Fatal in Houston ARCOLA

FlySince9 said:
What will they be able to investigate out of that pile of ashes? May be nearly impossible beyond witness accounts and weather reports...

RIP..
Click to expand...

True, but unlike the media, the NTSB knows how to screen the witness accounts and piece it all together. Fortunately, the student survived, so hopefully they will get a good idea of what happened right there.
 
OkieAviator said:
It's not rare for instructors to keep their hands on the controls and 'assist' during take offs, landings and maneuvers.
Click to expand...

I believe that is a horrible practice.

Fine for an instructor to "cover" the controls by hovering near them, but never should two pilots be on the controls at the same time.

IMHO, of course.
 
FastEddieB said:
I believe that is a horrible practice.

Fine for an instructor to "cover" the controls by hovering near them, but never should two pilots be on the controls at the same time.

IMHO, of course.
Click to expand...

Agree! :yesnod:
 
MAKG1 said:
Maybe, but the first though I had was a Warrior.

It would need to be a first-year 177, as that's before the slot was added.
Click to expand...

You will never see one in service without the slots. I drive serial #21, it was a recall/AD mandated change.

That being said, they aren't very wide, less than 1/3 span on each side nor would I expect anyone to be able to identify them at that angle shown in the pictures but it indeed looks like a Cardinal to me from the wide rectangular stab and long trim tab.

To me it could be a 177/A/B/RG. Wing mounted landing & taxi lights might further narrow the possibilities of year. Pretty sure the LH wing has lights in it.
 
Last edited:
OkieAviator said:
However this doesn't sound like a crosswind incident... on the surface looks like a stall maybe induced by mechanical trim or other control authority issues. Will have to see what the NTSB says.
Click to expand...

Jay Honeck said:
I don't know the cause of this tragic crash, but I agree that it's not a crosswind incident. I've taken off in crosswinds gusting far beyond what they experienced, and, while it's never comfortable, it's not dangerous if performed properly.

It will be interesting to see what the NTSB says about this one.
Click to expand...


Your suppositions are in direct conflict with the pilot's statements.

But at the start of Monday's lesson with 68-year-old instructor Johnny Johnson, Thomas said things went very wrong when they caught a strong crosswind just after takeoff.

"Me and my instructor are trying to correct and after that we didn't have enough thrust to climb anymore, so the nose went down and next thing you know you've got three seconds, you hit the ground. It was at a pretty bad angle too," Thomas said.
Click to expand...
 
MAXIMUM PASSENGER SEATINGOnly one passenger is allowed on board this aircraft.CROSSWIND LIMITATIONSMaximum allowed crosswind component is 15 Kts (refer to section 5 for furtherdetails).LIMITATION PLACARDSThe following limitation placards must be placed in plain view on the aircraft.Near the airspeed indicator a placard will state the following:

The Tecnam manual lists a 15 kt crosswind limit. I don't know what the winds were, seemed to be kinda high.
 
Sounds like a strong gust caught them off guard and they stalled/spun in.
 
FastEddieB said:
I believe that is a horrible practice.

Fine for an instructor to "cover" the controls by hovering near them, but never should two pilots be on the controls at the same time.

IMHO, of course.
Click to expand...
Totally agree - and that can include the rudder. One of the worst transition flights ever I was learning a new biplane on a ferry job and the previous owner doubled my rudder input every time I made a small adjustment on landing. He was nervous and couldn't quit trying to make his own corrections. Made for a heck of a difficult transition because of PIOs. We finally had a real serious talk and he tried to quit doing it.
 
3393RP said:
Your suppositions are in direct conflict with the pilot's statements.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm not saying that the crosswind wasn't at the start of the accident chain of events. Clearly it was, at least according to the student pilot.

I am saying that a crosswind by itself will not bring an aircraft down. By appearances, the instructor either did not react properly to the gusty crosswind, or the student countered/hindered his control inputs -- or there was a mechanical issue.

Gonna be hard to tell, with so little wreckage left, but they should be able to determine control system continuity. If they find that to be okay, and the engine didn't quit, they will likely pin tthis accident on pilot error.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Oh, I'm not saying that the crosswind wasn't at the start of the accident chain of events. Clearly it was, at least according to the student pilot.

I am saying that a crosswind by itself will not bring an aircraft down. By appearances, the instructor either did not react properly to the gusty crosswind, or the student countered/hindered his control inputs -- or there was a mechanical issue.

Gonna be hard to tell, with so little wreckage left, but they should be able to determine control system continuity. If they find that to be okay, and the engine didn't quit, they will likely pin tthis accident on pilot error.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be pedantic but...

In your first thread you said you have successfully handled crosswinds in excess of those experienced by the accident pilots. I don't see any post in the thread which provides the crosswind experienced but I could have simply missed it.

Thanks.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Sounds like a strong gust caught them off guard and they stalled/spun in.
Click to expand...


I doubt it was really a spin but IME LOC would be more likely in the 150 horse C177 than a 180 C177A/B with the conditions they reportedly encountered.

It almost sounds like they rotated early, pitched up to climb, hit a gust and it went south from there.

The 1968 150 horse 177 is noticeably less forgiving at slow speed mistakes than the later 177B.
 
bnt83 said:
I doubt it was really a spin but IME LOC would be more likely in the 150 horse C177 than a 180 C177A/B with the conditions they reportedly encountered.

It almost sounds like they rotated early, pitched up to climb, hit a gust and it went south from there.

The 1968 150 horse 177 is noticeably less forgiving at slow speed mistakes than the later 177B.
Click to expand...
I thought this was already settled. It was NOT a 177. It was a Tecnam P92(LSA)

http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f...,P96_MAKE_NAME,P96_FATAL_FLG:02-FEB-16,TECNAM
 
3393RP said:
Your suppositions are in direct conflict with the pilot's statements.
Click to expand...

I would not put a lot of weight on the student's statements.
A. He is likely shaken up and his account of the events might not be exactly reliable
B. He is a student and not an expert so his account of the events might not be exactly reliable
C. He is the sole survivor and so far no guilt has been placed on his shoulders which means we have only his side of the story to believe so his account of the events might not be exactly reliable

Sad and tragic accident for sure. I just met a gentleman last night who knew the pilot. :( R.I.P.

What is the other witness saying? Anything better so far?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top