Tough week at Cedar Key

wrbix

wrbix

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
2,398
Display Name
Display name:
Pilot Lite
ANOTHER SMALL PLANE LANDS
IN CEDAR KEY MARSH
October 19, 2016


Plane6598_xe.JPG


In the marsh north of the airport, a single-engine airplane landed at approximately 7:30 this morning, October 19. This, after another plane landed at the south of the runway on Saturday, October 15.

Police Chief Virgil Sandlin and Fire Chief Robert Robinson responded immediately and brought the three travelers to land. No one was serously injured.
 
Boy, keep this up and the neighbors will start complaining. :(
 
Wonder how it got that type of wingtip damage.
 
I am also surprised to see how far off the the shore he ended up. Looks like he was still pretty fast at the end of the runway.

It really puzzles me, how often planes end up in the water at KCDK. I landed there myself - even though the runway is a bit on the shorter side, 2,355 ft is still plenty for most SEP aircraft, especially if both ends are obstacle free like at KCDK.
 
German guy said:
I am also surprised to see how far off the the shore he ended up. Looks like he was still pretty fast at the end of the runway.

It really puzzles me, how often planes end up in the water at KCDK. I landed there myself - even though the runway is a bit on the shorter side, 2,355 ft is still plenty for most SEP aircraft, especially if both ends are obstacle free like at KCDK.
Click to expand...

Since these threads are all about speculation, I'll have a go. The article says he was carrying two passengers. I'll bet he usually flies by himself like most of us and based at an airport with a long runway. I'll bet he didn't have an AoA indicator. I'll guess he added a few knots for the passengers and flew a sight picture he was used to.

There. Now you guys get to go. Make your guesses.
 
I landed there when he powered parachute guys were buzzing around- quite stressing with short field, water, and people. Hanging over the airport.
I might add I was a fairly new minted pilot at the time. But all worked out-


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Downwind landing?
No local ATIS and Hermine destroyed the wind socks.
 
It's really not a hard airport, it's plenty long for most any GA and quite a few turbo props.

Come on folks...


Looks like the owner is out of OR, owns a rental biz and got his PPL in June of this year, but has a "Please contact aam-300..." written under his third class medical which he got in April of last year.

wrbix said:
Downwind landing?
No local ATIS and Hermine destroyed the wind socks.
Click to expand...

You need these things to figure wind direction during day VMC??


Dav8or said:
I'll bet he didn't have an AoA indicator.
Click to expand...

A AoA for a 182 landing on 2300'???

It's not a lunar landing, many folks learn how to fly on runways shorter then that in the same type aircraft, that's not demonstrating a need for a AoA, it's showing a need for some major dual instruction.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
A AoA for a 182 landing on 2300'???

It's not a lunar landing, many folks learn how to fly on runways shorter then that in the same type aircraft, that's not demonstrating a need for a AoA, it's showing a need for some major dual instruction.
Click to expand...

Maybe he forgot to select 40 degrees worth of those barn doors they call "flaps".
 
German guy said:
I am also surprised to see how far off the the shore he ended up. Looks like he was still pretty fast at the end of the runway.

It really puzzles me, how often planes end up in the water at KCDK. I landed there myself - even though the runway is a bit on the shorter side, 2,355 ft is still plenty for most SEP aircraft, especially if both ends are obstacle free like at KCDK.
Click to expand...
We've watched plenty of GA pilots struggle to land on our island's 3400' runway. Apparently landing over water makes people carry power to the point where they have difficulty stopping.

We watched one guy in a 182 do two go-arounds before finally setting it down (about 1700' down the runway) on his third attempt. It was a rare calm day here (usually the wind is 10 - 15 right down Rwy 12), and you could here his tires skidding down the runway as he tried to force the still-flying wing down.

It was all rather sad.

On the flipside are the self-insured guys who land jets here like a boss. One guy in his King Air always makes the first turn-off, which is darned impressive to watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
James331 said:
You need these things to figure wind direction during day VMC??

.
Click to expand...
I don't - can't speak for others.
Was just conjecturing - happens on POA from time to time.
 
James331 said:
It's not a lunar landing, many folks learn how to fly on runways shorter then that in the same type aircraft, that's not demonstrating a need for a AoA, it's showing a need for some major dual instruction.
Click to expand...

I never said it was needed, did I? I said I bet he didn't have one. In my supposed scenario, if he had one, it would have told him he was going too fast, or more pedantically, his angle of attack was not as steep as it could have been for a safe landing in the shortest distance.
 
And he probably would have just ignored the AOA, just like he ignored his ASI, sight picture, POH performance numbers and what his plane was telling him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
Jay Honeck said:
We've watched plenty of GA pilots struggle to land on our island's 3400' runway. Apparently landing over water makes people carry power to the point where they have difficulty stopping.
Click to expand...
Jay, are those tourists or locals? Just out of curiosity.
I have been to your awesome island several times, never had a problem landing there and always make the first turnoff. But then again, I trained at a field with a 6000' and a 1500' rwy so I am used to both. :)

What is it with these rwy runoffs? A small GA airplane should not need more than 2000' to land and stop comfortably. 3000' tops if you don't want to use brakes and just let it roll.
 
Short runway? "Lemme add 5 kts so I don't come up short."
A little wind? "Lemme add another 5 kts for the potential gust."
2 extra passengers? "Lemme add another 5 kts just in case."

"Gee, I can't figure out why I kept floating..."

Learn to fly your airplanes properly, people.

Not saying this was the case in this accident. Just a mini rant.
 
According to Weather Underground, conditions at the time of the incident were no wind, 15°C and blue skies.

Somebody mentioned in the Lancair thread that both runways would now have a displaced threshold. This does however not seem to be correct: The AF/D only mentions a displaced threshold for runway 23, the full length is available for runway 5. I could also not find any NOTAMs regarding a newly added displaced threshold for runway 5.
If the report is correct, and they indeed ended up north of the runway, after a messed up landing, they would have used 2,355 feet of runway, slid another 100' to the water (after climbing a 15' bank) and were then still fast enough to make it quite a distance away from the shore. Holy smokes. This must have been quite a ride... :eek:

Looking at the aircraft registration, the plane is a Cessna 172C with the barndoor sized 40° flaps. We had a 172G until recently, pretty much the same plane. I find it hard to believe that a pilot can mess up landing with it so badly, that it leads to such an outcome.

I am therefore wondering, if they possibly had an electrical failure, were forced to land flaps up and came in way too hot? But then again, why would one land with a failed electrical system at an airport without any services and a relatively short runway!? Very weird…
 
German guy said:
Looking at the aircraft registration, the plane is a Cessna 172C with the barndoor sized 40° flaps. We had a 172G until recently, pretty much the same plane. I find it hard to believe that a pilot can mess up landing with it so badly, that it leads to such an outcome.
Click to expand...
If by chance the plane had the 180 Upgrade, then it would be limited to 30degee flaps.
German guy said:
I am therefore wondering, if they possibly had an electrical failure, were forced to land flaps up and came in way too hot? But then again, why would one land with a failed electrical system at an airport without any services and a relatively short runway!? Very weird…
Click to expand...
Not many alternates around there. If there was a sudden electrical failure, he may have decided it is best to get down NOW. (not necessarily the best choice). And if he did decide he had to land due to an emergency, he could have been a bit spooked.
 
JOhnH said:
If by chance the plane had the 180 Upgrade, then it would be limited to 30degee flaps.

Not many alternates around there. If there was a sudden electrical failure, he may have decided it is best to get down NOW. (not necessarily the best choice). And if he did decide he had to land due to an emergency, he could have been a bit spooked.
Click to expand...

I appears unlikely that it was upgraded to 180hp. Panoramio has a picture of it, taken in 2013, with a different paint scheme. Flightaware however shows a picture with the current paint scheme, on which the distinctive exhausts of the O-300 engine are clearly visible. Nevertheless, even with 30° of flaps, a 172 doesn't need much runway.

The more I think about it, the more I am leaning towards some kind of emergency scenario. Even going 10kts too fast should not lead to such an outcome.
Also, the picture in the report shows that the flaps are up. Of course, he could have retracted them after the crash landing...
 
The poor plane did not have much luck with its owners:

1964 Damage: SUBSTANTIAL; Occurrences: GROUND-WATER LOOP-SWERVE, COLLIDED WITH OBJECT; Causes: IMPROPER OPERATION OF BRAKES AND/OR FLIGHT CONTROLS

1966 Damage: SUBSTANTIAL; Occurrences: COLLIDED WITH FENCE, FENCEPOSTS; Causes: DELAYED ACTION IN ABORTING TAKEOFF, INADEQUATE PREFLIGHT PREPARATION AND/OR PLANNING, HIGH TEMPERATURE

1979 Damage: MINOR; Narrative: WHILE TAXIING FROM TIEDDOWN AREA WINGTIP STRUCK WINGTIP OF PARKED AIRCRAFT.

1995 Damage: MINOR; Narrative UNSUPERVISED SOLO PORPOISED ON LANDING. PANICKED. HIT RIGHT BRAKE HARD. SWERVED. DAMAGED PROP AND WING TIP.

:(
 
German guy said:
According to Weather Underground, conditions at the time of the incident were no wind, 15°C and blue skies.

Somebody mentioned in the Lancair thread that both runways would now have a displaced threshold. This does however not seem to be correct: The AF/D only mentions a displaced threshold for runway 23, the full length is available for runway 5. I could also not find any NOTAMs regarding a newly added displaced threshold for runway 5.
If the report is correct, and they indeed ended up north of the runway, after a messed up landing, they would have used 2,355 feet of runway, slid another 100' to the water (after climbing a 15' bank) and were then still fast enough to make it quite a distance away from the shore. Holy smokes. This must have been quite a ride... :eek:

Looking at the aircraft registration, the plane is a Cessna 172C with the barndoor sized 40° flaps. We had a 172G until recently, pretty much the same plane. I find it hard to believe that a pilot can mess up landing with it so badly, that it leads to such an outcome.

I am therefore wondering, if they possibly had an electrical failure, were forced to land flaps up and came in way too hot? But then again, why would one land with a failed electrical system at an airport without any services and a relatively short runway!? Very weird…
Click to expand...

I thought that registration was N182TX, making it a 182 out of OR, I'm far from a expert on 182s and 172s though.

Even 0 flaps, that plane will still come in plenty slow enough for that strip, slip FTW
 
Medical emergency, meteor strike or structural failure. Can't be pilot error. Never is.
 
James331 said:
I thought that registration was N182TX, making it a 182 out of OR, I'm far from a expert on 182s and 172s though.

Even 0 flaps, that plane will still come in plenty slow enough for that strip, slip FTW
Click to expand...

Registration is N1827Y, a 1962 172C based in Gainesville just a short hop to Cedar Key.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
I thought that registration was N182TX [...]
Click to expand...

N1827Y: http://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N1827Y

Unless there is somebody else with the exact same name, he also owns a Cessna 182T and had a retraceable 172, as well as a Commander 114-B before.

He also crash landed the Commander in 2011:

Damage: SUBSTANTIAL; Narrative: THE PILOT LOSS CONTROL UPON LANDING DUE TO CROSSWIND. THE AIRPLANE WAS LANDING WEST TO EAST ON THE RUNWAY AND WENT OFF THE LEFT SIDE OF THE RUNWAY IN TO A GRASS FIELD.
 
SkyDog58 said:
No. You actually want the gear(wheels) up in a floatplane when you land on water.
Click to expand...

That.


Landing gear up on land in a pinch isn't even a issue, shy of keel paint, and on grass not even that
 
German guy said:
N1827Y: http://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N1827Y

Unless there is somebody else with the exact same name, he also owns a Cessna 182T and had a retraceable 172, as well as a Commander 114-B before.

He also crash landed the Commander in 2011:

Damage: SUBSTANTIAL; Narrative: THE PILOT LOSS CONTROL UPON LANDING DUE TO CROSSWIND. THE AIRPLANE WAS LANDING WEST TO EAST ON THE RUNWAY AND WENT OFF THE LEFT SIDE OF THE RUNWAY IN TO A GRASS FIELD.
Click to expand...

So looks like the owners partner in the aircraft is from cedar key.
 
wrbix said:
ANOTHER SMALL PLANE LANDS
IN CEDAR KEY MARSH
October 19, 2016


Plane6598_xe.JPG


In the marsh north of the airport, a single-engine airplane landed at approximately 7:30 this morning, October 19. This, after another plane landed at the south of the runway on Saturday, October 15.

Police Chief Virgil Sandlin and Fire Chief Robert Robinson responded immediately and brought the three travelers to land. No one was serously injured.
Click to expand...

Before I zoomed in, I thought the wingtips looked cool
 
James331 said:
Even 0 flaps, that plane will still come in plenty slow enough for that strip, slip FTW
Click to expand...

That's if you know you have 0 flaps and plan/fly it that way. The picture shows flaps up. If it is indeed a 172C then it would have Johnson bar flaps so a flap failure would have been less likely than electric flaps.
 
image.jpeg That somebody is I....and statement re displaced thresholds is correct.
German guy said:
Somebody mentioned in the Lancair thread that both runways would now have a displaced threshold. This does however not seem to be correct: The AF/D only mentions a displaced threshold for runway 23, the full length is available for runway 5. I could also not find any NOTAMs regarding a newly added displaced threshold for runway 5.
…
Click to expand...
 
wrbix said:
That somebody is I....and statement re displaced thresholds is correct.
Click to expand...

This looks like some pretty clear evidence... ;)
I thought that such a change would have to be NOTAMed!? Interesting...
 
If by chance the plane had the 180 Upgrade, then it would be limited to 30degee flaps.

My C175 has a 180hp upgrade, and maintains 40 degrees flaps. I think it depends on the STC, and whether it includes a gross weight increase. If converting one today, I wouldn't limit the flap travel. Why limit the planes ability for a paper gross weight increase?
180hp, and 40 degrees flaps makes for very short landings.
Dave
 
German guy said:
This looks like some pretty clear evidence... ;)
I thought that such a change would have to be NOTAMed!? Interesting...
Click to expand...
Yeah, you'd think.
Also, no one seems to know why 5 is now displaced - just suddenly appeared when they recently resurfaced.
 
asicer said:
That's if you know you have 0 flaps and plan/fly it that way. The picture shows flaps up. If it is indeed a 172C then it would have Johnson bar flaps so a flap failure would have been less likely than electric flaps.
Click to expand...

Why would you not know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top