One more Cirrus crashes with famous passenger. Can you guess why?

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
Display name:
iWin
On his latest near-death experience, Gardner and his friends were in a Cirrus SR 22, flying above Lake Powell. The trip was to see Randy Brooks' houseboat from the air, but the small plane was flying low, and it suddenly dipped and began clipping the surface of the water. It stopped on the lake and began sinking.

http://fe6.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_gardner_plane_crash

http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=8fc6a80d-448f-48ad-b53f-6ea99ea8b701

http://video.nbcsports.com/player/?id=65310
Click to expand...

"...suddenly dipped..." Uh, huh.
 
Last edited:
Re: One more Cirrus crashes with famous passenger...guess why?

You mean the chute didn't save them?? ;)
 
Re: One more Cirrus crashes with famous passenger...guess why?

why is it, when I hear about this chute, I immediately think of National Lampoon's Vacation when Chevy Chase trashes the station wagon and after he comes to rest the "airbag" deploys?
 
Quote of the year, from Marty Mays: "Learn to fly before you open your big fat wallet."
 
Yeah, they were buzzing the boat. Beautiful. :rolleyes:

Morons.
 
The word from the pilot (from another board) is that he was at 25' AGL (AWL in this case?). He ended up over some glassy water and misjudged his altitude.
 
Where's the button for the rocket-deployed life raft?
 
As Chris said, Tom Gresham is a friend of the pilot. He posted what the pilot said in a phone conversation. That flying at this height in that area was common. Ripples went away on the water and he didn't realized how close he was.
Quite a swim to shore. He had survival gear in the back and didn't get to it. Plan sank in less than a minute.

Some folks say survival gear is what you are wearing at the time.

Best,

Dave
 
See this plane is unsafe. Now to make it safer they should install pontoons with the chute.:rofl:
 
mikea said:
Don't fly low and slow looking to hover over some object on the ground in fixed wing aircraft. You won't be the first to die trying to do that.
Click to expand...

If I go low. I am fast. I like lots of energy. I've seen *way* too many pilots think that the best way to fly real low is to deploy full flaps and come in at approach speed. I never seem to be able to convince them that they are much better off being clean and fast. There is a reason you see crop dusters dive into a field.
 
jesse said:
If I go low. I am fast. I like lots of energy. I've seen *way* too many pilots think that the best way to fly real low is to deploy full flaps and come in at approach speed. I never seem to be able to convince them that they are much better off being clean and fast. There is a reason you see crop dusters dive into a field.
Click to expand...

I think it all depends on your reason for going low. If you need to be able to manuever horizontally in tight places (for example, you've been caught under a lowering overcast and are trying to get to an airport), then your "out" is horizontal turning and you should be flying slow with partial flap to give yourself minimum turning radius if a hill jumps out in front of you.

If you're going low for some other reason and your "out" is to pull up to get overtop of a hedge or something, then you want to have maximum energy. However, you also have to remember that the hedge will jump out much faster if you're moving faster.

Cropduster speed is likely more for cost reasons than safety reasons, though having enough energy for a safe pullup is also important.

I watched a helicopter cropdusting in New Zealand using a fertilizer bucket. On his turns, the bucket was ending up higher than the helicopter. In other words, he was partially inverted at an altitude of less than 200'. No disrespect to the many skilled and safe cropdusters out there, but the last place I'd look for low flying safety advice for a low time pilot such as myself would be a cropduster. Different mission, different experience level, different aircraft, and different gonad diameter.

Chris
 
cwyckham said:
I think it all depends on your reason for going low. If you need to be able to manuever horizontally in tight places (for example, you've been caught under a lowering overcast and are trying to get to an airport), then your "out" is horizontal turning and you should be flying slow with partial flap to give yourself minimum turning radius if a hill jumps out in front of you.
Click to expand...
You can't turn worth a crap. You really can't turn worth a crap low and slow. If you try to turn steep low and slow you better be willing to unload the wings and lose a bunch of altitude. Otherwise you'll be meeting the ground and fast. Chances are if there is low clouds that forced you down you also have crappy visibility. I'm not a fan of sitting around low with crappy visibility in unfamiliar areas. If I ever get into a situation to where it gets really bad I'm either going to land in a field or I'm going to climb into the muck and tell ATC how stupid I am.

cwyckham said:
If you're going low for some other reason and your "out" is to pull up to get overtop of a hedge or something, then you want to have maximum energy. However, you also have to remember that the hedge will jump out much faster if you're moving faster.
Click to expand...
Pulling up is about the only out you have. Things happen faster at speed but you are still WAY better off for getting out. I can be at 150 knots in the Diamond and have the engine quit and still EASILY pull and get up high to find a safe place to land. These guys that come in for these low passes with flaps out are going to be in trouble if the engine quits. They'll be too fast to stop and too slow to get out.

cwyckham said:
Cropduster speed is likely more for cost reasons than safety reasons, though having enough energy for a safe pullup is also important.
Click to expand...
They are loaded heavy. They need to be able to go UP at the end of the field and not dick around slowly climbing. Airspeed is life. They need options if something goes wrong. Airspeed will give them those options.

cwyckham said:
No disrespect to the many skilled and safe cropdusters out there, but the last place I'd look for low flying safety advice for a low time pilot such as myself would be a crop duster.
Click to expand...
If you want to buzz around low they are going to be the ones to listen to. They do it all day long. I'm willing to bet you'd watch most cropdusters and think they were unsafe as hell. But they know their airplanes and they know how to fly. They'll be coming in fast, pulling up hard, doing a wing over to come back for the next pass, going under the power lines, pulling hard.

We may be talking about a different kind of low. I'm talking LOW like 10' AGL. Unless I am landing there is no way I'm going to be low without a ton of energy to go UP.

I have a feeling you are talking about getting forced down to a few hundred feet because of weather. If that's the kind of low you're talking that is not what I'm talking about.

The best flying I ever was taught was low and fast. You learn how to fly much better at a low altitude because you are watching the ground and the horizon. If you look at the instrument panel for too many seconds you're dead. Like they say.. You always need two of the three:

Airspeed, Altitude, and Skill.

If you don't have two of them you are going to be in trouble.

There is no arguing it. If you feel the need to buzz something or do a low pass over something. You cannot have too much airspeed.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
You can't turn worth a crap. You really can't turn worth a crap low and slow. If you try to turn steep low and slow you better be willing to unload the wings and lose a bunch of altitude. Otherwise you'll be meeting the ground and fast. Chances are if there is low clouds that forced you down you also have crappy visibility. I'm not a fan of sitting around low with crappy visibility in unfamiliar areas. If I ever get into a situation to where it gets really bad I'm either going to land in a field or I'm going to climb into the muck and tell ATC how stupid I am.
Click to expand...
I can turn a lot tighter going slow with a notch of flap than I can going fast. If I try to turn steep while low (a hundred feet or so, not ten feet or so) and slow, I'll do just fine without unloading the wings and losing altitude, thank you very much.

At some point, my forward visibility will decrease to the point where I may need to perform a precautionary landing or take my chances in the cloud. However, if I slow down I can keep flying towards a safe landing area for longer than if I'm moving faster because my tighter turning abillity allows me to accept worse forward visibility (at this point I've screwed up and am in an emergency situation, of course, I'd never plan to do this).

jesse said:
Pulling up is about the only out you have. Things happen faster at speed but you are still WAY better off for getting out. I can be at 150 knots in the Diamond and have the engine quit and still EASILY pull and get up high to find a safe place to land. These guys that come in for these low passes with flaps out are going to be in trouble if the engine quits. They'll be too fast to stop and too slow to get out.


They are loaded heavy. They need to be able to go UP at the end of the field and not dick around slowly climbing. Airspeed is life. They need options if something goes wrong. Airspeed will give them those options.


If you want to buzz around low they are going to be the ones to listen to. They do it all day long. I'm willing to bet you'd watch most cropdusters and think they were unsafe as hell. But they know their airplanes and they know how to fly. They'll be coming in fast, pulling up hard, doing a wing over to come back for the next pass, going under the power lines, pulling hard.
Click to expand...
My point isn't that they're unsafe (though some certainly are, just like any other pilots). My point was that I would be unsafe if I tried to do half what they do.

jesse said:
We may be talking about a different kind of low. I'm talking LOW like 10' AGL. Unless I am landing there is no way I'm going to be low without a ton of energy to go UP.

I have a feeling you are talking about getting forced down to a few hundred feet because of weather. If that's the kind of low you're talking that is not what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
You're exactly right. That is what I was talking about. I had no idea you meant 10' kinda low!:hairraise:

jesse said:
The best flying I ever was taught was low and fast. You learn how to fly much better at a low altitude because you are watching the ground and the horizon. If you look at the instrument panel for too many seconds you're dead. Like they say.. You always need two of the three:

Airspeed, Altitude, and Skill.

If you don't have two of them you are going to be in trouble.

There is no arguing it. If you feel the need to buzz something or do a low pass over something. You cannot have too much airspeed.
Click to expand...

Your tolerance for low altitude is greater than mine. I guess I'm a chicken.

Chris
 
cwyckham said:
I can turn a lot tighter going slow with a notch of flap than I can going fast. If I try to turn steep while low (a hundred feet or so, not ten feet or so) and slow, I'll do just fine without unloading the wings and losing altitude, thank you very much.
Click to expand...
You can. But I wouldn't count on turning saving you if the weather goes to crap and you get forced low. Most likely by the time you see it at any flying airspeed you're dead a few seconds later.

If you are going slow aka close to stall speed. There is simply no way you are going to hold altitude in the turn. Go try it. Slow down to 50 knots and see how steep you can turn and hold altitude.

cwyckham said:
My point isn't that they're unsafe (though some certainly are, just like any other pilots). My point was that I would be unsafe if I tried to do half what they do.
Click to expand...
Of course. But the rules they live by apply to everyone.

cwyckham said:
You're exactly right. That is what I was talking about. I had no idea you meant 10' kinda low!:hairraise:
Click to expand...
Once you learn to look for power lines (not the actual line but what will cause a line) for example if you see a building or a house you can count on a line going to it. You can get comfortable low. Low with good visibility IF you are paying attention is very manageable. If the vis gets bad you need to either land or go up.

cwyckham said:
Your tolerance for low altitude is greater than mine. I guess I'm a chicken.
Click to expand...
It wasn't for me at first. But I've flown and talked with people that have showed me the ways. That said low altitude stuff is NOT normal flight and I wouldn't do it with anyone but myself solo. Increased risk for increased skill.
 
jesse said:
You can. But I wouldn't count on turning saving you if the weather goes to crap and you get forced low. Most likely by the time you see it at any flying airspeed you're dead a few seconds later.

If you are going slow aka close to stall speed. There is simply no way you are going to hold altitude in the turn. Go try it. Slow down to 50 knots and see how steep you can turn and hold altitude.

...
Click to expand...

Who's a Mr. Grumpy pants this evening? Slow is not also known as close to stall speed.

You can't really believe that I was advocating flying at a hair over stall speed in visibility so minimal that you won't be able to turn before hitting an object. Either you think I'm an idiot or you're baiting me again. I'll assume it's the latter.

If your visibility is such that you can't do a 180 turn in less distance than your forward visibility, then you are in a very bad place. I'd want a bit more room than that to account for reaction time. However, since your turn radius varies with the square of your airspeed, you can fly in four times worse visibility at half the speed. As you imply, the increase in bank angle for your turn will also increase stall speed, so there's a minimum speed that would be wise. Dropping a notch of flap helps that.

The right speed to choose depends on the aircraft and is a trade-off between a tight turn (theoretical best being Va) and reaction time. 80 knots in a Grumman seems to work well. I can fly safely in worse vis at 80 knots than at 120 knots. Speed might be my friend at 10' in CAVU conditions, but it isn't at 200' in a scud running situation. As I said before, it all depends on whether your "out" is a horizontal turn or a climb.

Chris
 
cwyckham said:
Who's a Mr. Grumpy pants this evening?
Click to expand...

I am. very. I'm also not being grumpy with you. If you aren't capable of having a simple discussion with another pilot on a forum about a topic that you chose to respond to, well, I don't know what to tell you. Text is text. It naturally looks cold. Discussion is how you learn about things as it makes you think. Where am I being grumpy with you? We're just talking.

cwyckham said:
Slow is not also known as close to stall speed.

You can't really believe that I was advocating flying at a hair over stall speed in visibility so minimal that you won't be able to turn before hitting an object. Either you think I'm an idiot or you're baiting me again. I'll assume it's the latter.

If your visibility is such that you can't do a 180 turn in less distance than your forward visibility, then you are in a very bad place. I'd want a bit more room than that to account for reaction time. However, since your turn radius varies with the square of your airspeed, you can fly in four times worse visibility at half the speed. As you imply, the increase in bank angle for your turn will also increase stall speed, so there's a minimum speed that would be wise. Dropping a notch of flap helps that.

The right speed to choose depends on the aircraft and is a trade-off between a tight turn (theoretical best being Va) and reaction time. 80 knots in a Grumman seems to work well. I can fly safely in worse vis at 80 knots than at 120 knots. Speed might be my friend at 10' in CAVU conditions, but it isn't at 200' in a scud running situation. As I said before, it all depends on whether your "out" is a horizontal turn or a climb.

Chris
Click to expand...

If visibility gets to the point in a flight that your only hope is slow tight turns and you are forced down to ground level below terrain in the area you better just give it up and put it into a field. There are plenty of pilots in the NTSB report that know all about not being able to turn before they smack into something. You could ask them but the problem is that they are dead. Continuing would be suicide. Giving up and putting it into a field is not an easy thing to do but is the right thing to do. I suspect that in some airplanes at a higher speed that are built for the load you could pull hard and load things up and have a tighter radius but I am not sure. Of course if you can't see in front of you slow down. I'm not arguing that. I never was. But I don't consider normal low flight as a situation to where I can't see in front of me or go up. I avoid that.

We were talking about two different kind of lows. I'm talking about going down to the ground for the purpose of a low pass or buzzing something. You're talking about getting forced down to a few hundred AGL by weather. There is a huge difference between the two. If I have to drop below structures in an area unless I am intending on landing I am going to do be doing it with a lot of energy. Even if the engine quits I have enough airspeed to go UP several hundred feet and have a lot more options and time to think.
 
Last edited:
woodstock said:
In case some of you didn't know, Jesse's Grampa was a crop duster... (right?)
Click to expand...

Great Grandpa, Grandpa, and dad..If some people wouldn't have made some bad business choices I would be too.
 
I have a seemingly random question.

Does the book Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators have such things as equations to relate bank angle and turn radius and that sort of thing? Or is it simply a principles-only book with no equations? I'd really like to play with this stuff some more.
 
Im not sure if AFNA does Kent. From what I remember though, it is fairly heavy on equations. i can get the equations for you they are pretty simple really. Ive taken classes on this kinda crap before. thats one book i wish i wouldnt have sold back.
 
If I had a dollar for every jackass who buzzed Lake Powell when I worked there I could have had free beer all summer. Made me want to mount anti-aircraft cannon on my patrol boat. The water in the winter is like glass and is highly reflective of the sandstone cliffs on shore. Hard to maintain depth perception...
 
alaskaflyer said:
If I had a dollar for every jackass who buzzed Lake Powell when I worked there I could have had free beer all summer. Made me want to mount anti-aircraft cannon on my patrol boat. The water in the winter is like glass and is highly reflective of the sandstone cliffs on shore. Hard to maintain depth perception...
Click to expand...

Water is something I've never really got less than 50 feet to. Like you said it becomes hard to determine your altitude. I suspect most people that do bite it though have absolutely no idea what they are doing and assume water is safe and easy to buzz.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
I have a seemingly random question.

Does the book Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators have such things as equations to relate bank angle and turn radius and that sort of thing? Or is it simply a principles-only book with no equations? I'd really like to play with this stuff some more.
Click to expand...
Kershner's Advanced Pilots Flight Manual has enough math in it to get to this -- and more.
 
tonycondon said:
Im not sure if AFNA does Kent. From what I remember though, it is fairly heavy on equations. i can get the equations for you they are pretty simple really. Ive taken classes on this kinda crap before. thats one book i wish i wouldnt have sold back.
Click to expand...

Ouch. Do you remember what the book was?

I should probably buy AFNA and just read the darn thing. :yes:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I have a seemingly random question.

Does the book Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators have such things as equations to relate bank angle and turn radius and that sort of thing? Or is it simply a principles-only book with no equations? I'd really like to play with this stuff some more.
Click to expand...

Kent, see if this helps you any.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9826
I put a link on this thread that has every calculation known to man (or at least this man).
 
yea kent its really not bedside reading. I tried reading it a couple years back and gave up. Its not pleasant. I prefer to pick the important sections. The pages on spins are pretty good, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top