diverdriver 7 #1 June 25, 2002 I will post the NTSB link when it becomes available. From the FAA daily intake: IDENTIFICATION Regis#: 2516G Make/Model: C182 Description: 1952 CESSNA 182B, SKYLANE Date: 06/24/2002 Time: 2014 Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: Destroyed LOCATION City: ELLINGTON State: CT Country: US DESCRIPTION AIRCRAFT AT 9000 FT, HEARD A LOUD BANG, LOST PARTIAL POWER, AND CRASHED IN A CORNFIELD, ELLINGTON, CT INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0 # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: WEATHER: UNKN OTHER DATA Activity: Unknown Phase: Unknown Operation: General Aviation Departed: ELLINGTON, CT Dep Date: 06/24/2002 Dep. Time: 1600 Destination: ELLINGTON, CT Flt Plan: NONE Wx Briefing: Y Last Radio Cont: UB9 UNICOM Last Clearance: NO ATC CONTACT FAA FSDO: WINDSOR LOCKS, CT (NE03) Entry date: 06/25/2002 Chris Schindler www.DiverDriver.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hobbes4star 0 #2 June 25, 2002 is the pilot ok??if fun were easy it wouldn't be worth having, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GroundZero 0 #3 June 26, 2002 "Regis#: 2516G Make/Model: C182 Description: 1952 CESSNA 182B, SKYLANE " Don't you hate it when the FAA can't even get it right... (I know the NTSB wouldn't have blundered such, those guys know what they're doing!) The Cessna Company began production of the 182 in 1956 (not 1952!). Any self respecting straight tail cessna fan can tell you that a "golf" tail number would indicate 1959... (although a very few were manufactured in December of '58)... but look at the tail number ... N2516G... Definitely a 1959 Cessna 182, also the very first production year they were called a "Skylane". Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GroundZero 0 #4 June 26, 2002 WOW ANOTHER !*@ PROBLEM... I'll report back when the investigation is finalized! (pull out your worry-hats) Accident occurred Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at Santa Elena, Venezuela Aircraft:Cessna 182, registration: YV-1150P Injuries: 4 Minor. This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. On February 12, 2002, at 0745 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 182 single-engine airplane, Venezuelan registration YV-1150P, was substantially damaged during an emergency landing after takeoff following a loss of engine power during initial takeoff climb from Santa Elena de Uairen, State of Bolivar, in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The commercial pilot and the 3 passengers sustained minor injuries. The airplane, serial number 182-64501, was operated by an unknown operator as an on-demand air taxi flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the revenue air taxi flight for which a visual flight rules (VFR) flight plan was filed. The flight was originating at the time of the accident. The flight's destination was Canaima, Venezuela. The accident investigation is under the jurisdiction and control of the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Any further information may be obtained from: ....... Why are we using bandwidth with simple aircraft incidents? Attempting to cause fear in the passengers(skydivers) who ride these mounts? Trying to prove we're superhuman pilots for not crashing our personal duty aircraft? What's the point here? Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #5 June 26, 2002 Quote"Regis#: 2516G Make/Model: C182 Description: 1952 CESSNA 182B, SKYLANE " The Cessna Company began production of the 182 in 1956 (not 1952!). Any self respecting straight tail cessna fan can tell you that a "golf" tail number would indicate 1959... (although a very few were manufactured in December of '58)... but look at the tail number ... N2516G... Definitely a 1959 Cessna 182, also the very first production year they were called a "Skylane". They get their info straight from the registration database, so it must have just been entered wrong at some point. The 172 I used to fly at home is in the database as a '68 model, when it's really a '69 (which has a different model engine). I guess if the owner never corrects them, they don't notice. Alright, never mind. too tired to change what i wrote... I just searched the FAA database and see it's correctly in there as a '59. (http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=2516G&cmndfind.x=20&cmndfind.y=13). No idea where they got the 52 from. must be a typo. The plane is registered to CPI. Anyone have any more details? This is my new temporary home DZ, although I've only jumped there one day. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #6 June 26, 2002 Groundzero, because this Cessna 182 was a jump plane. That's why. It's registered to Conneticut Parachutists. Chris Schindler www.DiverDriver.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #7 June 26, 2002 Groundzero, It is a jump plain..there is nothing wrong with it being reported here...we need to know these things. for far to long in this sport accident's tend to be covered up or just not reported....and I dont care if the plane was being used for something other than jump op's...if it's a jump plane I wanna know what's going on with it.. Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #8 July 2, 2002 Here is the NTSB link to the Conneticut 182 crash. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020701X01015&key=1 Chris Schindler www.DiverDriver.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #9 July 2, 2002 Chris, maybe you could've made that clear in the initial post? When I first read it, I couldn't understand why it was posted here in the first place either. Now that I know it was a jump plane, maybe it is a little more relevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #10 July 2, 2002 Yes. It could have been clearer. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #11 July 2, 2002 By the way, I happened to see the plane on Saturday. Last couple feet of the right wing are bent up at about a 90 degree angle. Looked like the bottom half of the cowling was removed. Other than that I couldn't see anything else wrong with it (from a bit of a distance of course). Didn't look too bad (although probably expensive!) Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #12 July 2, 2002 One wing bent up at a 90 degree angle not too bad? Um....I think it'll take more than duct tape to fix. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #13 July 2, 2002 QuoteOne wing bent up at a 90 degree angle not too bad? Um....I think it'll take more than duct tape to fix. Well of course. It takes a hacksaw and a measuring tape. Cut it off, and even it out by cutting the same amount off the other side. It can be done without the measuring tape but that's just sloppy. Hey, that IS a ligitimate temporary fix for propellers! Duct tape can be used to cover the sharp edges. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
