• 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...

A buddy just texted this image - Not sure when it happened or where (maybe Maryland). Sounds like two people are alive but they are trying to get them down. Not sure how many are onboard. Just that two are alive.

IMG_0906.JPG

UPDATE - https://wjla.com/news/local/gallery...e-piringer-rothbury-drive-goshen-road?photo=9
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0906.JPG
    IMG_0906.JPG
    85.6 KB · Views: 1,776
I looked at that yesterday as we have seen a few powerline related incidents recently.

Powerline towers on approach to GAI average 140-160' AGL, 1.3 miles from the threshold, unmarked and unlighted. Pretty low on approach for a mooney, but his track approaching the airport shows potential weather diversions or indecision perhaps.
 
Thought the same thing,so horribly balled up for a landing accident. There is literally nothing out in that area so they would have to have been doing touch n go's or slow flight in pattern Maybe. Possibly a stall spin
 
I looked at that yesterday as we have seen a few powerline related incidents recently.

Powerline towers on approach to GAI average 140-160' AGL, 1.3 miles from the threshold, unmarked and unlighted. Pretty low on approach for a mooney, but his track approaching the airport shows potential weather diversions or indecision perhaps.

The weather here on Sunday was garbage... 300 - 400 foot ceilings most of the day.
 
They allegedly approached or may have exceeded Vmo plus pulled some "G's" as part of their testing. Still speculative of course and awaiting any results from focused NTSB metallurgy exams or airframe inspection.

Gary
In reading post #2 my antennae were raised. Spins are stall maneuvers. Recovery from spins should be completed at low airspeeds in order to prevent an airframe overload. Why did this declared "Pilot DAR" allow the plane to accelerate to Vmo during recovery? This one admission makes me disregard any other comments he makes. Any airplane should not need to accelerate to any where near Vmo during spin recovery. I have never flown a Caravan, however I would still expect to be able to recover from a spin without exceeding 100 knots.

Post #2: "I calculated a momentary peak rate of descent of 9600 FPM, at Vmo, and a 2.5G pull to recover the dive resulting from the spin recovery."

Also pulling 2.5G at Vmo?????? What's with this guy?
 
In reading post #2 my antennae were raised. Spins are stall maneuvers. Recovery from spins should be completed at low airspeeds in order to prevent an airframe overload. Why did this declared "Pilot DAR" allow the plane to accelerate to Vmo during recovery? This one admission makes me disregard any other comments he makes. Any airplane should not need to accelerate to any where near Vmo during spin recovery. I have never flown a Caravan, however I would still expect to be able to recover from a spin without exceeding 100 knots.

Post #2: "I calculated a momentary peak rate of descent of 9600 FPM, at Vmo, and a 2.5G pull to recover the dive resulting from the spin recovery."

Also pulling 2.5G at Vmo?????? What's with this guy?
Having been around some flight test engineers working for the FAA this doesn't surprise me in the least. Performance take off for the PA18-150, accelerate to 35 mph, pull full flaps and climb at 45 mph. I voiced my concern for this testing, especially with a pilot with an FAA test pilot with 8 hrs tail wheel and even less in the Super Cub. It got heated and I did not attend anymore flight briefs until they ran the aircraft off the runway on a botched landing.
 
As someone in the employ of a Caravan modifier, I am watching this with both great interest and sadness. Every test flight carries risks even when efforts are made to minimize and mitigate them. Sometimes what the FAA views as risky in a test plan has a disconnect from what we pilots know to be risky during actual operations.

I did talk with some folks who have had the opportunity to test Caravans and the opinion was that this airplane had been put through the ringer, but also that it was a young airplane and not likely to have high cycles/fatigue issues. It is possible that a manufacturing defect existed causing a premature failure. Many questions unanswered at this time, and those I spoke with noted that ADS-B data has limitations compared to more detailed data systems.

I hope the data survived so we can learn more. It is of little solace to the friends and families left behind, of course, but the best we can hope for at this point is to learn so it does not happen again.

—Amy
 
A local B-EX Caravan exceeded ~200 and ~10K during an IFR upset/stall/recovery. They survived but both wings are being replaced while awaiting the speedo mod planned for here. Tough platform for sure.

For N2069B the accident plane discussed there were about 8 test flights recorded by Flightrader24. The prior use history and maintenance to these tests will likely be investigated.

Gary
 
Last edited:
Quote snipped from the where did you fly today thread;

Still no news on AK28 accident

Gary
Hi Gary, I assume this was directed at me?

From the one we lost to give you an idea of the young man, and interestingly enough it is his birthday today;

66511.jpeg

Sorry for the derailment, the PM function only allows pictures from a web vs your computer.

Take care, Rob
 

Attachments

  • 66511.jpeg
    66511.jpeg
    164.3 KB · Views: 347
Last edited:
Hi Gary, I assume this was directed at me? Take care, Rob

Yes. I called the NTSB 3 months ago and was told it would be a couple of weeks. Two years and 4 months later still no public final. I did speak with the FAA but that's in confidence. We lost good people and deserve some closure.

Gary
 
Last edited:
My initial reaction when I saw the bounce was to pull back on the stick. Probably not the same effect in a thrust vectoring airplane.
 
Short rant.
At the end of the day, it's always the pilots fault. As a current JetBlue pilot told me, a wing could fall off and the accident report will still say they crashed due to the pilot losing control.
But I've been around a blackhawk hovering, and four of them has got to make the area pretty unsuitable.

****************
The pilot reported that he landed on runway 34. He observed five Blackhawk helicopters hovering information on taxiway Bravo. The airplane had slowed to 10-15 miles per hour as it came abeam thehelicopters. The pilot said that the left side of the airplane encountered a sudden blast of air, and the leftwing lifted. The airplane spun hard to the right, exited the runway into a dirt area, and stopped facing180 degrees in the opposite direction. The left wing tip struck the ground during the excursion, andsustained substantial damage. The pilot attributed the wind gust to the rotorwash from the helicopters.

A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector determined that there were four helicopters ontaxiway Bravo that were doing engine Health Indicator Test (HIT) checks. They were using 30 percentpower with two engines operating, and 60 percent with one engine operating, which was about 1/2 thepower needed to hover. The inspector used scaled airport construction diagrams to calculate that thedistance from the helicopters to the airplane's location when it passed abeam was about 400 feet.

The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual Section 7-3-7 and Advisory Circular AC 90-23G paragraph10 stated that if a helicopter was in a stationary hover near the surface, the main rotors generateddownwash producing high velocity outwash vortices to a distance of approximately three times thediameter of the rotor. They advised pilots of small aircraft to avoid operating within that distance.The diameter of the Blackhawk's main rotor blades was 53 feet 8 inches; three diameters computed to176 feet.Wind reported at the nearest recording station was 360 degrees at 5 knots.

The distance between the airplane and the helicopterswhen the airplane passed them abeam was calculated to be about 400 ft, which was over six diametersaway; therefore, helicopter rotor wash likely did not contribute to the pilot's loss of directional control.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:The pilot's failure to maintain directional control during the landing roll.
*****************
 
Short rant.
At the end of the day, it's always the pilots fault. As a current JetBlue pilot told me, a wing could fall off and the accident report will still say they crashed due to the pilot losing control.
But I've been around a blackhawk hovering, and four of them has got to make the area pretty unsuitable.

****************
The pilot reported that he landed on runway 34. He observed five Blackhawk helicopters hovering information on taxiway Bravo. The airplane had slowed to 10-15 miles per hour as it came abeam thehelicopters. The pilot said that the left side of the airplane encountered a sudden blast of air, and the leftwing lifted. The airplane spun hard to the right, exited the runway into a dirt area, and stopped facing180 degrees in the opposite direction. The left wing tip struck the ground during the excursion, andsustained substantial damage. The pilot attributed the wind gust to the rotorwash from the helicopters.

A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector determined that there were four helicopters ontaxiway Bravo that were doing engine Health Indicator Test (HIT) checks. They were using 30 percentpower with two engines operating, and 60 percent with one engine operating, which was about 1/2 thepower needed to hover. The inspector used scaled airport construction diagrams to calculate that thedistance from the helicopters to the airplane's location when it passed abeam was about 400 feet.

The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual Section 7-3-7 and Advisory Circular AC 90-23G paragraph10 stated that if a helicopter was in a stationary hover near the surface, the main rotors generateddownwash producing high velocity outwash vortices to a distance of approximately three times thediameter of the rotor. They advised pilots of small aircraft to avoid operating within that distance.The diameter of the Blackhawk's main rotor blades was 53 feet 8 inches; three diameters computed to176 feet.Wind reported at the nearest recording station was 360 degrees at 5 knots.

The distance between the airplane and the helicopterswhen the airplane passed them abeam was calculated to be about 400 ft, which was over six diametersaway; therefore, helicopter rotor wash likely did not contribute to the pilot's loss of directional control.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:The pilot's failure to maintain directional control during the landing roll.
*****************
And who do all parties but the airplane pilot work for. Having been involved in a mid-air and the subsequent litigation it amazed me the lengths some government employees will go to cover their butts. Nevermind the government themselves.
 
That F35 pilot must have had a hard landing under that small canopy that was still oscillating when be hit the ground.

Jim
 
Just read the very last Pilatus Porter delivered just went in the water off of Greece. One lived. One did not. Sad ending to a long production run. Always wanted to fly one of those.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top