Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fatal GA accident cockpit video

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Also, there's airports where a turn is required...hills in the way, etc.
    Sure, but any runway you can take off from must allow you to reach a reasonably safe altitude beyond it before banking at a sane attitude. Even Paro.

    The instructor there had plenty of knowledge and regulation to prohibit him from crashing. Something went wrong with the engine or the bio-FMS...not the regs.
    Well, yes, that's the point of regs, to provide a standard rather than leave things up to the flawed judgement of a flawed bio-FMS. Just because a risk-taking pilot says to himself, "I got this" it doesn't mean it's safe. At the point where he admits, "yeah, I don't got this", he might be wishing there had been regs to save him from himself.

    Your point is taken about 'broad, overlying, fundamental rules to maintain healthy airspeeds and attitudes' but navigation should be more controlled around the airport because it may become very hard to follow those fundamental rules when you are looking out the windscreen at a birch tree.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
      Evan keep in mind that when an aircraft is weather cocking which may have set this crash into motion, the "turn" to a different heading is not voluntary and flying along to stay on the center line with the rudder to the stops (at which point he's probably in excess of the numbers for a safe take off), isn't a good idea.

      Also be it from mechanical failure or wind shear, you can legislate numbers but they have suddednly become quite academic at that moment.
      Ahh, ok, I see why in that case why you would have to veer off. Obviously rules are meant to be followed when they can be and only violated when they can't be safely followed. I wouldn't want any regulation to override what the pilot must do in the name of safety (which, in the name of self-preservation, the pilot is hopefully going to do anyway). You can always call an 'unable'. I think windshear recovery or mechanical failure buys you an automatic pass. But with regs in place, the pilot is more likely to realize that he is doing something rather hazardous when he departs from them.

      3WE thinks that every time I mention a regulation or procedure I am suggesting a brainless black and white requirement that must be followed without exception. Every rule has its exceptions, but they must be exceptional. What we have now with VFR seems to be an entirely improvisational go-around mentality.

      Comment


      • #18
        I am really thinking that the wind lifted that wing and he may have been in excess of the limits for cross winds. Of course there is always that first gust of a frontal line so the posted wind may not have been as severe.

        Worse, why did the instructor just sit there and throttle jockey instead of taking the stick? Yes indeed it was perhaps too fast for full recognition and we can't see what the instructors right hand was doing.

        Shame but here in a bit you could go on the FAA site and look up the initial incident report that used to have probable cause.
        Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

        Comment


        • #19
          For what little it's worth, here are my observations:

          They seem to be experiencing very gusty winds. As Gabriel states, at 0:19 in the video the airspeed indication drops very suddenly, and at 0:25 it drops still farther. I don't know where the bottom of the white arc is in that airplane but it looks like at 0:26 the airspeed drops below it.

          The throttle reduction around 0:34 is completely baffling. Just when it looks like they've achieved proper airspeed and climb rate to ensure clearing the trees, the person in the right seat pulls power. I'm sure it was the person on the right - look at the thumb position of the hand on the throttle, it looks like someone's left hand.

          At 0:42 just before things really start to go wrong, power has been restored, airspeed is okay, and the attitude indicator shows fairly level... conditions conducive for a moderate climb. But then just about a second later, the airspeed suddenly drops again. That's in spite of (judging by position of hand on throttle and engine sound) the engine making high power, and the plane's attitude not having increased.

          It appears to me like what happened at 0:43 was a change in wind speed that made the plane stall... or come very close. Judging from the sound, it seems to me that first impact was at 0:44.
          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

          Eric Law

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            ...3WE thinks that every time I mention a regulation or procedure I am suggesting a brainless black and white requirement that must be followed without exception...
            No, not exactly.

            The first thing that always flies out with me: "are existing regulations adequate".

            For this case, IMO, yes. (as you agreed- knowledge and regulations both existed that would have prevented that crash (assuming no mechanical or weather issues)).

            The second thing that I consider is does the regulation really mean anything versus other practices.

            And thirdly- does the regulation contradict something that is legal and takes place elsewhere. (not too different than 2- but does this regulation actually prohibit something else that is needed)

            This example illustrates points two and three.

            Pilots are routinely hired to fly low (and slow) over trees and inspect power lines. They are hired to fly low and drop fire retardant. They are hired to fly low and spray crops...Sometimes folks operate from short airstrips with trees surrounding them and wind up at tree top height in extremely similar energy situations, even though they are climbing 400 feet straight ahead...

            So at takeoff you have to climb 400 feet straight ahead (hopefully there's no obstruction that requires you to turn first) but it's ok to slowly skim the trees and look at the power lines...just not right after takeoff, even though for all practical purposes (and the fundamental laws of physics and aerodynamics it's identical).

            Somewhere around #4 is if "a broadly applicable fundamental rule" doesn't also address the situation perfectly well. (I refer to my previous post).

            And yes, indeed coming in at #5 is that I notice that you'd like specifically regulate lots of little things that fall under the biggies...with a tendency towards black and white thinking.

            So, did the pilot crash because he didn't climb 300 feet straight ahead, or did he crash because he lost airspeed and stalled?

            FWIW- Black and white thinking does have it's place...although I also like to know what's behind it. 400 feet straight ahead is an existing rule of thumb...and a good one. However, I think there's already plenty of FAR's to memorize when "maintain airspeed at a healthy margin above stall" (and keep aware of AOA for Gabriel) will work.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
              I am really thinking that the wind lifted that wing and he may have been in excess of the limits for cross winds.
              You mean in the moment of the touch and go?

              I seriously doubt it. There seems to be about no crosswind whatsoever. Look how nicely aligned is the plane with the runway all along the approach (look the long, bad quality video).

              It looks to me that the left roll is the result of suddenly going from idle to full power while simultaneously pulling sharply up at very slow speed, combined the asymmetric effect of the propeller (torque + p-factor + rotating slipstream) with the reduced lateral stability.

              Worse, why did the instructor just sit there and throttle jockey instead of taking the stick?
              It looks to me that the instructor has the plane (both throttle and stick) since the moment of the go-around, and the student is just following him with his hands on the controls (stick and throttle)

              we can't see what the instructors right hand was doing.
              The instructor initially have his hands on each knee. At 0:22 / 0:23 you can see he moves his left hand to the throttle and his right hand out of his right knee and in the direction back and between his legs, where the stick is.

              We cannot see that it grabs the stick, but it's the most probable IMHO.

              Shame but here in a bit you could go on the FAA site and look up the initial incident report that used to have probable cause.
              I doubt it since it happened in Russia. And the initial report never has the probable cause.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                Gabriel, I realize this involved some ho-de-ho airstrip probably far from commercial traffic, but doesn't this show us that these rodeo-style go-arounds should be culturally discouraged if not made federally illegal? Shouldn't there be a stated 'climb to xxxx (safe manuevering altitude) on runway heading before initiating a turn' or risk losing your ticket kind of regulation? Or is there already? It seems to me that there is no real regulation on GA VFR procedures—unless I'm wrong about that—and that seems kind of nuts.

                This one might have been unintentional (although it certainly looks intentional) and I guess I don't care much about what goes on far enough away from yours truly and anyone else with a stitch of common sense (or helpless students), but still, this is where you begin building an entry-level piloting culture which is either rooted in safety or rooted in risk-taking.
                What's your problem with smoothly banking 10 to 15° once you achieved your target initial climb speed, even if the altitude is very low, and assuming that doesn't result in you aiming to obstacles?

                In any event, the initial left turn was clearly not intentional in this case. The subsequent banks (and lack of banks), I don't understand. But there are so many things that I don't understand about this flight...

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #23
                  My observations in your observations

                  Originally posted by elaw View Post
                  For what little it's worth, here are my observations:

                  They seem to be experiencing very gusty winds
                  For most of the time, no. Look at the other video (the poor quality one) and you'll see that the airspeed is very stable (ok, they are slowing down all along the approach, but smoothly, with no signs of any significant gust).

                  As Gabriel states, at 0:19 in the video the airspeed indication drops very suddenly, and at 0:25 it drops still farther. I don't know where the bottom of the white arc is in that airplane but it looks like at 0:26 the airspeed drops below it.
                  Yes, clearly below the slow end of the white arc. But all this part (0:18 / 0:27) is very strange speed wise. Look what happens between 0:24 and 0:27: It goes from a bit within the white arc to clearly below the white arc to more or less to the middle of the white arc.

                  Either there are some very sudden and strong gusts not seen in any other part of the video (including the longer poor quality one) or there is some "free play" or other problem with the airspeed indicator. Maybe (big maybe) the touchdown and sudden bank (maybe with a wingtip strike) shakes the ASI and produces this false readings.

                  The throttle reduction around 0:34 is completely baffling.
                  Absolutely. Perhaps the most inexplicable part of the video.

                  Just when it looks like they've achieved proper airspeed and climb rate to ensure clearing the trees, the person in the right seat pulls power. I'm sure it was the person on the right - look at the thumb position of the hand on the throttle, it looks like someone's left hand.
                  Yes, the hand in the center console is the left hand of the right pilot.
                  But the left pilot also has his left hand on the throttle knob located at the left corner of the panel (as during the whole video).

                  While it also looks to me that the left pilot is the one pulling back (and I've noted that by mistake I've said the opposite in my first post), I cannot discard that it's the student the one doing it.

                  At 0:42 just before things really start to go wrong, power has been restored, airspeed is okay, and the attitude indicator shows fairly level... conditions conducive for a moderate climb. But then just about a second later, the airspeed suddenly drops again. That's in spite of (judging by position of hand on throttle and engine sound) the engine making high power, and the plane's attitude not having increased. It appears to me like what happened at 0:43 was a change in wind speed that made the plane stall... or come very close.
                  I don't agree at all.

                  I don't see any sudden loss of airspeed here, like during the touch-and-go sequence. What I see is that during the climb, before the power reduction, they have a very healthy airspeed and climb rate and the attitude is such the the spinaker is pore or less on the horizon. During the power reduction the climb rate drops a lot (but never goes negative) while the airspeed drops not so much, in part because they lower the nose a bit. However, after firewalling again they pull up to a much steeper attitude (it doesn't seem so much because of the wide-angle lens, but compare the relative position of the spinaker about the horizon now vs during the first part of the climb before the power reduction). From that point, while they keep the noose too up (compared to the first climb), the speed slowly but constantly drops until it reaches the slow end of the white arc and they lose it.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I really think that that last gust put the aircraft in a position beyond it's ability to respond, that is, keep that right wing down which puts it into the final and fatal slip. Look at the way that wing suddenly lifts and it sure reminded me of instructors who took you out for X-wind practice to "keep that wing down". If he was attempting to get onto a base leg after the go around he would have lifted that wing a bit during the turn.
                    Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The old reporting system did have what I stated as "probable", the correct term would have been possible cause or initial findings and the site would be updated. I found this out when I was tracking a specific accident for a friend of mine who was a reporter. In this case the right wing failed at the site of an STOL modification and happened during a high speed pass when the pilot pulled up too hard.
                      Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        What's your problem with smoothly banking 10 to 15° once you achieved your target initial climb speed, even if the altitude is very low, and assuming that doesn't result in you aiming to obstacles?
                        Well, for one, obstacles: airports tend to provide fewer and more distant obstacles along the runway heading than parallel to it, especially in wooded areas. And other traffic of course.

                        But also there's the tendency for a smooth gentle bank to become a steeper bank or an uncoordinated turn with yaw being introduced either intentionally or unintentionally and there is the capricious winds factors. In other words, there must be room for error and contingencies and the most room for these exists on the runway heading above a certain altitude.

                        And thirdly, clearing closer obstacles off the runway heading may require dangerous attitudes for the attainable airspeed, especially in slower accelerating aircraft.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          ...And other traffic of course...
                          Traffic?

                          Here's some ironing.

                          One day a I took off in a 172 ahead of a business jet.

                          At about 200 feet the tower 'ordered' me to start my crosswind.

                          I did so with a nice, gentle 15 degree bank- maintained healthy airspeed and attitude, encountered no obstacles different from those straight ahead, and only violated FAR's that Evan would like to have.

                          The jet was cleared for takeoff and the tower thanked me for the turn.

                          Another highly critical mission accomplished with no compromise in safety, no rear-end collision from the jet, no low altitude stall/incipient spin...

                          Ain't it amazing?
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            Traffic?
                            I'm thinking ATL, DFW type places...you go around, but someone's taking off right underneath you on the "paired" takeoff runway...Seems like there could be a traffic conflict pretty quickly.

                            And you should know 3WE, that not everyone is the top-notch pilot you are. Regs are often for the lowest common denominator.

                            At about 200 feet the tower 'ordered' me to start my crosswind.
                            They should have waited til 400'. Maybe with proper regs they would have.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              ...They should have waited til 400'...
                              Because?
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                That sure looks like he weather cocked but the direction of what I thought was weather cocking on take off does not match the "wing lift" of the roll.
                                Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X