fatal crash in San Diego

Slackyhacky said:
At what point do you think you can turn around and make it back to the airfield? Is there any good rule-of-thumb on this?
Click to expand...
Depends on a couple factors, but my general rule of thumb for most of the SE GA planes I fly, non Cirrus:

*0-200 AGL I am landing more or less straight ahead.. goal would be to slow and "mush" it into the trees, etc. Obviously trying to find the least deadly place to put it
*200-600 AGL I have a couple small fields plus two big highways to choose from
*above 600 AGL I am considering coming back to the field.. depending on winds
*above 800 AGL I am turning back to the field and flying a "normal" (albeit much smaller) pattern

In the Cirrus the procedure I follow is similar, however once above 400 AGL the parachute becomes an option. *CAVEAT... what this means is that it takes about 400 feet for the chute to deploy (at least in the one I fly), so if you pull it at 400 feet exactly it's not really going to help you. But by 500 AGL you'll at least descend down under a parachute onto a backyard or Walmart parking lot vs careening into a house at 80 mph

**By the way, this should be part of every pre takeoff briefing. I make one after every runup, before requesting TO clearance. Every airport is different, it is worth a 5 minute review of the sectional to pick your spots out and have some altitudes in mind so you're not caught off guard when the failure happens. Heck, some FBOs I've seen even have a little map in the office with red, blue, and green shaded areas as e/o suggestions
 
Well I appreciate the feedback -

Another possible dumb question -
But...

If you ARE going to put down on a freeway, I know intuitively you would go with traffic, but perhaps it makes more sense to land against traffic? I assume drivers would have PLENTY of visual opportunity to see you coming and so can get out of the way - but approaching cars with traffic, few will see you until you are REALLY close to the ground.
 
Slackyhacky said:
If you ARE going to put down on a freeway, I know intuitively you would go with traffic, but perhaps it makes more sense to land against traffic? I assume drivers would have PLENTY of visual opportunity to see you coming and so can get out of the way - but approaching cars with traffic, few will see you until you are REALLY close to the ground.
Click to expand...
It has crossed my mind too, but I just can't bring myself to land against traffic. Touching down around 55 knots means you'll be going pretty much highway speed.. ideally you would just "merge" into the traffic. In reality if there was any meaningful auto traffic I would aim to land between the inbound/outbound traffic lanes, or on the breakdown lane, or even adjacent to the highway in a clear spot. It would NOT be an ideal situation. In any real traffic all bets are off.. I'd almost look for a patch of trees and just mush it into the tops. A Cirrus or Cessna's gear can take a beating, and you wouldn't be free falling from the 50' tree height anyway with branches and all that. I think that's more survivable
 
evapilotaz said:
Should I fly a plane with a Chute. What are pros and cons.
Click to expand...
Fine. I'll bite. It's another tool / resource you have. Flying over an urban area with no place to land and your engine quits. Pulling the chute is pretty much a guaranteed life save.. vs another potential fireball on the evening news. Plus, if your engine quits over LA you'll likely be on the news anyway, but at least with a chute save that would be a +1 for GA "cool honey that plane has a parachute, why don't they all have it?!" vs "oh my god, those small planes are so dangerous, I don't know why they don't just close Santa Monica already. Irresponsible"

For some people though the added maintenance is not worth that "I'll hopefully never use it" safety factor.. and I get that too.. flying is all compromises

What I don't get is the hatred some people have for it though, or the insinuation that a chute makes you a lesser pilot. Does having an airbag in a car make you a lesser driver?
 
Slackyhacky said:
If you ARE going to put down on a freeway, I know intuitively you would go with traffic, but perhaps it makes more sense to land against traffic? I assume drivers would have PLENTY of visual opportunity to see you coming and so can get out of the way - but approaching cars with traffic, few will see you until you are REALLY close to the ground.
Click to expand...

Let's put it this way, I've ridden with a couple of my coworkers driving 65mph trap speed. No way would I trust my life to them when they are presented with a 140mph closing speed.
 
Slackyhacky said:
Well I appreciate the feedback -

Another possible dumb question -
But...

If you ARE going to put down on a freeway, I know intuitively you would go with traffic, but perhaps it makes more sense to land against traffic? I assume drivers would have PLENTY of visual opportunity to see you coming and so can get out of the way - but approaching cars with traffic, few will see you until you are REALLY close to the ground.
Click to expand...

No matter which way you go, drivers are not looking for or expecting a plane to land on the road. Better to fly over traffic from behind and give them a chance to see the plane move. There are some videos from dash cams that show planes landing with the flow of traffic, and it seems a smooth transition for the cars. A head on auto/plane accident is going to be a bad one for both vehicles.

And there are no dumb questions..... but you will possibly get some smart a$$ answers..... :lol::lol:
 
FormerHangie said:
A couple of years ago, we had a pilot lose power shortly after takeoff from Peachtree Dekalb, who wound up trying to land on the interstate
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this accident was totally avoidable. Fuel contamination and ignoring an engine telling you something.....

"Several days before the accident flight, the commercial pilot told his mechanic and flight instructor that the airplane had not been climbing well. The pilot had completed an engine run-up and subsequent test flight, and found no anomalies with the airplane."

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: A partial loss of engine power due to contamination in the fuel manifold, which resulted in a collision with terrain shortly after takeoff"

Full Text
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20150508X11640&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA
 
Slackyhacky said:
Well I appreciate the feedback -

Another possible dumb question -
But...

If you ARE going to put down on a freeway, I know intuitively you would go with traffic, but perhaps it makes more sense to land against traffic? I assume drivers would have PLENTY of visual opportunity to see you coming and so can get out of the way - but approaching cars with traffic, few will see you until you are REALLY close to the ground.
Click to expand...
Not in the city
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef016767bc5003970b-pi&imgrefurl=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/ramp-jam.html&docid=1AOJ9eMV-n9FnM&tbnid=0cj-LeZ05TktqM:&vet=10ahUKEwiFl9LNkYrYAhVD42MKHX-5DisQMwiXAigGMAY..i&w=580&h=325&client=firefox-b-1&bih=760&biw=1600&q=freeway traffic&ved=0ahUKEwiFl9LNkYrYAhVD42MKHX-5DisQMwiXAigGMAY&iact=mrc&uact=8
 
Zeldman said:
I forgot to mention that when driving at night our vision has to go from dark to oncoming headlights back to dark. The dash lights can help with that adjustment by being turned up a little brighter than normal. Blue dash lights help with that wild transition.
Click to expand...

When approaching an oncoming car at night, I was taught to look at the lane line on the right of your car to preserve night vision.
 
Last edited:
Slackyhacky said:
Well I appreciate the feedback -

Another possible dumb question -
But...

If you ARE going to put down on a freeway, I know intuitively you would go with traffic, but perhaps it makes more sense to land against traffic? I assume drivers would have PLENTY of visual opportunity to see you coming and so can get out of the way - but approaching cars with traffic, few will see you until you are REALLY close to the ground.
Click to expand...

I would avoid a head on collision if possible.
 
And we are back to land with traffic or against. See I ain't the only one

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Davecat said:
Unfortunately, this accident was totally avoidable. Fuel contamination and ignoring an engine telling you something.....

"Several days before the accident flight, the commercial pilot told his mechanic and flight instructor that the airplane had not been climbing well. The pilot had completed an engine run-up and subsequent test flight, and found no anomalies with the airplane."

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: A partial loss of engine power due to contamination in the fuel manifold, which resulted in a collision with terrain shortly after takeoff"

Full Text
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20150508X11640&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA
Click to expand...

That's unfortunate and frustrating at the same time. It's not the first time a manifold has had debris clog up the lines. It doesn't necessarily mean that the fuel was contaminated, it could be particulates from the tank sealant or even rubber components in the manifold itself decomposing.

Be that as it may, not making RPM on a constant speed prop on a static run? And still doing multiple takeoffs in the subsequent days with varying degrees of power outcome? Talk about being absolutely dismissive to the big neon signs telling you to park the thing on the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top