Plane down at middle school football field

What can be legally done, and what is advisable are two different things.

The behavior of a 172/182 at stall will vary significantly with the CG. With two up front, no one in back, stalls tend to be non-events. With someone in the back seat, things can get more lively, particularly if the airplane isn't rigged well. The stall break will be much sharper and there can be a pronounced wing drop at stall. If you're not on your game, the latter situation can easily result in an incipient or full spin. I've been the backseat passenger in this circumstance, and it can be a bit concerning, even when you know the pilot is a good stick. I will no longer be in back, or allow anyone to be in back, during practice stalls.
 
DaleB said:
Sigh... they couldn't have found anyone who had even the slightest understanding of how airplanes fly?
Click to expand...
It's like the media who will breathlessly report that bullets fired from an AR travel five times as fast those from any other gun.

The level of general idiocy is astounding. The media is the worst possible amalgam of the Peter Principle and Dunning-Kreuger.
 
DesertNomad said:
What light piston single has a switch to turn the controls off?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe I said “some light piston singles”, but if I did I will certainly recant my statement.
 
schmookeeg said:
Maybe in rustodelphia, ohio, but I don't think we're all that rare. 400k or so? in a pop of 300m? you could throw a rock in a shopping mall and hit one. :)

I don't know the numbers but I have this odd feeling there are fewer people who know how to play chess or who can win a spelling bee against a 5th grade class.
Click to expand...
1 in each group of 750? Your rock throwing skills must be very good.
 
wilkersk said:
I'm not so sure that the direction he was pointing when he came to a stop is the direction he was going when he first hit the ground.
Click to expand...

I agree. After looking at the videos available, it appears that the plane hit hard, nose first, just short of the end zone, shedding the nose gear and other parts as it spun 180°, ending up backwards (tail-first) in the trees. From looking at the apparent approach to landing and sizeable divot created when the nose hit the sod, it seems to me that this airplane's descent, from whatever inflight difficulties it encountered, was not entirely under control. It's amazing that only slight injuries were reported.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Sounds to me more like they were doing engine out practice and didn’t get the engine back.
Click to expand...

Or..

CFI: Go ahead and pull the power out, we'll practice a stall.

Student: OK!

CFI: Oh s**t not the red knob!!

Passenger: Dear Baby Jesus, forgive me for my sins...

911: Any units in the area please advise

Trooper: Man, not again..

Reporter: They shut off the controls..

PoA: :loco:
 
Last edited:
Capngrog said:
I agree. After looking at the videos available, it appears that the plane hit hard, nose first, just short of the end zone, shedding the nose gear and other parts as it spun 180°, ending up backwards (tail-first) in the trees. From looking at the apparent approach to landing and sizeable divot created when the nose hit the sod, it seems to me that this airplane's descent, from whatever inflight difficulties it encountered, was not entirely under control. It's amazing that only slight injuries were reported.
Click to expand...
Are there videos of the incident that you’ve seen? The most I’ve been able to find is the WKYC aerial footage of the wreckage.

I’m a member of this club. Larry instructed me for my IFR and is who I normally fly with for flight reviews and IPCs. The news says he’s in the hospital with broken ribs.
 
So there I was….

Scheduling my 141 certification checkride in a 172 with a FED. Fed said they were gonna ride in the back and have me fly with another fed in the left seat. Hmmm… a passenger while doing a mock private pilot checkride.

I simply said no stalls, no steep turns, or no passenger situation. Which was fine. Almost wondered if they weren’t testing me.
 
Tools said:
Almost wondered if they weren’t testing me.
Click to expand...
You mean like the Fed who suggested to me that we roll up some duct tape and jam it into the opening below the leaking fuel drain so we could fly home?
 
bluesky74656 said:
Are there videos of the incident that you’ve seen? The most I’ve been able to find is the WKYC aerial footage of the wreckage.

I’m a member of this club. Larry instructed me for my IFR and is who I normally fly with for flight reviews and IPCs. The news says he’s in the hospital with broken ribs.
Click to expand...

My opinion/speculation that the aircraft was not entirely under control during descent and impact is based upon the FlightAware track information and that the airplane was apparently not lined up with the length of the football field prior to impact. I'm not sure what the source of the initial information that the aircraft "stalled" was; however, the initial news reportage seemed to be confused at best. It is unlikely that a CFI would have had a student practice aerodynamic stalls at an altitude of just barely 1,000 ft. AGL (over a heavily populated area). It's more likely that the reported "stall" was a simulated engine failure. Again, whatever took place at a point just over 2 minutes into the flight resulted in an abrupt change of direction and significant loss of altitude, neither of which should result from a practice engine out or aerodynamic stall. It's possible that the airplane entered an unintended stall, but I don't know ... I wasn't there (hence this is all speculation on my part). The selection of the football field was, in my opinion, a good one, since, according to Googol Earth, there isn't much else around there. It just seems to me that the aircraft entered some unintended maneuvers (loss of control), and that the approach to the football field was not all that it could have been.

Regardless of my above remarks, I think that this forced (crash) landing should be considered successful, since all aboard survived with reportedly "minor" injuries.
 
looked like a 6 point landing
 
Capngrog said:
My opinion/speculation that the aircraft was not entirely under control during descent and impact is based upon the FlightAware track information and that the airplane was apparently not lined up with the length of the football field prior to impact. I'm not sure what the source of the initial information that the aircraft "stalled" was; however, the initial news reportage seemed to be confused at best. It is unlikely that a CFI would have had a student practice aerodynamic stalls at an altitude of just barely 1,000 ft. AGL (over a heavily populated area). It's more likely that the reported "stall" was a simulated engine failure. Again, whatever took place at a point just over 2 minutes into the flight resulted in an abrupt change of direction and significant loss of altitude, neither of which should result from a practice engine out or aerodynamic stall. It's possible that the airplane entered an unintended stall, but I don't know ... I wasn't there (hence this is all speculation on my part). The selection of the football field was, in my opinion, a good one, since, according to Googol Earth, there isn't much else around there. It just seems to me that the aircraft entered some unintended maneuvers (loss of control), and that the approach to the football field was not all that it could have been.

Regardless of my above remarks, I think that this forced (crash) landing should be considered successful, since all aboard survived with reportedly "minor" injuries.
Click to expand...

I don’t buy that it was a stall or a simulated engine failure. The field in which they landed is inside the CGF class D airspace. The only simulated engine out I’ve ever done in the delta was to the runway. Otherwise it would have been at least a few miles east of there. A stall is also unlikely for both this reason and the one you mention.

So basically I don’t believe anything in the news report and am waiting for the NTSB.
 
LesGawlik said:
I just hope that if I ever wad up an airplane and people are thinking "WTH was he trying to do here?" I can just tell 'em!
Click to expand...
I plan on messing up in so many ways you guys’ll be arguing about what happened for months.
 
Last edited:
The local news reported that the key broke off in the ignition while attempting to restart the engine.
 
edessa said:
The local news reported that the key broke off in the ignition while attempting to restart the engine.
Click to expand...
homer-doh.png
 
donjohnston said:
Not that I want to defend the quality of journalism these days, but they were quoting the state police officer.
Click to expand...
Just a quick point about the news. IDK if anyone has noticed but reporters used to talk into the camera while on the air. Seems like what I have seen is these reporters are looking down into their cell phones and reciting information. I see it all the time on Bay News 9 in the AM.

edessa said:
The local news reported that the key broke off in the ignition while attempting to restart the engine.
Click to expand...

You mean no push to start?
 
edessa said:
The local news reported that the key broke off in the ignition while attempting to restart the engine.
Click to expand...

If that's true, it lends some credence to the theory that the simulated engine failure drill involved actually shutting the engine down. WTFO?

francisco collazos said:
Just a quick point about the news. IDK if anyone has noticed but reporters used to talk into the camera while on the air. Seems like what I have seen is these reporters are looking down into their cell phones and reciting information. I see it all the time on Bay News 9 in the AM.
You mean no push to start?
Click to expand...

I've also noticed that on-the-scene reporters seem to reading their palms (looking down at their cell phones) during their reportage.

Some light singles have a key switch start and no push button.


images
 
RyanB said:
No kidding, that’s some impressively bad journalism, as if any is really that good these days…
Click to expand...
Journalism is dead. It's all about click (and profit) generating. Facts are not appreciated and are no longer checked prior to submitting (the article).
 
Rich Holt said:
Journalism is dead. It's all about click (and profit) generating. Facts are not appreciated and are no longer checked prior to submitting (the article).
Click to expand...
It’s not dead, it’s just not in the hands of the major players anymore because they have deliberately abandoned it in favor of garbage.
 
Shouldn't we all stop speculating on this incident?

DG's Probable Cause will be along shortly.
 
Capngrog said:
Why?
Click to expand...
It was an attempt at a joke.

Several here are not a fan of DG in the least. I find him entertaining, and he really does try research these types of accidents. His delivery methods are what offends a lot of people.

Juan Browne is another good source for information on accidents.

Sometimes if he's not too busy, Scott Purdue over on FlyWire dissects GA accidents too.
 
geezer said:
172 manual.
Utility category flight.

"Stalls: The baggage compartment and rear seat must not be occupied during stalls"

There were 3 people in the crashed plane. That moved the CG aft, making stall recovery much slower, or impossible.

That seems to fall on the instructor, for making the flight with the back seat occupied, then allowing a stall to be done. Poor choice of a location for such flight maneuvers, too.
Click to expand...

All of a sudden I had the thought of how safe are 172s loaded with four (medium) adults? If you stall does that mean you die?
 
Piperonca said:
All of a sudden I had the thought of how safe are 172s loaded with four (medium) adults? If you stall does that mean you die?
Click to expand...

No, if you are within W&B limits (i.e., light adults and/or light on fuel), a coordinated stall in a properly-rigged plane is not an issue. An uncoordinated stall may result in an incipient spin, at which point your spin recovery game better be on-point. This is why it is important to regularly practice flight at minimum controllable airspeed, including coordinated shallow turns.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
No, if you are within W&B limits (i.e., light adults and/or light on fuel), a coordinated stall in a properly-rigged plane is not an issue. An uncoordinated stall may result in an incipient spin, at which point your spin recovery game better be on-point. This is why it is important to regularly practice flight at minimum controllable airspeed, including coordinated shallow turns.
Click to expand...
Good answer! I'm just thinking about the scenario where somebody not so well trained on aircraft limitations or motivated to learn, but who has money for a 172, goes out showing off landmarks to people and gets into the dreaded Moose Stall for example. I suspect many pilots don't think about coordinated flight during situations where it's absolutely necessary. This particular accident may have been from a different cause, but stalls are stalls, spins are spins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top