• 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!

Second Cessna 162 incident

Zing

Registered User
Florence, Arizona
I saw a news report yesterday that a second Cessna 162 Skycatcher airplane has been dinged in development. I thought it was going to be an LSA aircraft, but this news story has Cessna calling it a new two-seat trainer for general aviation.
I haven't really been following this closely, but in the first incident, the test pilot jumped out and used a parachute after getting the airplane into an unrecoverable spin. That was late last year.
This second incident resulted in the deployment of a ballistic recovery parachute (BSR I think) and the airplane ended up hitting a fence when landing and went over on its back. The pilot walked away, no serious injuries.
Haven't seen many other details about either incident. It's possible a parachute deployment was done intentionally as part of the development program, but the news story made it sound like an unexpected end to a routine test flight.
 
Or call it the Ground Catcher. Very sad for Cessna and LSA. At least the pilots are both safe, but the program has to be hurting.
Chuck Shaw
 
The Skycatcher is an LSA that is intended to function as a primary trainer for private pilots as well as Light Sport Pilots. Two accidents during certification does not inspire confidence.

My limited experience with LSA's for primary training is that the gear are not durable enough to take the punishment of poor landings. The Cessna 152/172 gear are hell for stout. "Take that runway"
 
Noted with interest that the latest report on the demise of the second 162 said that the airplane entered a "disorienting and rapid spin" so they popped the chute. Might not be the best flying characteristics for a new basic trainer.
 
I said the tail fin was too small when it came out.. they may wanna look at the calculations again...
 
The airplane is trying to tell us something. It does not want to be built in China. I read somewhere that after it landed while the pilot was trying to collapse the chute that the wind blew it a half mile away and flipped it over.
 
From the NTSB website:

The pilot departed CEA about 0900 to conduct spin testing. During a planned test condition the airplane entered a rapid and disorienting spin. The pilot applied spin recovery controls and the airplane continued to spin without apparent response, so the pilot deployed the airplane's Ballistic Recovery System (BRS) parachute. The BRS had been specifically modified to allow the chute to be jettisoned by the pilot if altitude and conditions allowed. After BRS deployment and the airplane became stabilized in the parachute, the pilot attempted to jettison the chute several times. Each jettison attempt was unsuccessful. The pilot then opened the airplane door to bailout and utilize a personal parachute, but realized he was too low to ensure a successful bailout and elected to stay with the airplane. The pilot shut down the engine prior to landing.

The airplane landed upright in an open field, breaking off the nose gear and splaying the main landing gear partially. The pilot got out of the airplane and attempted to disengage and collapse the BRS chute, but surface winds inflated the parachute and drug the airplane. The airplane traveled about .6 miles before getting caught in a fence and flipping over.
 
I don’t want to get into down wind turns again but if winds are high enough to drag a plane with no landing gear 6/10 of a mile could one deduce it was too windy for the testing? I have no evidence of this being true… just thinking.

Lip
:stupid
 
Lippy,

It doesn't take much wind to move something pretty large with a canopy the size of these whole aircraft recovery chutes.....

I'd bet the wind wasn't that high.

And, remember....this is Kansas, after all :lol:

MTV
 
Mike- I should have clicked my heels and consulted Todo! Side note: commercial rotorcraft is passed and Robinson school starts tomorrow morning at 7:30.

Stay Dry,

Lip
:stupid
 
Zing said:
I saw a news report yesterday that a second Cessna 162 Skycatcher airplane has been dinged in development. I thought it was going to be an LSA aircraft, but this news story has Cessna calling it a new two-seat trainer for general aviation.
I haven't really been following this closely, but in the first incident, the test pilot jumped out and used a parachute after getting the airplane into an unrecoverable spin. That was late last year.
This second incident resulted in the deployment of a ballistic recovery parachute (BSR I think) and the airplane ended up hitting a fence when landing and went over on its back. The pilot walked away, no serious injuries.
Haven't seen many other details about either incident. It's possible a parachute deployment was done intentionally as part of the development program, but the news story made it sound like an unexpected end to a routine test flight.

I'm not familiar with the C-162, but how the hell does one get a Cessna product into a spin that's not recoverable?

Grizzly 1
 
Zing said:
I saw a news report yesterday that a second Cessna 162 Skycatcher airplane has been dinged in development. I thought it was going to be an LSA aircraft, but this news story has Cessna calling it a new two-seat trainer for general aviation.
I haven't really been following this closely, but in the first incident, the test pilot jumped out and used a parachute after getting the airplane into an unrecoverable spin. That was late last year.
This second incident resulted in the deployment of a ballistic recovery parachute (BSR I think) and the airplane ended up hitting a fence when landing and went over on its back. The pilot walked away, no serious injuries.
Haven't seen many other details about either incident. It's possible a parachute deployment was done intentionally as part of the development program, but the news story made it sound like an unexpected end to a routine test flight.

I'm not familiar with the C-162, but how the hell does one get a Cessna product into a spin that's not recoverable?

Grizzly 1
 
An interesting story.....
Back in the dark ages, at Scaled, we were having a bad time spinning one of our airplanes, so we called one of Burt's buddies that was had worked a spin research program at NASA....

It seems NASA was looking for an airplane that they KNEW had very good spin characteristics, to use as a baseline. They bought a C172.

In the way only NASA can do it, they FULLY instrumented the airplane, as well as adding a spin recovery chute to use later in aft CG testing.

First flight, middle of the CG envelope....Spins both directions.... any way you like...No problem....

After the flight, on looking at the data they noted that there was substantial blow back of all the control surfaces....i.e. full deflection, in the air, was less then full deflection on the ground.

They had the rigging checked and cable tensions set per the book. Next flight same thing. A Great spinning airplane, but the controls still never reached the stops in the air.

So... the decided to tighten up all the cables a bit tighter then the book recommended, in an attempt to get the control surfaces to reach full deflection in flight.....

Next flight.... Controls reach the stops in the air now....BUT it was a completely different airplane in a spin...and, in fact, they ended up having to use the spin recovery chute, as they were able to find a stable spin mode that was not recoverable.

A couple lessons I learned from these guys.... Most airplanes don't settle into a stable spin mode for several turns. Until the spin mode has stabilized, recovery is usually pretty straight forward. Recovery after the spin mode has stabilized can take a lot longer...

AND control RIGGING can play a BIG role in how an airplane spins....Even the cable tension can make a huge difference.

Y'all be careful.....
DaveG
 
the first Skycatcher crash was while testing the aft CG limit in a full power, cross controlled spin. About the worst possible combination. In that incident the BRS chute failed to open. Since then they enlarged the vertical stabilizer and deleted the dorsal fin. So I'm wondering if they were recreating the same scenario to test the BRS deployment this time.

Out of interest, anyone know if any Cubs were crashed during test flying?

Phil
 
Grizzly 1 said:
I'm not familiar with the C-162, but how the hell does one get a Cessna product into a spin that's not recoverable?

Grizzly 1

I understand from 250lb instructors who took 250lb students for spins in a C150 with full fuel that it can be tricky to recover if you don't watch your weight and balance.

sj
 
Spinning the C-172

I thought the C-172 was rated Normal and spins were not allowed
and the
C-150 was rated Utility and you could make 3 full turns
 
The 172 is legal in the Utility category at forward CG and lower GW, just like the Super Cub.

If you want some interesting reading on spin research, read Rich Stowell's latest book: "Stall Spin Awareness", you can order at http://www.richstowell.com/

Rich offers a great history of stall/spin research through the years, and there's a fascinating chapter in the book, written by the fellow who managed the NASA small aircraft spin research program for many years.

They actually equipped one airplane with a rocket on one wing tip, to get it to spin...... :eek:

They did MANY spins in an Arrow and several others.

A great book, and should be mandatory reading by everyone who is concerned about stall/spin awareness.

And that should be all of us....

MTV
 
All single engine airplanes are spin tested during pre certification flight testing. That is unless for some reason the FAA allowed a waver. I believe that the Cirrus was granted a waver because of the parachute. Spins must be demonstrated to recover after a one turn spin to recover prior to the completion of the second turn. This is done with all sorts of combinations of power and flaps. The airplane is then placarded "intentional spinning prohibited". For approval for spins, a more extensive spin program must be demonstrated. I think that it involves six turn spins. Not sure on this.
 
Actually, the Cirrus airplanes completed the required spin testing for certification. Cirrus opted to certificate the airplane based on it's whole airplane parachute.

MTV
 
MTV
I heard that there was a certification waver given for the Cirrus. If it wasn't for spins, do you know what it was for? Or, did I hear incorrectly? Wavers are given when alternate options for a specific regulation are demonstrated.
 
Oh, they used the parachute as an alternate means of compliance with regard to spin testing.

My point was simply that they ALSO did the required spin testing, and apparently the airplane has conventional characteristics in that very limited spin regime.

In other words, the ELECTED to use alternate means of compliance. THere's been lots of talk that they installed the chute because the airplane couldn't pass spin certification, but that's not accurate.

MTV
 
steve said:
Grizzly 1 said:
I'm not familiar with the C-162, but how the hell does one get a Cessna product into a spin that's not recoverable?

Grizzly 1

I understand from 250lb instructors who took 250lb students for spins in a C150 with full fuel that it can be tricky to recover if you don't watch your weight and balance.

sj

Let's see . . . . . that's 500-lbs of passengers. Because of their location within the airplane (and their proximity to datum) would I be correct to guess that, on paper, the little C-150 overloaded a bit? At that, though, CG shouldn't have been so far aft that a spin would be flat . . . . .

Or am I wrong as usual?

Mort
 
Back
Top