German CT crash

[Doug G.]

Also if you land in soft, high grass as in the picture there is also more drag that will "pull" the nose down on touchdown. You'd need a lot of aft stick very quickly to hold the nose wheel off.

The pull is also on the mains- back stick may not work. There may be little or no rollout in soft ground. The mains stop quickly, the nose drops hard and the momentum carries you over. You also don't want to pull too early or you wi'll stall. Tough situation. I think the pilot did the best they could in this situation.

[Flying Bozo]

If we use 100Hamburger's 10 knot maximum and assume that the day of this crash had that sort of wind then by returning to the airport (downwind) as compared to landing straight ahead into the wind gave him a 20 knot higher touch down speed. That is a huge difference! And that would be a huge difference in the nose over tendency on grass. Not too big of a problem if he makes it back onto the pavement however.

Always the "but" if the wind was a 90 degree crosswind and he made his turn back to the runway by turning first into the cross wind then he might get lined up with the runway after only a 180 degree turn rather than a 270 and then 90. Then if he only made it to the grass over run his touch down speed would only be the same as if he had not turned around and landed straight ahead into the wind on grass.

[FastEddieB]

Good point on the contrast between a headwind and a tailwind as a factor in the decision to return to the airport.

 

Can make a very large difference in the energy to be dissipated somehow in the landing/crashing process.

[Runtoeat]

Corey, you seem to frequently report interesting (and costly) landings due to student pilots wrestling with the CT's in your flight school.  Ever think of trying get some video of the landings for training purposes?  Maybe set up a camera by the runway and figure out how to make it take video when it senses movement?  I'd like to see the latest one dealing with ballooning and then attempting to force the plane to land rather than go around.  This is a classic mistake that low hour pilots make with our CT's that has "tweaked" a lot of landing gears and nose gears.  The composite main gears on the CTLS's might take the abuse but the aluminum struts on the CTSW will end up in the recycle bin. 

[Anticept]

A large majority of the accidents are from years ago. This is the first accident we've had since 2011, and probably about 3,500 hours worth of training.

 

The problem that much of this stems from was instructors treating these airplanes too harshly. One thing about standard category like cessnas and pipers that has a definite advantage over CTs for flight training is that they are much more durable and can bounce back from abuse much better than a CT. Not to say CTs aren't tough planes (hard to do significant damage), but they do prang easier.

 

Since I took over, we've been constantly working with instructors on retraining (they were trained in a lot of old school ways, which is too rough on CTs). I've found that one of the best ways to prevent an accident with a student, is that you have to start with the instructor. Not only do instructors teach students how to fly, but we also shape their attitude about it. So if an instructor exhibits poor aeronautical decision making, or doesn't communicate clearly enough the training material, the student will pick up on that. Keeping a "safety above all else" attitude has significantly helped with students in how they decide whether to fly or not, and has helped us filter out a few bad apples that I feel would have led to someone getting hurt.

 

Anyways, this accident happened to a person that it really shouldn't have happened to. He's one of the nicest, down to Earth person I have EVER met, and is very safety concious. He's a picture perfect student. He just got himself in a bad situation and hesitated a little too long on the decision to go around, which tore up my plane. First thing he did once he got back was ask what he needed to do to make it right. Told him get back in it and learn from his mistake. He tried to quit flying, and we gave him so much support that he changed his mind after a few days.

 

As for video: I've actually tried to set that up with the airports around here. They don't want anything near the runways. Understandably so, but it's our aircraft and equipment, so I feel like it's excessive caution. We've never, ever had an underrun or overrun, and all the airports here are on flat terrain. Oh well

[gbigs]

A large majority of the accidents are from years ago. This is the first accident we've had since 2011, and probably about 3,500 hours worth of training.

 

The problem that much of this stems from was instructors treating these airplanes too harshly. One thing about standard category like cessnas and pipers that has a definate advantage over CTs for flight training is that they are much more durable and can bounce back from abuse much better than a CT. Not to say CTs aren't tough planes (hard to do significant damage), but they do prang easier.

 

Since I took over, we've been constantly working with instructors on retraining (they were trained in a lot of old school ways, which is too rough on CTs). I've found that one of the best ways to prevent an accident with a student, is that you have to start with the instructor. Not only do instructors teach students how to fly, but we also shape their attitude about it. So if an instructor exhibits poor aeronautical decision making, or doesn't communicate clearly enough the training material, the student will pick up on that. Keeping a "safety above all else" attitude has significantly helped with students in how they decide whether to fly or not, and has helped us filter out a few bad apples that I feel would have led to someone getting hurt.

 

Anyways, this accident happened to a person that it really shouldn't have happened to. He's one of the nicest, down to Earth people I have EVER met, and is very safety concious. He's a picture perfect student. He just got himself in a bad situation and hesitated a little too long on the decision to go around, which tore up my plane. First thing he did once he got back was ask what he needed to do to make it right. Told him get back in it and learn from his mistake. He tried to quit flying, and we gave him so much support that he changed his mind after a few days.

 

As for video: I've actually tried to set that up with the airports around here. They don't want anything near the runways. Understandably so, but it's our aircraft and equipment, so I feel like it's excessive caution. We've never, ever had an underrun or overrun, and all the airports here are on flat terrain. Oh well

 

Tell him I saw a student return from her first solo xcountry porpoise a Zodiak 601 (all metal and rivets plane, very sturdy) and drill the prop into the runway and rip off half a wing and a wheel.  They repaired the plane. And the student got back into the same plane and finished her training.

[Anticept]

We pushed him back into the seat so hard he decided to buy one of his own!

[FlyingMonkey]

We pushed him back into the seat so hard he decided to buy one of his own!

 

Now that's how to do it!

 

Is he on this board?

[Jim]

Changing the subject a little bit, I've noticed few-to-none stall-spin accidents with FD aircraft.  And I think this is reflected in the very low number of fatal accidents.   Any speculation on why? 

[gbigs]

Changing the subject a little bit, I've noticed few-to-none stall-spin accidents with FD aircraft.  And I think this is reflected in the very low number of fatal accidents.   Any speculation on why? 

 

Good point.  The FDCT is nearly impossible to stall/spin...in fact, it's hyper difficult to even stall the plane at all.  The nose immediately drops when the angle of attack is at stall even without a stick forward move.   It has a large wing (107sqft, 12lbs sq/ft wing loading), and a large tail allowing very low stall speed 35kts manageable.

 

Consider the wing loading of the dangerous Lancair IV at 35 lbs sq/ft.

[FlyingMonkey]

[rtk]

Great that the pilot was able to walk away and that the aircraft did it's job to protect the pilot.  Testament to the strong construction of the FD aircraft!

 

Question from a neophyte:  If it had a BRS, would deploying at 250 feet have activated the parachute?  i.e. Would that theoretically be enough altitude to fully deploy the chute?  Or would forward velocity and the slightly aft trajectory of the BRS help to ensure it's fully extended/inflated?

 

Bob

[gbigs]

Great that the pilot was able to walk away and that the aircraft did it's job to protect the pilot.  Testament to the strong construction of the FD aircraft!

 

Question from a neophyte:  If it had a BRS, would pulling at 250 feet activated the parachute?  Would that theoretically be enough altitude to fully deploy the chute?  Or would forward velocity and the slightly aft trajectory of the BRS help to ensure it's fully extended/inflated?

 

Bob

 

Bob,

 

The company says the chute will work at 400 ft agl and above.  But most say pull it regardless nothing to lose unless of course you have the road or runway made...

[FlyingMonkey]

Great that the pilot was able to walk away and that the aircraft did it's job to protect the pilot.  Testament to the strong construction of the FD aircraft!

 

Question from a neophyte:  If it had a BRS, would deploying at 250 feet have activated the parachute?  i.e. Would that theoretically be enough altitude to fully deploy the chute?  Or would forward velocity and the slightly aft trajectory of the BRS help to ensure it's fully extended/inflated?

 

Bob

 

There was a BRS deployment by a CT with a successful outcome from a go-around at less than 100ft.  If you are crashing anyway, the chute can only slow you down.  Generally a good thing in a crash.

[Doug G.]

What he said.

[Tom Baker]

Good point.  The FDCT is nearly impossible to stall/spin...in fact, it's hyper difficult to even stall the plane at all.  The nose immediately drops when the angle of attack is at stall even without a stick forward move.   It has a large wing (107sqft, 12lbs sq/ft wing loading), and a large tail allowing very low stall speed 35kts manageable.

 

Consider the wing loading of the dangerous Lancair IV at 35 lbs sq/ft.

 

While wing loading does have an effect on stall characteristics, it is not the only factor. A Piper Cub has more wing area, a lighter wing loading, and bigger tail. It has very benign stall characteristics and a slower stall speed than the CT. Yet it has an unusually high number of stall spin accidents. Hopefully you don't find out the hard way that even an airplane with nice stall characteristics will still spin unexpectedly.

[Ed Cesnalis]

The FDCT is nearly impossible to stall/spin...in fact, it's hyper difficult to even stall the plane at all...

 

I'm not sure that's a fair statement at all.  Sure if you practice an approach stall and slowly pull the stick back you might only mush.  What happens when the pilot skids his left base to final turn and stalls it?  I bet you haven't stalled it yet with full left rudder, full right flaperon and full aft stick.  You might go from thinking its nearly impossible to stall/spin to realizing it happens in a heartbeat. It just takes the right control inputs.

[gbigs]

While wing loading does have an effect on stall characteristics, it is not the only factor. A Piper Cub has more wing area, a lighter wing loading, and bigger tail. It has very benign stall characteristics and a slower stall speed than the CT. Yet it has an unusually high number of stall spin accidents. Hopefully you don't find out the hard way that even an airplane with nice stall characteristics will still spin unexpectedly.

 

The tiny bit of burble at stall is so insignificant in fact, when I took my private checkride in the FDCT the examiner riding with me (first time in an FDCT and had a 50 year pin and over 8,000 checkrides under his belt) did not believe the plane was stalled when he asked to see the required slow and high speed PTS test.  I explained to him the characteristics of the plane, he tried one himself and said he had never seen such smooth transition from stall to recovery.

 

Oh, and yes I was also asked to do a slow turning stall (one I had not practiced before doing it the first time in front of the examiner).  And once again the plane recovered by simply keeping the ball centered and allowing the plane to nose over.

 

Do that in a Lancair or Cessna and you will find yourself in a definite spin.

[Ed Cesnalis]

...  And once again the plane recovered by simply keeping the ball centered and allowing the plane to nose over.

 

Do that in a Lancair or Cessna and you will find yourself in a definite spin.

 

Keeping the ball centered will prevent a spin entry in a Cessna or a Lancair.  Rotation is a big part of spin entry and a centered ball is confirming a lack of rotation.

[Tom Baker]

The tiny bit of burble at stall is so insignificant in fact, when I took my private checkride in the FDCT the examiner riding with me (first time in an FDCT and had a 50 year pin and over 8,000 checkrides under his belt) did not believe the plane was stalled when he asked to see the required slow and high speed PTS test.  I explained to him the characteristics of the plane, he tried one himself and said he had never seen such smooth transition from stall to recovery.

 

Oh, and yes I was also asked to do a slow turning stall (one I had not practiced before doing it the first time in front of the examiner).  And once again the plane recovered by simply keeping the ball centered and allowing the plane to nose over.

 

Do that in a Lancair or Cessna and you will find yourself in a definite spin.

 

On 2 different occasions in over 1,000 hours flying CT's I have had the airplane break hard and drop the nose in a stall. In both cases it would not have been good on the base to final turn. All of the other stalls I have done in the CT have been just as you described, very benign.

The point I was trying to make and that you missed is the light wing loading has nothing to do with whether a airplane will stall and spin.

[gbigs]

CT,

 

Here is a video of a guy in a Cessna 172 practicing a power on stall.  He entered an INADVERTENT spin.  Can you tell if he had the ball centered?  The yoke was centered....

[sandpiper]

 

 

Do that in a Lancair or Cessna and you will find yourself in a definite spin.

Never been in a Lancair but I call B.S. on your statement about Cessna. What experience do you have to say this?

 

And don't tell me to look at the video. It tells a viewer absolutely nothing without knowing the circumstances.

[FastEddieB]

I don't think one can extrapolate too much, but...

 

...it seems that as we build more aerodynamic tweaks into planes to make them more stall resistant, sometimes they can become even more of a handful if provoked.

 

Old video of a Cirrus accident, but well worthwhile:

 

 

The Cirrus wing has cuffs and two seperate airfoil shapes, and a strake in the case of the SR22 - all in an attempt to keep the wing flying. Yet when it finally does give up, it can do so rather dramatically.

 

I've done hundreds of stalls in Cirrus', and never been bitten. But I have heard enough horror stories that I always taught them with plenty of altitude, and the chute always in mind if things ever did get out of hand.

 

I would recommend that no one assume a CT or any other plane will remain benign in a stall. Lots of pilots and passengers have been hurt or killed that way.

[sandpiper]

I don't think one can extrapolate too much, but...

 

...it seems that as we build more aerodynamic tweaks into planes to make them more stall resistant, sometimes they can become even more of a handful if provoked.

 

Old video of a Cirrus accident, but well worthwhile:

 

 

 

I would recommend that no one assume a CT or any other plane will remain benign in a stall. Lots of pilots and passengers have been hurt or killed that way.

Exactly.

 

I don't often chime in like this but this is an open forum with pilots with all levels of experience. To say, as our resident expert has said, that, basically a CT won't bite but watch out for them Cessnas, is just wrong.

 

Such statements can cause low time and/or inexperienced pilots to have accidents.

 

A CT is pretty docile in most stalls but it can, and will, bite. No reason for alarm but, as with any aircraft, proper training is essential.

 

A Cessna is also pretty docile, but can bite.

 

IMHO both CT and Cessna 100 series have similar stall characteristics. One is no better than the other. But both can, and will bite, if provoked. Nothing to lose sleep over, one way or the other.

[Tom Baker]

CT,

 

Here is a video of a guy in a Cessna 172 practicing a power on stall.  He entered an INADVERTENT spin.  Can you tell if he had the ball centered?  The yoke was centered....

 

I don't know if the ball was centered or not, but I would bet based on skill demonstrated in the video that it was not. Did you notice that he tried to stop the break with aileron instead of rudder.