Texas family of 7 dies in small plane crash
deb...@comcast.net
By SAMIRA JAFARI
Associated Press
JACKSON, Ky. -- A Texas couple, their four children and another
relative were identified as those killed in a small plane crash in a
wooded, mountainous area of Kentucky, an airport official said today.
No one survived the fiery wreck Monday in an area so remote that rescue
workers rode all-terrain vehicles until the terrain became so rugged
they had to walk the rest of the way to the crash site.
The wreckage was scattered at the top of a hill, said Jackson Fire
Chief Roger Friley.
Authorities were awaiting the arrival of Dr. Emily Craig, the state's
forensic anthropologist, before removing the bodies. Craig was expected
to fly in today but was delayed by bad weather. Craig has been involved
in helping identify the 49 people killed in a Comair crash shortly
after takeoff in Lexington on Sunday.
"With all the things going on in Lexington, if she can get here today,
she's doing a great job,'' said Breathitt County Coroner Bobby Thorpe.
Federal investigators also were expected to arrive at the crash site.
Kathleen Bergen, spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration in
Atlanta, said seven people were aboard the twin-engine Cessna that had
taken off from Wichita Falls, Texas.
The pilot did not file a flight plan, but the administrator at the
Wichita Falls airport said the pilot told him he was headed to Kentucky
and then Virginia.
Monica Morris, airport administrator, identified the pilot as Jason
Christie and his wife as Sherri Christie. The Wichita Falls Times
Record News reported in its editions today that their four children
ranged in age from 2 months to 15 years old.
Morris could not confirm the identity of the other relative, but the
newspaper identified her as Sherri Christie's mother.
"This is a pretty small airport, and obviously when you lose a member
of the airport community, it's hard, especially when children are
involved,'' Morris said.
Jason Christie had been flying from the Kickapoo airport since May, but
he had been taking off from another airport for some time before that,
Morris said. She said he also sometimes flew a smaller, four-seat
plane.
The plane crashed Monday afternoon in Breathitt County, 100 miles
southeast of Lexington and about 10 miles from the airport near Hazard,
Sims said. There was rain, thunder and light fog in the area for much
of the afternoon.
MWB
It's beyond me how someone would put their entire family in a small plane. I
won't even put one of my kids on the back of my bike.
Mark
Charlene
The same way people put their whole family in their car.
wd42
MWB
"Charlene" <charlene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156907955.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...or a family in a crosswalk at the same time, or sleeping in a house and
there's a fire.
You're comparing oranges to apples. The motor on your car dies on the pike,
you call AAA. The motor on your plane dies at 10000 feet over the pike, they
call NTSB.
My wife thinks I'm crazy.
We don't fly much at all. I've flown a few times and she has flown once.
Last year we were going to see our son and I wanted separate flights. Why
she asked. I told her, what if your plane crashes and I'm on it. That would
suck for me. Who's going to feed the cats, hamsters, dog, rabbit and Dan the
Yankee fan? I also don't need to hear her tell the pilot how to fly the
plane.
Am I paranoid?
Mark
MWB
"TJ-BF" <r...@att.net> wrote in message
news:7%7Jg.349$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "MWB" <mark.b...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1W7Jg.754$8Q6.240@trndny01...
>>
>> "Charlene" <charlene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156907955.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> MWB wrote:
>>>> A whole family gone.
>>>>
>>>> It's beyond me how someone would put their entire family in a small
>>>> plane. I
>>>> won't even put one of my kids on the back of my bike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>
>>> The same way people put their whole family in their car.
>>>
>>> wd42
>>>
>>
>> ...or a family in a crosswalk at the same time, or sleeping in a house
>> and
>> there's a fire.
>>
>> You're comparing oranges to apples. The motor on your car dies on the
>> pike, you call AAA. The motor on your plane dies at 10000 feet over the
>> pike, they call NTSB.
>
> job--who was apparently looking the other way when the plane is taking off
> and you need them the most.
>
>> My wife thinks I'm crazy.
>> We don't fly much at all. I've flown a few times and she has flown once.
>> Last year we were going to see our son and I wanted separate flights. Why
>> she asked. I told her, what if your plane crashes and I'm on it. That
>> would suck for me. Who's going to feed the cats, hamsters, dog, rabbit
>> and
>> Dan the > Yankee fan?
>
>
>> I also don't need to hear her tell the pilot how to fly the plane.
>
>
>
>> Am I paranoid?
>
> Yes. But that's beside the point.
>
>
First class pain in the ass back seat driver.
I said cats, now three and we haven't named him yet. My wife didn't like
Moxie. When she found out people recommended Bucky and Bill Buckner, she
told me I was hanging around with the wrong crowd.
These things take time. He'll do something and earn a name. He doesn't chase
our dog Max anymore....Max and him had a talk at 3AM yesterday, dog to cat.
In fact, since he's been in my house it has been in chaos....I HAVE A NAME.
KAOS. I'll run it by my wife.
Mark
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Charlene <charlene...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's beyond me how someone would put their entire family in a small
> > plane. I won't even put one of my kids on the back of my bike.
>
Don't confuse the scheduled commercial air carriers' "safer than
driving" record with General Aviation. Small planes flown by private
pilots are deathtraps. Carrying your family in one is borderline
reckless endangerment. Well, maybe that overstates it a bit, but it's
risky as hell.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
mack
"J.D. Baldwin" <INVALID...@example.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ed47bu$bqd$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> In the previous article, Charlene <charlene...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > It's beyond me how someone would put their entire family in a small
>> > plane. I won't even put one of my kids on the back of my bike.
>>
>> The same way people put their whole family in their car.
>
> Don't confuse the scheduled commercial air carriers' "safer than
> driving" record with General Aviation. Small planes flown by private
> pilots are deathtraps. Carrying your family in one is borderline
> reckless endangerment. Well, maybe that overstates it a bit, but it's
> risky as hell.
Well maybe not as risky as "hell" but risky enough. It's said that flying
in 'general aviation' aircraft (as opposed to scheduled commercial
carriers) carries about the same risk as riding a motorcycle....about 14
times as risky as driving a car. I've just finished trying to dissuade my
stepson from learning to fly and taking his family on trips by air.
As another poster just said, when your car breaks down, you drive to the
side of the road and wait for AAA, but when your airplane engine dies,
generally you do, too.
.....and to restate the old gag about twin engined planes being safer than
singles, that's quite correct - the remaining engine will be capable to
taking you directly to your crash site.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, mack <mack...@dslextreme.com> wrote, quoting
me:
> > Don't confuse the scheduled commercial air carriers' "safer than
> > driving" record with General Aviation. Small planes flown by
> > private pilots are deathtraps. Carrying your family in one is
> > borderline reckless endangerment. Well, maybe that overstates it a
> > bit, but it's risky as hell.
>
> Well maybe not as risky as "hell" but risky enough. It's said that
> flying in 'general aviation' aircraft (as opposed to scheduled
> commercial carriers) carries about the same risk as riding a
> motorcycle....about 14 times as risky as driving a car.
Keep in mind that "General Aviation" includes non-scheduled commercial
flights such as charters, business jets, etc. Such operations are
close to being as safe as scheduled airline traffic (business jets are
probably even safer).
If you throw those out of the mix and look at only private
recreational pilots flying single-engine bug-smashers, the fatality
rates are appallingly high. I said "reckless endangerment" was
overstating things, but I stand by the word "deathtrap." Riding
without a helmet on a motorcycle, into the back of a stalled Ford
Pinto, is safer than flying in a private plane.
> I've just finished trying to dissuade my stepson from learning to
> fly and taking his family on trips by air.
Good for you.
> As another poster just said, when your car breaks down, you drive
> to the side of the road and wait for AAA, but when your airplane
> engine dies, generally you do, too.
Engine failures in private planes are nothing to sneeze at, but
generally not the cause of most fatalities. Gliding to a reasonably
safe touchdown isn't hard to learn or execute.
> .....and to restate the old gag about twin engined planes being
> safer than singles, that's quite correct - the remaining engine will
> be capable to taking you directly to your crash site.
The way I hear that one is that a twin-engine plane gets you to the
crash site twice as fast, but I like your variation too.
The fatality rate for dual-engine and single-engine private planes
isn't much different. However, if you were to correct for the fact
that dual-engine planes are probably flown more often in riskier
conditions (night, bad weather) -- because you'd expect pilots and
owners of those planes to be more likely to be IFR-rated -- I think
you'd find that second engine is often literally a lifesaver.
PirateJohn
J.D. Baldwin wrote:
>
> The fatality rate for dual-engine and single-engine private planes
> isn't much different. However, if you were to correct for the fact
> that dual-engine planes are probably flown more often in riskier
> conditions (night, bad weather) -- because you'd expect pilots and
> owners of those planes to be more likely to be IFR-rated -- I think
> you'd find that second engine is often literally a lifesaver.
> --
The big problem with most light twins was that they didn't have enough
power to continue a take off if they lost an engine while going down
the runway, assuming that they were carrying anything heavier than
styrofoam coolers.
Hasn't the market for new light twins pretty much evaporated and what
you have left are the more powerful (and presumably safer?)
corporate-type twins?
--PirateJohn--
www.PirateJohn.com
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, PirateJohn <Pirat...@aol.com> wrote:
> The big problem with most light twins was that they didn't have enough
> power to continue a take off if they lost an engine while going down
> the runway, assuming that they were carrying anything heavier than
> styrofoam coolers.
>
> Hasn't the market for new light twins pretty much evaporated and what
> you have left are the more powerful (and presumably safer?)
> corporate-type twins?
I think people finally started figuring out that there's not much
point to having a second engine if you can't fly on it.
Note, though, that even if a single engine in that configuration
wouldn't keep you airborne indefinitely, it would be better than
having nothing at all, just because it would give you electric power,
along with some control and a lower descent rate on your way to a
forced landing.