Jump to content

Greenvile TX, CTLS crash


Ed Cesnalis

Recommended Posts

400-6 tires on that one.

 

I am really curious as to how well 600-6 tires can land in unimproved and semi-improved areas. I use them and can land in grass airfields without any stress on the plane, but I don't really have a way to test limits for unimproved areas without busting up the plane :P

 

Anyone have any stories of CT aircraft making forced landings WITHOUT resulting in significant damage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Jeffery Sadler from Leadville, CO. Looks like it hit really hard on the nose then flipped. There was enough downward energy to completely rip the front suspension and engine off the firewall, but the cabin is still intact. Goes to show how strong our cabin support structure is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two thumbs up for Jeffrey... he put it down without an injury!  I hope we can hear the story.

 

Anyone have any stories of CT aircraft making forced landings WITHOUT resulting in significant damage?

 

Over the years there have been several.  Of course, there's a good chance you wouldn't even hear about them unless it was covered on TV.  No damage or injuries = no record or ntsb report.  Really loose dirt or uneven ground is always good for gear damage or a flip.
g0002580000000000008fca62b5981079a9d245f
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great outcome.

 

But although luckily no one was hurt, I think it again reinforces the inherent danger in any off-airport landing, even on a field that looks pretty darn good. Almost perfect, even.

 

Certainly one time I'd rather have a high wing than a low wing with a canopy!

 

And someone needs to start the discussion...would a chute pull have been a good option here? Hard to imagine it doing even more damage than what we see here. I wonder if it was even considered.

 

But all's well that ends well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great outcome.

 

But although luckily no one was hurt, I think it again reinforces the inherent danger in any off-airport landing, even on a field that looks pretty darn good. Almost perfect, even.

 

Certainly one time I'd rather have a high wing than a low wing with a canopy!

 

And someone needs to start the discussion...would a chute pull have been a good option here? Hard to imagine it doing even more damage than what we see here. I wonder if it was even considered.

 

But all's well that ends well!

 

Actually being over the city, I'd probably not pull. I'd rather aim for an area where no one else will get hurt, whereas a chute pull could put me anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually being over the city, I'd probably not pull. I'd rather aim for an area where no one else will get hurt, whereas a chute pull could put me anywhere.

 

A good point.

 

But a plane coming down under canopy after announcing its presence with a minor explosion, is pretty easy to "see and avoid".

 

And it carries a lot less energy coming down vertically at less than 2,000 fpm than flying in at 40+ mph.

 

But a good point, and something to think about before having to make that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good point.

 

But a plane coming down under canopy after announcing its presence with a minor explosion, is pretty easy to "see and avoid".

 

And it carries a lot less energy coming down vertically at less than 2,000 fpm than flying in at 40+ mph.

 

But a good point, and something to think about before having to make that decision.

 

Assuming people are paying attention. If you are driving down the road and a CT hits the car, even under canopy, that can do some real serious damage.

 

As a side note, here's a hero: http://www.wral.com/plane-crashes-near-residential-area-in-burlignton/11985258/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not making a case that its impossible for a plane descending under parachute to injure or kill, but...

 

...I don't think anyone one the ground has been killed, or even injured, by a plane descending under a parachute.

 

If anyone knows of such a case, I'd like to know.

 

A small sample set, to be sure, but I DO know of people on the ground being killed by planes making emergency landings. 

 

Here's one that made an impression on me:

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35896336/ns/us_news-life/t/plane-kills-beach-jogger-emergency-landing/#.U1xa8166yhA

 

Anyway, not arguing for "one size fits all". Just exploring options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure in that circumstance I'd talk myself into an early grave because of what *might* happen as the chute comes down. If I need to pull to give myself the best chances of survival, then that is what I will do. Somebody might not see the the brake lights on my car, run into me, and die. I still use the brakes on my car. Not all outcomes are in our control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had 2 emergency landings and both times I was at high risk of nosing over and both times I landed instead of pulling.  These were both in a slower aircraft so I leaned more towards landing.  The same thought applies when I compare a CT to a Cirrus, I wouldn't hesitate much at all in the Cirrus but the CT is still slow enough that I would land it.

 

My first emergency was the result of contacting a mesquite tree with my left main gear.  The gear snapped off and I landed with only a right main and a snapped strut on the left side.  The 2nd time was a lost engine and I didn't have enough glide to get to a field and landed on a steep slope.  There was no decision because I could still control the plane.

 

If there is no obstacle I would rather land/crash forward than to hurt my back.

 

The CT egg is developing a very good record. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone, this was my plane and my wife and I are doing well. Thank you for the positive comments. I look forward to telling you all about my actions following the engine failure soon. We're leaving Greenville tomorrow and heading back to colorado. I can tell you we glided toward the airport for 4-5 miles before a headwind slowed us down so much we had to make the field landing. We were still 1.5 miles away from the Greenville airport. We did the math 2 times during the glide and it showed we were good until .... There was a major interstate, Home Depot , lowes, wal-mart, under us and the sports park to the right, given the developed area below we chose not to deploy the parachute and risk public injury or property damage, we also hoped the plane would survive the landing. The plane would be intact if it weren't for a small water drainage/ditch across the center of the10 acre field. It simply grabbed the nose gear off the plane at 45plus knots. I'll go further into details and answer any questions next week. I have many clear bright damage photos also. Fly safe,, Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but add something to this already incredible story... Jeff is also the pilot and creator of the legendary "Purple Palace" mutant vehicle/art car from Burning Man.  I had the pleasure of taking a ride in 2006.  Google "Purple Palace Burning Man" and you'll see that Jeff lives large...  and flies right.

tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Well done! We are glad to hear that both of you were not injured during the event and think your choice of action regarding the chute pull was the correct one. We speak of the strength of design often when talking about carbon/glass composite construction and this type of event highlights the designed strength of our CT.

And you have my condolences on the loss of your aircraft. Better that then either of you.

Regards,

Chris Marinello

N530CT

KCHA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 longstanding arguments intersect here.  

  1. Pull the chute or land it?
  2. Normal landings; full stall technique or fly it on.

When the time comes, if you have to land it or if you choose to land it, in an emergency you are most likely to do your normal landing.  By now I see that CT pilots when forced to land in a field are prone to end up upside down.  It is obvious to me that the slower, full flap, "full stall" landing is less likely to float past your target and the landing will not roll out as far, perhaps not as far as that ditch that is going to cause a nose over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CT,

 

Though we differ on this particular incident a bit, I was thinking the same thing.

 

Not pertaining to this specific incident, but I typically touch down in my Sky Arrow with full flaps at just under 40k IAS. Throw in any headwind and subtract that from the touchdown speed. Then subtract further the amount of time full back stick can hold the nose up, and sometimes it seems my nosewheel doesn't come down until near walking speed. All that's important, because my nosewheel is practically a wheelbarrow tire!

 

But two huge caveats:

 

1) Soft ground can "grab" the mains and cause a forward pitching moment that back elevator cannot overcome, and,

 

2) Under the stress of a real emergency, we often do not perform as well as we think we might.

 

And might I suggest a third longstanding argument: how well can one judge the suitability of a landing area from the air? Not too well, as has often proven to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...