• 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...

IMG_1645.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1645.JPG
    IMG_1645.JPG
    164.7 KB · Views: 285
Wonder if they flew into any wind shadow or roller near that far ridge? Didn't we recently see an Icon perform a similar maneuver? (see#1140)

Gary
 
Some good swells on that lake to deal with and slow things down. Also select slower play setting (click star wheel at lower right) and observe the flag at right shoreline around 0.44 seconds. Looks like the wind may have been quartering tail but hard to tell from the flag vs flagpole.

Gary
 
Rangeley Lake is 1500 feet above sea level. I know that is not high to you western folks but, it does mean about 1-1/2" manifold pressure reduction from sea level which does make a difference.

I have been in an amphib 185 in that exact same location which would not get on the step with a load due to that manifold pressure loss.
The load was shifted to another 185 on a different make of amphib floats. It not only got on the step, it flew.
Sometimes a small thing makes a big difference. Part of the issue was the lower manifold pressure and part was the slight difference in the design of the floats.

The pilot in this video seemed to be misusing the elevators resulting in poor water performance. What else didn't he understand about handling the plane in this combination of issues?
 
Wonder if they flew into any wind shadow or roller near that far ridge? Didn't we recently see an Icon perform a similar maneuver? (see#1140)

Gary
That was my first thought also, but it's tough to get any useful depth in that video. With only 2 on board, they must've had a good load of cargo/gear. It took forever to break water.
 
Rangeley Lake is 1500 feet above sea level. I know that is not high to you western folks but, it does mean about 1-1/2" manifold pressure reduction from sea level which does make a difference.

I have been in an amphib 185 in that exact same location which would not get on the step with a load due to that manifold pressure loss.
The load was shifted to another 185 on a different make of amphib floats. It not only got on the step, it flew.
Sometimes a small thing makes a big difference. Part of the issue was the lower manifold pressure and part was the slight difference in the design of the floats.

The pilot in this video seemed to be misusing the elevators resulting in poor water performance. What else didn't he understand about handling the plane in this combination of issues?

Agreed. The difference in float designs can result in very different technique to get them to fly. That pilot had lots of time to realize it wasn’t a good program, and shut it down. Then go to shore and figure out what the problem was.

I spent a number of years operating in coastal Alaska, where temps, and hence Density altitude are never much if any above sea level. Moved to Fairbanks on July 4, and started flying a brand new C 185 on PeeKay 3500s. I couldn’t believe what a dog that plane was.... Till I realized that 94 degree temps have an influence on performance. And, once I leaned to fly those floats, they performed as well as any. Duh!!

MTV
 
Rangeley lake is one of our favorite spots on the way to Greenville. We meet up there both ways for fuel and food. Keith that runs the place is an awesome guy and talented pilot, weather he's in a cub, 185 or a Kodiak. I'm usually heavy when I leave there with front and rear tanks full and another 6gal in the baggage. The SPB is in the NE cove on the lake and most times fairly calm. But some days the wind seems like it is out of 3 different directions as you progress through your takeoff run. Some of my longest takeoffs have been off of that lake. Fun stuff, always learning

Glenn
 
That pilot had lots of time to realize it wasn’t a good program, and shut it down. Then go to shore and figure out what the problem was.

MTV
Agreed, but some pilots don't seem to be able to recognize that something is not going as it should.
 
My observation. If you attempt a float takeoff with aft CG the plane will porpoise. The one in the video does. Given space you can get if flying in ground effect but out of ground effect things change. We can see that, too. Why didn't he lower the nose? He may not have been able to. Or maybe he thought he could save it. Only the pilot knows that. I've flown aft CG on tires and skis and got away with it. When I did it once on floats I aborted just before it got more out of control. I'm pretty sure if I'd continued it would have ended like that video.
 
The pilot's comments and plane configuration will be an interesting read when it becomes available. Lake surface shows confused wave action and some decent swells.

Gary
 

Attachments

  • SJ.FARplanecrashP.082319-1024x698.jpg
    SJ.FARplanecrashP.082319-1024x698.jpg
    98.1 KB · Views: 212
Alaska Air Guard rescues pilot, passenger near Tyonek

By David Bedard | 176th Wing Public Affairs | Sept. 3, 2019

JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, Alaska — Airmen with the Alaska Air National Guard’s 210th and 212th Rescue Squadrons rescued the pilot of a PA-18 aircraft and a passenger Sept. 1 after the plane crashed in the vicinity of the Beluga bench about 28 miles northwest of Tyonek.

According to Alaska Air National Guard Capt. Wes Ladd, Alaska Rescue Coordination Center, the mission was opened following a receipt of the 406 Emergency Locator Transmitter beacon signal from a previously destroyed Cessna 207. Despite the confusion, the AKRCC tasked the Alaska Air National Guard’s 210th and 212th Rescue Squadrons to respond.

An HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopter with the 210th RQS launched from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson with two 212th RQS Pararescuemen (PJs). The crew of the Pave Hawk honed in on the 406 ELT signal and found a damage Piper PA-18 and the two occupants sheltered nearby.

The helicopter landed and made contact with the pilot and passenger. After the PJs ensured there were no injuries, they were taken to the Wasilla Airport and released to the Alaska State Troopers.

Ladd would like to remind the aviation community that incorrect information in the 406 ELT database could have made the search effort a longer process. He said users and their maintenance personnel should ensure correct, and current information is maintained in the database to ensure rapid response and coordination with family or friends.

“Despite the confusion due to the information correlated to a destroyed aircraft, we couldn’t rule it out as non-distress,” Ladd said. “We are always obligated to search and effect rescue if needed.”

For this mission, the AKRCC, the 210th and 212th Rescue Squadrons were awarded two saves.
 
A highly experienced pilot-witness I know well told me the plane experienced a loss of power followed by stall/spin. That's grim and sad. I'm gonna go practice a variety of engine failure on takeoff scenarios.

As an FYI, I have have deliberately experimented with attempting a takeoff with the fuel valves closed, and have learned that in my -12 I can just barely become airborne. So every single takeoff merits a fuel valve check. Not suggesting that's what happened here, only that it can happen and could potentially result in a scenario such as this one.
 
Last edited:
A highly experienced pilot-witness I know well told me the plane experienced a loss of power followed by stall/spin. That's grim and sad. I'm gonna go practice a variety of engine failure on takeoff scenarios.

As an FYI, I have have deliberately experimented with attempting a takeoff with the fuel valves closed, and have learned that in my -12 I can just barely become airborne. So every single takeoff merits a fuel valve check. Not suggesting that's what happened here, only that it can happen and could potentially result in a scenario such as this one.

2 times a few summers ago, i watch 2 planes engines quit after/on takeoff, one successfully got it going again.... other was fatal as he tried to turn back and stalled.... I walk by that spot where he crashed and burned each day.... the grass is finally starting to grow again....

my guess was partially closed valve/between positions.... they both made it too far before it started getting quiet....
 
This thought may or may not apply to the accident described above.
thought I’d put it out there.
I attended a fly-in last fall, touted as a “backcountry” event though held at an airport with a 3000’ paved runway.
All types of aircraft attended.
i began noticing a trend amongst pilots departing throughout the event. The urge to horse their planes off the ground and pitch up at near stall attitude. This was occurring weather a kit fox or a 182, everyone was in a “backcountry” mindset and looking to show their stuff.
A beautifully restored Howard took the runway, leaped off the ground, climbed at an impressive rate. Engine sputtered and quit at about 50’ AGL. The pilot maintained wings level and directional control, mushed it in and pancaked onto the runway. Pilot and px
escaped without injury, plane caught fire - total loss.
The plane had come to rest with another 1000’ of runway remaining. Didn’t have the energy to pitch over and fly it back on the ground.
I’m certainly guilty of that behavior too but beginning to feel a little more mortal with age.
Fly safe..
 
Last edited:
Our instructors at work make a habit of pulling power on takeoff within 200 AGL periodically. The reflex they try to develop in doing that is the shove-over. The nose high departure attitude results in rapid decay of airspeed initially after loss of power. Eventually, the airplane noses itself over sufficiently to get some airspeed back, but if you are low, it won't happen in time for you to have any elevator authority or flare energy. Shoving the nose over immediately preserves what airspeed you have and makes it possible to land more normally.

FWIW
 
You have to develop an instant reaction to nose over in this situation. I've flown with too many pilots - ones with thousands of hours more than me - that don't have it. There have been a number of twin engine rollovers lately and those are the same thing - not getting the nose down to an airspeed below Vmca (from memory) before it rolls from asymmetric thrust. It takes precious time to accept that we have a problem - sometimes too much.

I'm sure sorry to hear about this accident, and it reminds me to keep hammering on people during flight reviews and training about pitch and glide.

sj
 
Just to be clear...you don't have to be particularly nose-high for the shove to be important. Any standard climb attitude when close to the ground puts you at risk of serious airspeed decay when the engine stops.

The appropriate action is a zero-G maneuver...can't stall at zero-Gs...until pointed down with enough authority to manage the landing. If you don't lift your butt off the seat, shove a little harder...
 
I just got home from Hood River. After talking to several CFIs and some very experienced pilots who saw the accident, none saw the same thing. None said anything about the engine sputtering, everyone said the engine quit suddenly. I didn't know Ben well, but had the opportunity to work with him for a few days a couple of years ago. He knew what he was doing and was a great guy. Lots of speculation about what happened and why. I heard the rumor that Ben was giving the front seat pilot a check out or a BFR or maybe there was a struggle for control of the airplane. Who knows?
A lot of people knew Ben and the accident really knocked the wind out of everyone's sails. Terribly tragic.
You go to a boxing match and everyone's a tough guy, at a car race-everyone's a race car driver and at a Fly In-a lot of guys try to fly like airshow pilots. Ben never struck me as one of those guys, quite the opposite.
Very sobering. RIP
 
Just to be clear...you don't have to be particularly nose-high for the shove to be important. Any standard climb attitude when close to the ground puts you at risk of serious airspeed decay when the engine stops.

I agree.
Its all about energy management, speed is your friend.
stay in ground effect a longer, reduce angle of climb a bit.
 
The report I heard - again, it was from a highly experienced pilot and a member here - was that he observed elevators in full-up position during the entire stall/spin sequence. This goes right to prior posters' notes about the instantaneous push that needs to be a reflex, not thought about.

Went out and practiced some this afternoon. Climb out at 50, no flaps, chop the power. Took between 50 and 100 ft to nose over and flare at altitude. It was hard to tell exactly due to altimeter lag. And that was without startle-factor lag time. From a full flaps, full power climb at 40 indicated, it takes me a good 200 ft to flare. Did some turn backs. Takes me about 500 ft AGL to get back to the liftoff point, starting from a 50 mph climbout. Again, no startle factor.

I'm absolutely not criticizing yesterday's pilots. The report shook me though, and reminded me that I need to sharpen my skills and especially my automatic reactions.
 
Just to be clear...you don't have to be particularly nose-high for the shove to be important. Any standard climb attitude when close to the ground puts you at risk of serious airspeed decay when the engine stops.

The appropriate action is a zero-G maneuver...can't stall at zero-Gs...until pointed down with enough authority to manage the landing. If you don't lift your butt off the seat, shove a little harder...
To add to what Troy mentions, you also must maintain enough forward speed so that when you do flair there is enough lift left in the wings to check the descent. This is why the nose MUST be pointed down RIGHT NOW! Gravity will be replacing the lost horsepower.
The report I heard - again, it was from a highly experienced pilot and a member here - was that he observed elevators in full-up position during the entire stall/spin sequence. This goes right to prior posters' notes about the instantaneous push that needs to be a reflex, not thought about....
In reading all of the above comments, I'm reminded of a similar accident here a year ago in an Aeronca 7AC. That pilot was a low time fixed wing pilot and a high time military helicopter instructor. My thinking was that his helicopter instincts of back cyclic and down collective to flair in an autorotation overcame his low time fixed wing training of push the stick to prevent stall.
Was this pilot at Hood River a high time helicopter pilot???

The natural instinct is to turn back towards the airport where you know there is a runway. This emotional tendency is hard to overcome. A sudden change of power at low altitude does raise the anxiety level very rapidly to the point of being unable to think intelligently about what to do. Been there myself with only a sputtering taking place and with plenty of altitude to safely complete the return. There are a lot of questions running through your head very rapidly at the time with no sensible answers. The feeling is WTF do I do now? All of the piloting reactions must be automatic because your brain will be inoperative. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, this is a tragedy from which through voicing our thoughts perhaps we can prevent just one more.
 
Back
Top