Jack Roush Hard Landing at KOSH

mantakos said:
And, by the way, I'm not sure I understand the "but what about the thousands who landed without crashing..." argument, which I guess is sort of a "why are we focusing on the negatives, instead of celebrating the positives", because landing an airplane isn't supposed to be a death-defying stunt, it's supposed to be something that we can all do routinely without incident.
-harry
Click to expand...

Neither is riding a cruiser and slow speeds. How many crash, and injure/get killed at Sturgis or Daytona Bike Week?

Sorry man....you got a LARGE group of just about anything that moves/goes faster than 5 mph and there WILL be crashes and injuries and yes, sometimes even death.
 
Re: Jack Roush, NASCAR crashes second plane

Ted DuPuis said:
With all respect, Jay, you fly the hardest plane to screw up in the history of aviation. I find your (and pretty much everyone else's) evaluation to be out of place.
Click to expand...

Actually, the hardest plane to screw up is the Ercoupe. I own one of them, too... :wink2:

As for your Aztec being more difficult to fly than my Pathfinder, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I've got a couple of hours in an Aztec, and other than having two of my O-540s (sucking up twice the gas, but only going 14 knots faster), and two more seats, I didn't find any appreciable difference between their flying qualities. Both are slow(ish) prop-driven, piston-engined antique airplanes.

In any event, your assessment of my evaluation might have merit if this accident had taken place in Iowa City, or Port Aransas -- but it occurred at Oshkosh, in front of the largest, most educated group of witnesses the NTSB could desire. I don't know anyone who hasn't said the same things I have said -- but I'll hold out hope that I'm wrong.

But I digress. There are really only two possible causes of Roush's crash:

1. Mechanical problem.
2. Pilot error.

Since the engines were reported to be running for "some time" after the plane slid to a halt, I think we can rule out engine failure or fuel exhaustion. I don't think that leaves too many other options other than #2, does it? Well, I suppose some sort of control failure is possible, but nothing in the photos indicates anything amiss in that department, and no one has mentioned it.

As to your assertion that "prop pilots" can't (or shouldn't) evaluate the crash of a transport class jet aircraft, well, that's just silly talk. This is the internet -- we can evaluate ANYTHING here... :tongue:

Jack Roush made the unforgivable mistake of screwing up in front of thousands of pilots (and government officials) at OSH. Had this crash happened anywhere else, it would've been a matter of passing interest, barely worth a mention here. Because it happened where it happened, it's the talk of the town.
 
Unfortunately,

Pilot Error = pilot can die
Mechanic Error = pilot can die
Controller Error = pilot can die

not a good theme.
 
Re: Jack Roush, NASCAR crashes second plane

Jay Honeck said:
As for your Aztec being more difficult to fly than my Pathfinder, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I've got a couple of hours in an Aztec, and other than having two of my O-540s (sucking up twice the gas, but only going 14 knots faster), and two more seats, I didn't find any appreciable difference between their flying qualities. Both are slow(ish) prop-driven, piston-engined antique airplanes.
Click to expand...

I never said that my Aztec was hard to fly, but going along at 90 kts is not where it's happy. The Aztec is very forgiving, and getting it too slow is highly unlikely to cause a problem. If I was flying, say, a Lancair, that would be a much different story. That would be a better comparison.

The rest of your response only proves the points I made, so I'll leave it at that.
 
Re: Jack Roush, NASCAR crashes second plane

Ted DuPuis said:
With all respect, Jay, you fly the hardest plane to screw up in the history of aviation. I find your (and pretty much everyone else's) evaluation to be out of place.

As with any incident, it is very easy for outsiders to make determinations as to what happened. Those outsiders typically:

1) Weren't there/didn't see it
2) Have never flown the aircraft involved
3) Don't even (and never have) flown an aircraft even remotely similar in characteristics
4) Don't know the guy
5) Haven't flown with him

A bunch of Cherokee pilots condemning Roush is humorous to me. Once again, I'm not saying he didn't screw up, but y'all should lay off it a bit. Flying into Osh is a cluster, it always is. But anyone who flies in anything hotter than a Cherokee or a 182 is at a disadvantage because the slow planes (that are operating well within their normal airspeeds) are forced to fly slower and less comfortable. The 90 kts I'm supposed to fly at once I get past the point where 2300 ft and 1800 ft people merge into once is below my blue line, and I have a slow blue line relative to most twins. When was the last time you heard about a Cherokee getting too slow coming into Osh and having a stall/spin or other crash? And who're the first people to place blame? The people who fly slow planes.

When you fly into a Bravo airport and you're the slow guy intermingled with a bunch of transport aircraft and the occasional Citation or Lear, approach spaces everyone out to give you closer to the traffic ahead and keep the behind traffic further away so everyone can maintain comfortable speeds. In Osh, the slow people are the ones who set the speed, and there is no extra spacing available to help the faster people.

I seem to recall some saying about glass houses that applies here...
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Re: Jack Roush, NASCAR crashes second plane

Ted DuPuis said:
With all respect, Jay, you fly the hardest plane to screw up in the history of aviation. I find your (and pretty much everyone else's) evaluation to be out of place.

As with any incident, it is very easy for outsiders to make determinations as to what happened. Those outsiders typically:

1) Weren't there/didn't see it
2) Have never flown the aircraft involved
3) Don't even (and never have) flown an aircraft even remotely similar in characteristics
4) Don't know the guy
5) Haven't flown with him

A bunch of Cherokee pilots condemning Roush is humorous to me. Once again, I'm not saying he didn't screw up, but y'all should lay off it a bit. Flying into Osh is a cluster, it always is. But anyone who flies in anything hotter than a Cherokee or a 182 is at a disadvantage because the slow planes (that are operating well within their normal airspeeds) are forced to fly slower and less comfortable. The 90 kts I'm supposed to fly at once I get past the point where 2300 ft and 1800 ft people merge into once is below my blue line, and I have a slow blue line relative to most twins. When was the last time you heard about a Cherokee getting too slow coming into Osh and having a stall/spin or other crash? And who're the first people to place blame? The people who fly slow planes.

When you fly into a Bravo airport and you're the slow guy intermingled with a bunch of transport aircraft and the occasional Citation or Lear, approach spaces everyone out to give you closer to the traffic ahead and keep the behind traffic further away so everyone can maintain comfortable speeds. In Osh, the slow people are the ones who set the speed, and there is no extra spacing available to help the faster people.

I seem to recall some saying about glass houses that applies here...
Click to expand...
I think this is the definitive post of the thread. I had not put my $02 in this thread because I knew that I did not know enough to do so. But I think Ted nailed it.
 
.....Not all Cherokee pilots.....:)
 
Last edited:
I'm just trying to figure out why he didn't do the Turbine arrival. The turbine arrival goes to 26 or 27, and does not use 18L/R exactly because of the turns and the need for a stabilized approach.
 
PilotAlan said:
I'm just trying to figure out why he didn't do the Turbine arrival. The turbine arrival goes to 26 or 27, and does not use 18L/R exactly because of the turns and the need for a stabilized approach.
Click to expand...

I see nothing in the Turbine/Warbird Arrival that restricts it to runway 36 or 27, I do see this:

"ATC may initiate a 360° overhead approach to other runways as needed for spacing. Break altitude will be 2,300’ MSL. Expect a break to the north for
Runways 9/27 and to the east for Runways 18/36."
 
I was walking south along the Whittman Road parallel the runway watching planes take off when I heard Roush's jet over my left shoulder. It startled me because:

1) what is he doing landing on 18R? There are small planes taking off and they're just getting airborne? He was no more that 75 to 100 feet up, in a slight bank to the left and way right of the runway centerline.

and 2) Boy he sure is flying slow! I didn't think they could fly that slow! (the engines seemed to be and a moderate setting)

He then turned left to get back on centerline but the plane lumbered and started to drop. He crossed over the to the left side of the runway, still slow and losing altitude quickly. It was then that I thought oh oh... he's gonna crash. He banked hard right and the right wing just dropped in a classic stall. BOOM!

I was socked and relieved there was no fire. I thought it was a crash but they called it a hard landing...
 
i actually am very impressed with the structure on the Premier that the fuel tanks stayed intact and apparently the engines even kept running after the accident.
 
We broke out at 1400' MSL on the RNAV to 27. See N101BS on Flightaware. Lots of vectoring after departing MSN.
 
Jack Roush said:
IT's NOT MY FAULT! I WAS PUT IN CONFLICT!!

CAN YOU JUST GIVE US THE CLIFF NOTES VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED? “I filed my NTSB report today, which is a matter of public record. It speaks for itself. The reality of it -- on a trip arrival into Oshkosh, Wisconsin I was put in conflict with the flight plan of another airplane close to the ground, and I was unable to address the conflict and keep the airplane flying. I ground-looped the airplane and I have a compression fracture in my back. I have some damage in my left eye and I’ve got damage to my left cheek. I’ll recover everything but the sight in my left eye.”
Click to expand...

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/100654454.html
Click to expand...
Damn those controllers who can't fly jets fer nuttin'!
 
mikea said:
Damn those controllers who can't fly jets fer nuttin'!
Click to expand...

Wow. Interesting explanation.

I was put in conflict with the flight plan of another airplane close to the ground, and I was unable to address the conflict and keep the airplane flying.
Click to expand...

Obviously we need to wait until the official report is released, but was he unable to exercise his PIC responsibilities and say "unable"?
 
nddons said:
Wow. Interesting explanation.



Obviously we need to wait until the official report is released, but was he unable to exercise his PIC responsibilities and say "unable"?
Click to expand...

If you're waiting for the answer to whether a Premier with two on board is capable of a successful recovery from a rejected (balked) landing, the answer is yes.

The apparent answer to your question is evidently.
 
His statement is not yet included in the NTSB prelim online, but from the brief quote in the article, two things strike me.

First it sounds like he is placing total blame on the controller. I can see where the controller could have put him in a bad spot, but you still have to fly the plane and be in command when things aren't going to work. I watched a friend get killed in a very similar situation because he didn't elect to go around.

Second, His very interesting discription of the event as a ground loop. To me a ground loop involves touching down on the intended runway and then losing direction control. To stall the airplane and miss the runway and then call it a ground loop makes me think he is in denial or really doesn't understand what went wrong. If he had a little more altitude, he wouldn't be around to make such a comment.

It will be interesting to see how the NTSB and FAA handle this. I would think a little more contrition would help his chances of flying again instead of exhibiting at least two of the classic "hazardous attitudes".
 
Dave Theisen said:
His statement is not yet included in the NTSB prelim online, but from the brief quote in the article, two things strike me.

First it sounds like he is placing total blame on the controller. I can see where the controller could have put him in a bad spot, but you still have to fly the plane and be in command when things aren't going to work. I watched a friend get killed in a very similar situation because he didn't elect to go around.

Second, His very interesting discription of the event as a ground loop. To me a ground loop involves touching down on the intended runway and then losing direction control. To stall the airplane and miss the runway and then call it a ground loop makes me think he is in denial or really doesn't understand what went wrong. If he had a little more altitude, he wouldn't be around to make such a comment.

It will be interesting to see how the NTSB and FAA handle this. I would think a little more contrition would help his chances of flying again instead of exhibiting at least two of the classic "hazardous attitudes".
Click to expand...

That's kind of what I was getting at. Most turbines were landing on 27, and I saw very few of them land on 18 in that landing pattern (i.e. turn left base inside of the tower.) That seems to be some significant low altitude maneuvering for a turbine jet aircraft, but that's just my guess. He did not need to accept that approach.

Turbine drivers or week-long arrival watchers, let me know if I'm off base.

But hey, at least the other plane had a flight plan!!
 
not having read all 100+ posts in this thread, I'm still struck laughing at the description of something that broke the damn plane in half as a "hard landing"! :rofl:
 
As much as anything, I'm disturbed by the fact that he lost an eye. That really bothers me. I guess that's better than losing his life, but it certainly brings home the point that regardless of anything else, you've gotta fly the airplane or there will be a price to pay.
 
OffCenter said:
So, will losing an eye end his flying?
Click to expand...
Probably not relevent in these days, but Wiley Post seems to have flown with one eye.

Wiley_Post.jpg


He apparently lost an eye from an oil field accident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley_Post
 
nddons said:
That's kind of what I was getting at. Most turbines were landing on 27, and I saw very few of them land on 18 in that landing pattern (i.e. turn left base inside of the tower.) That seems to be some significant low altitude maneuvering for a turbine jet aircraft, but that's just my guess. He did not need to accept that approach.
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see if the report says anything about his experience flying to Oshkosh in the past. That close-in, extra-low pattern to 18 is not something for the faint of heart or the faint of ability, and the NOTAM absolutely does NOT prepare you for what that's really going to be like. I wouldn't do it in a jet... Coming from the Turbine/Warbird arrival, either a left base to 27 or a right base to 36 would be the way to go - If I was landing 18 in a jet, I'd rather do the pattern that goes over 9/27, though if they were landing 27 at the time that approach to 18 would not be possible.

For those who haven't done it, the left pattern approach to 18 at Oshkosh is significantly different than normal in that you must begin descending from TPA at the crosswind-to-downwind turn, you turn base well short of the 18 threshold and fly base right at the tower (or the blue dot, they're in about the same spot), and there really is no final - You turn from base to "final" and you're in the flare. For an airplane that would normally have a long, stabilized final this is WAY out of the realm of normal operations - And for a plane so fast, the bank angles could be quite high as well.

What I'd be very interested to know:

1) Was an approach offered, or was that particular one assigned?
2) Was Roush very familiar with Airventure operations, or did he have limited experience with the left pattern to 18?
3) Were they landing east or west on 9/27?

Regardless, it sounds like ATC did change plans on him kind of at the last minute and put that other airplane in front of him - And what's not yet clear to me is where exactly he was when that happened. If he was already on base, it's not quite obvious how to go around - I think there was a slow departure heading south by 18, a base leg go-around sends you right at the crowd (TG he didn't do that), from a downwind go-around you can't go straight ahead due to traffic from 9/27, so you pretty much have to take a right and potentially have to avoid runway 9 departures (if they were operating east), more inbound warbirds, etc... There's not a lot of free pieces of sky around Airventure. If it was early enough to go around from downwind, the right turnout is probably the way to go. Once you turn base, you're gonna need some ATC instruction most likely. Note that this is mostly due to the airplane he was flying - If you can comfortably fly at 90 knots, you won't be overtaking anyone and you have your little spot in the sky. With a faster bird, you need a lot more room and there just isn't much of it there.

It'll be interesting to see what the final report looks like.
 
Has it been established whether or not he was wearing a shoulder harness?
 
I got these from my uncle yesterday. Don't know if y'all have seen them or not. Looks like a higher bank than I would want to be doing that close to the ground in that kind of plane.





 
If you zoom in you'll see the control deflections deflections are anti-bank.

I doubt the aircraft attitude at that point was anything but "un-commanded".


bigred177 said:
I got these from my uncle yesterday. Don't know if y'all have seen them or not. Looks like a higher bank than I would want to be doing that close to the ground in that kind of plane.
Click to expand...
 
bigred177 said:
I got these from my uncle yesterday. Don't know if y'all have seen them or not. Looks like a higher bank than I would want to be doing that close to the ground in that kind of plane.


http://s30.photobucket.com/albums/c324/bigred177/?action=view&current=Roush_6.jpg
Click to expand...

By the point those pic's were taken, I think he'd already stalled on his base to final turn, dropped the right wing, and was basically along for the ride.

The runway he was supposed to land on is the one running left to right in the picture and pointed about 30 degrees left of the aircraft's heading.
 
Looks like your run of the mill "ground loop" to me.:rolleyes2:

Like I said before, if he had more altitude, they would both been killed. He stalled it and is putting in incorrect control inputs for a recovery. A little more height and it would have gotten alot uglier in a hurry.
 
I think this guy taxiing probably needed to stop and change his underwear. From his position taxiing north along 18, he'd have seen this all happen and then head towards him! Kent, can you make out that N-number under the wing? There's a PilotCast episode for ya!

Roush_11.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top