stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Robert Zambelli on November 08, 2012, 12:38:01 PM
-
Not Model Aviation but this on really makes one think about General Aviation incidents.
No excuse whatsoever.
Bob Z.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/RAW-VIDEO-Plane-hits-car-at-northwest-regional-airport-177200391.html
-
This is the fault of the airport, unless they have a large sign on the roadway warning motorists of a runway. I can't imagine anyone authorizing a road right at the approach end of a runway!
Floyd
-
I can't think of an airport that doesn't have a road across at least one end, with tall trees and maybe a hill, at one or the other ends. I thought the old Bellevue, WA airport was especially nasty, with the usual departure crossing over at least 4 lanes of I-90, and a frontage road (all with appropriate fences) and skirting Cougar Mountain. A power failure on takeoff would put you right in the path of a dozen 18-wheelers. The other end was guarded by 100' Firs and Cedars, except for a scenic little lake in the middle. I flew in and out of there several times, and I'm almost glad it's gone. Some fool builds an airport out in the stix and sure as heck, people will build all around it and make it unsafe! n~ Steve
PS: If the dipchit in the Cessna had been paying attention, he would have aborted the landing.
-
If he hadn't hit the car he still would just barely have made the runway. Didn't clear the fence by much either.
-
On the TV news they said the road had big signs warning cars to yield to approaching aircraft. Could have been allot worse than it was.
-
The story when I first read it was that the car ran a stop sign and then was hit. In the video, it looks like the car slowed down and almost stopped when it got hit.
-
The pilot couldn't see him. Sitting the cabin, he can't see too much over the nose and to the right of the airplane, and he was solo, so no one in the cockpit to help him sight out that side of the airplane. The driver was completely at fault in my opinion. He had to know where he was, at the end of an active runway at an airport. The plane was on HIS side of the car. It looked like he did run the stop sign and was probably looking for his cell phone or the french fry he dropped. If he is following normal common sense, and was aware of his surroundings like a good driver should be, the collision doesn't happen. Even if he was distracted it was his fault as I see it.
I like the audio where the female occupant of the car says, "We didn't pull out in front of an airplane!" I guess her mind was someplace else!
Type at you later,
Dan McEnte
-
Why is the wife filming this approach?
There's more going on here than one would think, but in the short:
There's a list of pilot errors. We can start with an easy one, no flaps!
My guess is the pilot has really low time.
The wind sock is down, so if another runway was available he could have chosen it. But, they were filming.
His approach, you don't have to land "on the numbers." With that road where it is, and there's nothing wrong with that BYW, a more sensible approach would have been better, and better or more experienced pilots would normally land further down that particular runway.
Yes, the pilot chose that runway but should have landed further down. Using flaps would have allowed for a steaper approach angel and would have eliminated contact with any moving vehicles or obsticals. This simple thing alone would have made his approach much easier and safer.
What's the roll out on that airplane? Imagine landing on the numbers at a major airport? Take you all day to taxi to the ramp!
Besides, this pilot knows that airport and runway and should know better. The pilot made bad choices, a bunch of them.
Charles
-
I disagree completely about the pilot. He may have been touch and goes. If there is a stop sign there for ground vehicles, they should stop and look. Yes it looks like the pilot is coming up short, but look how low he is approaching the ruway. Would have been okay if occupant of the car was more alert.
-
Totally pilot error. Goggle maps shows a displaced threshold of 500 ft from the road. Way too low!
-
Granted, the Cessna appears to be too low on Final.
That said, the driver of the car is equally at fault for not checking for approaching traffic.
Personal opinion: pilot AND driver are candidates for a Darwin award.
-
It's clearly a defective aeroplane.
-
It's George Bush's fault.
George
-
Student Pilot vs Rocky Balboa
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/world/plane-hits-suv-video-william-davis-at-northwest-regional-airport-in-roanoke-texas-clips-suv (http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/world/plane-hits-suv-video-william-davis-at-northwest-regional-airport-in-roanoke-texas-clips-suv)
-
It was his first solo landing. He was on a long, low approach but that is probably what he was tought for that airport. Probably the ONLY airport he ever landed at. His wife was shooting the video to commerorate the moment, something we all have done at some point. I would guess he only had about 9 or ten hours at that point, or whatever is average for a student. It's obvious that it's a small, rural airport or there wouldn't be any roads at the end of the runway, no fence either and it was probably the ONLY runway. I see a few degrees of flaps deployed. Even at the low approach, he was STILL too high to have had any way to see the car given his altitude, attitude of the airplane and the rapid approach of the car to point of impact. I doubt that it's 500 ft from the road to the runway because even after the impact he still landed on the pavement and he wasn't exactly flying anymore after impact. I would think that an airplane that was landing would have right of way in this instance, if there is such a thing. I'm bettin' that the driver of the car or his insurance company is fixing a Cessna. y1
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
I doubt that it's 500 ft from the road to the runway
Hi Dan,
Never said it was. It has a "displaced threshold", or line that pilots are required to land after. Maybe added after the road.
He was on a long, low approach but that is probably what he was tought for that airport
I don't know a quicker way to kill a new pilot. I'd steer clear of that school!
Google maps street level on that road shows no signs, or stop signs. I think the pilots rental insurance just went through the roof.
-
Why is the wife filming this approach?
There's more going on here than one would think, but in the short:
There's a list of pilot errors. We can start with an easy one, no flaps!
My guess is the pilot has really low time.
The wind sock is down, so if another runway was available he could have chosen it. But, they were filming.
His approach, you don't have to land "on the numbers." With that road where it is, and there's nothing wrong with that BYW, a more sensible approach would have been better, and better or more experienced pilots would normally land further down that particular runway.
Yes, the pilot chose that runway but should have landed further down. Using flaps would have allowed for a steaper approach angel and would have eliminated contact with any moving vehicles or obsticals. This simple thing alone would have made his approach much easier and safer.
What's the roll out on that airplane? Imagine landing on the numbers at a major airport? Take you all day to taxi to the ramp!
Besides, this pilot knows that airport and runway and should know better. The pilot made bad choices, a bunch of them.
Charles
Charles,
What is improper about a zero flap landing in a Cessna 172?
How long was the runway?
Where was the appropriate touchdown zone on a runway of that length given the selected (and not inappropriate) landing flap selection?
Where would the pilot's attention (visually, in particular) be focused on short final?
Was the driver not aware that he was driving across the approach end of the runway at an airport?
Who was engaged in the more demanding task which might have narrowed his/her focus?
Does not, from time to time, "stuff" happen?
Ted
-
I've read some other accounts of the incident and witnesses say that the black SUV did not stop sign painted on the road. At the very beginning of the video, there is a wide angle shot that shows another road that parallels the runway and the road that crosses the end of the runway, and there is no sign of the black SUV at all, but you can clearly see the airplane that is maybe a quarter mile out. That is one problem with CSI-ing this thing is camera angles distort our depth perception. The Cessna looks to be making a normal approach, and keep in mind that this is a student pilot, on his first solo landing, heart pounding and sweaty palms and all. He is not trying to side slip a Corsair onto the deck of a pitching aircraft carrier in the Pacific. He's just trying land safely and in one piece. He has no real experience to draw from. He is still learning how to fly and operate the craft he is in. He is running through his mind the last five or six approaches his CFI had him fly, probably that very day. The previous articles I read on the incident stated that this was his first solo landing. So he's making his approach, and from what can be seen in the video it looks pretty normal. Maybe a little long and low, but for a student pilot, maybe not. Nothing really wrong or illegal about it. Watch the video and even though the wind sock is hanging down, the airplane settles just a bit, and he make a correction. Nothing that in his judgement at the time, would make him want to put the power back up and go around. In that last 50 yards or so of the approach, I think he can't see anything on the road to his right because of the attitude of the airplane (nose up slightly) his altitude, his position in the left seat of the cockpit, and the length of the nose of the airplane. Then, all of a sudden, a black SUV that wasn't there 5 or 6 seconds ago, suddenly pulls into his glide path. If he could have seen it at all, I think you would have seen him pull up sharply, stall the airplane, and had a worse crash. I think it would have been a natural reaction given his skill level at the time, and having no experience to draw from he probably would have not done anything correctly, because he just wasn't that far along in his training. The operator of the SUV on the other hand, has been operating motor vehicles for a considerably longer period of time, had a MUCH clearer field of vision, a clear view of the approach to the runway that was on his side of his vehicle, several signs and such warning him of his close proximity to an active runway including one for him to stop, and an extra set of eyes and another brain to help him evaluate his situation, and yet his inattentive operation of his vehicle still puts him in the glide path of the oncoming airplane, who could not see him. If the airplane doesn't hit that little bit of dead air and dropped that few feet, the collision doesn't happen. But the pilot had no control of the forces of nature. He operated the craft to the best of his ability at the time. The driver of the SUV however ignored several warnings, and ran through a marked stop sign according to witnesses, and those careless actions put him in the path of the airplane. What were he and his wife doing that BOTH of them could not get the slightest hint that they were about to drive into deep do do? Ain't no way that this incident is the student pilots fault. If the driver of the SUV at least slows down for the stop sign and is paying attention at all, this incident doesn't happen and this discussion would probably be another BOM argument!!
I'm just sayin'
Dan McEntee
-
I digress Dan. I went and looked at Google street level again, and you can make out the word stop in a washed out white in the middle of the road. To be honest though, I don't think it would hold water in a court of law, which I think this will probably end up. It's very hard to make out, and if a soccer mom did notice it, she wouldn't have a clue where to look.
This stuffs natural to us plane nuts, but to the general public, they haven't a clue.
Gonzo
-
You do not pitch the nose up on decent for a landing, the nose is always down. You start your "flare" to slow the aircraft, this rotates the aircraft and pitches the nose up. Correctly done at landing, the airspeed gets lowered where the airplane is barely flying before touchdown. I.e. "stalled landing."
Flaps! Why beat the aircraft up with a landing without flaps? And you do because the landing speed is greater. The idea is to slow the aircraft down and make the final approach at the correct V speed for that aircraft with flaps lowered.
Makes for a slower landing and shorter roll out. Slow speed should = more gentle landings. Slower approach, allows for more time/less distance for important decision making on final. All 101 stuff. On final be prepaired to abort at any time. That's how I was taught, back in the mid 60's, when I got my ticket, in a Luscombe.
Gee, as I said. The pilot did have low time, really low time. So low actually the instructors abilities should be questioned. Also, as I said, the pilot made many judgement and piloting mistakes. There's no point in listing them.
That filming thing. This is ego. There's no place for egos with GA. Students or veteran pilots alike, another thing I learned day one, first lesson. My instructor, for my private pilots license, was a woman.
There was this "pilot?" who took a friend on a plane ride for her birthday. A low time pilot. The news media covered the incident. They reported, that an onlooker mentioned, the pilot said he was going to "give her the ride of her life." They both died in the crash.
In my 40 years of participating in GA, as a pilot and commercial pilot, I've seen guys/individuals, I don't refer to them as pilots because they are not, who display egos. A serious personality flaw for a good conscientious pilot.
A personality flaw period! LL~
What we see here with this incident, is an individual with an ego issue. These guys never become really good proficient pilots. These are the ones you read about.
And don't think the FAA doesn't take into account personalities when they do an investigation. Sometimes that's the "dead" giveaway.
Charles
40 years of GA and I've walked away from every landing! ;D
-
Guys Many airports have a road near the end of a runway, most are not inside the fence. In our case it is closer than what this would appear. Looks like an unfortunate accident that either driver or pilot could have easily avoided. If in fact it was a solo flight inexperience was a factor I'm sure. I would also think any training done on this field covered this very scenario. Unfortunate for both but amazing no one was seriously hurt
-
Someone mentioned to low and long approach. You should have been at the air shows we used to have at Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base. Especially when planes were coming in for setting up. You could almost name the branch of service and the country from the way the planes approached the main runway. The Air Force pilots were always doing long low approaches, I think becase of the open country side. Navy pilots would come over the end of the runway and drop. No wonder they built the planes with strong landing gear. One plane that comes to mind was a high wing transport plane. They would come at the runway too high and dive at the runway and level off. When he finally got it on the ground, we thought he was going to plant the nose wheel into the pavement before he leveled off. We got to talk to the flight crew of the plane and asked him what the problem was with his landing. His response was, there are no trees. They were used to flying in and out of Canadian fields with tall trees all around.
-
There's more to this unfortunate incident:
The road in question is a private road that is not on airport property. It is owned by another party.
In a subsequent interview, the SUV driver said that he and his wife dine at the airport restaurant on a regular basis and was aware of the proper procedures. The 22 page FAA Guide To Ground Vehicle Operations states that the driver of ground vehicle traffic operating on and near airports must maintain a very high degree of situational awareness. This is especially true for non-towered airports. The recommendation is to STOP, LOOK, and LISTEN. It is also recommended that the vehicle driver lower the driver's side window to help hear for approaching traffic. The guide also states that ground vehicles have the lowest right-of-way privilege. From what I can see, the SUV driver was just too complacent.
The airport representative indicated that the airport and the landowner would work out a solution.
FAA 14CFR Part 91 states that landing aircraft have right-of way over other aircraft with only very limited exception. Added to that, when I was taking my flight instruction it was made very clear that ground vehicle traffic must yield to aircraft at all times.
-
Yep, the A/C has the right-of-way. Crucifying this student pilot is not something a "real" aviator would do. It's real easy to armchair aviate somebody. Especially if they are dead.
-
An interesting sidebar ~
In the November issue of FLYING, Robert Goyer's Going Direct column discussed Runway Disaster Prevention. While most of the talk was about airplane-to-airplane incidents, the overriding theme stressed how potentially dangerous things are for airplanes near to and on the ground. It's a situation that the FAA and other involved parties are working diligently to correct.
In this case the airport representative hit the mark when he said that it was no longer enough to rely on peoples good judgement. Some physical change was needed to reduce or eliminate the risk.
Plus, this particular airport has had a rash of bad news, all of which was random and unrelated. A few weeks ago a Little Toot suffered an engine failure on lift-off and ran through that white fence on the other side of the road. The plane flipped but the pilot got out with only aches and pains. Two other planes recently crashed, with loss of life, after departing the airport.
-
"Stop, Look and Listen" is no longer the rule as most people in this country don't feel responsible for ther own actions. Some lawyer will sign these people up and the airport will be turned into a mall. Look at the train situation, now it's better to dig under the railroad which is surely not cost effective.
Thanks
Wayne
-
Just because there's a "Stop, Look and Listen," for traffic doesn't mean the FAA will forgive this low time pilot for his "many" errors. And there are plenty.
Unfortunately, one of the ways of learning is from the errors made by other pilots.
And Wade is right, pilots don't crucify other nitwit pilots, we have a governing force that does that, it's called he FAA. Thank goodness.
Be nice if everybody was a pilot of actual aircraft.
Some things would just be more easily understood.
Charles
-
And Wade is right, pilots don't crucify other nitwit pilots, we have a governing force that does that, it's called he FAA. Thank goodness.
Well, Charles, that is exactly what you are doing by calling him a nitwit. Please give us the benefit of all your years of experience and list the "many" errors he made. And don't assume anything, like he didn't have flaps deployed when you don't know that for sure. I think I can see them deployed early on in the video when camera angle and depth of field permited it. What are the other "many" this new pilot on his first solo landing made?
Dan McEntee
-
what say we let this go. We weren't there and speculation is the best we can do. A mistake was made and those involved will sort it out. As pilots it is our job to learn from what happens around us. (model pilots or otherwise) I.m speaking from something close to 25k hrs. I learn every day and this is just another sad event to learn from.
-
" ..No wonder they built the planes with strong landing gear...."
A side note, slightly off topic. Because of the typical carrier landing, Navy LG designs have to survive a 32 foot static drop test, Air Force requires only 14 feet.
-
And Wade is right, pilots don't crucify other nitwit pilots, we have a governing force that does that, it's called he FAA. Thank goodness.Well, Charles, that is exactly what you are doing by calling him a nitwit. Please give us the benefit of all your years of experience and list the "many" errors he made. And don't assume anything, like he didn't have flaps deployed when you don't know that for sure. I think I can see them deployed early on in the video when camera angle and depth of field permited it. What are the other "many" this new pilot on his first solo landing made? Dan McEntee
Dan,
I believe you miss quoted me. I never called the operator of that aircraft in the video a nitwit.
I also made good and accurate statements about that incident. As far as listing all his pilot errors or his poor judgments, school is over.
I have more important things to do on "The LOSER."
I'm actually doing a bit with the flaps. I have a few new photos of the wing and I think I'll post them.
Charles
-
Charles, I am not a reflexive 'Avaiojet-basher', as you know, but in this case I believe you are quite wrong about a number of things. There is probably no point in me going into details, since people like Ted and Dan have already done so better than I could, to no avail - although I have to add that the nose is not 'always down' on approach to landing. I have flown aircraft where the nose is 5 degrees up all the way down final. If you do not understand this then you shouldn't be quite so confident in attacking the pilot. The same goes for some of your other observations (and have you seriously never practised a flapless approach and landing in 40 years?).
What I would say is that if nothing else, 40 years of involvement in aviation should have taught you the perils of leaping to condemnation in incidents where you don't have all the facts. Perhaps we should follow Roger's advice, let it rest, and read the FAA report when it finally comes out.
Steve
PS I wish someone had filmed my first solo, just because it would be a nice thing to have - like a video of your wedding or your kids' first steps. I can't see where ego comes into it.
-
Sadly it was an incident such as this that took the great Randy Rhodes...
(Although there were drugs, alcohol and rock and roll involved in that one)
-
quote from Steve
PS I wish someone had filmed my first solo, just because it would be a nice thing to have - like a video of your wedding or your kids' first steps. I can't see where ego comes into it.
[/quote]
I'm with you, Steve. I do still have my shirt tail taped up in my model shop, but a video would be nice. There is no ego involved in filming such a landmark event in someone's life. How many of us get to solo? As a former CFI, I always encouraged my students to record their first solo. Back off, Charles, you're out of line here.
-
What is improper about a zero flap landing in a Cessna 172?
Two things:
1) 172 does needs a very shallow approach if landing without flaps. A student pilot on his first solo flight would not have been able to cope with the unusually high nose attitude required to land.
2) 172 stalls at 35kt with flaps and 45 without. The stall horn starts to blare around 50-55. Recommended speed on short final is 65. I wonder if the guy got a little slow and got distracted by a stall horn.
How long was the runway?
Where was the appropriate touchdown zone on a runway of that length given the selected (and not inappropriate) landing flap selection?
Generous 3500ft although it does have a 400 foot displaced threshold. This actually brings up another question: why was he aiming to land so close to the edge of runway if the touch down zone was 400 further down?
Where would the pilot's attention (visually, in particular) be focused on short final?
I suspect the unusually high AOA due to zero flaps on final might have caused pilot's view partially obstructed by the panel.
The first time I saw it something caught my eye but I wasn't sure what it was. I kept watching the the video over and over. Then I saw a version of the video in slow motion. I think I saw an airplane stall into the SUV. Hear me out:
The plane was landing without flaps. The pilot setup a regular nose down attitude when landing with full flaps. This means the plane was descending at higher rate. the pilot failed to adjust the power(the engine sound did not change throughout the video) and quickly got below the glide slope. The plane got was getting low and the pilot tried to keep the nose up by pulling on the yoke. The plane slowed down below recommended approach speed, the stall horn started blaring, scaring the pilot. He saw the land approach fast, pulled even more on the yoke resulting in a stall.
If you look at the video in slow mo, the plane drops the nose rather dramatically just before it hits the SUV. If the guy landed with such low nose down attitude he would have folded the nose gear anyways. Another clue to a stall is the sudden drop of the left wingtip just before the nose came down. Mind you, the windsock showed ZERO wind plus the plane had a very stable approach up to the very end which tells me, the wing and nose dropping was not normal.
-
Sadly it was an incident such as this that took the great Randy Rhodes...
(Although there were drugs, alcohol and rock and roll involved in that one)
Bulls**t
-
Two things:
1) 172 does needs a very shallow approach if landing without flaps. A student pilot on his first solo flight would not have been able to cope with the unusually high nose attitude required to land.
2) 172 stalls at 35kt with flaps and 45 without. The stall horn starts to blare around 50-55. Recommended speed on short final is 65. I wonder if the guy got a little slow and got distracted by a stall horn.
Generous 3500ft although it does have a 400 foot displaced threshold. This actually brings up another question: why was he aiming to land so close to the edge of runway if the touch down zone was 400 further down?
I suspect the unusually high AOA due to zero flaps on final might have caused pilot's view partially obstructed by the panel.
The first time I saw it something caught my eye but I wasn't sure what it was. I kept watching the the video over and over. Then I saw a version of the video in slow motion. I think I saw an airplane stall into the SUV. Hear me out:
The plane was landing without flaps. The pilot setup a regular nose down attitude when landing with full flaps. This means the plane was descending at higher rate. the pilot failed to adjust the power(the engine sound did not change throughout the video) and quickly got below the glide slope. The plane got was getting low and the pilot tried to keep the nose up by pulling on the yoke. The plane slowed down below recommended approach speed, the stall horn started blaring, scaring the pilot. He saw the land approach fast, pulled even more on the yoke resulting in a stall.
If you look at the video in slow mo, the plane drops the nose rather dramatically just before it hits the SUV. If the guy landed with such low nose down attitude he would have folded the nose gear anyways. Another clue to a stall is the sudden drop of the left wingtip just before the nose came down. Mind you, the windsock showed ZERO wind plus the plane had a very stable approach up to the very end which tells me, the wing and nose dropping was not normal.
More bulls**t
-
More bulls**t
I didn't really want to get involved in trying to second guess an aircraft accident from a video but...
I've watched the video several times and I agree with Steve that there is the distinct indication of the beginning of a stall just before the plane struck the car. I won't try to second guess why! It may not even be important to whose fault anything was but the hesitation and wing drop are definitely there. And that's not Bulls++t...
Randy Cuberly
-
Little off topic, but we hear the same thing in the biker community, 'I didn't see him/her', until I ran into them. It's amazing the things people do while driving. I have become extermely cognizant of those around me and have to be double alert and cautious.
-
More bulls**t
More bulls**t
Solid argument. Here's another one for you to call "bulls**t" on:
Every pre-solo student always flies with an instructor. When they are sent on their first solo, all they are asked to do is a couple of take offs and landings around the airport. The plane is significantly lighter than what the student is used to so they tend to come in a little higher than usual, float and land a bit further down the runway.
So explain this to me if you can: Why was that airplane's approach so drastically different from a typical first solo approach? It was on too shallow of an angle and 400 feet BEFORE the beginning of the landing zone area.
-
Little off topic, but we hear the same thing in the biker community, 'I didn't see him/her', until I ran into them. It's amazing the things people do while driving. I have become extermely cognizant of those around me and have to be double alert and cautious.
So true. I had a guy attempt to side-swipe me two times while he was changing lanes. The third time he clipped my front wheel. A car behind me managed to stop 3 feet in front of my helmet. Thank god for full-face helmets, protective gear AND motorcycle safety courses. If it wasn't for them, I would've become a statistic.
-
I didn't really want to get involved in trying to second guess an aircraft accident from a video but...
I've watched the video several times and I agree with Steve that there is the distinct indication of the beginning of a stall just before the plane struck the car. I won't try to second guess why! It may not even be important to whose fault anything was but the hesitation and wing drop are definitely there. And that's not Bulls++t...Randy Cuberly
Randy,
Great observation!
Yes, that could be a hint of a stall, but it could also be rising warmer air off the road? I don't know the time of day, but Texas is known for heat. Shadows could help determine time of day?
My guess on that, and I did notice it, was low airspeed without the use of flaps. Not using flaps on that approach is a dead giveaway for inexperience or laziness.
The word "ego" sits deep in a number of individuals. In many cases it's a leading part of someone's character and personality. There's absolutely no place for "egos" in GA. Read some books!
CFI. Just because you're a CFI doesn't mean you have high hours. Doesn't mean your a "better man" also. And BTW, in some cases high hours doesn't have anything to do with pilot proficiency, hardly. Back in the early 80's, when I started my commercial training, my instructor had only a few hundred hours. GA is not the place to start measuring "things" from pilot to pilot. This accomplishes nothing except inform others that a serious conversation is well beyond some individuals.
Imagine, name calling at the scene of a GA incident over disagreement? Pointless, childlike, foolish. etc., etc.
The private pilot's license is only the beginning, the start, of a long learning process over a long period of time, it's your license for that important "first step" to start learning and enjoying GA.
From the remarks from some pilots, if you really are, tells me you have much to learn, mostly about communications and carrying on a civil conversation. We were told not to start a pissing match on Threads.
As are all incidents or just "close calls," there has to be a level of maturity and cooperation among the individuals looking for reasons and ansewers. What GA is not, is Monday morning quarterbacking of some sport event.
A series of wrong decisions, pilot error, close mindedness and egos, has gotten plenty of pilots in trouble, some serious trouble.
I soloed when I was 18. That was a long time ago. I have no idea how many hours went by before my instructor turned me loose. For whatever the reason might be, most guys want to solo in as few hours as possible. I can't remember this being an issue when I took up flying. It's not a good thing.
The training which any pilot receives, is a direct result of the individual, your CFI, doing the training, task for task.
I strongly believe this individual wasn't ready to solo, just a few more hours could have made a big difference.
I'm not a CFI, I never had interest in giving instruction, but if I was, I wouldn't permit the filming of my student's solo flight. Simply, just another thing to keep his mind off the flight.
But that's me! n~
Charles
Edited to get the word (p i s s i n g) in. Actually an important word because there's absolutely no place for it in the Forum or in Threads.
The Country is changing, more than ever, we should not devide.
-
what say we let this go. We weren't there and speculation is the best we can do. A mistake was made and those involved will sort it out. As pilots it is our job to learn from what happens around us. (model pilots or otherwise) I.m speaking from something close to 25k hrs. I learn every day and this is just another sad event to learn from.
Thanks.
-
Bulls**t
The bus arrived at Flying Baron Estates in Leesburg at about 8:00 a.m. on the 19th and parked approximately 90 yards away from the landing strip and approximately 15 yards in front of the house that would later serve as the accident site. On the bus were: Ozzy Osbourne, Sharon Arden, Rudy Sarzo, Tommy Aldrige, Don Airey, Wanda Aycock, Andrew Aycock, Rachel Youngblood, Randy Rhoads and the bands tour manager. Andrew Aycock and his ex-wife, Wanda, went into Jerry Calhoun’s house to make some coffee while some members of Ozzy Osbourne’s band slept in the bus and others got out and "stretched". Being stored inside of the aircraft hanger at Flying Baron Estates, was a red and white 1955 Beechcraft Bonanza F-35 (registration #: N567LT) that belonged to Mike Partin of Kissimmee, Florida. Andrew Aycock, who had driven the groups bus all night from Knoxville and who had a pilots license, apparently took the plane without permission and took keyboardist Don Airey and the bands tour manager up in the plane for a few minutes, at times flying low to the ground. Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, Andrew Aycock’s medical certificate (3rd class) had expired, thus making his pilots license not valid. Approximately 9:00 a.m. on the morning of March 19th, Andrew Aycock took Rachel Youngblood and Randy Rhoads up for a few minutes. During this trip the plane began to fly low to the ground, at times below tree level, and "buzzed" the bands tour bus three times. On the fourth pass (banking to the left in a south-west direction) the planes left wing struck the left side of the bands tour bus (parked facing east) puncturing it in two places approximately half way down on the right side of the bus. The plane, with the exception of the left wing, was thrown over the bus, hit a nearby pine tree, severing it approximately 10 feet up from the bottom, before it crashed into the garage on the west side of the home owned by Jerry Calhoun. The plane was an estimated 10 feet off the ground traveling at approximately 120 - 150 knots during impact. The house was almost immediately engulfed in flames and destroyed by the crash and ensuing fire, as was the garage (pictured) and the two vehicles inside, an Oldsmobile and a Ford Granada. Jesse Herndon, who was inside the house during the impact, escaped with no injuries. The largest piece of the plane that was left was a wing section about 6 to 7 feet long. The very wing that caught the side of the tour bus, was deposited just to the north of the bus. The severed pine tree stood between the bus and the house. Ozzy Osbourne, Tommy Aldrige, Rudy Sarzo and Sharon Arden, who were all asleep on the bus, were awoken by the planes impact and (at first) thought they had been involved in a traffic accident. Wanda Aycock had returned to the bus while keyboardist Don Airey stood outside and witnesses the accident, as did Marylee Morrison, who was riding her horse within sight of the estate. Two men, at the west end of the runway, witnessed the plane "buzzing" the area when the plane suddenly "went out of sight" as it crashed. Once outside of the bus the band members learned of the catastrophic event that had just taken place. The bus was moved approximately 300 feet to the east of the house that was engulfed in flames. The band checked into the Hilco Inn in Leesburg where they mourned the death of Randy and Rachel and would wait for family members to arrive. While Orlando’s "Rock Super Bowl XIV", scheduled for later that day, was not canceled, the Ozzy Osbourne band would not play and the promoters offered refunds to all ticket holders.
-
Well, we were just having a nice conversation about who was at fault for the collision. We weren't discussing the flight characteristics of a Cessna 172. Whether that airplane was stalling or not doesn't make a difference. Whether the pilot is a rank beginner or the second coming of Jimmy Doolittle doesn't make any difference. If the black SUV isn't in his flight path, the airplane is on the ground in one piece. I was making the point that the driver of the SUV was at fault for inattentive driving and his non-actions put the SUV at the point of impact. He wasn't paying attention and wasn't aware of his surroundings. It's no different if he's pulling out in front of a Cessna 172 or a tractor-trailer coming down the road. If it was a tractor-trailer going at the speed of the airplane, he would have been spam in a can. While the pilot of the airplane may not have been making a text book landing, he has priority to that airspace at that point in time and has a reasonable expectation that no one would put a 5000 pound obstacle in his way at the last possible moment. To address the flight condition of the airplane, if he doesn't hit the SUV, I think he still gets the airplane on the ground safely. While he may be at the point of stalling the airplane, he's in ground effect, and that can change the equation. Wouldn't have been the prettiest landing you ever saw, but he probably could have used the airplane again. We'll never know because some careless driver pulled an SUV out in front of his path and caused a collision. If the pilot is guilty of anything, it's being a foot too low. If the SUV isn't there, the out come is completely different. That should be the focus, who could have done what at that time to have prevented the collision. While it's true that the pilot should have been a bit higher on his approach, that is just a mitigating circumstance, in my opinion. I'll bet it's pretty common for airplanes to be at that altitude at that point at that airport for a variety of reasons. That's why there are signs in the area warning of low flying aircraft and stops signs painted on the road. The driver of the SUV, it has been pointed out, has been there before and was familiar with the area and the aircraft operations that take place there. If you factor that in with proper operation of his vehicle and attentive driving, the collision doesn't happen.
I thought this was a good opportunity to learn a few things. The main lesson is situational awareness. Being aware of your surrounds and situation at all times when operation any kind of vehicle. That is the biggest thing I tried to impress to my kids when teaching them how to drive. Paying attention to your surroundings and your situation can prevent an accident in an SUV, or a Cessna 172 or flying a control line model. If you are aware of a situation and focused you can prevent an accident caused by someone else who isn't. Being observant is the key. I find it interesting that most comments here were initially directed at the pilot and the point of impact, as if the car were parked in a parking lot or on a side street. Maybe that is because we are aviation oriented, licensed pilots or not, and that would be the first thing we thought of. If that were the case, with the car being parked and visible through the whole approach, then yeah, the pilot is completely at fault. But that isn't the case here in this situation. Whether the airplane is 10 inches off the ground and stalling or 10 feet off the ground and flying a text book decent to a landing, he still has priority to that airspace and the SUV should have seen him and yielded to the airplane.
And I find it funny who brings up the mention of a pissing match. Everything was pretty civil and interesting until a certain someone comes along starts it. Reread the WHOLE thread and it's easy to figure out who that is that starts all the name calling and wild assumptions that takes things off into a different direction. Test your powers of observation and situational awareness.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
I love reading what you guys are saying but please use paragraphs.. A whole page of text without paragraph breaks is real difficult on old eyes.
-
, Back off, Charles, you're out of line here.
Dan,
Just so you'll know. Here's where the pissing match started. From Will Hinton when he said, "Back off, Charles, you're out of line here." And there are a few other not so obvious spots. ;D LL~
Oh, and BTW, the flight characticis of any aircraft has plenty to do with any investigation, and does "make a difference." In fact, sometimes it's key. LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
Type at you later!
Charles
-
More recent news:
The Northwest Regional Airport (52F) Property Owner's Association has tried on several occasions to buy the land associated with the private roadway. The owner doesn't want to sell.
The student pilot has said he will not continue to pursue his license. That is too bad.
Nothing is posted yet on the FAA and NTSB web sites. This stuff usually takes awhile.
-
I remember my first solo landing in a glider at Schweizer aircrafts private field in Elmira NY in 1957. I did a long,long,long straight setup and landed 400+ ft down the runway. I can still hear my instructor and several other pilots laughing as we pulled the glider back to the take off location at the very end of the runway. I was told to do a straight in landing but that was the last time I ever did one. High performance gliders land very different than powered aircraft. We fly down wind next to the runway and pull up to burn off speed and roll left with a lot of left rudder to kick the tail over to vertical and point the nose very steeply into the ground. Pop the air breaks and flair out and full stop in 200 ft or less. It will scare the s***** out of you the first time you do it no mater how many hours you have. I had less than than three hours when I did that solo. It took me about a dozen flights to get the landing down pat.
I had a tow rope break and it came back and damaged the wing but I was at 400 ft and landed OK
I also had to land in a thunder storm so bad I could not see the ground at all. I had flown over 400 miles,contest, and it was getting dark and I was above the bad weather which was causing all the lift. I had ridden the edge of the front for six hours and now was trapped by it. One of the retrieving crew from another teem talked me down. All we has on board back then was a radio with two freq in it and a altimeter that had to be reset for location and two lift instruments. We turned the radio off to save batteries for long lengths of time ~^. I never went above 10,000 ft back then. I went for a ride to 22,000 10 years ago #^
Ed
-
I love reading what you guys are saying but please use paragraphs.. A whole page of text without paragraph breaks is real difficult on old eyes.
Hey man if that was RE my post I apologize copy and paste one phone is no good.
-
More recent news:The Northwest Regional Airport (52F) Property Owner's Association has tried on several occasions to buy the land associated with the private roadway. The owner doesn't want to sell.The student pilot has said he will not continue to pursue his license. That is too bad.Nothing is posted yet on the FAA and NTSB web sites. This stuff usually takes awhile.
The student pilot has said he will not continue to pursue his license. That is too bad.
Bob,
With all due respect, why is it to bad?
Just about anyone can be a pilot, but not all individuals have the makings of being a "good" pilot.
Anyone involved in GA knows quite clearly that some life styles don't work well with being a private pilot.
Wanting to be "Indiana Jones," or just a mid crisis whim, is no reason to start pursuing a privite pilots license. I've seen this plenty of times, those that want to be a pilot but don't have their head on straight.
My guess is this student pilot made the best decision for himself, based on his needs and his life style, not to mention, but I will, his family.
Piloting an airplane isn't for everyone, he's probably better off not being a pilot, there are risks. Well, at least he has that video to remind him of his efforts.
Does he build model airplanes? That's something to fall back on.
Doesn't take much to make you think twice.
Charles
-
It was on too shallow of an angle and 400 feet BEFORE the beginning of the landing zone area.
Thanks Steven!
Everyone else is dismissing this. My question would be, how far back from the threshold would the pilot, (who has been trained, and knows its against regulations to land his plane before), still have the "rightaway"? I guess we add a week to drivers ed. to teach drivers about patterns, and approaches.
The first picture shows the displaced threshold, the second picture shows the "stop sign". Once you bring the picture up, click on it again to zoom in.
Gonzo
-
Bob,
With all due respect, why is it to bad?
Just about anyone can be a pilot, but not all individuals have the makings of being a "good" pilot.
Anyone involved in GA knows quite clearly that some life styles don't work well with being a private pilot.
Wanting to be "Indiana Jones," or just a mid crisis whim, is no reason to start pursuing a privite pilots license. I've seen this plenty of times, those that want to be a pilot but don't have their head on straight.
My guess is this student pilot made the best decision for himself, based on his needs and his life style, not to mention, but I will, his family.
Piloting an airplane isn't for everyone, he's probably better off not being a pilot, there are risks. Well, at least he has that video to remind him of his efforts.
Does he build model airplanes? That's something to fall back on.
Doesn't take much to make you think twice.
Charles
I think it's too bad because we have a person with an interest in aviation who was turning a dream into a reality. The only thing I know about him is his name. None of us has the right to judge his motivation. None of us has the right to judge anything about him. His dream was shattered. Aviation is a great adventure. That's why it's so sad.
My take on this ~ I'm with Dan. We have a ground vehicle crossing an active runway approach. A plane was on final. I don't care if it was the crappiest approach ever. I don't care if the pilot was going to land short of the displaced threshold. He was still a landing aircraft. The SUV driver violated the aircraft's right-of-way.
-
Thanks Steven!
Everyone else is dismissing this. My question would be, how far back from the threshold would the pilot, (who has been trained, and knows its against regulations to land his plane before), still have the "rightaway"? I guess we add a week to drivers ed. to teach drivers about patterns, and approaches.
The first picture shows the displaced threshold, the second picture shows the "stop sign". Once you bring the picture up, click on it again to zoom in.
Gonzo
All is not what it seems. The following was taken from an interview with the airport manager after the incident.
A Google Maps aerial photograph of the runway taken several years ago shows an arrow designating where planes can land moved away from the north end of the runway.
Today, the arrow is at the edge of the landing strip.
The airport's owner said the marker was first moved because of a dangerous fence made of railroad ties located just beyond the end of the runway. When the airport installed a breakaway plastic fence, the landing marker was moved back.
"It wouldn't make any difference," Hyde said. "The pilots would have the option to come in and make short field landings."
-
Thanks Bob, I digress.
-
The airport's owner said the marker was first moved because of a dangerous fence made of railroad ties located just beyond the end of the runway. When the airport installed a breakaway plastic fence, the landing marker was moved back.
I checked the FAA data for the airport: the threshold is there. google maps is not the official record, FAA is. Any changes require FAA approval.
-
...this will get interesting.
-
The bus arrived at Flying Baron Estates in Leesburg at about 8:00 a.m. on the 19th and parked approximately 90 yards away from the landing strip and approximately 15 yards in front of the house that would later serve as the accident site. On the bus were: Ozzy Osbourne, Sharon Arden, Rudy Sarzo, Tommy Aldrige, Don Airey, Wanda Aycock, Andrew Aycock, Rachel Youngblood, Randy Rhoads and the bands tour manager. Andrew Aycock and his ex-wife, Wanda, went into Jerry Calhoun’s house to make some coffee while some members of Ozzy Osbourne’s band slept in the bus and others got out and "stretched". Being stored inside of the aircraft hanger at Flying Baron Estates, was a red and white 1955 Beechcraft Bonanza F-35 (registration #: N567LT) that belonged to Mike Partin of Kissimmee, Florida. Andrew Aycock, who had driven the groups bus all night from Knoxville and who had a pilots license, apparently took the plane without permission and took keyboardist Don Airey and the bands tour manager up in the plane for a few minutes, at times flying low to the ground. Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, Andrew Aycock’s medical certificate (3rd class) had expired, thus making his pilots license not valid. Approximately 9:00 a.m. on the morning of March 19th, Andrew Aycock took Rachel Youngblood and Randy Rhoads up for a few minutes. During this trip the plane began to fly low to the ground, at times below tree level, and "buzzed" the bands tour bus three times. On the fourth pass (banking to the left in a south-west direction) the planes left wing struck the left side of the bands tour bus (parked facing east) puncturing it in two places approximately half way down on the right side of the bus. The plane, with the exception of the left wing, was thrown over the bus, hit a nearby pine tree, severing it approximately 10 feet up from the bottom, before it crashed into the garage on the west side of the home owned by Jerry Calhoun. The plane was an estimated 10 feet off the ground traveling at approximately 120 - 150 knots during impact. The house was almost immediately engulfed in flames and destroyed by the crash and ensuing fire, as was the garage (pictured) and the two vehicles inside, an Oldsmobile and a Ford Granada. Jesse Herndon, who was inside the house during the impact, escaped with no injuries. The largest piece of the plane that was left was a wing section about 6 to 7 feet long. The very wing that caught the side of the tour bus, was deposited just to the north of the bus. The severed pine tree stood between the bus and the house. Ozzy Osbourne, Tommy Aldrige, Rudy Sarzo and Sharon Arden, who were all asleep on the bus, were awoken by the planes impact and (at first) thought they had been involved in a traffic accident. Wanda Aycock had returned to the bus while keyboardist Don Airey stood outside and witnesses the accident, as did Marylee Morrison, who was riding her horse within sight of the estate. Two men, at the west end of the runway, witnessed the plane "buzzing" the area when the plane suddenly "went out of sight" as it crashed. Once outside of the bus the band members learned of the catastrophic event that had just taken place. The bus was moved approximately 300 feet to the east of the house that was engulfed in flames. The band checked into the Hilco Inn in Leesburg where they mourned the death of Randy and Rachel and would wait for family members to arrive. While Orlando’s "Rock Super Bowl XIV", scheduled for later that day, was not canceled, the Ozzy Osbourne band would not play and the promoters offered refunds to all ticket holder
That's what really happened.
-
Sadly it was an incident such as this that took the great Randy Rhodes...
(Although there were drugs, alcohol and rock and roll involved in that one)
As I said, Bulls**t. These two accident sequences had NOTHING in common.
-
I took my first flying lesson at McFillen Air Park in Lake Charles (probably gone now) and we had two things to worry about on approach - 100 foot tall pine trees on one side of the runway and a road that crossed the north end of the runway just like the one in the video. My instructor used to tell me not to worry about the trees.
I watched the student's approach in the video and the first thing I noticed was that it looked like he wasn't going to clear that little bitty fence. He was dragging that 172 over the numbers - and any instructor worth his salt will tell you not to do that unless you are dead stick and have no alternative.
I don't think I could pass the medical now, and I haven't flown in maybe twenty years, but watching the video made me want to get an instructor and stuff my fat backside into a 172 and go shoot some touch and goes.
-
Thanks Steven!
Everyone else is dismissing this. My question would be, how far back from the threshold would the pilot, (who has been trained, and knows its against regulations to land his plane before), still have the "rightaway"? I guess we add a week to drivers ed. to teach drivers about patterns, and approaches.
The first picture shows the displaced threshold, the second picture shows the "stop sign". Once you bring the picture up, click on it again to zoom in.
Gonzo
Hey Gonzo;
I feel that the location of the displaced threshold isn't relevant to who is at fault for the collision. We really don't know for sure that he could not have made it to that point, because there was a black SUV in his path and he hit it and that interrupted his flight and caused it to terminate flight and crash. The cause of the collision can't be based on where the airplane would have ended up if the collision had not occurred. Lots of potential possibilities if he doesn't hit the SUV. The last second settling of the airplane could have been from the pilot pulling back in a last second reaction to finally seeing the SUV. Before that point, I don't think he could see it or he would have avoided it even at his lower skill level. He was making his first solo landing and his focus was straight ahead, I'm guessing, and at his altitude and the SUV below him and to his right was not visible from his position in the left seat, which is pretty low below the top of the dashboard. If he sees it at the last second, his reaction might be to pull back or turn the wheel to the left. Since he was an adult and probably operates a car, turning left might have been a natural knee jerk reaction and I think you can get the picture of what would have happened there at that altitude and airspeed. All we see is the plane settle a bit and the left wing drop a bit. At that point he's hitting ground effect, and if he didn't hit an SUV he probably would have been able to make an acceptable landing or even put power back up and go around. If he landed before the displaced threshold, there wouldn't have been any repercussions other than a warning about it from his CFI, correct? I mean, that is why that area is there as a buffer for approaches that come up a bit short for what ever reason? I think it's a shame that he gave it up, because he probably had to work hard and save the money to do it as far as he got, and even with the crash he should finish it, whether he gets his ticket or not. Think of the confidence builder it would be if he got back on the horse and mastered it. Not just in the cockpit but in life in general.
But the long and short of it is, in my opinion, the pilot was where he was supposed to be and had the more difficult task to perform, and had the right of way at that point. Whether he was too low doesn't matter because if he doesn't hit the SUV, he still has options. It's not a matter of how good or bad a pilot he was, the collision could have been avoided if the driver of the SUV wasn't as bad a driver as HE was!! If the SUV isn't there, there may or may NOT have been a single plane crash landing. In my opinion
Sorry for the lack of paragraphs Mr. Reeves! The nuns would be whacking my knuckles with a ruler right now!!! y1 n1
STOP STEALING MY SIGN OFF PHRASE CHUCK!! n1 n1 Show some originality!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
STOP STEALING MY SIGN OFF PHRASE CHUCK!! Show some originality!
Dan,
Sorry about that, it is a good sign off.
Think anybody reads those things?
Charles
-
I've been reading this post with interest and debated on replying. Every day "WE" do things as normal and seem to get by with it. In the video, remove the car or the plane...no story. One thing changed in the routine for both of them and now it is a problem. We are taught how to drive, perform VFR patterns, etc, yet "WE" tend to lean toward accepted practices and it becomes the norm.
Just this week on Wednesday I was sitting at a local airport eating lunch and passing the time. I watched a P210 back-taxiing for takeoff. The airport is in Central Arkansas and is in the middle of the rapidly growing town on I-40. To my amazement, I watched as he stopped at the displaced threshold and performed a 180 to begin his takeoff roll. All was normal until the gear completed retracting, then the engine failed. He had left 1643 ft of runway behind him at takeoff and had no altitude or options.
The point is, we are typically taught the correct way to do things and usually find out the hard way why it was taught that way in the first place.
-
This story may have been beat to death, but one thing that occurs to me is that if this truly was the pilot's first solo and his first solo landing, the plane would have been about 200 pounds lighter than he was used to, since the instructor was not on board. The glide and descent path would be different and the float once in ground effect more pronounced, so his instructor may have told him to aim shorter than usual. This must be a decently long runway since there is a DC-3 in one of the pictures that presumably operates out of this field.
I would give the student pilot the benefit of the doubt on this. His attention would be focused ahead, not off to the right (blind) side of the aircraft where the car approached from, while the opposite was true of the car driver. My home field in California has not only a road at the approach end, but the road is on a levee that keeps the Bay at bay. More than one set of landing gear has been left behind over the years.
-
This story may have been beat to death, but one thing that occurs to me is that if this truly was the pilot's first solo and his first solo landing, the plane would have been about 200 pounds lighter than he was used to, since the instructor was not on board. The glide and descent path would be different and the float once in ground effect more pronounced, so his instructor may have told him to aim shorter than usual. This must be a decently long runway since there is a DC-3 in one of the pictures that presumably operates out of this field.
Something like that happened to me. My 275+ lb flight instructor got out, and off I went in my 150. Took off like I was shot out of a cannon, got to pattern altitude about the end of the runway, then on landing lined up on what I expected to be the numbers, but floated about halfway down what is now 30R at San Jose international.
BTW, I know it's a lot cause, but Charles - there is nothing at all wrong with landing without the flaps deployed in a 172, in fact it probably gets done that way more than with flaps since they are generally unnecessary.
Brett
-
Exactly correct Mike. We can nit pick the approach and landing all we want, but we have to stop at the point of impact. The camera angle and depth of field and such photographic distorts our depth perception and makes some assessments of speed and altitude difficult. We don't know what is going on in the cock pit. He VERY well could have made the threshold as it has already been stated by someone here familiar with the airplane that a 172 on a flapless approach can float in ground effect for a long way. But it can't be determined since the flight was terminated at the black SUV, while he was still airborne. So responsibility for the accident should end there and not include what "might have been" beyond that point. Since the whole incident took place on private property, local law enforcement might not have been involved in any investigation, and it will be interesting how far the FAA takes it. It will probably end up in court on who pays damage and that may depend on who has the best lawyers. But in the end, I think the guy in the SUV will get the tab.
It would hurt the pilots chances if the judge is an aviation enthusiast!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
BTW, I know it's a lot cause, but Charles - there is nothing at all wrong with landing without the flaps deployed in a 172, in fact it probably gets done that way more than with flaps since they are generally unnecessary. Brett
Brett,
You must still be a student pilot or you didn't pursue piloting for any long period of time? I do know you never owned an aircraft.
Because if you did, you would know that landing without flaps creates unnecessary wear on the tires. Also unnecessary stress on the aircraft. Your goal, as a good pilot, is to land the aircraft as slowly and as gentle as possible. Flaps are needed to accomplish this.
With this kind of flying, you also try to assure that passengers are comfortable at all times. Not every passenger is into flying or aviation as a kick or thrill, many are nervous and some may be in an airplane, your airplane, for the first time.
FYI. Airframes do get "loose" just from normal use and foolish abuse over a period of time. You can see this in older aircraft with high hours.
I have many hours in floatpanes and seaplanes. I've owned Lake aircraft. The gear struts are excessively long because the wing is shoulder mounted on the aircraft. Now why would anyone, who has knowledge of the way this aircraft operates, elect to not use flaps on landing?
The same relates to the takeoff. Why keep the aircraft accelerating, on the runway, longer than necessary? Or operate it faster than needed to get the thing into the air without flaps?
Aircraft, 152 or 172, name others, aren't just for training. They are used for transportation from point A to point B. Maintaining them correctly is as important as operating them correctly. Why beat them up?
Thinking small?
Piloting an aircraft with friends as passengers is not play time. Foolish pilots kill themselves all the time, but when they take the innocent to death with them, that's the crime.
I said not everyone has the right mindset to become a private pilot.
Now do this commercially. The required pilot ability and knowledge is above that of a private pilot.
Now add commercial seaplane. There's not many pilots with that ticket. Possibly only 600 or so in the Country.
Lake flying, island flying, mountain flying, low altitude flying, bush flying, IFR flying, night vs. day, cross country, etc., etc.
I'm not saying it gets complicated because you do have to go through a training process and learn the skills required for all this stuff, but, not everyone takes GA this far? But when you do, you generally know stuff. Or you should? There's no point in myself taking this any further. Mature thinking is killing me. n~
Charles
-
So, tell us about ag flying.
-
Brett,
Thinking small?
I'm not saying it gets complicated because you do have to go through a training process and learn the skills required for all this stuff, but, not everyone takes GA this far? But when you do, you generally know stuff. Or you should? There's no point in myself taking this any further. Mature thinking is killing me. n~
Charles
Hey Charles,
Yes, you think you know a lot. You even bring a number of subjects into this discussion that have no bearing on this thread just to show you know a lot. That is not too impressive. Here is another thing you can learn to add to your vast store of knowledge: Brett Buck knows a lot of "stuff" as you put it. For you to lecture Brett borders on the ridiculous if not asinine.
Keith
b
-
Hey Charles,
Yes, you think you know a lot. You even bring a number of subjects into this discussion that have no bearing on this thread just to show you know a lot. That is not too impressive. Here is another thing you can learn to add to your vast store of knowledge: Brett Buck knows a lot of "stuff" as you put it. For you to lecture Brett borders on the ridiculous if not asinine.
Keith
That was funny !!!!!
b
-
Charles, tell us about flying off a carriers, or how about getting a ground level waiver. Inquiring minds want to know......... #^
-
He's not even current on a control line model!
-
LOL!!!! LL~ LL~ LL~
-
He's not even current on a control line model!
Dan,
You certanly aren't clairvoyant, or you would know I've been flying this beat up Magician which I purchased at a yard sale some time ago.
I posted this.
You read every word in all my posts, how did you miss that? ;D
It has a McCoy red head in it. The engine has an offset plug, if that means anything?
Yeah, the model is a mess. :'(
It's heavy and the covering is really loose in places, but it runs and barely flies. It's still fun because it's all I have right now.
At the yard sale, they said the model was from Pennsylvania. So someone built and flew the thing, for years by the looks of it.
I could take photos, may bring back memories for someone?
BTW. Everything I offered about GA "is related." Some of it are comments and information related to replies that make absolutely no since at all.
BTW. Did you know that you can become a pilot at any age as long as you can pass the physical?
You're a great bunch of guys, but please stop egging me on, I'm done! n~
Charles
-
I wish we still had those Av gas prices. HB~>
-
Dan,
I posted this.
BTW. Everything I offered about GA "is related." Some of it are comments and information related to replies that make absolutely no since at all.
You're a great bunch of guys, but please stop egging me on, I'm done! n~
Charles
Charles,
Until you better understand the English language, you might learn to make more "sense" than "since".
What a relief it is to know that you are "done". However, I will miss the comic relief.
Too bad that you will probably not be able to erase all of this thread.
Keith
-
I wish we still had those Av gas prices. HB~>
Yeah me too ! this thread has taken a sad turn with it turning into a bashing session of the student pilot. He really was not at fault , all of this maybe could have been avoided...? yes but it wasn't, Fact is it happened, and the parties must deal with. I too personally think the SUV will be found at fault, but it really does not matter. sometime stuff just happens
Randy
PS by the way I have flown for many decades and have owned 5 172s and a host of other planes, I too have landed in cooler months without flaps, or with only the first notch of flaps, which he may have had, I don't think you can tell from this video.
The planes will float down the runways many times in cool weather with less fuel and only 1 person in it.
I have gone down almost 1/2 of the runway before in ground effects before the plane settled to the ground
-
Brett,
You must still be a student pilot or you didn't pursue piloting for any long period of time? I do know you never owned an aircraft.
Because if you did, you would know that landing without flaps creates unnecessary wear on the tires. Also unnecessary stress on the aircraft. Your goal, as a good pilot, is to land the aircraft as slowly and as gentle as possible. Flaps are needed to accomplish this.
I owned two aircraft, a 150 and a 172. Our maintenance bills were no different from anyone else's. You can land either aircraft as softly as you want either way, although generally landing with flaps tended to lead to a little bit more "flop down" because you are approaching at a much higher angle. But if you do it right it's a grease job in either case.
The rest of your lecture is equally at odds with reality. You know nothing about this topic, which so far appears to be par for the course. You would be well-served to sit back quietly and learn, but as a malignant narcissist, this would not serve your craving for attention.
BTW, I didn't get a chance to thank you for deleting the other thread, wherein I offered useful assistance that you apparently took to heart. I did it for other people, of course, not for your benefit. But we couldn't have anything that interferes with your "oh look, all these bad internet people are picking on me for no reason" approach.
So here you go, another innocent thread turned into an "Avaiojet" narcissist's dream. And you are working the system like a master, just skirting the edge of getting tossed, and then getting some cover (in the form of locked or deleted threads) when it goes off the rails for you. Well done.
Brett
-
Brett,
Yes, you are correct! The Thread has gone in a different direction.
However, I'm pleased to advised it's really not my fault.
You see, I went back and read each and every one of my posts or replies.
Doing this again, I noticed that not once did I blame that pilot for this incident. I did point out some of the bad decisions he made, as anyone would have done with a background in GA, but didn't point the blame.
Now, what's interesting about these bad decisions, is, it doesn't necessarily make him at fault. I also said that the FAA will determine who is at fault and most likely list his errors and bad decissions.
I also never said the driver was at fault. Soccer Mom on the cell phone?
Now that puts me in a pretty neutrul position.
Not a bad place to be.
So, why are you blaming me for where the Thread went?
It's clear why the Thread went sideways and I had nothing to do with it.
I did make a comment about you "never owning" an airplane. I guess I was wrong based on what you said? So, sorry about that.
I will defend my comments on the use of flaps.
Flaps can be your friend.
Brett, here's a question. Better glide rate, with or without flaps?
Another. Seaplane or floatplane landing, flaps or no flaps? Glassy water landing, flaps or no flaps?
No Google allowed!
Brett, we can be friends.
Charles
-
The better glide is without flaps. You need to define what you are talking about, a better glide or a controlled decent. There is a difference. The glide ratio decreases significantly with each increase flap angle and drag increases. That's why gliders and sailplanes don't have flaps and use lift spoiler to help control their decent. You don't want anything that can rob you of precious airspeed. That's why powered aircraft have throttles so you can increase power to overcome the excess drag of the flaps, and pitch trim to to over come the nose up tendency that flaps induce. The balance of those three is what you control your decent with. If you need a steeper angle of decent, you control the airspeed of the airplane and the angle of decent with these also. Critical airspeed changes with this balance and all three are determined in real time for each approach and atmospheric conditions. So what are you talking about?
I won't be typing at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Brett, here's a question. Better glide rate, with or without flaps?
Another. Seaplane or floatplane landing, flaps or no flaps? Glassy water landing, flaps or no flaps?
No Google allowed!
Brett, we can be friends.
Perhaps. But only after you get the psychiatric help you so desperately need. I am not kidding, I am not trying to insult you, I am trying to provide advice that you can take advantage of. If you are this tiresome and annoying here, how must you be in real life?
If it's all an act, I doff my cap to you.
I don't know what you think you are accomplishing here, but it's not making friends.
Brett
-
Oh Man, Dan and Brett really screwed things up! I getting all set to
learn about perfect carrier traps, sailplane record distance attempts
and any number of esoteric adventures from Chucky. Since I only have
a private, commercial, multi-engine, instrument and glider licenses
I feel so left out when hearing from such an experienced aviator.
C'mon, Really??? RJ
-
.......asinine.
Is that a wave form made by a donkey?
-
Sorry RJ :(
-
Is that a wave form made by a donkey?
I widh you guys had not even MENTIONED thast word "asinine". That lonely word caused me more marital headache than anything else in my 60 years of wedded bliss.
OUCH Bad memories for sure.
Bigiron
-
Sorry Marvin :(
HOW YOU BEEN MAN! Haven't seen you for a while, but then I haven't been gettin' out on the contest circuit like I used to. Hope to fix that next year.
Dan McEntee
-
What I want to know is how there was room for anyone else in a 150 in addition to a 275-pound instructor!
And, nobody has noted yet that there are plenty of aircraft that don't HAVE landing flaps, like the T-Craft I learned to fly in, the Super Decathlon that came next, or the Pitts S2. All these can be made to touch down with hardly any sense of impact. Particularly after mastering the wheel landing technique.
-
What I want to know is how there was room for anyone else in a 150 in addition to a 275-pound instructor!
And, nobody has noted yet that there are plenty of aircraft that don't HAVE landing flaps, like the T-Craft I learned to fly in, the Super Decathlon that came next, or the Pitts S2. All these can be made to touch down with hardly any sense of impact. Particularly after mastering the wheel landing technique.
Mike,
We all know you can land an aircraft without flaps and in the training process this is repeated many times. Take off without them also!
I know the T-Craft well actually, nice airplane. Did you know some had flaps!
Guys try to add flaps to them. I have no idea why! n~
Charles
-
Darwin Wins! The gene pool needs a little thinning out now and then.
-
Aviojet,
Thought it might be of value to share the following with you and those who've fallen prey to your self proclaimed aeronautical expertise. Although I wasn't able to preserve the formatting what follows was lifted directly from C-172 POHs (Pilot Operating Handbooks) readily available via an internet search. I've highlighted in red the comments I find most pertinent to correcting your oft repeated assertions of (flawed) aeronautical wisdom.
If you're unfamiliar with the word "normal" as used in the excerpts I'd suggest you google the definition of same or I would be happy to do so for you if it is too painful for you to do for yourself.
With regards to your great concern for unacceptable wear and tear on the airframe I direct your attention to the vast increase in approach airspeed you feel makes it not only unwise but literally unforgivable for a pilot to fly an approach and landing in a C-172 with zero vice full flaps. A full 5MPH increase in POH recommended approach speeds. I can sure see how that would tear an airplane up in short order.
LANDING
Normal landings are made power off with any flap setting. Slips are prohibited in full flap approaches because of a downward pitch encountered under certain combinations of airspeed and sideslip angle. Approach glides are normally made at 70-80 m.p.h. with flaps up, or 65-75 with flaps down, depending upon the turbulence of the air. The elevator trim tab is normally adjusted in the glide to relieve elevator control forces.
Landings are usually made on the main landing wheels to reduce the landing speed and the subsequent need for braking in the landing roll. The nose wheel is lowered gently to the runway after the speed is diminished to avoid unnecessary nose gear strain. This procedure is especially important in rough field landings.
Heavy braking in the landing roll is not recommended because of the probability of skidding the main wheels with the resulting loss of braking effectiveness and damage to the tires.
Normal Landing (0° Flaps) 1.) 70-80 MPH final approach
Normal Landing (40° Flaps) 1.) 65-75 MPH final approach
Short-Field Landing (40° Flaps) 1.) 70 MPH final approach speed
Soft-Field Landing (40° Flaps)1.) 70 MPH final approach speed
Ted Fancher
-
<snip> What I want to know is how there was room for anyone else in a 150 in addition to a 275-pound instructor!
I can relate to that. When I got my check ride in 1983 in a 150M, My FAA Examiner was 250+. I was 6'2" and a skinny 175 lbs. I ripped up a good chart when he made me plot a new course - E6B, colored pencil and all that... No room to work!
-
70-80 MPH final approach
You can tell an "oldtimer" by the fact that they still use MPH. My 172 POH and the checklist are both in knots. LL~
-
Ref. Reply #89, above:
Now I suppose "someone" will attempt to contradict a multi-thousand-hour retired UAL Captain who has experience in everything from ragwing taildraggers to 747-400s on International runs. If so, THAT will be interesting reading. LL~
-
What Douglas said. I also had a 250# instructor and when I figured out
the weight and balance, also a C150, he just said to use 175# for him and
off we went. Worked out ok as we were able to use the aircraft again!! RJ
-
What Douglas said. I also had a 250# instructor and when I figured out
the weight and balance, also a C150, he just said to use 175# for him and
off we went. Worked out ok as we were able to use the aircraft again!! RJ
LOL yea I had the same experience in a 150 ND 152, when I showed him the overweight condition he said re-figure for 170... I told him I am glad he was the PIC...
:-)
Randy
-
Commercial ride 300+ lb. examiner, me 245 lbs. W&B @ 170 each W&B provided courtesy of the ratings mill the examiner owned.
-
What I want to know is how there was room for anyone else in a 150 in addition to a 275-pound instructor!
It was pretty cozy. The other issue is that the engine was getting very tired, and the 150 is no F-22 at the best of times.
Brett
-
It was pretty cozy. The other issue is that the engine was getting very tired, and the 150 is no F-22 at the best of times.
Brett
WE had a 152 with a Lycoming 320 stuffed in it, boy that one would climb :-)
BUT THE best climbing plane I ever flew was a Cessna TU 206, went up like a rocket....so much better feeling that the high time 150s in the dead of summer.
Randy
-
Bob, that's a fairly common situation at small airports in the midwest and southern states where it's flat. You go as long as you can with the runway, and the road is usually where the property ends. Of course, the article fails to mention if there was a VASI or displaced threshold. Often there is, so this could be flat-out pilot error.
'Course, I wasn't there, haven't seen the NTSB report so my conjecture is merely that. I do know that having made thousands of landings at airports like that you do learn to look for cars. Or when you land at St. Maartin Airport you watch out for boats and tall sun-bathers!
I remember when Junior put his P-38 into a U-Haul in Paris, Texas.
-
You can tell an "oldtimer" by the fact that they still use MPH.
Hey Steven,
I think its pretty common now. The LSA Evektor I fly has an MPH ASI. Super fun plane. At 750 lbs, it can get a "little" bumpy in the Texas heat, winds, and thermals though. I also found out it spins very easily the hard way in pilot training while practicing power on stalls while turning. I of course went up in the straps, and froze while my brain was processing what just happend. We got a full rotation before the CFI about put the rudder pedal through the firewall. Now, I am very happy it happend, and always have that experience in the back of my brain while doing stalls, or any other kind of slow flight.
I do have a whopping, grand total of 1 hr in 172's. While contemplating working towards my full ticket, I took advantage of a $100 introductory flight at a school across the runway from ours. It was a newer model painted like the one in the video. It too had an MPH ASI. Fuel injected, so no mixture control. After flying the Evektor, I found it very stable, and easy to land. Almost boring. I thought I was going to have a hernia holding it off the runway landing. Very stiff controls. Visibility wasn't the best, face full of instruments. But the thing I detested the most were the electric flaps. No "notches". I had to look at the flap gauge while operating the flaps. Big distraction while turning base. This could have played a role in the crash. The Evektor has the manual, notched parking brake style. After the flight I decided it wasn't for me. $40 an hour more renal rate, medical examines, definitely not as fun. I'm sure the 172 makes for a great cross country plane, but for me I'll stick to LSA.
Gonzo
-
I think its pretty common now. The LSA Evektor I fly has an MPH ASI.
In 1969, FAA mandated that all certified aircraft have to use knots. The experimental and LSA markets can use whatever units the piltot wants.
We, as in USA nation, are very resistant to change when it comes to units. The world lives in happy oblivion with the metric system while we abuse our children when we make them learn fractions, inches, mph's and ounces. I think Evektor's marketing folk think they can get a better US market penetration if they sell us aircraft with mph.
-
Makes sense. I must have been really cookin' on final in that 172. Thought it was 70MPH, not Knts. #^ 55 to 60 MPH for the Evektor BTW.
Gonzo
-
You can tell an "oldtimer" by the fact that they still use MPH. My 172 POH and the checklist are both in knots. LL~
Yup,Steve,
You've got the "old timer" part right but I didn't "type" what I posted, the entries were cut and pasted from a 1975 POH for the then current regs.
I'm much more comfortable speaking in knots, as well, but also realize that the subject matter addressed by Aviojet had little to do with the 0.15% difference between Knots and MPH but, rather, the additional wear and tear on the airframe coerced onto the airframe by a pilot foolish enough to use POH approved "normal" landing practices that constitute a airspeed increase well within the noise factor from highest to lowest normal approach. I also concur, by the way, with Brett as to the potential abuse to which the airframe may be subjected to by the use of high drag flap configurations. The biggest risk to a zero flap approach and landing is the exposure to excessive "float" in the flare increasing the total landing distance (short field situations), not a hard touchdown. With zero flaps it is very easy to over rotate in the flare and experience a balloon (float down the runway). Not good, of course, but the low drag configuration improves the potential for a "non-event" recovery.
The actual risk of an unexpectedly hard touchdown is much greater as flaps are extended if, for instance, the flare is high and the pilot tries to hold the nose high in hopes of salvaging the landing but instead causes it to stall and impact terra firma in an unintended fashion due to the high drag rapidly depleting the airspeed and allowing the aircraft to stall. The only viable solution to such a situation is to add sufficient power to prevent the stall and re-establish an appropriate glide path to touchdown...all of which, of course, flies in the face of the valid reason for using flaps which is to shorten the landing distance on minimum runways. In addition, the greater the flap setting the more aggressive the addition of power must be to prevent an ooops! event from following.
Although doing so would, perhaps, not be my preferred method it is entirely possible that the pilot's instructor opted to train him to this point using only the "normal" no flaps approach and landing techniques so as to minimize the need for situational evaluation that might have proved distracting and confusing during this "one time in your life" first solo flight. Such an approach from the instructor is a fully supportable one and the fact that an "experienced" SUV chose for whatever reason to drive in front of the airplane at a less than propitious moment.
As an analyst for the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System since early 2003 I've analyzed reports of hundreds of reports of faulty landing techniques that have resulted in a variety of imperfect outcomes. I'd have to say the events at Roanoke would, however, have been pretty unique and, despite my 60 odd years of experience I would be very reluctant to pretend to assign blame based on what is available. The one thing I'd be pretty sure of is that a student pilot on his first solo flight probably (and properly) had his/her full attention on just pointing the nose in the right direction and getting safely on the runway. I would never expect his/her situational awareness to be expanded to the same degree as that of myself or, perhaps...although the jury is still out, Aviojet. The man had his hands and mind "full".
One thing I do believe I can say is that the event itself is neither qualifying or disqualifying proof of the student's ultimate skills but is certainly a result of a less than perfect relationship of the physical facilities at his place of learning. Blame could, perhaps, be assigned to those responsible for that state of imperfection but would be too little too late...although doing so has become a way of life for attorneys at law.esq types.
Ted
-
Channel 11, locally, ran an update last night, a new tape, it seems. The field is not controlled, so a video would be a "tower cam ", similar to the Tulsa GlueDobbers' webcam, by Bob Reeves. I've not seen this new tape, and cannot find it, perhaps someone with more familiarity with searching for such stuff can locate it?
A club of fellows nearby belong to a knot- tying fraternity, they compete in "knots per hour". It's strictly for those with a lot of time on their hands.....I think many of us would make good candidates.
dg
Edit: I realized my "knots per hour" comment was out of place, so I turned myself in to the moderator. Guess what....one cannot turn oneself in to the moderator, says it make "no sense"! I apologize, my comment should be moved to the fishin' line thread.....
-
What is sad is the young pilot says he is done with flying. I hope he chages his mind. I put flaps on an RC plane just to see what the difference in flying the plne would be. Boy what a learning curve. As I dropped the flaps I had to feed in down elevator. Did not mess with the trim on the transmitter. Amazing how fast a plane drops vertically with full flaps. Had to pull flaps backup and give power until I learned what I was trying to do. Then and now I know why I let someone else do the driving on the real planes. Even flaps on a controlline carrier need getting used to. I don't think the guys use flaps while in the haning mode on low speed flight.
-
After 10 years of civi flying followed by 16 years instructing for the USAF in "knotted" jets, I finally sat for my civilian CFI rating in 2004. During the half day oral exam, I was quick to explain to my examiner that I referenced knots all day at work while the Piper Arrow we would be flying was calibrated in MPH. I told him during our time together he could expect to hear me use both terms interchangeably and accordingly miles per hour and knots should be considered synonymous; both should be interpreted as "airspeed units" as represented on the airspeed indicator.
He chuckled and said he thought he could manage that.
-
Despite what others here may say, I say, good for Mr. Davis! Hope the link works....
http://www.aopa.org/training/articles/2013/130221student-pilot-who-hits-suv-earns-ticket.html?WT.mc_id=130222epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts&cmp=ePlt:Phto
-
And as it should be. Very cool!
Dan McEntee
-
That is great the Mr. Davis got back to it and got his certificate. Dad always said, "When you fall off a horse, get back on if you can, asap". That is what I had to do when I had my motorcycle accident many years ago. When I finally got back on my feet, which was several months, my brother brought the bike over after we put it back together. He said now ride it. Yes I as a little apprehensive about it, but, then again I remember very little of the accident.