CAF P-39 landing incident at Tyler, TX

[Obergrafeter]

Midland has a report out with pictures, but I haven't any idea how to post it. It looks llike a bunch o sheet metal work, not too bad. The report is sent out to safety officers in an attempt to convey a serious message of what we need to do to increase our safety standards. I am with you Cuz, if its' not the Operations Officers' job who does do it. You will have to run the Wing FEB and take it to Midland when their FEB meets. Been there done that...twice.

[Chunks]

Mike/Ryan are correct. News travels fast, and out of hundreds of entries I've never seen Mike post anything irresponsible or sensationalistic (I may have created a new word). This is an information exchange, and I know for a fact that the Rose and the squadron have benefited as a result of Mike's communications here. (While I know my donations have been insignificant, I would not have made them but for Mike and WIX)

It sounds to me like someone is just upset that they weren't the first to report the incident...

Chunks

[FLYINGLAWYER]

I CAN SEE THE POINT TRYING TO BE MADE ON BOTH SIDES, AND BOTH ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH BUT A LITTLE SKEWED. YOU ARE CORRECT IN PLANNING FOR THE DREADED RUMOR MILL, BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE PERFORMED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO NOT DISCLOSE INFORMATION OF THE INCIDENT. UNTIL THE FEDERAL (FFA) INQUIRY HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND CLOSED OUT, YOU SHOULD NOT DISCLOSE ANY DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT TO THE PUBLIC. YOUR OFFICIAL POSISTION ON THE MATTER SHOULD BE NO COMMENT. BECAUSE YOU BEING ONE OF THE OFFICIAL INCHARGE OF THIS AIRCRAFT, ANYTHING YOU PUBLISH CAN BE USED BY INVESTIGATORS. GOOD LUCK WITH THE BEAUTIFUL PLANE...HOPE TO SEE HER FLYING SOON, AND GLAD THAT THE PILOT WAS NOT HURT.

[bluehawk15]

There was nothing in my initial post that was not evident to anyone who was in attendance at the HAAM event, other than that the damage did not extend to the spar. I added that so everyone would know the damage to the plane was relatively minor.

If you will note, in my second post I replied to a couple of PM's I had already received. They were wondering what the cause was, and I replied that I could not comment on that as it is still under investigation by us.

[mustanglover]

I CAN SEE THE POINT TRYING TO BE MADE ON BOTH SIDES, AND BOTH ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH BUT A LITTLE SKEWED. YOU ARE CORRECT IN PLANNING FOR THE DREADED RUMOR MILL, BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE PERFORMED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO NOT DISCLOSE INFORMATION OF THE INCIDENT. UNTIL THE FEDERAL (FFA) INQUIRY HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND CLOSED OUT, YOU SHOULD NOT DISCLOSE ANY DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT TO THE PUBLIC. YOUR OFFICIAL POSISTION ON THE MATTER SHOULD BE NO COMMENT. BECAUSE YOU BEING ONE OF THE OFFICIAL INCHARGE OF THIS AIRCRAFT, ANYTHING YOU PUBLISH CAN BE USED BY INVESTIGATORS. GOOD LUCK WITH THE BEAUTIFUL PLANE...HOPE TO SEE HER FLYING SOON, AND GLAD THAT THE PILOT WAS NOT HURT.

Why are the Future Farmers of America investigating this incident? Did it land on a crop?

[lmritger]

I CAN SEE THE POINT TRYING TO BE MADE ON BOTH SIDES, AND BOTH ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH BUT A LITTLE SKEWED. YOU ARE CORRECT IN PLANNING FOR THE DREADED RUMOR MILL, BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE PERFORMED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO NOT DISCLOSE INFORMATION OF THE INCIDENT. UNTIL THE FEDERAL (FFA) INQUIRY HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND CLOSED OUT, YOU SHOULD NOT DISCLOSE ANY DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT TO THE PUBLIC. YOUR OFFICIAL POSISTION ON THE MATTER SHOULD BE NO COMMENT. BECAUSE YOU BEING ONE OF THE OFFICIAL INCHARGE OF THIS AIRCRAFT, ANYTHING YOU PUBLISH CAN BE USED BY INVESTIGATORS. GOOD LUCK WITH THE BEAUTIFUL PLANE...HOPE TO SEE HER FLYING SOON, AND GLAD THAT THE PILOT WAS NOT HURT.

Why are the Future Farmers of America investigating this incident? Did it land on a crop?

**snort**

[FLYINGLAWYER]

FFA....That's why we have legal aids to proof read...I meant FAA.....Mike didn't mean to say you had posted anything that wasn't common knowledge. It's just went the general public post something about the incident it is hearsay, when you post anything about the incident it becomes fact...so I caution you to refrain from saying anything at all during the inquiry...Keep em' flying...and thank you Mike for all your hard work...

[mustanglover]

I CAN SEE THE POINT TRYING TO BE MADE ON BOTH SIDES, AND BOTH ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH BUT A LITTLE SKEWED. YOU ARE CORRECT IN PLANNING FOR THE DREADED RUMOR MILL, BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE PERFORMED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO NOT DISCLOSE INFORMATION OF THE INCIDENT. UNTIL THE FEDERAL (FFA) INQUIRY HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND CLOSED OUT, YOU SHOULD NOT DISCLOSE ANY DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT TO THE PUBLIC. YOUR OFFICIAL POSISTION ON THE MATTER SHOULD BE NO COMMENT. BECAUSE YOU BEING ONE OF THE OFFICIAL INCHARGE OF THIS AIRCRAFT, ANYTHING YOU PUBLISH CAN BE USED BY INVESTIGATORS. GOOD LUCK WITH THE BEAUTIFUL PLANE...HOPE TO SEE HER FLYING SOON, AND GLAD THAT THE PILOT WAS NOT HURT.

Why are the Future Farmers of America investigating this incident? Did it land on a crop?

**snort**

[planenutti]

I have been thru this before and no matter how you go, you will never please everyone.

1) Put the word out that an accident or incident has occured but make darn sure that everyone in the foodchain knows about it first.

2) Know the facts of what happened, as best you can, so that if bad data surfaces from an uninformed source, you can squash any bad info and only the bad info.

3) Keep to the facts, no opinions!

4) Let the investigators do their job, that is why they get paid.

5) After the investigation is done, let the FEB do its job. Remember the FEB's decisions and actions are PRIVATE.

Bob
ODS Operations

[Ray Clausen]

Hi all,

I've been trying to stay out of this back and forth about the initial posts. Anything put out before Monday afternoon, other than the fact that there was an incident, was heresay.

Today, I can report that we are organizing a trip to assess what is needed to do to make the P-39 ready for a ferry flight home to San Marcos. The FAA (and maybe the FFA) has released her to us and we're anxious to get her home and begin repairs.

Regardless of how the incident came about, the pilot did a remarkable job of preserving the aircraft once things went wrong. The propeller, landing gear, fuselage, and control surfaces do not appear to have any damage at this point and the engine runs beautifully. I'll be taking a couple of people for a close look soon. The leading edge of the left wing appears to have borne the brunt of the damage. It is ugly, but appears repairable. Strangely enough, we actually have a P-39 left wing leading edge in a box in our parts storage area upstairs...

As this is now purely a maintenance issue, I'll keep all you WIXers updated with pictures and reports as often as possible. With any luck at all, we'll have Miss Connie back in the air sooner than you can imagine!

Thanks to you all for your concern and good wishes!

[JDK]

Interesting. Really good points about rumour control, and Bluehawk15's original posts were what I'd expect to see to do just that. When there's a washup on the PR for this, I hope the Unit works through the plan for next time and there's no confusion over who's doing what mediawise, and it's made crystal clear what was 'right' and 'wrong' in this thread.

And the tough concept for today is "news management".

If you don't manage it - it'll manage you.

There's regular bitching here about reporters screwing up the data - but equally sinful is organisations who don't manage the media interest after an incident. Not only are you enabling bad PR, that failure on your part reflects on other vintage aviation organisations, as far as the general public goes.

So today's questions are: "Do YOU have a plan to handle the media when the incident happens? WHO is the person who is point of contact? Do they KNOW how to handle it? Have you PLANNED and AUTHORISED the plan?"

A couple of points from a vintage aircraft sympathetic reporter:

1. Much of an internal debate should have been that - here was the wrong place to argue within an organisation.

2. 'No Comment' - while good legal advice - isn't good enough if there's enough other interest. For instance, if there's pictures of a crash, or someone died, or other organisations (police) are involved, 'no comment' won't shut down debate as it will when it's just courtroom yap you aren't commenting on.

3. This thread makes a great case study for all our warbird operators to lean some neat lessons from before they need to do the same.

4. Don't blame the media for beating you up. They're really easy to direct if you know how, and there's plenty of skilled media professionals who'd be happy to volunteer for your organisation. Do you have one? If not why not? When things go wahooni shaped, they may be the difference between having an organisation next year - or not. Potentially they can be as crucial as any other part of the team, not just a 'nice to have'.

If that causes somre thought, action or even some organisations go "Yeah, those boxes are ticked." my work is done.

Regards,

[mustanglover]

Interesting. Really good points about rumour control, and Bluehawk15's original posts were what I'd expect to see to do just that. When there's a washup on the PR for this, I hope the Unit works through the plan for next time and there's no confusion over who's doing what mediawise, and it's made crystal clear what was 'right' and 'wrong' in this thread.

And the tough concept for today is "news management".

If you don't manage it - it'll manage you.

There's regular bitching here about reporters screwing up the data - but equally sinful is organisations who don't manage the media interest after an incident. Not only are you enabling bad PR, that failure on your part reflects on other vintage aviation organisations, as far as the general public goes.

So today's questions are: "Do YOU have a plan to handle the media when the incident happens? WHO is the person who is point of contact? Do they KNOW how to handle it? Have you PLANNED and AUTHORISED the plan?"

A couple of points from a vintage aircraft sympathetic reporter:

1. Much of an internal debate should have been that - here was the wrong place to argue within an organisation.

2. 'No Comment' - while good legal advice - isn't good enough if there's enough other interest. For instance, if there's pictures of a crash, or someone died, or other organisations (police) are involved, 'no comment' won't shut down debate as it will when it's just courtroom yap you aren't commenting on.

3. This thread makes a great case study for all our warbird operators to lean some neat lessons from before they need to do the same.

4. Don't blame the media for beating you up. They're really easy to direct if you know how, and there's plenty of skilled media professionals who'd be happy to volunteer for your organisation. Do you have one? If not why not? When things go wahooni shaped, they may be the difference between having an organisation next year - or not. Potentially they can be as crucial as any other part of the team, not just a 'nice to have'.

If that causes somre thought, action or even some organisations go "Yeah, those boxes are ticked." my work is done.

Regards,

For those of you who are not Texans............and of course JDK is not a REAL Texan, but he IS from Australia (which is close enough)..............what he means is cover your ass, just in case.

And really cover your ass, when the situation warrants.

[RyanShort1]

Very good points JDK! That's just about a good enough post to make you an honorary Texan!
The rest of y'all Texas boys want to put it to a vote?

Ryan

[JDK]

I know a Texan in Australia joke. Will that help?

[RyanShort1]

I know a Texan in Australia joke. Will that help?

*shudders at the thought of what that might sound like*

Ryan