Student Fell Out Of Plane

Bob Noel said:
Would it be more plausible less implausible that the student was never in the airplane in the first place?

I know it's hard to believe, but it's also difficult to believe that someone could fall out of that particular aircraft, right?
Click to expand...
Have any of you that aren't understanding how this accident happened, actually read the ntsb accident report that was previously posted?

It makes ALOT of sense. For whatever reason, the student pilot had unbuckled his seatbelt during the flight and some force caused him to be ejected from the aircraft. The article states that the airplane went into a nose-dive (negative G's) and that is when the student was ejected (just like in the 2012 accident).

If they were doing something like stalls and the student over-reacted by excessively pushing the nose down in the recovery and his seatbelt was undone, I can see something like this happening. Obviously the canopy would have to have come unlatched, but it has obviously happened before in the Zodiac.
 
Do you ever give your cell phone to anyone else when flying? I know I keep mine in my left front pocket or velcroed to the left side of the cockpit. So, why did the ejected individual have both his cell phone and the CFI's? Maybe the CFI asked him to get it out of the back, kicked the stick in the process and out he went. 2,500' is plenty low enough to get cell reception.
 
None of this is making any sense which tells me there has to be a Paul Harvey side to it. The plane shows no visible damage. Time will tell.
 
Don't strap in, you get what you get. I'd nominate this for a Darwin Award.
 
I love the media. :mad2:

a-small-airplane-is-seen-in-this-photo-from-november-2012.jpg

(Photo : Reuters) A small airplane is seen in this photo


http://www.enstarz.com/articles/155...ning-lesson-after-canopy-opens-up-details.htm
Click to expand...
 
I have not heard whether a flight plan had been filed yet...
 
ChrisK said:
If you see this aircraft, or anything like it, report this dangerous operation to the authorities immediately! Do not approach!
Click to expand...

Especially if you see the word "EXPERIMENTAL" or it is an RV(Radioactive Vehicle).
 
gismo said:
It might take less force than you'd think. The airflow over the top of the canopy might actually be generating "lift" (i.e. low pressure) especially on the portion well aft of the hinge where the leverage is greater. And 200-400 lbs is a significant amount of force.


Ditto. In an airplane or car I just don't feel comfortable unless I'm secured.
Click to expand...

Never thought about the low pressure aspect, but I suppose it would be a good idea to remind all the pilots of these aircraft to buckle your seatbelts!! :mad2:
 
N747JB said:
Never thought about the low pressure aspect, but I suppose it would be a good idea to remind all the pilots of any aircraft to buckle your seatbelts!! :mad2:
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.
 
N747JB said:
Never thought about the low pressure aspect, but I suppose it would be a good idea to remind all the pilots of these aircraft to buckle your seatbelts!! :mad2:
Click to expand...

What about the rest of aircraft?:dunno: I'm always strapped in, no belt is a great way to end up with a broken neck. Just because you're in clear smooth air one moment is no guaranty that you won't be in severe CAT the next. We learned that one day in my buddy's Duke, it ended up with a bent wing.:eek:
 
Mitch do some research, the Zodiac was bought out by Piper, the same design. It was renamed the Piper Sport. Then Piper sold the design back to the Zodiac manufacturer in Jan 2011. Piper only had the design for about a year. It was not a do it yourself kit as a Piper Sport. But the plane is the same design.
Click to expand...

Idiots abound.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Fixed that for you.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but there are two accidents in these with people being ejected, I was thinking of an EXTRA reminder. :D I personally won't start an airplane without a seatbelt. ;)
 
ChrisK said:
If you see this aircraft, or anything like it, report this dangerous operation to the authorities immediately! Do not approach!
Click to expand...

Especially if it has Bolivian registration. Wonder where they dragged that image up from.
 
N747JB said:
Thanks, but there are two accidents in these with people being ejected, I was thinking of an EXTRA reminder. :D I personally won't start an airplane without a seatbelt. ;)
Click to expand...

I won't start without a seat belt, but I've had to take mine off to get things from the rear seat (or open or close the air vent) and occasionally to extricate a headset cord or O2 line.

Of course, it is near impossible to open a Navion canopy to even the flight position in flight. For the few times I've flown with it open (flour bombing etc...) we've latched it in that position on the ground.
 
Isn't there an FAR requiring seat belts for the PIC? And since a CFI never knows when they might need to be PIC during primary instruction . . . .shouldn't they have them on as well?

The only time I am not belted in is engine start - if I need to get out quickly - or put out a fire - belts and suspenders is on the checklist . . . but then in a Comanche there is zero chance of falling out.
 
Years ago I was instructing in a CH-601. One night, the airplane dropped out of the sky and dived vertically down for at least a thousand feet. Both our heads hit the canopy hard. This is the closest I came to a catastrophic event.

It turns out, this was due an overly aggressive torque setting on the autopilot pitch control. The student wanted to fly right seat, so I was on the left seat. The ptt and trim switches were flipped on the left seat, so while I was talking to ATC, I was in fact pushing down the trim. It only takes about 5 seconds for the trim to go full down. The autopilot was counteracting the trim for far too much longer than it should have, but then it suddenly released itself. If we did not have seat belts on, and if the canopy was not properly latched, it is somewhat plausible that we could have been ejected out of the airplane. But even that seems a bit extreme. I was more worried about structural damage more than the canopy coming off.
 
comanchepilot said:
Isn't there an FAR requiring seat belts for the PIC? And since a CFI never knows when they might need to be PIC during primary instruction . . . .shouldn't they have them on as well?
Click to expand...

For the PIC specifically, no.


Sec. 91.105 — Flight crewmembers at stations.

(a) During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight crewmember shall—
(1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and

(2) Keep the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station.

(b) Each required flight crewmember of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft shall, during takeoff and landing, keep his or her shoulder harness fastened while at his or her assigned duty station. This paragraph does not apply if—

(1) The seat at the crewmember's station is not equipped with a shoulder harness; or

(2) The crewmember would be unable to perform required duties with the shoulder harness fastened.​

There's some waffle in the articles with regard to whether the guy in the right seat was an instructor or just someone more experienced in the aircraft than the alleged student (and the press frequently uses student in instructional situations even if the student is a rated pilot as well).

Besides, a flight instructor does not even need to be qualified to be pilot in command to instruct.
 
flyingron said:
For the PIC specifically, no.


Sec. 91.105 — Flight crewmembers at stations.

(a) During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight crewmember shall—
(1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and

(2) Keep the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station.

(b) Each required flight crewmember of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft shall, during takeoff and landing, keep his or her shoulder harness fastened while at his or her assigned duty station. This paragraph does not apply if—

(1) The seat at the crewmember's station is not equipped with a shoulder harness; or

(2) The crewmember would be unable to perform required duties with the shoulder harness fastened.​

There's some waffle in the articles with regard to whether the guy in the right seat was an instructor or just someone more experienced in the aircraft than the alleged student (and the press frequently uses student in instructional situations even if the student is a rated pilot as well).

Besides, a flight instructor does not even need to be qualified to be pilot in command to instruct.
Click to expand...

Unless I misunderstood the article, it was the student/owner in the right seat at his request and the instructor in the left who brought the plane back. I'm interested in how hard the FAA is gonna fry him.
 
Henning said:
Unless I misunderstood the article, it was the student/owner in the right seat at his request and the instructor in the left who brought the plane back. I'm interested in how hard the FAA is gonna fry him.
Click to expand...
If I was the 'instructor', I would be more worried about the inevitable lawsuit than the Feds.
 
Fearless Tower said:
If I was the 'instructor', I would be more worried about the inevitable lawsuit than the Feds.
Click to expand...

If the Feds fry him, that makes the DA charging him with Manslaughter much more likely. Dude may as well have went after him. Am I mistaken or did I read the instructor was 82? In that case, it's probably all irrelevant. They'll just pull his ticket.
 
The builder was 82, he was killed in a plane crash in December.:dunno:
The dead guy bought it from the estate.
Henning said:
If the Feds fry him, that makes the DA charging him with Manslaughter much more likely. Dude may as well have went after him. Am I mistaken or did I read the instructor was 82? In that case, it's probably all irrelevant. They'll just pull his ticket.
Click to expand...
 
Returning home yesterday I was getting tossed around fairly good. Unfortunately, I had a little coffee prior to departing. Figured I had three options: suck it up, land, or explode. Unbuckling that belt for a Gatorade bottle was not on the list. What an awful way to go :nonod:
 
brentee said:
Returning home yesterday I was getting tossed around fairly good. Unfortunately, I had a little coffee prior to departing. Figured I had three options: suck it up, land, or explode. Unbuckling that belt for a Gatorade bottle was not on the list. What an awful way to go :nonod:
Click to expand...

:confused: I don't unbuckle, I just loosen the belt. I've filled many a Gatorade jug while flying.
 
brentee said:
Returning home yesterday I was getting tossed around fairly good. Unfortunately, I had a little coffee prior to departing. Figured I had three options: suck it up, land, or explode. Unbuckling that belt for a Gatorade bottle was not on the list. What an awful way to go :nonod:
Click to expand...

I have only flown Cessna products and while I always wear a seatbelt, I can't think of a situation in any plane I have flown in which I was ever in fear of being ejected.:dunno: I have bumped my head a few times, but there was a solid aluminum roof to hold me in. ;)
 
Someone in the thread made a reference to a statement made by the NTSB. Where? I don't think they have yet made any statement yet. I think the statement was made by EMS personnel, not the NTSB.

Also the 601 elevator control is kind of strange -- the more you move it the *less* resistance you feel. The stick is a has a Y top, and it is mounted between the two seats and pretty far back -- not in the middle of the floor. But if you reach back to get something in the luggage compartment, that is most likely to pull *back* on the stick. (Of course, this could have been modified to have two floor sticks between the pilot and passenger legs -- that's an option.)

But no way I think about it can I see the canopy coming unlatched in flight due to being hit by someone moving around. Maybe it wasn't latched at all. Nothing makes sense. Gotta see what the NTSB says.

And how can a reporter say the canopy came off, when the plane is back there with the canopy clearly visible as still attached to the plane. That was a post incident photo because the police are standing around the plane.
 
Last edited:
tinerj said:
Someone in the thread made a reference to a statement made by the NTSB. Where? I don't think they have yet made any statement yet.
Click to expand...
NTSB has not made any statement yet in this particular accident (probably aren't even on scene yet). The comment about the NTSB was referring to an NTSB accident report from a strikingly similar pilot ejection that occured in a Zodiac 2 years ago in FL. I believe that came from the comments section of one of the articles linked.
 
tinerj said:
And how can a reporter say the canopy came off, when the plane is back there with the canopy clearly visible as still attached to the plane. That was a post incident photo because the police are standing around the plane.
Click to expand...
Because reporters are idiots and are unfairly biased against GA? :dunno:

I'm betting they heard that the canopy became unlatched, and their skewed sense of reality turned that into the canopy falling off.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
Because reporters are idiots and are unfairly biased against GA? :dunno:

I'm betting they heard that the canopy became unlatched, and their skewed sense of reality turned that into the canopy falling off.
Click to expand...

No. The canopy came off when he hit the eject button without filing a flight plan. Duh!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top