Plane down at middle school football field

The incident took place when a female pilot in training was performing an exercise to stall the plane out, but when she attempted to turn back on controls, it didn’t work.
Click to expand...

Sigh... they couldn't have found anyone who had even the slightest understanding of how airplanes fly?
 
DaleB said:
Sigh... they couldn't have found anyone who had even the slightest understanding of how airplanes fly?
Click to expand...
No kidding, that’s some impressively bad journalism, as if any is really that good these days…
 
The mistakes are even funnier when you realize that this article is the result of 3 people (journalists?) and has been updated at least once.
 
Someone please help me. Was the student attempting to stall the wing or stall the engine? What is "turn back on the controls?" Either way it appears they did not have sufficient altitude AGL relative to the height above the MSL or however that works????? :dunno:

Has anyone figured out how this crash caused dishwashing liquid to be served to residents at the senior citizens facility. Remind me not to retire at any senior centers in the Cleveland area! :biggrin:
 
I can’t find the switch to turn my control’s on and off.
 
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.
 
I was tempted to hit the “Suggest a Correction” button, but after seeing they need my name and email, I don’t want to be associated with whatever lack of journalistic process they are using that generated the first word salad.
 
Not that I want to defend the quality of journalism these days, but they were quoting the state police officer.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
I was tempted to hit the “Suggest a Correction” button, but after seeing they need my name and email, I don’t want to be associated with whatever lack of journalistic process they are using that generated the first word salad.
Click to expand...
Double-dog dare ya to create a fake name and email address (Not A. Idiot, actual.knowledge@something.com, for instance) and submit it.:D
 
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...

The officer’s actual comments in the video are a bit better than the journalists’ edited transliteration.

Interestingly, I count at least 4 GA crashes that officer has provided statements on in the last year, and two in a month.

https://sports.yahoo.com/mogadore-man-uniontown-woman-were-170746249.html
https://sports.yahoo.com/mogadore-man-uniontown-woman-were-170746249.html
https://darik.news/ohio/1-sandusky-hospitalized-with-minor-injuries-after-plane-crash-in/606048.html

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story...irport-injuries-unknown-wadsworth/5714546001/
 
Last edited:
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...
That don’t make sense. You should be able to recover in real life. Not just training. I don’t like that one little bit. Maybe they should put a placard for the rear seat passengers to read saying something like the pilot may not know how to save the plane if you are sitting back here.
 
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...

Depends on the year, perhaps.

1st random POH I pulled for a 172N is different. Rear seat and baggage compartment cannot be occupied for any Utility Category operations, however "stalls (except whip stalls)" are approved in the Normal Category, with occupants in the rear seat.

https://www.cfinotebook.net/documents/publications/C-172NPOH.pdf
 
Doubtful three people in a 172 were in Utility category. Utility < 2000#.


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...
 
Re: Stalls are UTILITY manuevers, this is false.

It is a NORMAL category maneuver, so it was legal to be performed under the circumstances herein.

Obviously something went wrong, and there is plenty of room for some really questionable things to have happened, but there being three people in the plane (one in the back seat) is not one of them.

REF: FAR 23.3


Sec. 23.3

Airplane categories.

(a) The normal category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for nonacrobatic operation. Nonacrobatic operation includes:


  • (1) Any maneuver incident to normal flying;

    (2) Stalls (except whip stalls); and

    (3) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not more than 60 degrees.

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/AB51E741104F7C1686257996006CAD44
 
The Cessna POH quoted is an old one, 1964, back in the days we did spins to get a PPL. The stalls referenced in those manuals were FULL STALLS, the nose dropped through the horizon with the yoke full back, before any effort to recover was permitted in the check ride. The standard spin that those planes were certified for were a full turn, recover wings level. That recovery could be in a dive as steep as 30 degrees, and required care to avoid high G loads.

I believe that in modern check rides, the recovery is as soon as shudder occurs. I may be wrong, and I am sure that someone will correct me if I am. The regulations have changed many times over the half century since my PPL, and my Commercial check ride did not include a real full stall.

The appearance of the wreckage seemed to me to be the result of falling at a steep angle, through the trees to the ground, not through the trees in a somewhat horizontal direction. Both wings are attached to the fuselage, not broken off. There are large trees just aft the fuselage, which would have removed the wings if traveling forward.

The damage to the wings, right wing tip bent up, left wing some crushing, would be expected if the plane descended nose up, through the limbs of the nearby trees, rather than through the clump of tree trunks, at 50 or more miles per hour, ie., flying. The engine seems to be broken off the firewall from the vertical forces in the crash.

The good news is that the occupants survived, with minor injuries. Years ago, a Cessna stalled into the trees at the end of the runway at CGS, and had similar results. The tree limbs stopped modest forward motion, and the plane descended vertically, with no severe injuries.
 
geezer said:
The Cessna POH quoted is an old one, 1964, back in the days we did spins to get a PPL.
Click to expand...
you may have done them, but they weren’t required in 1964.

The stalls referenced in those manuals were FULL STALLS, the nose dropped through the horizon with the yoke full back, before any effort to recover was permitted in the check ride.
….
I believe that in modern check rides, the recovery is as soon as shudder occurs. I may be wrong, and I am sure that someone will correct me if I am.
Click to expand...
here ya go. ;)

Here’s what the current Private Pilot ACS says…
“Acknowledge cues of the impending stall and then recover promptly after a full stall occurs.”

and my Commercial check ride did not include a real full stall.
Click to expand...
The FAA has a higher standard for commercial (and ATP) applicants…in this case the higher standard is that they shouldn’t screw up as badly in the first place.

Commercial: “Recover at the first indication of a stall or after a full stall has occurred, as specified by the evaluator.”
ATP: “Acknowledge the cue(s) and promptly recover at the first indication of an impending stall (e.g., buffet, stall horn, stick shaker, etc.).”
 
Tantalum said:
..now apply this same level of reporting lunacy to anything you hear in the news..
Click to expand...
So 45 or so years ago 60 minutes breathlessly reported 70% of accidents involved general aviation planes…without mentioning 70% of flights were general aviation
 
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...

Following their track log on FlightAware makes that even more interesting. Their altitude on the track log was never higher than 2000'msl. That seems a tad low to do practice stalls over a populated area like that.

Were they actually doing a practice engine out approach to the football field and the engine quit when they attempted to waive off? I mean, I don't think most people understand the difference between an aerodynamic stall and an airplane engine quitting.

This is all supposition based on FlightAware. I don't even pretend to know what happened. But, their altitude (from the track log) seems kinda low to be doing "training maneuvers" given their location over a populated area.
 
Last edited:
Kenny Phillips said:
Pilots are actually quite rare, so, no.
Click to expand...

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.
 
wilkersk said:
Were they actually doing a practice engine out approach to the football field and the engine quit when they attempted to waive off? I mean, I don't think most people understand the difference between an aerodynamic stall and an airplane engine quitting.
Click to expand...
Well... wouldn't one normally set up to land along the length of the field, not the width?

I just hope that if I ever wad up an airplane, the location doesn't leave people scratching their heads and thinking, "WTH was he trying to do here?"
 
DaleB said:
Well... wouldn't one normally set up to land along the length of the field, not the width?

I just hope that if I ever wad up an airplane, the location doesn't leave people scratching their heads and thinking, "WTH was he trying to do here?"
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top