While he was flying low, that was not a Caddy. Though, I expect to read of a similar accident.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
I sincerely hope that life is never discovered on another planet because, sure as hell Progressives and Socialists will want to send them money.
Unless the propeller fell off, the engine was running till it hit the tree. All that was is a classic stall/spin. He had no control over where it landed. he obviously had taken off with far too low an airspeed and it was too slow to generate enough lift. Looked like all pilot error to me. If he could have dropped the nose a bit instead of trying to climb, he could have landed on the lot or little beyond it with maybe only some gear damage. Also contributing was the pilot error of taking off with what appears to be full landing flaps which could be the reason he couldnt accelerate fast enough. He was trying to build speed pulling an anchor. Could have been doing touch and goes and forgot to retract them. Need some more info to know.
I did have an engine problem on takeoff once in a 172, and made a perfect landing in a bare cornfield off the end of the runway. Tow truck pulled it onto the road and towed it back to the airport across the street with no damage at all. Had a broken carb replaced and it flew fine. Investigator checked it out and signed it off. Didnt even nick the prop since it wasnt turning.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 09-12-2017).]
Picky note: According to the NTSB, the plane was an (older) Piper Cherokee 180, not a (newer) Piper Archer. The pictures seem to confirm that. The most significant difference between the two types is the wing design: the Cherokee wing is rectangular (often referred to as the "Hershey bar wing"), while the more modern Archer wing is tapered from mid-span to the tips. I've flown both types, in both day and night conditions, and the older, poorly-lighted cockpit design of the Cherokee 180 would probably be slightly more challenging for a forced landing at night.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-15-2017).]
Picky note: According to the NTSB, the plane was an (older) Piper Cherokee 180, not a (newer) Piper Archer. The pictures seem to confirm that.
Thanks for pointing that out, tho I would never have known the difference in the 2 aircraft otherwise. Do I understand that NTSB report right..that the pilot had only 1 hr in that make/model aircraft?
quote
Flight Time: 1109 hours (Total, all aircraft), 1 hours (Total, this make and model), 912 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 2 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 1 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-15-2017).]
Do I understand that NTSB report right..that the pilot had only 1 hr in that make/model aircraft?
That appears to be the case. If so, it is doubly puzzling that the pilot stated that nobody had taught him to use carburetor heat when landing ... which is typical "best practice" for just about every carbureted, piston-powered airplane ever made. It is true that carb heat is seldom required in the Piper PA-28 series airplanes (Cherokee, Warrior, Archer, etc.) in cruise flight, but it's still there and still recommended practice when landing.
It is worth noting that the NTSB did not choose to include "pilot unfamiliarity/low time in type" as a contributing factor in the accident.
N.B. Possibility of icing is the reason that the throttle body in a V6 Fiero is heated. Dry throttle bodies are far less susceptible to icing than carburetors, but under the right conditions it still can happen.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-15-2017).]
That appears to be the case. If so, it is doubly puzzling that the pilot stated that nobody had taught him to use carburetor heat when landing ... which is typical "best practice" for just about every carbureted, piston-powered airplane ever made. It is true that carb heat is seldom required in the Piper PA-28 series airplanes (Cherokee, Warrior, Archer, etc.) in cruise flight, but it's still there and still recommended practice when landing.
It is worth noting that the NTSB did not choose to include "pilot unfamiliarity/low time in type" as a contributing factor in the accident.
N.B. Possibility of icing is the reason that the throttle body in a V6 Fiero is heated. Dry throttle bodies are far less susceptible to icing than carburetors, but under the right conditions it still can happen.
Interesting information Marvin.
Thanks for enlightening me on that. Obviously, my experience in RW is different but as I search my memory, I surely don't remember having any anti-icing capability in the Osage TH55A I first took training in. Simply too far back in the memory banks. It's flat six engine provided power to the transmission via six V fan belts. I remember being told it could still fly on three belts if necessary but, who really wants to find out.
All of the aircraft that I have flown had fuel injection instead of a carburator or were turbine powered so I cannot add much here. The one exception was a Beech Dutchess that I used to get a multiengine certification and I did have to use carb heat based on the Operating Manual. Never any carb trouble but it was painful to fly on one engine and certainly would not hold altitude on a hot day. I am very glad that I never had a carb icing issue while flying this bird.
[The Beech Dutchess] was painful to fly on one engine and certainly would not hold altitude on a hot day.
Same with the Piper Twin Comanche I trained in. Nice flying airplane, but you did need to respect the blue line, and when heavy there was just enough power on one engine to get you to the scene of the crash.
All the light Beech airplanes were nice to fly. I did all my primary training in Musketeers, but I only have a couple of hours (right seat) in a Dutchess. I almost bought a pristine Debonair 30 years ago, but reason prevailed and I bought a house instead.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-16-2017).]
Same with the Piper Twin Comanche I trained in. Nice flying airplane, but you did need to respect the blue line, and when heavy there was just enough power on one engine to get you to the scene of the crash.
All the light Beech airplanes were nice to fly. I did all my primary training in Musketeers, but I only have a couple of hours (right seat) in a Dutchess. I almost bought a pristine Debonair 30 years ago, but reason prevailed and I bought a house instead.
Other than a King Air, a few military birds, and a Cessna 310, all of my flying has been in Pipers and Mooneys with some turbine time thrown (F9, P3, Aerostar 600 with turbine engines, and King Air). I enjoyed all of them but still have a warm spot in my heart for a late M20 series bird. One odd thing about my flying is that I have never frown a fixed gear aircraft. That likely makes me even odder than most other pilots.
Nelson
[This message has been edited by hnthomps (edited 09-16-2017).]
Other than a King Air, a few military birds, and a Cessna 310, all of my flying has been in Pipers and Mooneys with some turbine time thrown (F9, P3, Aerostar 600 with turbine engines, and King Air).
Your CV is a lot more extensive and more impressive than mine.
quote
I enjoyed all of them but still have a warm spot in my heart for a late M20 series bird.
I have had some pleasant hours in M20s, including actual IMC cross-country, but I've never flown one young enough that it didn't still have the Johnson-bar manual landing gear.
quote
One odd thing about my flying is that I have never frown a fixed gear aircraft.
That is indeed unique, except perhaps for some of the new-age, ab-inito airline pilots.
That is indeed unique, except perhaps for some of the new-age, ab-inito airline pilots.
Marvin,
I was just lucky enough to start out flying in a T34 for a couple of hours in Corpus Christi. Then we flew to Beeville for some orientation time in the F9. It was an obsolete fighter from the late 50s that was being used as a trainer. It would go supersonic, but the procedure was to go to 35,000 to 40,000 feet, point the nose straight down, and full power. I was then able to spend a few flight hours at NAS JAX to learn about P3s. It is the largest aircraft that I have flown to date if you do not count an hour or so of IL76 left seat time between Dubai and Baghdad. The only reason that they let me up front was that I/my company was paying them to make this run every week. The other aircraft were just added on as time and opportunity allowed (especially if I could get someone else to foot the bill).
The M20 J and K series were my favorite airplanes for a number of reasons. I was fortunate enough to buy into a Piper Arrow that was eventually sold to purchase a M20 J. When that was sold, we bought another nicer M20 J and I was able to accumulate around 350 hours in that bird. Relatively fast, good fuel consumption, moderate maintenance, and a very stable instrument platform is a hard combination to beat.
BTW, I just remembered that I got to fly a Twin Comanche and an Italian PT 2006 twin last year and both had carburated engines IIRC so the Dutchess was not my only aircraft with carburators. Sadly, my flying days are limited now with no airplane and a kid in graduate school with medical bills. Maybe life will smile on me again at a later date but I would still like the M20 J as a possible new bird. If the PT 2006 were a bit faster I would consider that in a heartbeat but the two Rotax engines limit it to about 140 knots cruising.
All of the aircraft that I have flown had fuel injection instead of a carburator or were turbine powered so I cannot add much here. The one exception was a Beech Dutchess that I used to get a multiengine certification and I did have to use carb heat based on the Operating Manual. Never any carb trouble but it was painful to fly on one engine and certainly would not hold altitude on a hot day. I am very glad that I never had a carb icing issue while flying this bird.
Nelson
I got some Dutchess time in a friends because our charter business was considering one. In the end, I couldnt justify a twin that only carried 4 at only a slightly higher speed than the Cherokee Lance I ended up buying. It sat 7 with a single engine and was a dream to fly. Twice the load at half the fuel and maintenance was a lot more profitable. My 172 XP is a standard 172 airframe with a fuel injected 6 cyl, so no icing problems. so much power it can carry 5 and take off in 1/2 the distance of a normal one.
