• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Oops, darn it...

Ski poles for skiing. The original post with the picture is gone now. No prop strike and plane is home. Picture makes it look way worse than reality.
 
Leighann Falley (sp?) posted that photo on instagram or Facebook the other day. Said she was the first plane on that field for 2019. It wasn’t an oops and it wasn’t a mistake, they packed it out and flew out again.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
cubdriver2 said:
Be careful out there, T-28 lands behind a C152
https://youtu.be/5x3qtD1Y8Fs
Glenn
Click to expand...

The sad thing about this one is that Compton airport has two parallel runways, which apparently share the same traffic pattern.
Besides going around, the overtaking T28 coulda sidestepped or overwise taken the other runway.
Sounds like see-and-avoid and proper radio coms both failed on this one.
 
mike mcs repair said:
after reading this, my mind says bird strike bending the sensor on side of plane……(active one)
Click to expand...

Yes good catch maybe more tomorrow>>>>


Sensor damaged by a foreign object on Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX triggered fatal crash: Sources

The preliminary crash findings are expected to be released on Thursday.

By David Kerley and Jeffrey Cook Apr 3, 2019 5:04 PM

The Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX, which crashed in March and killed 157 people, suffered a damaged angle-of-attack sensor upon takeoff from a bird or foreign object, triggering erroneous data and the activation an anti-stall system -- called MCAS -- sending the pitch of the plane downward and ultimately crashing into the ground, two aviation sources familiar with the investigation told ABC News.

As the jet was nose diving, the Boeing 737 MAX pilots did not try to electronically pull the nose of the plane up before following Boeing's emergency procedures of disengaging power to the horizontal stabilizer on the rear of the aircraft, according to the sources.

One source told ABC News that they manually attempted to bring the nose of the plane back up by using the trim wheel. Soon after, the pilots restored power to the horizontal stabilizer.

With power restored, the MCAS was re-engaged, the sources said, and the pilots were unable to regain control and the plane crashed.

The preliminary findings in the crash investigation are expected to be released by transportation officials in Ethiopia on Thursday morning.​
 
BC12D-4-85 said:
...As the jet was nose diving, the Boeing 737 MAX pilots did not try to electronically pull the nose of the plane up before following Boeing's emergency procedures of disengaging power to the horizontal stabilizer on the rear of the aircraft, according to the sources.

One source told ABC News that they manually attempted to bring the nose of the plane back up by using the trim wheel. Soon after, the pilots restored power to the horizontal stabilizer.

With power restored, the MCAS was re-engaged, the sources said, and the pilots were unable to regain control and the plane crashed.

The preliminary findings in the crash investigation are expected to be released by transportation officials in Ethiopia on Thursday morning.​
Click to expand...
Standard runaway stabilizer procedure on all Boeing airliners.
The question is: After turning off the failed trim, why did they turn it back on?
This hardly sounds like it is Boeing's fault.
 
A United guy I know (who doesn't fly their 73 Max's) told me that there's a disengage switch on the yoke,
but the MCAS will automatically re-engage after X number of seconds.
To totally disable it, you have to turn it off at the (overhead?) switch or breaker--
somewhere other than the yoke switch anyway.
 
The new engines and their cowling can pitch the nose up so they fixed that with the MCAS but at first didn't pass on much info. Trying to keep the MAX in the same TCDS and not require a new Type rating for ops. Or so some believe who have commented.

Gary
 
IDENTIFICATION
Date: 30-MAR-19
Time: 20:00:00Z
Regis#: N215T
Aircraft Make: PIPER
Aircraft Model: PA 18 105 SPECIAL
Event Type: ACCIDENT
Highest Injury: MINOR
Aircraft Missing: No
Damage: SUBSTANTIAL
LOCATION
City: COPALIS
State: WASHINGTON
Country: UNITED STATES
DESCRIPTION
Description: MADE AN EMERGENCY LANDING ON A ROAD
INJURY DATA
Total Fatal: 0
 
CLIPPER GETS CLIPPED

IDENTIFICATION
Date: 31-MAR-19
Time: 17:00:00Z
Regis#: N676SC
Aircraft Make: PIPER
Aircraft Model: PA 16
Event Type: ACCIDENT
Highest Injury: NONE
Aircraft Missing: No
Damage: SUBSTANTIAL
LOCATION
City: AFTON
State: WYOMING
Country: UNITED STATES
DESCRIPTION
Description: FLIPPED DURING LANDING
INJURY DATA
 
CRUISER GETS A BRUISER

IDENTIFICATION
Date: 23-MAR-19
Time: 14:30:00Z
Regis#: N2733M
Aircraft Make: PIPER
Aircraft Model: PA 12
Event Type: INCIDENT
Highest Injury: NONE
Aircraft Missing: No
Damage: UNKNOWN
LOCATION
City: MECOSTA
State: MICHIGAN
Country: UNITED STATES
DESCRIPTION
Description: GEAR COLLAPSED
INJURY DATA
Total Fatal: 0
 
One theory put forward is that the left AOA vane that fed the Captains side departed (or was ripped off by a bird) from the ET302 flight just after takeoff. It's attached to an internal pendulum counterweight to balance and dampen external air loads on the vane. Once gone the weight simply swung under +G down giving an errroneous high AOA value that tripped the stick shaker and airspeed computations.

They fought the MCAS for some time then finally went briefly -G - nose down - which elevated the weight and created another AOA indication of change further enraging the MCAS. Meanwhile the CP's AOA was ok but maybe not selected by the computer's. There was an AOA disagree option and alert but not all customers ordered it during build. Declining the "Deluxe AOA Package" and whatever money saved will end up feeding attorneys for the bereaved. Boeing will now make it part of their Standard Package apparently.

Gary
 
BC12D-4-85 said:
This accident and conclusions may be of interest to Cub pilots that use this type of shock setup.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20180731X80544&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=CA
https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/...a27cadc8e-58438FFF-DCF8-E84D-5E6D47669ED9DFB7

Photos: https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=471310&docketID=62177&mkey=97959

Gary
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. I could hear what my instructor said as I looked at that. “Keep your ass behind you. The plane will take a ton of abuse as long as you keep your ass behind you”

So did he get that wing first is a ground loop?, then again once again after he folded shock strut? I need to read it again. Looks like a normal ground loop wing. I can change that rear spar without recovering, at least on a original piper style wing. Have not tried on some of these experimental wings. ( I have pictures in my photos album on google photos if anyone wants a link to see how you replace it, on s covered wing.

I’d be curious to see wheel outer face, if it dug into ground/pavement?

Shows you can pull something a bunch more than compress same.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
In my post #838 it's confusing what actually happened. I wan't there so I can't speculate. It seems the FAA felt there was other action but then they weren't there either. If the end fitting failed under side load compression then maybe the owner and manufacturer have had a conversation and that's their business.. If it failed under tension (inside of tire hitting pavement break for example) then maybe a safety cable would be a good addition.

If I had that type of gear I'd try to find out more from both parties if they'll discuss it.

Gary
 
BC12D-4-85 said:
In my post #838 it's confusing what actually happened. I wan't there so I can't speculate. It seems the FAA felt there was other action but then they weren't there either. If the end fitting failed under side load compression then maybe the owner and manufacturer have had a conversation and that's their business.. If it failed under tension (inside of tire hitting pavement break for example) then maybe a safety cable would be a good addition.

If I had that type of gear I'd try to find out more from both parties if they'll discuss it.

Gary
Click to expand...

Safety cables are no help in this type of case. (Side load folding a shock strut or gear leg under). They only help when you break stuff going strait ahead, like cabana ears, cabana, shocks/ or shock struts)


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
Hmm.. Maybe run safety cables from axle nut to wing tie down?!
Kidding aside, I’ve been pretty hard on Acme, think they’ve come a long way since gen 1 era.
Hate to see more bad press piled on as a result of this. Based on reported circumstances (I wasn’t there either) doubt any gear would have withstood sideload forces incurred.
 
"He reported that during the landing roll at his home airport, the left main landing gear wheel exited the asphalt runway and entered gravel that bordered the runway. The pilot applied right rudder to steer the airplane back on to the runway, but the landing gear tire contacted the asphalt runway and the left main landing gear failed. The left wing struck the ground and the airplane came to rest on the runway.

The pilot reported the occurrence of a mechanical failure of the left landing gear shock absorber shaft that had sheared off at the lock nut attached to the rod end."


Who knows the why or what of all that but him.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alex Clark
I wonder what the deal is with this J-5 ?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Dough Head
Dough Head
rcsimpson
A real "Bush" plane?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Alex Clark
Alex Clark
G
Wonder if a Cub was the sling load?
Replies
11
Views
3K
mvivion
mvivion
FlipFlop
You'all be careful out there, ya hear?...
23 24 25
Replies
740
Views
252K
aktango58
aktango58
Ruidoso Ron
Lost a great friend yesterday.
Replies
13
Views
4K
Carbon Cub Chick
Carbon Cub Chick
Back
Top