PILOT SPIN
Pilot Zone => Accident Review/Never Again (I hope..) => Topic started by: PeterNSteinmetz on September 16, 2021, 10:43:20 AM
-
One of the sub-forums I frequent on PoA is the Aviation Mishaps. So I am brining over information about this recent Cardinal RG crash if people want to discuss it.
https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/authorities-investigating-plane-crash-at-lake-havasu-city-airport
"I followed the ADS-B Exchange link. It's a bit confusing because of the way they color it, and it has his landing as well as the takeoff. However, it looks like he used full length for takeoff on runway 14 at KHII at 18:08 local. For reference, KHII is at 783 MSL.
After the last ping on the ground (on the taxiway), the first ping airborne is maybe 1700 feet down the runway but has no altitude or speed data other than that. The next one is 4400 feet down the runway, at 1000 feet baro altitude/700 geometric, vertical speed never exceeded 192 ft/min but was showing as 64 ft/min over the runway.
The baro altitude never went above 1000. Groundspeed never got above 65. A little over 6000 feet down the runway, speed dropped from 65 to 56 in 3 seconds with no corresponding increase in altitude, suggesting something happened there... But speed stayed there so it wasn't a total power loss or anything. About 900 feet from the end of the runway, geometric altitude went up 50 feet and a turn of about 45º to the right occurred.
So, maybe a mechanical issue, disguised by the high DA causing bad performance too, mechanical issue got worse partway down the runway but there was still power, just not enough to go? Who knows. We'll find out in a year. I hope there are some answers then."
-
Some more information from that PoA thread for discussion:
Gary Van Dyke, Bullhead City
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/09/cessna-177rg-cardinal-rg-n2085q-fatal.html?m=1
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?ica...56&zoom=15.9&showTrace=2021-09-12&trackLabels
-
Usually it's clear what went wrong. Not so much with this one. Winds from the south and using runway 14. Temps around 110 making density altitude 4000. Should be no problem. Other than pilot incapacitation due to heat, not sure.
-
I can't even find anything to speculate on. Similar to Dale Snodgrass in that it went down right after takeoff but in Dale's case we saw exactly what happened if not why. In this case, not so much. Just some signs there may have been a problem with full power.
-
As some may know I have a 69 Cardinal fixed gear. I have taken off many times in similar or worse conditions here in the Valley of the Sun. Should have been no problem.
I hadn’t thought much about pilot incapacitation. Interesting idea.
Also maybe some kind of mechanical failure causing the engine to not develop enough power.
Will be interesting to see the NTSB preliminary.
-
As some may know I have a 69 Cardinal fixed gear. I have taken off many times in similar or worse conditions here in the Valley of the Sun. Should have been no problem.
I hadn’t thought much about pilot incapacitation. Interesting idea.
Also maybe some kind of mechanical failure causing the engine to not develop enough power.
Will be interesting to see the NTSB preliminary.
What engine does your Cardinal have? The one in the crash was a 200hp 360 (I don't recall if it was IO or just O). DA should not have been an issue unless there was a related mechanical issue.
-
Mine is a 1969 A model. So only 180 hp and carburated. I believe all the RGs were injected. So yes I think he should have had plenty of power short of some type of failure.
-
NTSB preliminary is out - https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/103838/pdf
Appears to be a failed turn back maneuver with an engine not developing full power. Prior oil analysis had indicated potential issues with the engine and ring wear.
My takeaway is don’t try the turnback unless you are high enough and have practiced this maneuver and know you can make it. Safer to land it nearly straight ahead if in doubt.
-
NTSB preliminary is out - https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/103838/pdf
Appears to be a failed turn back maneuver with an engine not developing full power. Prior oil analysis had indicated potential issues with the engine and ring wear.
My takeaway is don’t try the turnback unless you are high enough and have practiced this maneuver and know you can make it. Safer to land it nearly straight ahead if in doubt.
That’s what I was always taught.
-
That engine had experienced a lot of recent work, and probably wasn't developing full power. Ive read he took the whole runway for takeoff and wasn't climbing. How long do you wait when things aren't looking right?
-
That engine had experienced a lot of recent work, and probably wasn't developing full power. Ive read he took the whole runway for takeoff and wasn't climbing. How long do you wait when things aren't looking right?
We could probably all use a refresher in picking an abort point when we take off. I certainly will.
-
I think the urge for most power pilots to return to the field is very strong.
This is one of the reasons I really like glider training for all pilots, including power pilots. All landings in a glider are "engine out" and one becomes a lot more comfortable with landing in that condition. A fair number of glider pilots have also landed off airport and it is just considered an "out landing".
So it all becomes much more familiar and if the big fan up front stops one is much more inclined to just think "Oh, I'm in a low performance glider now".
-
I think the urge for most power pilots to return to the field is very strong.
This is one of the reasons I really like glider training for all pilots, including power pilots. All landings in a glider are "engine out" and one becomes a lot more comfortable with landing in that condition. A fair number of glider pilots have also landed off airport and it is just considered an "out landing".
So it all becomes much more familiar and if the big fan up front stops one is much more inclined to just think "Oh, I'm in a low performance glider now".
That makes a lot of sense. Personally I had a big fear of off airport landings because of power lines. I always thought I wouldn’t see them. And maybe basic human instinct makes you want to go back “home”, to the known location, the last place you were safe. Plus you don’t want to invade some unknown person’s territory. Psychologically that must be very strong. I can see where glider experience would help you overcome this. Otherwise you’d have to make the intellectual part of your mind overcome the emotional or visceral lizard brain. That’s where repetitive training comes in.
-
I had one instance taking off from Oshkosh where I nearly aborted the takeoff. Didn't feel right at all. We were at gross, and were forced to leave in the hot afternoon, which I hadn't done before. Damn that takeoff roll was long, and I nearly scrubbed when we lifted off for what would be daily anemic climb. Just an usual situation got the better of me. Still, had I not been off where I was I'd have pulled the power. I'd rather collide at 30mph with a perimeter fence than at 100mph into the ground.
-
Usually it's clear what went wrong. Not so much with this one. Winds from the south and using runway 14. Temps around 110 making density altitude 4000. Should be no problem. Other than pilot incapacitation due to heat, not sure.
I have 80 hours in the Cutlass. They don’t call it the Gutless for nothing. Until about 500’ AGL, the 172RG is limited in performance until the gear is retracted. In fact the process of gear retraction itself helps cause that because the main gear becomes two giant pieces of drag, turning perpendicular into the wind until it’s fully retracted. And my experience in in the Midwest with with DAs rarely above 1,500’.
That being said, there’s no excuse for not pushing the nose forward and landing flat and straight ahead. A wing hitting the ground first seems to guarantee fatalities.
-
That makes a lot of sense. Personally I had a big fear of off airport landings because of power lines. I always thought I wouldn’t see them. And maybe basic human instinct makes you want to go back “home”, to the known location, the last place you were safe. Plus you don’t want to invade some unknown person’s territory. Psychologically that must be very strong. I can see where glider experience would help you overcome this. Otherwise you’d have to make the intellectual part of your mind overcome the emotional or visceral lizard brain. That’s where repetitive training comes in.
That’s one reason why I wanted a retractable gear aircraft. The general rule for T-6’s and similar is if you are off-airport you land with the gear up to minimizing flipping over. I use the same rule in my Navion.
-
I had one instance taking off from Oshkosh where I nearly aborted the takeoff. Didn't feel right at all. We were at gross, and were forced to leave in the hot afternoon, which I hadn't done before. Damn that takeoff roll was long, and I nearly scrubbed when we lifted off for what would be daily anemic climb. Just an usual situation got the better of me. Still, had I not been off where I was I'd have pulled the power. I'd rather collide at 30mph with a perimeter fence than at 100mph into the ground.
The good and bad news at OSH (during AirVenture) is that you need to stay at 500’ AGL for 4 miles until you are outside of class Delta airspace. You don’t get the safety of altitude, but you can assess how things are going without being in a climb attitude.
-
Still, had I not been off where I was I'd have pulled the power. I'd rather collide at 30mph with a perimeter fence than at 100mph into the ground.
Exactly. I always tell students - never make a problem on the ground a problem in the air!