Student Fell Out Of Plane

Suicide. They are either covering to eliminate suicide surge or to save the family some public grief.
 
Jay Honeck said:
WTH were they DOING? Can a Zodiac fly inverted?
Click to expand...

Not legally, but my guess is they were doing something they should not have been. The canopy hinges on the front and even if left unlocked should not come off in flight. They must have been doing negative g maneuvers? :dunno: :eek:
 
According to Flight Aware records, the ZODIAC 601XL plane was built by Clarence Kendrick Andrews, a Signal Mountain pilot who was killed in a plane crash in December 2012.
Click to expand...
Man, that's bad karma all the way around...
 
I hope the instructor got paid ahead of time. :nono: OK, maybe it's a little early for jokes.
 
No seatbelts?!? Hopefully that instructor has good insurance and no real assets. I'm sure there is some liability lawyer out there just licking his/her chops.
 
I suspended work on my 601 about four years ago because the wings of that model had a distressing habit of falling. I began again when the repair kit became available.

Now this. Doesn't make any sense at all. Please tell me it wasn't the fault of the plane.
 
This story shows what appears to be the CH-601 - canopy is still attached and if there is damage to it, not visible to me:

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2013/3/29/247767/Student-Pilot-Falls-From-Small-Plane.aspx

EDIT: hot-link to the photo of the plane:
article.247767.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here is photo of the plane in question...canopy still attached.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2013/3/29/247767/Pilot-Falls-From-Small-Plane-Without.aspx


Maybe they were doing negative G maneuvers/aerobatic training and canopy came loose. I have spent a number of hours in the "east practice area" where this took place.

Mostly farms and cleared land...great place for training.

Strange that the instructor didn't think to set a GPS way-point after recovery from the [unknown] maneuver after realizing the other guy wasn't there anymore.

From what I have been seeing in local news reports, the incident occurred near here: http://goo.gl/maps/CjBRs

Still seems fishy and odd.
 
Here is photo of the plane in question...canopy still attached.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2013/3/29/247767/Pilot-Falls-From-Small-Plane-Without.aspx


Maybe they were doing negative G maneuvers/aerobatic training and canopy came loose. I have spent a number of hours in the "east practice area" where this took place.

Mostly farms and cleared land...great place for training.

Strange that the instructor didn't think to set a GPS way-point after recovery from the [unknown] maneuver after realizing the other guy wasn't there anymore.

From what I have been seeing in local news reports, the incident occurred near here: http://goo.gl/maps/CjBRs

Still seems fishy and odd.
 
What the flock is going on with people? GA is having some issues lately.
 
Maybe they were doing negative G maneuvers/aerobatic training and canopy came loose. I have spent a number of hours in the "east practice area" where this took place.

Mostly farms and cleared land...great place for training.

Strange that the instructor didn't think to set a GPS way-point after recovery from the [unknown] maneuver after realizing the other guy wasn't there anymore.

From what I have been seeing in local news reports, the incident occurred near here: http://goo.gl/maps/CjBRs

Still seems fishy and odd.
 
If he had a seatbelt but was not wearing it, well... :dunno:
But as PIC I would never leave the ground with a pax who would not strap in. No way. :nono:
 
Gotta love the comments left by some of the readers.
The quotes are from the following article on WRCBtv.com website.

Tom

Sorry, dude is gone. Every time we hear of a small plane crash I say how unsafe it is to fly in these little planes.
And...every time the pilots of our community come back and say they are oh so safe and that it is only of pilot error.
No. Small non-commercial planes are a death trap.
If you love your family member you don't want them in a small aircraft. Period.
Click to expand...
Bob Clark

Police say the man hit the eject button, Did the plane have an ejection seat?
Click to expand...
 
If you love family members, you never let them remain as stupid as that first guy.
 
The canopy in a Zodiac 601 open forward and up. So even if you are inverted and your seat belts are off the canopy should stay closed due to the airflow...
 
Tom

Sorry, dude is gone. Every time we hear of a small plane crash I say how unsafe it is to fly in these little planes.
And...every time the pilots of our community come back and say they are oh so safe and that it is only of pilot error.
No. Small non-commercial planes are a death trap.
If you love your family member you don't want them in a small aircraft. Period.
Click to expand...

I didn't know it was possible to be that stupid, well I guess I learn something new every day.
 
jjflys said:
No seatbelts?!? Hopefully that instructor has good insurance and no real assets. I'm sure there is some liability lawyer out there just licking his/her chops.
Click to expand...

tinerj said:
I suspended work on my 601 about four years ago because the wings of that model had a distressing habit of falling. I began again when the repair kit became available.

Now this. Doesn't make any sense at all. Please tell me it wasn't the fault of the plane.
Click to expand...

It is perplexing but hopefully we will learn more after the NTSB interviews the CFI. I think if the pilot had to turn around to get something from a hat shelf or are behind the seat he may have had to unbuckle to get what ever he was looking for. In doing so I wonder if he hit the latch.

MachFly said:
The canopy in a Zodiac 601 open forward and up. So even if you are inverted and your seat belts are off the canopy should stay closed due to the airflow...
Click to expand...

That is a very good point which begs the question even if he did unlatch it as I stated above how did the canopy open. I guess the real question is did the canopy open as the photos suggest or did it come off as the article says the CFI described?

Tragic anyway you look at it.
 
From the Zodiac FAQS:

Can I fly aerobatics with the ZODIAC?

The ZODIAC is not designed as an aerobatic airplane - it's designed more for stability than for aerobatic maneuverability. However, the design is stressed a full +/- 6 g's and the controls are quite responsive. Of course, any aerobatics require proper training and equipment.
 
MachFly said:
The canopy in a Zodiac 601 open forward and up. So even if you are inverted and your seat belts are off the canopy should stay closed due to the airflow...
Click to expand...
Read the NTSB report on the 2012 accident that Bartmc linked.

Basically, if you unbuckle the lapbelt in order to reach back to get something and the airplane enters some negative G's, even with the shoulder straps still on, you can find yourself ejected.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Or unbuckled after takeoff
Click to expand...

Could be. :yes:

I believe the seat belt set up in the 601 is very similar (if not the same) as the RV-12. Shoulder harness and lap belt and crotch belt all come together in one buckle. It is fairly easily for a newby to not get it to click properly. It is something the PIC must verify.

A week ago I was up and hit sever turbulence. My head it the canopy so hard I saw stars, and was stunned. My neck was sore for 3 days after wards. I had left the crotch belt off as it is "confining" . ;) I'm gonna start using it again. :yes:
 
AdamZ said:
It is perplexing but hopefully we will learn more after the NTSB interviews the CFI. I think if the pilot had to turn around to get something from a hat shelf or are behind the seat he may have had to unbuckle to get what ever he was looking for. In doing so I wonder if he hit the latch.
Click to expand...
Aside from the possibility that this accident was the result of something goofy like trying to "float" the person who was ejected your explanation sounds plausible. If while crawling around to fetch something nearly out of reach the person managed to trip the latch and push the stick hard with a foot... But you'd think if that were the case the CFI would go with the truth and that's not even close to what he's saying AFaIK.

That is a very good point which begs the question even if he did unlatch it as I stated above how did the canopy open. I guess the real question is did the canopy open as the photos suggest or did it come off as the article says the CFI described?
Click to expand...
Assuming the picture in post #15 is post incident, I'd say the canopy itself was and is still attached at the front hinge. I can't really see this happening unless there was some significant negative g force and you don't need to be inverted to cause that although it is easier to sustain negative g force when upside down. As to the question of how a person could "fall out" with the airstream holding the canopy closed, at negative 2 g I'd expect the 400 lb force from a 200 lb body would be sufficient to create a large enough opening to slip through and once a portion of the body got outside the airstream would assist in the extraction of the rest.
 
I am no physics expert, but it would take a good bit of force to push that canopy open far enough into the slipstream to get a person out, especially one that didn't want to leave!:hairraise: I guess I'm old fashioned but I don't even taxi an airplane without the seatbelt being buckled, I have taken it off in cruise to move around a bit, stretch or take care of filling a Gatorade bottle, but that's only for a brief moment or two. I just can't imagine flying without a seatbelt, no matter what type airplane or canopy. :dunno:
I think it's gonna be tough for the CFI, or about to be ex-CFI to explain why they weren't buckled in. I think I would say he was depressed and forced his way out of the cockpit. ;)
 
Would it be more plausible less implausible that the student was never in the airplane in the first place?

I know it's hard to believe, but it's also difficult to believe that someone could fall out of that particular aircraft, right?
 
N747JB said:
I am no physics expert, but it would take a good bit of force to push that canopy open far enough into the slipstream to get a person out, especially one that didn't want to leave!:hairraise:
Click to expand...
It might take less force than you'd think. The airflow over the top of the canopy might actually be generating "lift" (i.e. low pressure) especially on the portion well aft of the hinge where the leverage is greater. And 200-400 lbs is a significant amount of force.

I guess I'm old fashioned but I don't even taxi an airplane without the seatbelt being buckled, I have taken it off in cruise to move around a bit, stretch or take care of filling a Gatorade bottle, but that's only for a brief moment or two. I just can't imagine flying without a seatbelt, no matter what type airplane or canopy. :dunno:
Click to expand...
Ditto. In an airplane or car I just don't feel comfortable unless I'm secured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top