smacked into the side of a random hillside in the middle of nowhere, which couldn't be further from the truth. I actually prefer the Bay Times report on the story and how CAA describe it as "a minor accident". www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11635851So yes, it is a hill. But that means that anytime there is an incident at Pauanui, the paper will report that a plane has crashed into the beach. It is a sand runway after all which using their logic, must mean it is a beach, just as an airfield on a slope, must be a hill, or a incident at Waiouru being reported as a plane crashing into a volcano! Bay Times is correct with that as well. And they even have the inevitable reference to the plane being similar to a Cessna, but at least they have the aircraft type correct! And yes, I am being pedantic and yes, perhaps I am asking too much of reporters and reporting. But when they can't even be bothered to check up on their facts, then they deserve to be pulled to pieces for inaccurate reporting, as there are people out there who read this trollop and actually believe it and then form and opinion on how safe or unsafe, air travel really is! I'm actually quite impressed with the Bay Times, but that could be because they always had a close working relationship with us at Tauranga Airport, at least when I was living there anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on May 9, 2016 10:36:22 GMT 12
I think its more the way news gathering is going these days.Anyone with a camera phone can be a reporter in these internet days.Seems post photos first then fill in facts later.Then other sites pick up the story to pad out thier news stories on on it goes.
They other day the same site had breaking news....police stop car.....causes traffic build up...and it was a photo of someone getting a speeding ticket...All because someone had sent them in a photo from thier mobile phone.
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on May 9, 2016 11:01:22 GMT 12
Do you think the media or reporters were told it was an airstrip related incident ?
Myself, I believe it was probably mentioned in the very first sentence and probably repeated many times over in later updates.
If I am correct then at what point in the subsequent reporting, including the several updates, do we get to see that there is an airstrip on the property ?
That is not reporting.... it is deception.
Deception is dishonesty. In many occupations you would get the DCM for that carry on.
Aviation is one industry where any mistake could potentially be very unforgiving.
As has already been mentioned, the public perception of aviation is influenced by some of these articles. Those more interested would try and garner some facts about the occurrence. Once again neither has been delivered the real goods in this instance.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruakituri on May 9, 2016 20:43:41 GMT 12
Noooby
I totally agree with everything you say about the media 100%. By people suggesting that an aircraft making an over run and nosing up the bank, as this picture shows, then suggesting it's not a crash in my opinion makes us just as bad as the media. Don't for a minute think that aircraft don't crash at farm airstrips, yes this one is on a hill. I'd suggest that the second hangar you refer to is possibly a hayshed. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 9, 2016 21:49:55 GMT 12
Anyway, enough bickering children...
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on May 10, 2016 0:45:15 GMT 12
  The Yanks are onto it. This looks like a Piper Cherokee 140. (Very likely an early 160, S/N 28-48). The incident is a forced landing and not classified as a crash, even though the pilot was injured. Actually the article makes me wonder who the pilot was. Perhaps he is a top government official or politician. (Maybe a media type...) Some landings just go wrong !
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on May 10, 2016 7:52:59 GMT 12
Thats a crash..  |
|
|
|
Post by craig on May 10, 2016 8:44:24 GMT 12
one hell of a short landing!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by isc on May 10, 2016 21:03:09 GMT 12
Roof top airstrip! isc
|
|
|
|
Post by suthg on May 10, 2016 21:30:36 GMT 12
Quite a good choice as it turned out with a dead stick. Strong roof! Getting down if unhurt was to be a problem I guess! Sorry the pilot was injured, he did the best he could.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on May 11, 2016 12:46:24 GMT 12
Here's another one from the Los Angeles Times' photograph archives.... • Belly Landing |
|
