young eagle flight incident

M

Matt C

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
204
Display Name
Display name:
Matt C
This afternoon a Young Eagles flight left the end of the runway at 61D. My CFI watched it happen. He's been interviewed by FAA already. No major injuries thank goodness. Experienced mature pilot, 3 young eagles, '68 C177. Apparently flew a crappy approach and was high, fast and never added full flaps. Touched down with over half of the 2600' runway behind him, went through the fence, came to rest in the ditch. Why no go around with 3 young lives on board? Any thoughts? I have forced a few landings there myself during the training days, but never one this bad. I'll be following the story....
 
From what you wrote, it sounds like very poor ADM. I'm glad to hear no major injuries. I just hope none of the parents decide to blame EAA and sue.
 
Years ago a nearby airport here was giving rides during a small airshow with private planes. This guy loads up a father and son in his A36 Bonanza, takes off, and runs out of fuel right after lift off. Crashed and killed them all. My son-in-law's boy was in line for a ride, thank God he didn't get in that idiot's Bo! That incident ruined the day and everything else was cancelled, and they haven't had an airshow here since.
 
Shawn said:
Say it with me everyone...every approach to landing is a go-around until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think the more experienced you are the easier it is to be in denial that you're entering a final approach that is poorly done. I've never really thought about it like this but that's a great way to look at it. I typically do a good job of briefing my pax on most aspects of the flight. Mentioning the possibility of a go around "if conditions aren't right" is probably a great thing to put on the checklist for approach. I've honestly not thought about how scary it might be to a new pax if you push in the throttle and pass by the runway. For someone not familiar to flying they might view this as a bad thing.
 
arkvet said:
I've honestly not thought about how scary it might be to a new pax if you push in the throttle and pass by the runway. For someone not familiar to flying they might view this as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Some Captains when the FO goes around and causes the Captain to wake up, same feeling.
 
mscard88 said:
Years ago a nearby airport here was giving rides during a small airshow with private planes. This guy loads up a father and son in his A36 Bonanza, takes off, and runs out of fuel right after lift off. Crashed and killed them all. My son-in-law's boy was in line for a ride, thank God he didn't get in that idiot's Bo! That incident ruined the day and everything else was cancelled, and they haven't had an airshow here since.
Click to expand...

Damn. That really sucks. How does one even begin to be stupid enough to run out of fuel on takeoff?
 
Matt C said:
This afternoon a Young Eagles flight left the end of the runway at 61D. My CFI watched it happen. He's been interviewed by FAA already. No major injuries thank goodness. Experienced mature pilot, 3 young eagles, '68 C177. Apparently flew a crappy approach and was high, fast and never added full flaps. Touched down with over half of the 2600' runway behind him, went through the fence, came to rest in the ditch. Why no go around with 3 young lives on board? Any thoughts? I have forced a few landings there myself during the training days, but never one this bad. I'll be following the story....
Click to expand...
Keep posting if you learn more. My best guess is that one of the passengers had an urgent digestive tract situation and the pilot prioritized getting on the ground immediately ahead of getting on the ground safely. All of what happened sounds to me like an extremely distracted pilot who, in the moment, forgot the mantra "fly the airplane."
 
SkyDog58 said:
Damn. That really sucks. How does one even begin to be stupid enough to run out of fuel on takeoff?
Click to expand...

Older Bonanzas with STC tip tanks added, and such, can have some interesting fuel management quirks. This was an A36, generally more straight forward with added auxiliary tanks than some of the V-tails I have come across. But just because he ran the engine out of fuel doesn't necessarily mean there was no fuel left onboard the airplane. I agree with you, no excuse.
 
GRG55 said:
Older Bonanzas with STC tip tanks added, and such, can have some interesting fuel management quirks. This was an A36, generally more straight forward with added auxiliary tanks than some of the V-tails I have come across. But just because he ran the engine out of fuel doesn't necessarily mean there was no fuel left onboard the airplane. I agree with you, no excuse.
Click to expand...

Good point. Fuel starvation versus fuel exhaustion. I'm just accustomed to my 172 with the "both" setting.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Damn. That really sucks. How does one even begin to be stupid enough to run out of fuel on takeoff?
Click to expand...

And this was after he had been giving rides most of the day. His estate was sued and his poor wife didn't understand why. Sad all around.
 
I was at a POA do flying as passenger in a fellow's aircraft. Sorry I'm not being too good on the specifics; I don't want to embarrass anyone. I could tell he was both high and fast on an approach, counseled him to do the go-around to no avail. He did make the landing in a cloud of rubber smoke, but weakened a tire sufficiently that it blew on the next landing and sent us into a ditch. At least that's how I saw it.

Then again, during yesterday's landing on the island my CFI belatedly told me to go around. I felt bad because I was just beginning the flair and knew I had the landing made. Yes, I'm getting back in the saddle and its even starting to feel OK. At my home drome ATC kept us high way too long, he tried to do the landing but did listen to me when I said go around. Mine was a bit long, but smooth.

Not doing Young eagles flights any more. I was deeply offended by the whole security thing, someone trusts me with the life of their kid but is worried I'm going to assault hem or something. That, and flying multiple sorties with a Johnson bar Mooney is not in any way easy on my diminutive little arm.
 
Yeah, but did the pilot pass his background check? Was there another adult present to make sure there was no inappropriate touching from the pilot?
 
arkvet said:
Unfortunately I think the more experienced you are the easier it is to be in denial that you're entering a final approach that is poorly done. I've never really thought about it like this but that's a great way to look at it. I typically do a good job of briefing my pax on most aspects of the flight. Mentioning the possibility of a go around "if conditions aren't right" is probably a great thing to put on the checklist for approach. I've honestly not thought about how scary it might be to a new pax if you push in the throttle and pass by the runway. For someone not familiar to flying they might view this as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree, it's like flying as a experienced CFI, at the very start of a maneuver you already 85% know how that maneuver is going to turn out. Also a experienced pilot would have used is tools, flaps, slips, s turns, etc



Matt C said:
...with 3 young lives on board?
...
Click to expand...

Not sure what their age has to do with anything, so if they were 40 no worries, do stupid stuff? I know everyone is like "the children" but frankly lots of those kids grow up to be the people y'all dismiss as druggies and whatnot later on in life anyways.

To me it's just pax, old, teens, kids, all the same except for maybe some weight and balance issues and maybe the intellect to hold a conversation.
 
James331 said:
Not sure what their age has to do with anything, so if they were 40 no worries, do stupid stuff? I know everyone is like "the children" but frankly lots of those kids grow up to be the people y'all dismiss as druggies and whatnot later on in life anyways.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I guess looking back I don't like the way it reads either. PAX=PAX. My sentiment, I suppose, was that young people don't have the same life experience as us older folks and are possibly making less informed decisions about risk taking - they inherently trust the adult in charge to make good decisions.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Damn. That really sucks. How does one even begin to be stupid enough to run out of fuel on takeoff?
Click to expand...

Forgot to switch tanks?

Someone stepped on the fuel valve and accidently turned it off?

Fuel vent blocked?

I am unfamiliar with the plane so I ask questions out of curiosity.
 
Matt C said:
Experienced mature pilot, 3 young eagles, '68 C177. Apparently flew a crappy approach and was high, fast and never added full flaps. Touched down with over half of the 2600' runway behind him, went through the fence, came to rest in the ditch. Why no go around with 3 young lives on board? Any thoughts? I have forced a few landings there myself during the training days, but never one this bad. I'll be following the story....
Click to expand...
Not saying this was the case, but there are a fair number of Cardinal pilots who don't like to use full flaps because they feel they have more elevator authority in the flare with partial flaps.

May be that he was one of those types and got put in a situation (rushed approach) where he really needed full flaps but was uncomfortable and succumbed to the idea that a go-around was bad.

Dunno.
 
Zeldman said:
Forgot to switch tanks?
Click to expand...
A very good possibility. My Beech has Left-Right-OFF.

Many years ago I flew from Chicago to Knoxville to visit my folks. My Baby Beech holds 30gal a side. The last leg of the trip was about 3 hours as I remember. Hot day with a lot of thermals, I felt like a Bee in a mason jar and someone was shaking it to **** me off. When I landed and fueled the lineman said I just about ran the tank dry.

That was one of the "never again moments", I have had. After that I started to switch tanks every 45min and note the time and tank.
 
Good thing about a Grumman, you can slip it in with full flaps!
 
I thought the YE rule was now one Pax at a time.

Cheers
 
GRG55 said:
Older Bonanzas with STC tip tanks added, and such, can have some interesting fuel management quirks. This was an A36, generally more straight forward with added auxiliary tanks than some of the V-tails I have come across. But just because he ran the engine out of fuel doesn't necessarily mean there was no fuel left onboard the airplane. I agree with you, no excuse.
Click to expand...
Zeldman said:
Forgot to switch tanks?

Someone stepped on the fuel valve and accidently turned it off?

Fuel vent blocked?

I am unfamiliar with the plane so I ask questions out of curiosity.
Click to expand...

I guess I read things too literally at times. To me "ran out of fuel" means all tanks dry, not mismanagement of fuel.

If it was mismanagement and he had plenty of gas in another tank, the proper solution or procedure is to switch tanks between each flight if flying multiple flights during the event.

Regardless if all tanks were dry or just the one selected on, it was a needless loss of life.
 
Shawn said:
Say it with me everyone...every approach to landing is a go-around until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that rule doesn't work very well when transitioning to gliders. A better rule is to always fly a stabilized approach.
 
RotorDude said:
Unfortunately that rule doesn't work very well when transitioning to gliders. A better rule is to always fly a stabilized approach.
Click to expand...
Stabilized...hmmm...how about precision? I can be stable with no power, bootfull of rubber, and a fair bit of aileron. To the best of my knowledge all the book guys would cringe.
 
They want a lot of things. . .I think, for more complex and/or heavier airplanes, or flying an instrument approach, it makes sense. But for me, in a 172, I tend to fly a steadily decreasing airspeed after turning final, when VFR. Else it seems to be dawdling in the pattern.
 
X3 Skier said:
I thought the YE rule was now one Pax at a time.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Entirely up to each chapter how to run a rallye. Our chapter allows pax in the back, if room, but there's only 1 official YE on a flight.
 
jordane93 said:
The stabilized approach needs to be taught more.
Click to expand...

Having come from the military fighter/trainer world where there is no such thing as a "stabilized approach" into the 121 world where stabilized approach is a regulatory requirement, I'm of the opinion that much of the 121 world belongs to a "cult of stabilized approach" that falsely sees it as an end to itself, rather than what it really is, which is a technique to achieve the *actual* end of a safe landing.

We don't need to turn every GA pattern into a 2-mile final that has a 500-foot stable hoop to go through in order to land. Even a 300'/1 mile "stabilized" hoop is, IMHO, excessive for many GA patterns. In a single-engine airplane, I still try and adhere to that premise that if the engine quits at any point in the pattern I can power-off glide to a normal landing. In a big taildragger like a Stearman or a T-6 where forward visibility is restricted, the safest base-to-final is the tight, descending turn where you can keep the runway in sight out the side of the cockpit and roll out wings level just prior to the threshold and touching down.

So, the stabilized approach concept is a great technique and has its place in some areas of aviation (especially with bigger/heavier aircraft), but it isn't a universally-applicable best practice, IMHO. Just like an overhead pattern is appropriate and useful for a lot of high-performance airplanes and not useful or appropriate for others, the same can be said for the stabilized approach philosophy.
 
Hacker said:
Having come from the military fighter/trainer world where there is no such thing as a "stabilized approach" into the 121 world where stabilized approach is a regulatory requirement, I'm of the opinion that much of the 121 world belongs to a "cult of stabilized approach" that falsely sees it as an end to itself, rather than what it really is, which is a technique to achieve the *actual* end of a safe landing.

We don't need to turn every GA pattern into a 2-mile final that has a 500-foot stable hoop to go through in order to land. Even a 300'/1 mile "stabilized" hoop is, IMHO, excessive for many GA patterns. In a single-engine airplane, I still try and adhere to that premise that if the engine quits at any point in the pattern I can power-off glide to a normal landing. In a big taildragger like a Stearman or a T-6 where forward visibility is restricted, the safest base-to-final is the tight, descending turn where you can keep the runway in sight out the side of the cockpit and roll out wings level just prior to the threshold and touching down.

So, the stabilized approach concept is a great technique and has its place in some areas of aviation (especially with bigger/heavier aircraft), but it isn't a universally-applicable best practice, IMHO. Just like an overhead pattern is appropriate and useful for a lot of high-performance airplanes and not useful or appropriate for others, the same can be said for the stabilized approach philosophy.
Click to expand...
I agree. When I fly GA, I tweak the parameters of the stabilized approach to where I see fit. At work we don't really get a choice to do that.
 
Hacker said:
Having come from the military fighter/trainer world where there is no such thing as a "stabilized approach" into the 121 world where stabilized approach is a regulatory requirement, I'm of the opinion that much of the 121 world belongs to a "cult of stabilized approach" that falsely sees it as an end to itself, rather than what it really is, which is a technique to achieve the *actual* end of a safe landing.

We don't need to turn every GA pattern into a 2-mile final that has a 500-foot stable hoop to go through in order to land. Even a 300'/1 mile "stabilized" hoop is, IMHO, excessive for many GA patterns. In a single-engine airplane, I still try and adhere to that premise that if the engine quits at any point in the pattern I can power-off glide to a normal landing. In a big taildragger like a Stearman or a T-6 where forward visibility is restricted, the safest base-to-final is the tight, descending turn where you can keep the runway in sight out the side of the cockpit and roll out wings level just prior to the threshold and touching down.

So, the stabilized approach concept is a great technique and has its place in some areas of aviation (especially with bigger/heavier aircraft), but it isn't a universally-applicable best practice, IMHO. Just like an overhead pattern is appropriate and useful for a lot of high-performance airplanes and not useful or appropriate for others, the same can be said for the stabilized approach philosophy.
Click to expand...
Gotta say this is great. If the Koreans had been able to say "this is unstable, go around" then fantastic. Telling me I can't land at some back country strip because I want to slip once past the trees is foolish. Even worse is telling me I can't salvage an approach to an 8,000 foot runway because I don't meet the FAA definition of stable. I only need 1,000 feet to stop and I think I can choose which thousand feet to stop in. Remember that beaurocrats choose the least common denominator in their thinking...
 
Clark1961 said:
I chose my words carefully and am not constrained by a beaurocrat's mind set.
Click to expand...
I don't think all those parameters need to be met but I think it's a good start. A stabilized approach usually leads to a decent landing. Like I said in ny other post, I'll tweak some of the criteria to fit the mission. Sometimes being fully configured by 1000ft just isn't practical.
 
jordane93 said:
I don't think all those parameters need to be met but I think it's a good start. A stabilized approach usually leads to a decent landing. Like I said in ny other post, I'll tweak some of the criteria to fit the mission. Sometimes being fully configured by 1000ft just isn't practical.
Click to expand...
I'll say that I'm never fully configured at 1,000 feet and think that idea is stupid for spam cans. I doubt you ever go full flaps on the downwind in a spam can either.
 
Matt C said:
This afternoon a Young Eagles flight left the end of the runway at 61D. My CFI watched it happen. He's been interviewed by FAA already. No major injuries thank goodness. Experienced mature pilot, 3 young eagles, '68 C177. Apparently flew a crappy approach and was high, fast and never added full flaps. Touched down with over half of the 2600' runway behind him, went through the fence, came to rest in the ditch. Why no go around with 3 young lives on board? Any thoughts? I have forced a few landings there myself during the training days, but never one this bad. I'll be following the story....
Click to expand...

Built in '68, but '69 model year, hence 180 HP, not 150 HP.

Paul
 
jordane93 said:
The stabilized approach needs to be taught more.
Click to expand...

Bingo. I remember my instructor always harping, but it really wasn't until IR training, that I got a real sense of what that 'feel's like.
 
So, the stabilized approach concept is a great technique and has its place in some areas of aviation (especially with bigger/heavier aircraft), but it isn't a universally-applicable best practice, IMHO. Just like an overhead pattern is appropriate and useful for a lot of high-performance airplanes and not useful or appropriate for others, the same can be said for the stabilized approach philosophy.[/QUOTE]
Hacker said:
Having come from the military fighter/trainer world where there is no such thing as a "stabilized approach" into the 121 world where stabilized approach is a regulatory requirement, I'm of the opinion that much of the 121 world belongs to a "cult of stabilized approach" that falsely sees it as an end to itself, rather than what it really is, which is a technique to achieve the *actual* end of a safe landing.

We don't need to turn every GA pattern into a 2-mile final that has a 500-foot stable hoop to go through in order to land. Even a 300'/1 mile "stabilized" hoop is, IMHO, excessive for many GA patterns. In a single-engine airplane, I still try and adhere to that premise that if the engine quits at any point in the pattern I can power-off glide to a normal landing. In a big taildragger like a Stearman or a T-6 where forward visibility is restricted, the safest base-to-final is the tight, descending turn where you can keep the runway in sight out the side of the cockpit and roll out wings level just prior to the threshold and touching down.

So, the stabilized approach concept is a great technique and has its place in some areas of aviation (especially with bigger/heavier aircraft), but it isn't a universally-applicable best practice, IMHO. Just like an overhead pattern is appropriate and useful for a lot of high-performance airplanes and not useful or appropriate for others, the same can be said for the stabilized approach philosophy.
Click to expand...

Good points. The examples brought out though in its self are stablized approaches, just using different techniques for each aircraft or situation. 2 mile approach for my A/C is about right (10,000 feet out at pattern alt to land on 5,000 rwy for good visual presentation of glide path, VASI or PAPI). Beam the numbers - gear down, 45 deg first notch flap & turn base adjust throttle... It's when we come in too high or hot, when the ship is 'forced' to hit the numbers, floats long, or worse. Nothing stabilized about that. How many would guess that is usually the case when not entering the pattern on the down wind. A straight in approach leaves more for the eye and judgement to altitude and speed for some.
 
I agree with Hacker's post above and those that concurred.

I just try to imagine a "window" on final I need to fly through, about 50' to 100' AGL and at a distance from which I can glide in power-off to my intended landing point. They say, "The past is prologue", but whatever maneuvering was needed to get to that point is best forgotten as irrelevant once I'm flying through my "window".

Not to say in a larger, or any, GA aircraft a stabilized approach won't make things easier - it probably will.

That said, if thing ever feel "unstable" to the point a pilot is uncomfortable, he or she should go around and try again. If one is several hundred feet above their "window" so as land WAY down the runway - as it sounds may have been the case here - don't force the issue - go around and try again.
 
Shawn said:
Say it with me everyone...every approach to landing is a go-around until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
A recent FAAST seminar presented these clever acronyms:
ETOSARTO: Every TakeOff iS A Rejected Takeoff
ELISAGO: Every Landing IS A Go Around

If memory serves, the instructor's name was Mike Montefusco (spelling?). I know there were a few more...
If you try and pronounce the acronyms as a...word, they're easy to remember. I still remember them anyway, lol.
Words to live by...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top