Lost Cub (was power off approaches)

[JMBreitinger]

I never thought that I would be writing about a serious accident from personal experience. I crashed my new Cub this morning when I lost power on take-off.

The weather was perfect and airplane was running fine until I was out of usable runway. I lost power at 150 - 200 feet. We operate out of an urban field that is surrounded by houses. I really did not have any options but to continue forward and to try to maintain control. I aimed for a point between two houses and mushed it into the tops of some mature oak trees. The airplane did what it was designed to, shedding parts. The trees took their share of the load, shedding limbs. A wood utility pole stopped the last forward motion and I ended up upside down with fuel pouring out of the wings.

Fortunately, the new seat belts also did their job. We just replaced the stock belts, which attach to the seat with ones that attach to the frame. I am pretty sure that I would have been badly hurt if I did not have these new restraints. As it turned out, my only injury was a sore jaw from a tree limb that punched through the left window requiring two stitches.

I was able to crawl out of the door and get clear of the airplane. The control tower had an ambulance, fire trucks and the police there within a very few moments. There was, blessedly, no fire and, other that the tops of a few trees and one telephone pole, no damage to people or property on the ground.

I am very grateful for all of the training that I have had because there was no time to think and there were plenty of bad temptations.

I believe that the problem was fuel starvation. I tried the normal trouble shooting -- changed tanks, check mixture control and ignition. There was no response and no more time. I tried switching tanks twice more before the impact.

The only thing that I did differently on this flight was change tanks before my run up. As I was running through my pre-flight check, I noticed that the right tank was selected. I remebered from perusing the posts on this site while I was getting familiar with Cubs that it is reccomended that one only use the left tank for take-offs and landings. So, I switched it, which I would never do in my Mooney.

The run-up was normal. I even took a bit of extra time since I had just switched tanks.

The take-off run and initial climb were also normal, until the engine quit.

I can remember it all clearly but can not explain what happened to the engine.

[Rookie]

John,

Congratulations on surviving your crash, glad to hear your training paid off. Thank you for sharing your experience. Good luck getting back into another airplane, I hope that works out for you with minimal fuss.

-->Aaron

[Frank T]

John

From the pictures I saw on the news it looked like you did a great job of picking a spot to drop in. Crystal does not have a lot of options. Glad to hear your OK....the Super Cub didn't look like it faired nearly as well.

Frank

[SJ]

John, way to stay cool. It is the very last thing you WANT to do in that situation.

Personally, I taxi, runup, and takeoff on the same tank generally speaking. I had a student in an Arrow once who went through the entire runup taxied up to the take off line THEN switched tanks. I opened the door and started to get out, and when he said "where are you going?" I said, I'd rather watch the carnage from down here than be a part of it. His "military" father (his words) had taught him that technique to "balance fuel" and he had used it for years without incident. Yikes.

Again, glad you are OK, hope you get to the bottom of what happened and I hope it does not keep you out of the air. Best get one of your buddies to take you up right away, if you have not been up already. A good friend of mine saved me that way once.

sj

[SJ]

Here is the picture, scabbed from the Newspaper. John, you are a fortunate man. Good work!

http://www.supercub.org/albums/supercubs/cxw.sized.jpg

[Steve Pierce]

John, Glad you are ok. I also have been following your progress with the Cub. I know how you must feel right now. I also agree with Steve. Get a buddy to take you up as soon as possible. It will remind you why it is all worth while.

[Gunny]

John - sorry to hear of your troubles but very glad that you are okay. You are to be commended for staying calm and getting it right in a tough spot. I'm sure you must feel badly about your new SC but the important thing is that you are okay. I hope your airplane gets sorted out okay for you too. Take care...

[StewartB]

JMB,
Here's to your humility. And more importantly...your safety.

The same goes to the other guys on the site that had similar experiences lately.

SB

Unless I'm mistaken, this is the third engine failure at take-off for site members THIS MONTH!

[Crash]

John the plane can be replaced, you can't. Praise the lord you are OK.

I went to the headerless (Left, Right, Both and Off) system on my PA-14 rebuild and did the same on my PA-18 rebuild. I like the "BOTH" position because the pointer is pointing UP for "Both". In the OFF position it is pointing DOWN. I always know at a glance that pointed straight up is the "take off" position, no guessing or switching tanks. Pointing down is "stay on the ground". You also have four 3/8" ports (two in each tank) feeding the engine fuel at the same time. I've run one of the Dakota 24 gal. tanks dry (on purpose) and can tell you that there is hardly a teaspoon of fuel left in the tank when the engine quits. On "Both" if you have ANY fuel in the tanks, the engine will get it. Best wishes. Crash

[cub_driver]

John

That was one heck of a landing sorry to see the damaged to your cub but glad to hear your ok. I am sure the pucker factor was high from the looks of it you did well to avoiding people on the ground. Good job.

Cub_Driver

[Jon B.]

John:

I, too, was bummed when I saw you and the Cub on the news. I told my wife - "Hey! A Super Cub." Then, you were on the camera, and they ran your name on the screen - "Crap! That's one of 'the guys' on sc.org."

Ya' done good son, as they say. Cubs aren't cheap, but they *can* be replaced. You can't.

I was pissed when I heard the reporter talking about the property owners bitching about the damage they incurred. What a buncha morons! A few tree branches, some grass, and a bit of gas in the yard; all easily repaired. Some people suck!

Jon B.

[old doc]

John,

I saw your picture on the news last night and was so happy to see that you escaped with only a few scratches. I am sorry for your loss but so happy you are ok. Great job!!!!!

Dave

[green horn]

I know how your feeling, So does anyone else thats crashed. I had a crankshaft let go on take off in my pa-18-135. I survived but the airplane did not. I was so shaken that I felt sure I would never fly again. To make matters worse, This is how I make my living. It took a lot of soul searching but once the dust settles you will realize why you started flying in the first place and that will bring you back every time. Get back in the saddle as soon as you can, Get yourself another supercub and fall in love all over again. Best wishes, Green Horn.

[flyer]

glad you did fine. its always scary to crash a plane. i noticed you didnt mention carb. heat. i think thats the first thing you should do in the event of an engine loss of power. and i dont believe that switching tanks should be done unless its before startup, or high up within gliding distance of a safe spot.
get back in the air pronto and good luck on finding the next cub.

[Jake]

i noticed you didnt mention carb. heat. i think thats the first thing you should do in the event of an engine loss of power. and i dont believe that switching tanks should be done unless its before startup, or high up within gliding distance of a safe spot.

Thanks for being Monday morning quarterback! I'm sure that makes him feel better. :roll:

[JMBreitinger]

Believe it or not, I really want and do appreciate ALL of the comments. I really want to figure out what happened and, given what I learned yesterday, I agree 100% with the comment about not switching tanks.

I still do not know why the engine quit Thursday morning but yesterday the FAA started it and it ran fine. As you might imagine, this troubles me more than if they had found a definite mechanical problem.

The one thing that I can tell you is that the 30 seconds or so that I had was not enough for me to process this problem in any coherent way. My overall sense was one of frustration and confusion. The only perfectly coherent thought that I had was that I had to keep the airplane upright and in control. I wish that I had been given one more moment to consider the problem deliberately, but I was not.

With that said, I am prepared to accept full responsibility for this mess. It has been an incredible privilege to be able to do all of the flying that I have done in the past 14 years. I very much regret all of the angst that this situation has produced, mainly because it would not have been possible without the support, or at least the indulgence of many people. I plan to fly again and hope to replace the Cub. I hope that these indulgences will again be granted.

I am very grateful for this outcome and for the opportunity to go through these Monday morning quarterback sessions. It is likely that having done so before is what kept me from accepting a dumber alternative.

It is my sense that these very small things that we discuss here end up having impacts more profound than we realize. When you can't think, you had better hope that the program that is running and the habit pattern that it produces is a good one because you can not rewind the tape.

You may be interested to know that at least one of the reporters seemed to have read darned near everything that I have written in one of these forums. It seemed to make her more sympathetic.

One of the least appreciated qualities of these fine airplanes may be their inverted dead-stick tree landing characteristics. I spent some more time with the airplane yesterday and I can tell you that it took some incredible abuse. How much force do you suppose is involved in snapping a gear leg or removing a properly installed wing? Yet the compartment surrounding the two seats is in nearly perfect condition. It looks like even the tree branch that came through the wind shield and hit me in the jaw was deflected by the braces that connect through the top of the glare shield. Other than my skinned knuckles and bruised jaw, I have not experienced any trauma worse than that of a hard work out.

I am very grateful that Jim Drometer convinced me to replace the stock seat belts with new ones that are bolted to the frame. I feel certain that I would have been badly hurt without them.

The most troubling thing that I saw yesterday is that the fuel tank selector turns freely 360 degrees. The FAA told me that the selector was inverted that is pointing away from the tank that I thought was selected when they inspected the wreckage. I know that it was on the left tank when I did my run-up and departure but I can not be sure that I ever got it into a correct position once I tried to change it after the loss of power. I do know that the mixture and carb heat controls were forward.

Thanks to all for all of the comments and for your support and good wishes.

[Steve Pierce]

The most troubling thing that I saw yesterday is that the fuel tank selector turns freely 360 degrees. The FAA told me that the selector was inverted that is pointing away from the tank that I thought was selected when they inspected the wreckage.

Please elaborate on the selector valve. The stock handle can only go on one way. Was it miss indexed or just not on the tank you thought it was?

[Bill Rusk]

John

I'm very thankful to see you still posting. Praise God. Given the circumstances you did exactly the right thing. Fly the airplane first. You did that and it saved your life, then worry about the other stuff.

Good job. If we can ever meet I'll be happy to buy you a beer.

Bill

[wilbur]

John,
Second guessing yourself is one of the learning processes you go through after an accident. It's a good thing. You'll run this thing through your mind a thousand times, and learn from it. Bottom line is, you were doing the most important thing. "Fly the airplane" is the most important phrase I drill into people talking about a theoretical failure. It's the first and most important thing you can do. It's what YOU did. Trouble shooting everything properly won't do any pilot any good in surviving a problem if they don't first fly the airplane. I've pulled too many people out of airplanes that were screwing with something, or trying to make a runway, or a particular field and didn't fly the airplane. Something else age and experience has built into my subconscous (sp) is always try to have a place to go, or get as high as you can as soon as possible, to give you more time.
As far as your situation, carb heat is NOT something I'd pull in an engine failure, the muff doesn't produce much heat when the engine isn't running. Also, from experience, I've forgotten about a low tank and run it out in not so ideal situations. Sometimes it's from just climbing hard. What you'll do with experience will become second nature. I level out, (fly the airplane), head for a spot to put it down, look up, switch tanks, wait, and it goes. After a couple times you don't make the mistake anymore.
You will beat yourself up about this, but as most have said, you did the most important thing. If you hadn't you wouldn't be able to look for another airplane. Look back only enough to learn, don't dwell on it. Get the trade a plane out and move forward. Experience will make the things you have to think about now - second nature.
Last Memorial Day a friend put her 7EC on it's back. We had her looking for another airplane within the week.

Sorry for the long post, take in everyone's thoughts and filter out the important stuff. Good Job.

Wilbur

[JMBreitinger]

The most troubling thing that I saw yesterday is that the fuel tank selector turns freely 360 degrees. The FAA told me that the selector was inverted that is pointing away from the tank that I thought was selected when they inspected the wreckage.

Please elaborate on the selector valve. The stock handle can only go on one way. Was it miss indexed or just not on the tank you thought it was?

The selector handle in N82943 rotates 360 degrees. There are two distinct detents. According to the FAA, the handle was pointing toward the right tank indication with the small pointer pointing to the left (off).

[cubdrvr]

Well put Wilbur.

[ground loop]

JM, I also had the unfortunate opportunity to see how far you can fly on a header tank full of gas. I got up to about 45 feet and it quit. Back on the ground it ran just fine. I checked everything over and was dumb enough to do it again. Same result! After landing I finally noticed the selector valve problem. The only thing I could figure was that somehow once airborne the angle of attack difference did not allow the little fuel in the tank to get out and I would get as far as the header tank would take me once airborne, but on the ground taxiing and checking all was well. After that experience I was counting the days until I got the dual tank fuel feeding system. What kind of tanks were you running?

[bob turner]

there is at least one super cub in the world set up so that the handle points to the tank being used. It could be just the way the decals were put on, but it was still a bit unsettling. That's the way its owner set it up. Otherwise it was the best super cub I have ever flown!

[JMBreitinger]

There are lots of reasons your cub could have quit.

The fact that the FAA started it and it ran fine would suggest fuel starvation or carb ice. Usually with carb ice you will notice a gradual roughness and decrease in RPM before it totally quits.

How long had the plane sat between flights?
Do you keep your tanks full?
Did you drain all your sumps before your flight?

One of the main things that was pounded into me years ago by my flight instructor who had vast experience flying the jungle bush as well as Alaska was....If you start experiencing a problem in flight, start your emergency check list with the LAST thing you fiddled with as it will more times than not be what caused the problem. His advice has proven itself more than once. :roll:

There was nothing gradual about this loss of power. It was like when you pull the mixture or turn off the mags -- complete.

I flew the airplane on Tuesday with no problems. I have had the airplane for less than a month. It sat for a few years before that but has flown a lot in the last 30 days.

It took 13 gallons to fill the main tanks just prior to the flight.

I did drain all of the sumps and had no indication of any water or other contamination.

I agree with the comment about prioritizing the items on the checklist. I have to tell you, though, that I never got my mind fully around it. My overwhelming sense was one of frustration and confusion. The only perfectly clear thought that I had was that I was not going to loose control of the airplane until it quit flying.

One other thing that has been rattling around in my brain as I wake up in the wee hours thinking about this crash is how important it is to pause to brief the takeoff and collect yourself before launching. I may be slower than most, but I can tell you that the time I had was not enough to figure anything out. I remember Jud Baggit talking about this in one of the Pilot's Audio Update files within the last year. He was absolutely right.

[Fortysix12]

You figured it out perfectly. You walked away.

[cobblemaster]

Who is your insurance company and how are they treating you?

[JMBreitinger]

Who is your insurance company and how are they treating you?

London Aviaiton. They are one of only two who would insure four low-time tailwheel guys. In retrospect, the underwriters may not be so dumb.

It is too early to tell how they will treat us. We have more in the plane than we were able to insure it for. The $4,500 that I spent on safety upgrades, for example, did not add much to the hull value, though it may not surprise you to know that I would have gladly paid many times more for the benefits that I received from them.

[JMBreitinger]

I take that back. London Aviaiton is the one we rejected. I do not remeber the name of the one we accepted. One of my partners is handling it now.

[PA-11 HORSEMAN]

John,
So sorry for your loss, but happy to hear you are well, sure nice to have Him on your side! Cubs are replacable.
Last fall I too had a power failure on takeoff at about 100 ft. in my PA-11 but because my ranch airstrip has a lot of open ground around it, I was able to put it down more or less straight ahead and managed to miss some large rock piles and pine trees. I had immediately pulled carb heat but didn't get any response until I had been stopped on the ground for 30 to 60 seconds. My engine was still running about 450 to 500 rpm when I was stopped on the ground with the throttle full forward. After the engine cleared I took off and flew with no more problems until my next flight the next day and had an exact repeat of the day before. This time I taxied back to the hanger and drained all of the fuel and dismantled the carbutetor and found no water, or contaminates of any kind. I have not had a problem since, but contribute it to conditions, high humidity, and moderate temperature, and the fact that the engine had not warmed up to operating temp and there was not enough heat through the exhaust when I pulled the carb heat to clear the ice. I since let things warm up a little more than I used to, I don't know if that will help but I feel better doing it now.
My sympathies on your loss and I hope you get back in a Cub in short order.
Kirk
in Montana

[T.J.]

Kirk, just courious, do you have the one piece venturi in your 11?
Where in E. Mt. are you located? I was there last month.

[WindOnHisNose]

John, I, too, was sickened to see that an accident had happened at Crystal, worse yet that it involved a supercub, and now that you were involved. I am thankful, too, that you are OK, and that you will fly again. I am sorry that this happened, but glad to see how well you performed, and how tough the cub is. Take care.

rsc

[Flying Dave]

Glad to hear you are ok and able to talk about it. My father bought a SC in Alabama and flew it to NC. It had sat for some time due to an engine replacment (previous owner had the oil changed and the FBO forgot to put the oil back in :o ) It ran ok on the entire trip home. The next time he flew it, it almost quit on him on climbout. He had enough altitude and circled back to the field. It would make full power on the ground and during the ground roll but on the second attempt, it sputtered again during climbout. After completely dissasembling the fuel system they finally found the head of a wasp that was somehow clogging a fitting, but evidently only at a certain angle. After that, it ran fine for as long as we owned it.

Dave

[JP]

John:

Wow--good work. We're all thankful you weren't hurt. Don't beat yourself up and don't give it up. Get right back in and go.

Been there, too.

JP

[Bill Rusk]

As PA-11 Horseman noted, because of the design of the Continental engines they are VERY susceptible to carb icing. They will ice just about anytime and anyplace, including during taxi out. The Lycoming design has the intake tubes running through the sump which makes them much less susceptible to carb ice. Not that a Lycoming won't ice but it is not like the Continentals which will at the drop of a hat.
Some of the lycoming powered airplanes owners manuals do not call for carb heat at any time unless you suspect carb icing where as a continental powered aircraft owners manual will require carb heat anytime you reduce the throttle.

So, moral of the story, if you are flying behind a continental C-65, C-75, C-85, C-90, C-145, 0-200, etc. ALWAYS be worried about Carb ice.

During the run-up/ mag check prior to T.O don't just check for a drop in RPM when you pull on carb heat, wait a few seconds and make sure the RPM does not start to rise back up. If it does you already had some ice it there. Some folks check for a drop and then immediately push the carb heat back in, if you do this you will never know you had ice till after T.O. when the engine quits.

No reflection on you John, it just seemed like an opportune time to pass on something some of the newer folks may not know.

Bill

[Anne]

John, did you also have shoulder harnesses? Which seatbelts do (did) you have, the ones that attached to the frame?

Anne.

[Sam Beckett]

Who sells the seat belts that bolt to the airframe?
And who has the best inertia shoulder harnesses?
Thanks,
Sam

[PA-11 HORSEMAN]

Kirk, just courious, do you have the one piece venturi in your 11?
Where in E. Mt. are you located? I was there last month.

T.J.
The 11 has a one piece venturi in a MA-3SPA on a Continental and I have lived at Ashland, MT. all of my life. Were you here before the HOT DRY winds started? We are fast becoming a desert this year. Not hardly a decent day to fly all Spring. Hope things change soon, or I'll be looking for another occupation as there won't be any cows or horses left here to chase.
Kirk

[Crash]

John,
So sorry for your loss, but happy to hear you are well, sure nice to have Him on your side! Cubs are replacable.
Last fall I too had a power failure on takeoff at about 100 ft. in my PA-11 but because my ranch airstrip has a lot of open ground around it, I was able to put it down more or less straight ahead and managed to miss some large rock piles and pine trees. I had immediately pulled carb heat but didn't get any response until I had been stopped on the ground for 30 to 60 seconds. My engine was still running about 450 to 500 rpm when I was stopped on the ground with the throttle full forward. After the engine cleared I took off and flew with no more problems until my next flight the next day and had an exact repeat of the day before. This time I taxied back to the hanger and drained all of the fuel and dismantled the carbutetor and found no water, or contaminates of any kind. I have not had a problem since, but contribute it to conditions, high humidity, and moderate temperature, and the fact that the engine had not warmed up to operating temp and there was not enough heat through the exhaust when I pulled the carb heat to clear the ice. I since let things warm up a little more than I used to, I don't know if that will help but I feel better doing it now.
My sympathies on your loss and I hope you get back in a Cub in short order.
Kirk
in Montana

My dad had this happen over Skilak lake (big glacier feed lake, no way to survive) in a J-3. Just before hitting the water he shut the mags off, then flipped them back on to create a back fire to blow the ice out of the carburetor. It worked and he flew on. Crash

[T.J.]

Thanks for the response Kirk.
I asked about the one piece venturi because I've seen weird things happen on some small Continentals with the one piece venturi. The most common complaint I've heard is they run rich, and stumble on advancing the throttle. The AD admits the mistake and says you can install the original 2 piece venturi, if you kept it. Then you have to comply with the AD.
They are also prone to carb ice. In my 11, I always taxi to takeoff with the carb heat on, no problems yet.
I crossed Mt. on Hwy 12, just North of you. It was nice when we were there. I suppose you could chase Antelope or Deer, but that doesn't pay very much.

[Anne]

John, did you have shoulder harnesses? If so, who made them? (OK, now I saw the part about the frame-mounted seat belts after re-reading the first page).

Glad you're OK- this must have been pretty scary!

Anne.

[JMBreitinger]

Anne,

I was wearing a shoulder harness and it made a big difference. I am not sure who made the harnesses. When I get the log books back, I'll let you know.

The one thing that I did not like about them was that unless the strap went in perfectly straight, they often bound leaving some slack. This was the case in my last flight in N82943.

One of my habits is to pause in position on the runway to collect myself before launching. I think about the take-off and contingencies, check the runway heading against the compass, start the timer, and check my restraints. This time, there was a lot of slack in the shoulder harness. I actually took my feet off of the rudder pedals and stuck them squarely on the heel brakes while I turned around and fixed the problem.

Sometimes, little things matter a lot.

I added this to my procedures when I heard Judd Bagget talk about the dangers inherent in this phase of flight last year on the Pilot's Audio Update. I am sure that it would not have stayed with me but for the fact that my instructor died about the same time in a stall / spin accident after a power loss on takeoff. He was a 20,000 hour pilot who specialized in stick and rudder flying -- tail wheel, emergency maneuver, stall / spin and aerobatic training.

Another thing that provided incidental protection was the headset. I have some cuts on the top of my head that would have been a lot worse.

[FlipFlop]

CHI04CA108
On April 22, 2004, at 0745 central daylight time, a Piper PA-18-150, N82943, piloted by a private pilot, sustained substantial damage during an in-flight collision with a power-pole and terrain during a forced landing near Minneapolis, Minnesota. The airplane was on initial climb from runway 24L (2,122 feet by 202 feet, dry turf) at the Crystal Airport (MIC) when the loss of engine power was encountered. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The personal flight was operating under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91 without a flight plan. The pilot sustained minor injuries. The flight was originating at the time of the accident and the intended destination was Maple Lake Municipal Airport (MGG), Maple Lake, Minnesota.

According to the pilot, the airplane was completely fueled with 100 low-lead aviation fuel prior to the accident flight. The pilot reported the fuel samples he took during the aircraft preflight were not contaminated with water. The pilot stated the airplane was taxied on the right main fuel tank, and he switched to the left fuel tank prior to departing runway 24L as required by the pilot operating handbook. The pilot reported that he experienced an uneventful takeoff ground run, rotation, and initial climb until approximately 150 feet above ground level (agl) when the engine lost power suddenly. The pilot reported he switched fuel tank positions, verified the magneto switch was on both, and the throttle and mixture controls were fully advanced. The pilot reported, "Because of the suddenness and completeness of the loss of [engine] power, I suspected either fuel starvation or an ignition problem." The pilot stated, "I changed the tank selector at least two more times, and got ready to crash." The pilot stated that a landing on runway 24L was not an option and he maneuvered the airplane in between two houses prior to striking a power pole and several trees. The pilot stated the airplane came to rest inverted and that fuel was pouring from both sides of the cabin.

Local fire and police departments responded to the accident. A fire department employee reported the fuel selector was found in the "off" position upon his arrival at the accident site. The pilot reportedly said he did not reposition the fuel selector after the accident.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors performed the on-scene investigation. The wreckage was photo documented at the accident site prior to being repositioned to the departure airport. The engine was subjected to an operational test-run. The engine started without hesitation and ran at idle power (~700 rpm) without any anomalies. The engine responded to brief throttle increases (~1,200 rpm) prior to being shutdown. The engine was not run above 1,200 rpm due to a damaged propeller.


http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20040426X00512&key=1

[S2D]

As PA-11 Horseman noted, because of the design of the Continental engines they are VERY susceptible to carb icing. They will ice just about anytime and anyplace, including during taxi out. The Lycoming design has the intake tubes running through the sump which makes them much less susceptible to carb ice. Not that a Lycoming won't ice but it is not like the Continentals which will at the drop of a hat.
Some of the lycoming powered airplanes owners manuals do not call for carb heat at any time unless you suspect carb icing where as a continental powered aircraft owners manual will require carb heat anytime you reduce the throttle.

So, moral of the story, if you are flying behind a continental C-65, C-75, C-85, C-90, C-145, 0-200, etc. ALWAYS be worried about Carb ice.

Bill

I gotta disagree with you on some of that Bill. My Super Cubs have always iced up lots. especially when flying around under partial power. the Ice forms in the carb long before it gets to the hotter sump area. But thats not saying they are any worse than the Cont. Maybe the carb attached directly to the sump makes the temp of the carb itself hotter on the Lyc though.

[Aviator]

Sorry I'm a little late tuning in. I second all the kudos and support, and I'm glad to hear you beat the odds, John. Two additional comments, somewhat related, might be of interest on this thread. One, I would caution against trying to regain engine power once you commit to put her down. A short burst of power at ten feet will not only break your concentration on your landing--however marginal--it might carry you from the tree tops right into a concrete wall, into hydro lines, off the edge of a cliff, or whatnot. The point is that you might have even less time and altitude to reassess your situation and to plan and execute a new course of action. Granted, it's a tough call. But when time is scarce, it's usually better to stick to a plan, even a low-yield plan, than to cast oneself to the mercy of the unknown.

Two, whereas we spend a lot of time training for emergencies, pilot training has yet to address problem handling itself (other institutions are working on this). A common misconception is that problems ought to be solved. But this may not always be so. Solving a problem is very, very expensive in terms of mental resources and, of course, time. Whenever these resources are severely limited, other, more efficient methods ought to be first considered. For example, getting rid of problems is far more efficient in time-sensitive situations than trying to understand their complexities, and conceive and mentally test solutions. If the cause is known, eliminate it. If it's unknown or cannot be eliminated, neutralize or mitigate its effect. Force change on circumstances to take the bite out it. On rare occasions, ignoring a problem is the only way to handle it. No single method will work in every situation. The key is to resist the urge to solve a problem prematurely. Decide "what" to do before working on "how" to do something. If not defined and rated, objectives have a tendency to emerge and fade away, and wonder aimlessly on the list of priorities. Adequate plans executed in time are always better than perfect plans executed too late.

Although most pilots do a good job at dealing with uncertain events--as John did--much of the credit for success goes to individual experience. Unfortunately, not every pilot survives his personal experience. So it would be nice to see such non-technical subjects as handling problems; dealing with confusion; working with insufficient, misleading and, sometimes, contradictory information; and so forth, included in pilot training curricula. Can one plan for every contingency? Is it enough to learn to handle uncertain events; or should pilots learn to deal with uncertainty itself?

Any debate on this?

S.F.
Nick

[T.J.]

Evertime I get in my Cub the outcome is uncertain, so I guess I learned how to deal with it.

[JMBreitinger]

Although most pilots do a good job at dealing with uncertain events--as John did--much of the credit for success goes to individual experience. Unfortunately, not every pilot survives his personal experience. So it would be nice to see such non-technical subjects as handling problems; dealing with confusion; working with insufficient, misleading and, sometimes, contradictory information; and so forth, included in pilot training curricula. Can one plan for every contingency? Is it enough to learn to handle uncertain events; or should pilots learn to deal with uncertainty itself?

Any debate on this?

S.F.
Nick

You know, this seems dead right to me on both points.

Right after the crash, I thought about what would have happened if I had regained power. I agree that, unless I got it right away, it would have been a big problem. I did not have the presence of mind to work that out in the air.

I now really believe that my survival was directly dependent upon two things.

The first is good habit patterns that came from training and practice -- two in particular. The first is having briefed the take-off and, specifically picked an altitude where turning around would be feasible. I use 800 feet which, at my home field means that anything under 1,550 MSL means no turn back. Having just made that decision, I did not waste any time on it. The other is a brand new one to me. While training in the Cub, I learned to use outside references to control pitch. This came back instantly and took about as long to implement. I just looked at the right wing tip and shoved the nose over until it was square -- pretty efficient. There was no need to focus on the air speed indicator or to wait for it to stabilize.

Having kept the airplane upright, it was responsible for the rest. As I have said before, I owe a great deal to Jim Drometer for insisting that the stock Cub restraints were inadequate. The FAA told me that they believe that more than 30% of the fatal accidents could be survivable with proper restraints. My accident ought to be an advertisement for that statistic. There are plenty of landing sites that are as bad as mine was but not too many that are worse. It is just incredible how the airframe took all of the abuse.

I am probably of average intelligence and I definitely did not have the resources to work out the problem. I am pretty sure that I could not do any better today.

As I also have said before, I believe that the little things ultimately matter a lot. This is a big part of what has kept me interested and involved in aviaiton.

There is a wonderful book on all of this called Redefining Airmanship by Tony Kern. It is worth reading. Communities like this one are a big deal too. Whether or not one agrees with a point, being challenged and having to think about this stuff contributes greatly to understanding.

[Crash]

I get asked why I don't have a Cessna 180/185, or a Beaver instead of a couple of Cubs. One of the things that keep me in a Cub is "it likes to fly". It just feels safe and you're in control, even in a crash situation. The first time I took my wife up (nervous flyer), she said she liked the PA-18 much better then my Dad's Maule because it "felt like it wanted to fly", even though this is from a womans perspective, it is pretty close to the truth. A Cub will come out of the air at 40 mph instead of 70 mph (Cessna, Maule). There is a big difference that extra 30 mph will make in a crash. It is also lighter so there is less mass to stop.

Every so often I get the "180 / 185 itch" and think about buying one. After I get in the perspective Cessna and fly around a bit, I can't wait to get back in my Cub with the itch totally gone. Not bad mouthing Cessna 180 or 185's, they are fine planes but for me flying is more then just getting there fast. I have to enjoy what I am flying and feel safe. Crash

[BritishCubBloke]

for me flying is more then just getting there fast. I have to enjoy what I am flying and feel safe

I have never heard anything which embodies my own attitude to flying better than that.

When I was looking round for an aircraft to buy I ended up with a 150HP PA18 because a) It was a hell of a lot of fun and b) I knew I'd never be sitting in a field looking at the opposite edge, gauging how long the grass was and wondering if it would get out.

I also get a bad Cessna 180 itch, but have managed to resist it so far.

BCB

[fernandonunez]

Jhon.:
Very impressed with your accident, at take off and nothing happened to you.
I do have a nearly fatal accident in my 1978 Super Cub. I was flying to the forest here in Durango Mexico and have one hour and 15 mins. of flying. The weather was cold -7 C, I use the carburator heat very often because of the weather conditions, and the altitud I was flying, 12,000'... and the engine quit, at the school(American Flyers Ardmore Okla.) they teach me to use the emergency check list. Glide speed, pick a field and start to check tanks, magnetos, try to start the engine again....the engine never start again, and in a very short time, I try to land on a Forest road and crashed the plane in there.
A passenger was flying with me, nothing happen to him, just his stomach was hit with the back stick, and myself that was NOT using the shoulder harness, have a strong hit in the face, a broken ankle and a broken hand. The accident keep me out of job and recovering for two years.
What I suggest to you, is to look for another plane and fly again, you will recover your self confidence.
I recover my licence again, 10 years from my accident, and rebuilt another Super Cub.
You will see your life with a lot of new values and appreciate everything a lot. :oops: