Plane down in Mississippi-Sad

woodchucker said:
Gotcha. But does that include if you are 5-10 feet off the deck? Surely there’s sink in that flap transition.
Click to expand...

POH does not provide any exceptions. I have a 172n with flaps limited to 30 degrees. I have experienced several forced go arounds just off the runway with full flaps and haven’t had an issue following the POH. Attempt to fly full power with 30 degrees of flaps and I think you would have your hands full.
 
BrianNC said:
"Then, when we were walking off the green it just fell straight down into the trees."

Definitely stalled it.
Click to expand...
And you know this how...??

Just cracks me up when folks assume exactly why a crash happened before an investigation.

We don’t need the NTSB... we have POA to figure it out!!!
 
I'm familiar with the area...UOX is 40nm W of me. She was midfield downwind when she went down. The only thing that makes sense to me is that she may have gotten distracted doing something else and got lost in the cockpit and slow. Definitely a strange place for it to happen.
 
woodchucker said:
Gotcha. But does that include if you are 5-10 feet off the deck? Surely there’s sink in that flap transition.
Click to expand...
I can't speak with authority on this since I've never flown one...

But...

I believe the R model has electric flaps and believe it takes a few seconds to go from 30* to 20* and, thus, if done immediately AFTER power is applied, this ship's speed will have increased amply to avoid any sink.
 
timwinters said:
I can't speak with authority on this since I've never flown one...

But...

I believe the R model has electric flaps and believe it takes a few seconds to go from 30* to 20* and, thus, if done immediately AFTER power is applied, this ship's speed will have increased amply to avoid any sink.
Click to expand...

All 172’s I have flown (N,P,R,S) all have electric flaps. I’d say it probably takes about 1-2 seconds for them to transition from 30 to 20 degrees.

Several years back as a newly minted private pilot I made the error of not immediately retracting to 20 degrees on a go around. The plane was certainly a handful for the 5 or so seconds before I corrected my mistake and it certainly taught me not to make it again..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Flown that plane several times. Last time about 3 months ago. Sad situation and I know a lot of people in the MSWG that knew her are struggling with it.

There's been no mention of cause yet but some kind of stall and botched recovery makes the most sense. A witness said the plan dove over the golf course, then came back up, then fell in.
 
jjflys said:
All 172’s I have flown (N,P,R,S) all have electric flaps. I’d say it probably takes about 1-2 seconds for them to transition from 30 to 20 degrees.
Click to expand...

I'll go back to the C-172H and say that at least that far back they were electric.

What does change from model to model is the control of the flaps. The later ones have a "selector" where you set it to the desired flap setting. Earlier ones have a switch that you have to either hold or reset until the desired flap setting is achieved. In any case, the changed isn't instantaneous and sink shouldn't be an issue.
 
timwinters said:
The OP's attached article and a report I read said she was practicing touch-n-goes. If true, it's but one more testimony as to why they should be outlawed (figuratively speaking)...especially for low time pilots. You never truly land doing T-n-G's...they're stupid.

Land, stop, reconfigure take off = stop-n-go. Far less chance of ending up like this. Plenty of runway to do so at KUOX

But I've beaten that drum here numerous times before...

Condolences to all who knew her.
Click to expand...
I'd also outlaw stalls and spins. A T&G is really a "go around" type of procedure. We did stops a good deal of the time.
 
It's sad to hear about these sorts of accidents. Especially so given how young and active the pilot was. And also in a 172, which has a fatal accident record that is one of the lowest in the GA fleet.
 
Ghery said:
I'll go back to the C-172H and say that at least that far back they were electric.

What does change from model to model is the control of the flaps. The later ones have a "selector" where you set it to the desired flap setting. Earlier ones have a switch that you have to either hold or reset until the desired flap setting is achieved. In any case, the changed isn't instantaneous and sink shouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

And it’s also very easy to retract all the way when you only intended to retract to 20 degrees.
 
I was told earlier that she was landing on 27 and flying a right pattern... Both are LP at UOX
 
Yeah, I saw this news and it was a terrible feeling. Sad for the pageant queen.
 
woodchucker said:
Just last week had to abort a landing attempt in a 172. Full flaps at 7000 MSL with temps in the 80s. You have to really take time milking the flaps back up, and the VSI was barely indicating positive rate the entire time.
Click to expand...
Exactly how I saved my bacon on a T&G that went bad. This was 21 years ago, during an early, student solo training flight at MMU (Morristown, NJ). I was doing ok, but on number two or three, I forgot to raise the flaps! The nose popped up after I rotated and scared the crap out of me. Fortunately I didn't panic, remembered some of what I was taught and pushed hard to get the nose back down, then gradually took out the flaps, one notch at a time.
I was too embarrassed to mention it to my CFI, but I never made that mistake again.

Very sad.
RIP
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
And it’s also very easy to retract all the way when you only intended to retract to 20 degrees.
Click to expand...
This—-especially if the selector lever is a bit sticky. Mine (150f) occasionally sticks up or down after letting go and once put in all 40 degrees at once in the pattern after letting the lever go at 10 degrees. All of a sudden I was going much slower and at a much lower pitch angle to keep speed. Not a big problem that time, but could have been at a worse or busier time of flight. Now I (hopefully) always keep my hand on the lever and switch it back to neutral very time in case it gets a case of the stickies.
 
Peter Anderson said:
I would not be surprised if it was a power on stall with full flaps and trimmed for landing. I trained in a 160 hp R model and with 30 flaps the force to keep the nose down on a go around was a lot even for my 200 pound self if you were not ready for it. Our go around routine was full power, flaps to 20 immediately. If she was doing a touch and go and didn’t clean the airplane up it would have been easy to stall it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

^^ this. While training, I had to do a couple of go-arounds... the force I had to put to keep the nose from going to high was surprising to me.
 
luvflyin said:
And it’s also very easy to retract all the way when you only intended to retract to 20 degrees.
Click to expand...

Yup. Nearly got burned a number of years ago in a 172 where this happened. I really like the "newer" ones where you select the desired flaps setting and it handles the rest.
 
MacFlier said:
^^ this. While training, I had to do a couple of go-arounds... the force I had to put to keep the nose from going to high was surprising to me.
Click to expand...
I remember the first time in training I did a go around in a measly 150m with full flaps. I basically had to lock my elbows out! I was very hesitant for a while to use full flaps while landing that thing.
 
Ugh. Another apparent low-time pilot stall/spin LOC accident. Prelim does not suggest any engine or control continuity issues. We may never know what ultimately precipitated the accident chain of events, but the selection of a tailwind landing sequence was probably a sign of things not going well somehow. This is eerily similar in many respects of our low-time college-age pilot accident several years ago that resulted in a mechanically sound aircraft having a stall/spin LOC event at low altitude. Low time pilots are especially vulnerable, and stall/spin accidents are, frustratingly, still a major factor in incidents.
 
3393RP said:
No. Your knowledge of sentence structure is deficient. I did not say you were stupid.
Click to expand...

I think I have to agree with Mooney Fan, that was a subtle attack on the person (perhaps not intended as such). Here is a definition

“stu·pid·i·ty
noun
behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment.
"I can't believe my own stupidity"
synonyms: lack of intelligence, unintelligence, foolishness, denseness, brainlessness, ignorance, mindlessness, dull-wittedness, dull-headedness, dullness, slow-wittedness, doltishness, slowness, vacancy; More
the quality of being stupid or unintelligent.”

So that only applies to behavior which is by definition performed by a person. Thus the original statement really meant that people who use that phraseology are engaging in a behavior that shows a lack of good judgement or sense.

And certainly stating that someone’s understanding of sentence structure is deficient is an attack on that person.
 
Stingray Don said:
The 172r POH for a go around states: reduce flap setting to 20 degrees immediately after full power is applied.
Click to expand...

woodchucker said:
Gotcha. But does that include if you are 5-10 feet off the deck? Surely there’s sink in that flap transition.
Click to expand...

Two things:

The notched flap select switch in the later C-172 models is a huge improvement when executing a go-around. You simply pull (slap, if you are sloppy) the switch full up, then push it down to the second notch (20 degrees.)

I have many times demonstrated how reducing flaps and lowering the nose will make a 172 climb, versus trying to simply add power and raise the nose. The airplane is behind the power curve at that speed and adding power without a pitch reduction will not result in an immediate climb.
 
chemgeek said:
Ugh. Another apparent low-time pilot stall/spin LOC accident. Prelim does not suggest any engine or control continuity issues.
Click to expand...

I agree I see her coming in with a tailwind and ate up most of the runway and opted for a go around which went very very wrong. BUT this was said "The engine exhibited a thumb compression at three cylinders when the crankshaft was rotated. All rocker covers were removed, and all valve train components moved accordingly when the crankshaft was rotated. The No. 4 cylinder was removed, and it had material under its exhaust valve".

So compression on 3 cylinders and they removed #4 because why I don't know (no compression??), maybe it didn't have compression because of some debris they speak of??? I really don't know but maybe when she did a go around she didn't have the power. I have no clue but it was also said she sounded panicked on approach which might point to loss of RPM due to that #4 cylinder. Sounds possible and just guessing..sad either way!
 
Last edited:
Perhaps she lost the cylinder and started to panic when the engine acted up, which led her to take the tailwind runway she was (I assume) already aligned with, in a "get down now!" mindset, rather than try to come around and land the other way. Then, tailwind eats up more runway than she expected, and the engine isn't making enough power for the go-around, or at least for the climb rate she tried to force.

All speculation, of course.
 
3393RP said:
If there's one word that is overused to the point of stupidity, it's "hater".

Does your opinion differ from mine? Then you're a hater.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Mooney Fan said:
Or in this case “stupid” eh? :)
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that in today's modern vernacular it is completely true that an opinion or observation that does not exactly concur with the offended party is "Hate speech," and you are immediately considered a "Hater."

For that reason I skip the polite and formerly accepted way of explaining my opinion and just say up front that I am a "_________[fill in the blank] Hater" when speaking to the easily offended types.

As an example, I say I am an "Apple Hater," meaning I prefer not to own Apple computer products. No malice intended, just using the currently accepted terminology that is immediately understood by "those people."

IBTL
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
And certainly stating that someone’s understanding of sentence structure is deficient is an attack on that person.
Click to expand...

Attack? It's criticism. You just created a good example of the hyperbole I pointed out above.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I think I have to agree with Mooney Fan, that was a subtle attack on the person (perhaps not intended as such). Here is a definition

“stu·pid·i·ty
noun
behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment.
"I can't believe my own stupidity"
synonyms: lack of intelligence, unintelligence, foolishness, denseness, brainlessness, ignorance, mindlessness, dull-wittedness, dull-headedness, dullness, slow-wittedness, doltishness, slowness, vacancy; More
the quality of being stupid or unintelligent.”


.

So that only applies to behavior which is by definition performed by a person. Thus the original statement really meant that people who use that phraseology are engaging in a behavior that shows a lack of good judgement or sense.

And certainly stating that someone’s understanding of sentence structure is deficient is an attack on that person.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone needs a hug. We're more alike than different; this isn't a ditch to die in
 
3393RP said:
Attack? It's criticism. You just created a good example of the hyperbole I pointed out above.
Click to expand...

Well, I always try to keep my posts strictly on the topic itself. In my view, and strictly logically speaking, any introduction of the personal characteristics of the speaker is an ad hominem fallacy.

Such remarks do not address the topic itself and are easily misconstrued in public fora - as yours was above. Criticizing the speaker in a public forum will often be received as an attack, whether intended as such or not.

Certainly this was not an egregious or bad example, but since there was an additional criticism about understanding sentence structure made, I thought perhaps the actual ad hominem should be noted, if one wants to be strictly correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top