Horrific crash in CT

Tantalum said:
One of my data analyst friends at work showed me a study for GA that indicated that by miles traveled GA planes are hands down much safer... but by time cars were actually safer (again restricting this to just GA). I have no idea the veracity of it but that was an interesting thing to think about. You also have co variable factors that aren't necessarily causal. I wouldn't be surprised if almost half your time in a car is spent not moving, or moving less than 10 miles an hour. Hard to have a fatal accident when you're not moving (but possible I guess if you get hit by someone else)
Click to expand...

Not sure how he gets that. Let's take just Cirrus, which is the safest GA plane (now) per mile. I think 172's are as safe per hour, but they're slower.

Generously, it has a fatality rate of: 0.5 fatalities per 100'000 hours @ 200 knots. Thus 0.5 fatalities / 20m nm, or 1 fatality per 46 million miles.

Cars overall are at 1 fatality per 90 million miles. Cars used to be @ 1 fatality per 46 million miles back in 1989.

So it's not as bad as people think. But it's not safer.
 
weilke said:
That is loaded to capacity at 3600lb. For 2900lb the online POH has 1118ft for sea level and 20C. Unless they flew with jugs of mercury in the luggage compartment, they were closer to the lower number.
Click to expand...

Even better. The runway was nearly three times longer than needed especially if taking off on the roll.
 
Tantalum said:
One of my data analyst friends at work showed me a study for GA that indicated that by miles traveled GA planes are hands down much safer... but by time cars were actually safer (again restricting this to just GA)
Click to expand...

The most recent data has GA at 0.91 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours while autos are at 1.04 per 100 million miles. If you pick an arbitrary 140mph (120kts) conversion factor for flight hours to miles then you are about 5.5x more likely to be in a fatal accident flying GA versus driving.

However, it's a lot more complicated than that. For one, driving is all about getting from point A to point B while GA includes stuff like acrobatic, pipeline patrol, etc. Loading up the family Cessna to visit grandma ain't like dusting crops. Therefore I prefer to use the numbers from the particular airplane I fly rather than the entire GA fleet.

Also, "5.5x more fatal than a car" is hard for most people to grasp. Instead, I tell people that the fatal accident rate in the 172 is statistically about the same as driving was in the early 1970's. That's easier for most people to understand.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Well it is. But it is often the case that risk and fun are directly related.

Pa flyer is obviously using extreme hyperbole calling t&g's dangerous and stupid. I'm surprised too paflyer doesn't normally make extremely judgmental and broad comments that are obvious trolling.
Click to expand...

With all respect I don't think PAFlyer was trolling at all. He expressed the level of danger as his opinion not as an absolute. I also believe that T&Gs carry more opportunities for problems than full stop landings, especially with a retract but also with trim issues. Its an opinion folks that's all. In this case I'm not sure the Doctor doing T&Gs had anything to do with the incident. One of the graphics showed the crash site parallel to the runway but who knows how accurate that is. As pilots most of us tend to get a bit obsessed ( in a good way) with accidents I suspect because most want to understand so they don't make the same mistake. But like most every other accident we will have to wait to see what the NTSB say. I feel for the Doctor's family a sad day indeed.

 
Hacker said:
I wasn't aware of post count on POA being an airmanship metric.
Click to expand...
It's a trollmanship metric, like when a new guy (or sock) shows up and starts making personal attacks on someone they don't know. Know what I mean?
 
deonb said:
So it's not as bad as people think. But it's not safer.
Click to expand...
That's disappointing! But as @asicer indicated people use their planes for various reasons, many of which carry inherent risks. Planes are also FAR LESS forgiving of the dumb human mistake. A car you turn the key on, put it in drive, and go. If you run out of gas it won't kill you, if you neglect your maintenance and your engine quits you pull over and call triple A, etc.

I wonder how GA accidents would compare if you took out "specialty" missions (photo ops, pipeline inspections, "practicing" touch and goes, etc.), training flights, etc. If you directly compared A -> B travel as much as possible I wonder how much closer they would compare. I'm sure if stupid mistakes killed with as much frequency in the auto industry as they do in aviation we'd see different stats
 
This plane wrecked on a road that parallels the runway. I believe this discussion about T&Gs is pointless.
 
I did not do T&Gs with students when I was instructing.

The runway was too short with obstacles at each end.
 
Everything about flying is dangerous, if you don't practice it.
I'm more worried about getting mowed down by someone as I walk across the tarmac than I am of screwing up a T&G.
Probably because I spend more time doing T&Gs than I do walking across the tarmac.
 
Shepherd said:
I'm more worried about getting mowed down by someone
Click to expand...
Biggest worry to me is a midair. Airspace here is very busy with mountains and a lot of Bravo space... so everyone is constrained into small areas. I fly on FF whenever possible but still keep a sharp eye on all those white (and sometimes yellow! :eek:) traffic markers on the GTN

Amazing how few people use FF or even monitor CTAF
 
paflyer said:
They are certainly higher risk than full stop
Click to expand...

Not in a taildragger. All that nice airflow over the surfaces, and then the guy who did all touch and goes can't actually bring the thing to a stop without losing directional control in a crosswind... :)
 
Bill Jennings said:
It's spring, people are getting out and doing. Many don't fly much during the cold months. Same thing in the motorcycle community, people get their bikes out after a winter of not riding. Skills deteriorate, some crash. Take it easy while you get back up to speed.
Click to expand...

Same reason motorcycle crashes go up in the spring. May is "motorcyclist awareness month" in CA. RIP to the deceased.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I bounced pretty good over the weekend. Before it developed into a full porpoise episode, I initiated a go-around. Those first few seconds after a hard bounce and applying full power you really have to be on your game. I personally am not a big fan of T&Gs but they have their use. Doing a quick re-configuring of the aircraft while still in motion and at a critical time is a necessary skill even if it carries additional risk.
 
denverpilot said:
Not in a taildragger. All that nice airflow over the surfaces, and then the guy who did all touch and goes can't actually bring the thing to a stop without losing directional control in a crosswind... :)
Click to expand...

Ah, so that explains the full-stop requirement for tailwheel currency...
 
weilke said:
This plane wrecked on a road that parallels the runway. I believe this discussion about T&Gs is pointless.
Click to expand...
I don't think the map graphic from the video posted by AdamZ was accurate. I think the crash site must have been beyond the end of RW 18, where that road mentioned(Hanover Street) curves around and goes under the RW 18 centerline, South of the runway. The road where they placed their crash graphic is where the road changes to Evansville Ave.
 
paflyer said:
Someone needs a timeout.
Click to expand...

No thanks, I'm good.

I'll revisit real quick where this started; you made this post:

paflyer said:
Touch and goes are stupid and dangerous. IMO.
Click to expand...

Fine, you put in "IMO". But, this would've been a good opportunity to keep your opinion to yourself, or perhaps phrase it differently. Touch n goes have been done since the dawn of aviation and it usually just isn't a big deal. Sure, some people have dinged up airplanes doing them, but maybe that's because they weren't that good to begin with. It doesn't make T&Gs "stupid and dangerous", and for you to throw that out there you imply that guys who do T&Gs are stupid and dangerous. That's just silly. In my opinion.

That's it, I'm out.
 
Tantalum said:
Biggest worry to me is a midair. Airspace here is very busy with mountains and a lot of Bravo space... so everyone is constrained into small areas. I fly on FF whenever possible but still keep a sharp eye on all those white (and sometimes yellow! :eek:) traffic markers on the GTN

Amazing how few people use FF or even monitor CTAF
Click to expand...

I'm close to the Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark, Teteboro, and Stewart airspaces, so I totally empathize with your lots of planes in a small space situation.
Anything with an intake area big enough to swallow a small plane gives me the hebejebes.
 
Tantalum said:
Biggest worry to me is a midair. Airspace here is very busy with mountains and a lot of Bravo space... so everyone is constrained into small areas. I fly on FF whenever possible but still keep a sharp eye on all those white (and sometimes yellow! :eek:) traffic markers on the GTN

Amazing how few people use FF or even monitor CTAF
Click to expand...
MYF? did my IR training there, and my PPL at CRQ. That's some crazy airspace.
 
Tantalum said:
Biggest worry to me is a midair. Airspace here is very busy with mountains and a lot of Bravo space... so everyone is constrained into small areas. I fly on FF whenever possible but still keep a sharp eye on all those white (and sometimes yellow! :eek:) traffic markers on the GTN

Amazing how few people use FF or even monitor CTAF
Click to expand...
And please, please tell me you spend even more time looking out the window than on the GTN
 
sferguson524 said:
MYF?
Click to expand...
There and SEE. The worst area I find is the little stretch from Point Loma up to the Oceanside VOR. The little route between Ramona and SEE that tucks in just under the Bravo is a nightmare too, that's everyone's key corridor coming and going from SEE, and they're mostly students going to the practice area there for engine outs near Lake Wholford, etc.

luvflyin said:
And please, please tell me you spend even more time looking out the window than on the GTN
Click to expand...
I use both. The planes I learned to fly on didn't have GPS and where some proper old school machines, so the "look out the window" thing was definitely ingrained at birth. BUT, that's a nice tool to have in the cockpit and help keep you aware. If radar services gives me a traffic advisory I won't say "have the traffic" unless I actually see them with my own eyes
 
Since we're speculating.......dad had a medical event and the son was trying to land the plane.
 
The way I understand it: They literally just purchased the plane and did not have proper CSIP training. RIP

Anyone getting into a Cirrus needs to take the transition course! They are not difficult airplanes to fly but you need proper training!
 
Tantalum said:
That's disappointing! But as @asicer indicated people use their planes for various reasons, many of which carry inherent risks. Planes are also FAR LESS forgiving of the dumb human mistake. A car you turn the key on, put it in drive, and go. If you run out of gas it won't kill you, if you neglect your maintenance and your engine quits you pull over and call triple A, etc.

I wonder how GA accidents would compare if you took out "specialty" missions (photo ops, pipeline inspections, "practicing" touch and goes, etc.), training flights, etc. If you directly compared A -> B travel as much as possible I wonder how much closer they would compare. I'm sure if stupid mistakes killed with as much frequency in the auto industry as they do in aviation we'd see different stats
Click to expand...
Concur. . .stats are slippery in GA - hours flown are a swag, made by some folks with a budget dog in the fight; not saying the books are cooked, but given more than one way to estimate hours, I think the Feds will choose the one that results in a bigger number. . .the data is sketchy enough as to be only of marginal use.
 
EminiTrader said:
The way I understand it: They literally just purchased the plane and did not have proper CSIP training. RIP

Anyone getting into a Cirrus needs to take the transition course! They are not difficult airplanes to fly but you need proper training!
Click to expand...
I didn't think the cirrus was special. Your recommendation to get training is good advice for most planes, especially high performance rides.
 
Clip4 said:
3100 ft runway, touch and go in a Cirrus 22.
Click to expand...

This was my thought exactly. This particular airport is also surrounded by trees on both sides. I have no idea what the handbook says for landing roll and takeoff distance for a Cirrus 22 but if a 172 takes 700 something feet to land and take off a Cirrus must take at least that if not way more!

It's fairly obvious what happened here based on the first reports. Pilot came in fast, forced the plane into the runway because he saw the end of the runway coming close, bounced, panicked and pushed the yoke forward again trying to force the plane down, bounced again, realized he was out of runway and tried to get back in the air. It's really sad.

Even sadder is there are probably 5 airports witching a 20 minute flight that have runways over 5,000 feet long.
 
jspilot said:
It's fairly obvious what happened here based on the first reports. Pilot came in fast, forced the plane into the runway because he saw the end of the runway coming close, bounced, panicked and pushed the yoke forward again trying to force the plane down, bounced again, realized he was out of runway and tried to get back in the air.
Click to expand...

Not mentioned is the "torque" roll* that slamming in 310 hp all at once can impart. The "smoking hole" from botched go-arounds is almost invariably to the left of the runway. Stomping the right rudder hard enough to stop the yaw/roll and getting the nose down is apparently not an ingrained reflex - pilots in a panic will often try to stop the yaw/roll to the left with right aileron and back pressure - often the very last mistake they'll ever make.

*Torque is in quotes because several left-turning tendencies come into play in low-speed/high-power situations. Actual torque may be the least of these, but we still commonly call the result a "torque roll".
 
EminiTrader said:
The way I understand it: They literally just purchased the plane and did not have proper CSIP training. RIP

Anyone getting into a Cirrus needs to take the transition course! They are not difficult airplanes to fly but you need proper training!
Click to expand...
I disagree. There is nothing unique about a Cirrus that differentiates itself from anything you might have trained in save turbocharging.

Do I feel the same way about a C421 with geared engines or the TPE331 even though I have piston or turboprop experience? No, I don't. Theyre both unique in their operations.
 
FastEddieB said:
Stomping the right rudder hard enough to stop the yaw/roll and getting the nose down is apparently not an ingrained reflex
Click to expand...

My first few flights with an instructor was all about flying the plane, or rather "holding" the plane, in a stall using only rudder to control roll and direction... the "step on the high wing" was taught as a critical flight maneuver. I think we flew almost the whole way back on a XC once in slow flight using just the rudder for roll / direction. It was a cool February New England day so the engine stayed cool enough. It was interesting, you learn a lot about how planes actually fly when you do slow maneuvers like that

**but yes, most people grab the stick, yoke, stoke, etc., and turn that, which usually just makes things worse if you are already slow or stalling
 
Tantalum said:
My first few flights with an instructor was all about flying the plane, or rather "holding" the plane, in a stall using only rudder to control roll and direction... the "step on the high wing" was taught as a critical flight maneuver. I think we flew almost the whole way back on a XC once in slow flight using just the rudder for roll / direction. It was a cool February New England day so the engine stayed cool enough. It was interesting, you learn a lot about how planes actually fly when you do slow maneuvers like that

**but yes, most people grab the stick, yoke, stoke, etc., and turn that, which usually just makes things worse if you are already slow or stalling
Click to expand...
I had a lesson like that and he had me land it at the end with just rudder, no aileron.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I didn't think the cirrus was special. Your recommendation to get training is good advice for most planes, especially high performance rides.
Click to expand...

Very true. Transition training for all planes. With Cirrus you want to do the 3 day CSIP training. If other aircraft manufacturers have specific training programs those should of course be adhered to. I fly Cirrus so don't know about other programs. Apologies if I was not clear :)
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
I disagree. There is nothing unique about a Cirrus that differentiates itself from anything you might have trained in save turbocharging.
Click to expand...

Well Kirk, you might have a million hours flying the Enterprise, but there a big difference between a Cirrus 22 and a 172.
 
Here comes the Cirrus spin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top