1977 Airplane Crash in Yosemite

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 201 - 220 of total 2675 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Majid_S

Mountain climber

Bay Area

Jan 29, 2007 - 04:39am PT

Licky, Here is some info for you of FAA site. I never knew your 1977 project was PV1.

[url=http://imageshack.us]{{img}}h~~p://img261.imageshack.us/img261/8876/a22353es4pv1mp6.jpg[/img][/url]

NTSB Identification: OAK77FA015
14 CFR Part 91 General Aviation
Event occurred Thursday, December 09, 1976 in YOSEMITE, CA
Aircraft: LOCKHEED PV-1, registration: N80BD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FILE DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT DATA INJURIES FLIGHT PILOT DATA
F S M/N PURPOSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-4169 76/12/9 YOSEMITE,CA LOCKHEED PV-1 CR- 2 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL, FL.INSTR.,
TIME - UNK/NR N80BD PX- 0 0 0 OTHER AGE 29, 5000 TOTAL HOURS,
DAMAGE-DESTROYED OT- 0 0 0 UNK/NR IN TYPE,
INSTRUMENT RATED.
DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION
BAJA,MEXICO RENO,NV
TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION
AIRFRAME FAILURE: IN FLIGHT IN FLIGHT: OTHER
PROBABLE CAUSE(S)
MISCELLANEOUS - UNDETERMINED
FACTOR(S)
AIRFRAME - WINGS: WING ATTACHMENT FITTINGS,BOLTS
MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - OVERLOAD FAILURE
MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - SEPARATION IN FLIGHT
MISSING AIRCRAFT - LATER RECOVERED
REMARKS- RECOVERY DATE 6/14/77.TRANSPORTATION OF NARCOTICS.

Aircraft (FAA)
Manufacturer: Lockheed
Model: PV-1 Search all Lockheed PV-1
Year built: 1959
Serial Number (C/N): 5375
Mode S Code: 52557641
Aircraft Type: Fixed wing multi engine
Amateur-Built: No
Number of Seats: 10
Number of Engines: 2
Engine Type: Reciprocating
Engine Manufacturer and Model: P & W R-2800 SERIES
Owner (FAA)
Registration Type: Corporation
Owner: Red River Ranch Inc
Address: Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310
United States
Region: Southern
Top
Status (FAA)
Certification Issued: 1976-10-12
Air Worthiness Test: Unknown
Last Action Taken: 1977-01-14

Licky

Mountain climber

California

Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2007 - 02:32pm PT

Majid...Yep, it was "originally" a PV-1 Ventura. But not when it crashed. I appreciate the homework you did, good job. Guess you can appreciate what kind of hot rod this plane must have been? By the way, did you notice there were 10 seats on board for a fighter bomber? Interesting.

Here is an actual photo of the plane during W.W. II

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2875/ventura2232ta1.jpg

happiegrrrl

Trad climber

New York, NY

Jan 29, 2007 - 08:44pm PT

Is "Overload" the plane carrying too much wieght, or overload of stress on the wing, or something else?

Ragz

climber

Tartarus, black hole of the internet

Jan 29, 2007 - 10:52pm PT

HAppiegirl, In this scenario the failure occured in flight. The term overload is use to describe a failure mode, not a physical state. Although, considering what it was transporting, it is likely that the plane was above gross (overloaded in lay terms).

Aircraft can be overloaded, above the maximum gross weight, but in flight failures can also be the result of flight conditions. As was proposed, the failure may have been the result of turbulence. This, in turn, results in the structural limits of the aircraft being exceeded when turbulence is excessive. The Sierra can be extremely turbulent under the right conditions.

It is also possible that the aircraft, as old as it was, just reached it's structural fatigue life. This varies with each aircraft. The only way to mitigate the fatigue is to do regular, and occasionally extensive maintence and rebuilding. Remeber Aloha Flight 243? It exceeded it's compression and decompression cycle limits, and blew it's top.

The FAA usually does a more intensive analysis of crashes. This appears to be worded somewhat vaguely. Maybe intentionally.

In looking at the report above, the FAA identify WING ATTACHMENT FITTINGS,BOLTS , this is as specific as it gets. Most aircraft require inspection of these attach points on a regular basis. Some even go so far as to require replacement at regular intervals. It's not a common thing to have these just fail. More likely something was going on in flight. I'd be intersted to know the orientation of the plane in the lake. Did it com in, in the direction of travel? If these pilots were in IFR conditions, it is possiblr that they lost control and entered into an all too common, high speed spiral. This will lead to structural failure as loads on the airframe are exceeded quite easily.

Majid_S

Mountain climber

Bay Area

Jan 29, 2007 - 11:10pm PT

Overload means too much stress on AC now here is what I got on this model AC. Normal range 1660 miles, Weights: 20,197 pounds empty, 31,077 pounds loaded, 34,000 pounds maximum.

This AC took off from BAJA toward Reno with full tank of gas of 1600 gal x @7 lbs = 11000 lbs worth of fuel then max load was 34000 lbs. 11000+21000 = 32000 lbs and still under the max load. If they loaded this AC with 2500 lbs worth of goodies then it was overloaded at take off but by the time they got near Yos they had used near 70% of the gas and they were ok however, my guess is that they had more than 2500 lbs of goodies may be near 4000 lbs and they calculated the fuel /destination to max out their load to land in Reno with almost no gas, may be even they even took the 10 seats out to add another 200 lbs.

This AC was a bomber with cargo door right below the main section and I am guessing they were going to fly slow and at low alt to drop the cargo some where in desert and then land at Reno as clean as baby's face, also I been on few AC recoveries where smaller plane crashed and there was not any thing left of AC to recognize but the clock.
According to one of the stories, dudes were pulling goodies out of AC crash site which tells me that AC was not involved in major impact otherwise they could not recover much. I think pilot knew he had a problem and he was trying to get to lower Alt and land but flying IFR over 13000 feet mountain range, you are SOL in finding a landing spot . The wings broke off while he was descending to lower alt and he crashed very close to ground. That is what I think it happened.

WBraun

climber

Jan 30, 2007 - 01:33am PT

I thought it was snowing that night while it was flying around? Can't remember to well. But I vaguely remember the weather was pretty inclement during that time.

The guy who knows is on this forum ........

Jaybro

Social climber

The West

Jan 30, 2007 - 01:46am PT

oh you tease...

Licky

Mountain climber

California

Topic Author's Reply - Jan 30, 2007 - 01:51am PT

Regarding the plane's age and condition.

First the plane wasn't what you think so its age and condition didn't play into this event.

As for the plane being overloaded for its capability. Again, the plane wasn't what everyone thought it was, so its ability to carry what it had on board (I have the true quanity that was loaded by way of the load master that over saw the loading) was well within its capability.

And for the weather, well it didn't figure into the event.

Majid...I'm going to have to add your speculation to the chapter on rumors and wild stories. Sorry guy, but you aren't even close. But keep trying, you have a knack for the yarn.

Majid_S

Mountain climber

Bay Area

Jan 30, 2007 - 02:19am PT

Liky
Were they going to drop the load or just land and hand deliver it?

Also if load was in range of AC then PV was much heavier at take of then over Yos when it used near 70% of it gas . You do not think weather was a big factor ?

I just do not think that he was flying that high, I bet he was flying closer to ground. Do you know if they located the wings near the AC if not how far they were ?

Mighty Hiker

Social climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Jan 30, 2007 - 02:23am PT

There is a novel very loosely based on the events of this crash. It is called Vortex, by David Harris. Published in 1990, and short-listed for the Boardman-Tasker Prize.

Licky

Mountain climber

California

Topic Author's Reply - Jan 30, 2007 - 02:34am PT

Obviously I'm not going to tell the whole story here before I go to print, but some of your thoughts are getting close. Some of the really key issues have been posted on this thread by myself and others. You really have to turn into a detective and read each and every word...there is evidence there to be grabbed. I'll tell you when you are really off base.

Thanks for the lead on Vortex. I talked to David Harris when I first started researching this subject. He told me the story behind his book. Very interesting how he got his information.

Ragz

climber

Tartarus, black hole of the internet

Jan 31, 2007 - 10:13pm PT

So you didn't answer my question, Was the aircraft and debris path oriented in the direction of travel?
Don't think that gives the story away, but based on what you just added, I can make some good guesses.

First the plane wasn't what you think so its age and condition didn't play into this event...As for the plane being overloaded...was well within its capability.

Your are being a bit ambiguous here in the use of the word "capability". I suppose for good reason. However, and I speak as one who has done warbird restoration, the components in the FAA offcial report are not likely to have been modified, maybe replaced. I am not suggesting that other stuctural mods weren't made that could increase the gross weight, as there are many. If, in fact, the wing attach bolts did fail, and the aircraft was within it's operating envelope (weight/CG) then what we have left is pilot error or incapacitaion, and weather conditions. This resulted in the aircraft being operated outside the limits of it's flight envelope, in one way or another.

So humor me, what was the orientation of the crash path?

happiegrrrl

Trad climber

New York, NY

Jan 31, 2007 - 10:40pm PT

Well didn't Ouch already draw up a diagram of what *really* happened??? Werner lassoed that plane like George on "It's a Wonderful Life" promised he'd do for Mary to give her the moon!

Mighty Hiker

Social climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Jan 31, 2007 - 10:52pm PT

I suspect #46 would have some unique perspectives to bring to bear on what really happened.

Majid_S

Mountain climber

Bay Area

Feb 1, 2007 - 02:34am PT

Licky
I just wonder, this PV-1 was flying in IFR under FAA radar from BAJA but they were able to fly from better path such as central valley or fly over water to SF then make a right turn and go to Reno but they did not.

If he had 2500 lbs of goodies then he could not drop it via bomb bay because max drop limit at bomb bay was 1600 lbs so cargo was inside the plane. FAA was watching these guys cause they wanted to fly under FAA radar or IFR, well back in 1977 FAA was not using the modern radar system so there were times when they could not see the plane in radar or as they call it, shadows in radar . If PV was flying over sierras in winter at low alt ( just above the ground ) to create shadow on purpose cause then may be they wanted to land some place before RENO drop the load and take off again using the few minute of shadow ( sort of un noticed) in FAA radar and land in Reno clean. Just a thought.