Cessna 172 down
- Thread starter frfly172
- Start date
FlySince9
En-Route
eman1200
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,835
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Display Name
Display name:
Bro do you even lift
so tragic
Mooney Fan
Line Up and Wait
News this morning said plane was on fiery from a field 20 miles away. Plane has been active in Flightaware
Weird though the flight times
Activity Log
PAST FLIGHTS
Date
Departure
Arrival
Aircraft
Duration
Friday
22-Feb-2019
First seen at 02:46PM ESTnear Pawtucket, RI
03:01PM ESTNorwood Memorial - OWD
-
0h 15m
Thursday
14-Feb-2019
First seen at 04:47PM ESTnear Taunton, MA
Last seen at 05:04PM ESTnear Boston, MA
-
0h 16m
Thursday
14-Feb-2019
First seen at 03:01PM ESTnear Providence, RI
Last seen at 03:08PM ESTnear Pawtucket, RI
-
0h 07m
Tuesday
05-Feb-2019
11:10AM ESTT. F. Green International - PVD
11:33AM ESTMarshfield Muni - GHG
-
0h 23m
Sunday
03-Feb-2019
09:10AM ESTT. F. Green International - PVD
09:54AM ESTT. F. Green International - PVD
-
0h 44m
Saturday
02-Feb-2019
First seen at 09:45AM ESTnear Providence, RI
10:22AM ESTT. F. Green International - PVD
-
0h 37m
Friday
01-Feb-2019
First seen at 06:24PM ESTnear Pawtucket, RI
06:31PM EST (?)T. F. Green International - PVD
-
0h 08m
View more flight historyPurchase entire flight history for N224TA
first seen nearPAWTUCKET, RI
PVDPROVIDENCE, RI
FRIDAY 01-FEB-201906:24PM EST
FRIDAY 01-FEB-201906:31PM ESTestimated arrival time
8m total travel time
Get Notifications
This flight is restricted from public view.
FLIGHT TIMES
Takeoff
06:24PM EST
Scheduled --
Landing
06:31PM EST
Scheduled --
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
Tail Number
N224TA · Registration
Owner
NEW HORIZON AVIATION INC
Aircraft Type
FLIGHT DATA
Speed
—
Altitude
—
Distance
Actual: 21 mi
Route
—
Report inaccuracies on this page
Weird though the flight times
Activity Log
PAST FLIGHTS
Date
Departure
Arrival
Aircraft
Duration
Friday
22-Feb-2019
First seen at 02:46PM ESTnear Pawtucket, RI
03:01PM ESTNorwood Memorial - OWD
-
0h 15m
Thursday
14-Feb-2019
First seen at 04:47PM ESTnear Taunton, MA
Last seen at 05:04PM ESTnear Boston, MA
-
0h 16m
Thursday
14-Feb-2019
First seen at 03:01PM ESTnear Providence, RI
Last seen at 03:08PM ESTnear Pawtucket, RI
-
0h 07m
Tuesday
05-Feb-2019
11:10AM ESTT. F. Green International - PVD
11:33AM ESTMarshfield Muni - GHG
-
0h 23m
Sunday
03-Feb-2019
09:10AM ESTT. F. Green International - PVD
09:54AM ESTT. F. Green International - PVD
-
0h 44m
Saturday
02-Feb-2019
First seen at 09:45AM ESTnear Providence, RI
10:22AM ESTT. F. Green International - PVD
-
0h 37m
Friday
01-Feb-2019
First seen at 06:24PM ESTnear Pawtucket, RI
06:31PM EST (?)T. F. Green International - PVD
-
0h 08m
View more flight historyPurchase entire flight history for N224TA
first seen nearPAWTUCKET, RI
PVDPROVIDENCE, RI
FRIDAY 01-FEB-201906:24PM EST
FRIDAY 01-FEB-201906:31PM ESTestimated arrival time
8m total travel time
Get Notifications
This flight is restricted from public view.
FLIGHT TIMES
Takeoff
06:24PM EST
Scheduled --
Landing
06:31PM EST
Scheduled --
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
Tail Number
N224TA · Registration
Owner
NEW HORIZON AVIATION INC
Aircraft Type
FLIGHT DATA
Speed
—
Altitude
—
Distance
Actual: 21 mi
Route
—
Report inaccuracies on this page
Peter Anderson
Pre-takeoff checklist
Impact was almost straight down. How terrible. RIP
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Probably just when it pinged a tower or hobby ADSB receiver.
tawood
En-Route
I've seen those type/length of flights on myself when I just briefly popping through D/C/B airspace, then immediately cancelling flight following or immediately landing.
Mooney Fan
Line Up and Wait
Makes sense, but a flight school has not met the ADS-B mandate yet would give me concern. Unless I'm in discreet mode, there is no hiding from the machine
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,048
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
Below is a link to a story that gives some background information about the CFI. He was originally from Uganda, and came to the US on a student visa several years ago. Sydney Miti was 32 years old, married, and had a 2 year old son.
RIP, Sydney.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...or-teaching/TG2lZHiuuA5NmuX82rn2vI/story.html
RIP, Sydney.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...or-teaching/TG2lZHiuuA5NmuX82rn2vI/story.html
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,227
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Very sad. Terrible for the 2 yr old and the mother. Sucks
I know real pilots don't need them.. but after the twinbee crash in Florida that killed people on the ground, and this 172 crash, plus a host of others recently, I'm becoming a bigger and bigger believer that chutes on planes, maybe even especially trainers, aren't such a terrible idea. It won't save every life, but if even 1 in 10 people who spun it, lost orientation, had a power failure, etc., were saved by it then that in my mind makes it worth it
[flame suit donned]
I know real pilots don't need them.. but after the twinbee crash in Florida that killed people on the ground, and this 172 crash, plus a host of others recently, I'm becoming a bigger and bigger believer that chutes on planes, maybe even especially trainers, aren't such a terrible idea. It won't save every life, but if even 1 in 10 people who spun it, lost orientation, had a power failure, etc., were saved by it then that in my mind makes it worth it
[flame suit donned]
RyanShort1
Final Approach
There are some places ANY pilot is going to have a hard time landing in. If a 'chute was available for my plane and I could afford it, I'd put one in.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,494
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
The recent Twin Bee crash killed only the instructor, I believe.
This incident is indeed tragic and words don't do justice to the family's loss.
I don't intend to hijack this thread, however thinking about parachutes on planes and the idea around not wanting them for bravado made me think about the controversy of (not) issuing parachutes to WW1 aviators. The pilots knew the risks of staying, and parachuting from, the aircraft, yet lobbied the government repeatedly to have parachutes issued. Today, I'd like to think the real limitations in GA are economic - and that affordable, reliable chassis chutes would quickly overcome cultural misgivings. I wonder if insurance companies would incentivize chute applications.
idahoflier
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,609
- Display Name
Display name:
idahoflier
You shouldn't have to put on a flame suit for this opinion. I have been considering getting a parachute installed on my aircraft due to the type of flying I do. It is expensive, but less than getting a GTN650 or equivalent navigator installed. I would certainly not think any lesser of anyone that has a parachute installed on their aircraft...
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,227
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Wow.. I did not know about that. Learn something new here every day
Fact of the matter is, that chutes do save lives.. here are just a few from the COPA page.. a ton of them are loss of engine power, I picked out ones that were other than the loss of engine power.. notice at least one of these was activated by a passenger. I included the last one since it was well outside the chute's design capabilities and it still saved 3 lives from a low altitude stall/spin.
Anyway. Sorry for the thread hijack.. but these losses are sad, and don't do any favors for the non flying public's perception of GA safety
Full disclosure, up until maybe 5 years ago I didn't believe in chutes either. But at this point, I'll gladly give up the useful load for it.
I think a basic wing leveler might be a higher priority item than a chute. Not ragging on the chutes, or those who like them, though I think the "save" claims are grossly inflated; but they are heavy, and costly to install and maintain. That said, if I built a home-built, I might consider one.
It's like the GA embrace of ADS-B for traffic awareness - overblown, in my take - GA mid-airs are very rare, especially in cruise. There are other benes of course, but the traffic benefit isn't significant. If my choice was an AP or a chute, I'd go with the AP.
It's like the GA embrace of ADS-B for traffic awareness - overblown, in my take - GA mid-airs are very rare, especially in cruise. There are other benes of course, but the traffic benefit isn't significant. If my choice was an AP or a chute, I'd go with the AP.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,227
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
This is the part that really hurts to read
"I can't imagine what could have gone wrong," said his wife, Dorween Nyaketcho. "He told me, 'Hon, today is going to be a good day. The weather might change later on, but the morning's going to be fine.'"
..talk about ****ty and tragic
-all things considered that's not that heavy or crazy expensive (compared to the GTN 650, G5, GFC500 installations many people are doing). If a 172 has a useful load of 1,000 lbs and has 42 gallon tanks, you'll still be able to get 669 lbs worth of people in there with full tanks, or 4 healthy adults, or 3 portly adults. I'd never require this kind of thing though.. let the free market speak for itself.. people who want it can buy an aftermarket BRS or a plane with one, and people who don't have a huge market of planes, both new and used, to pick from
"I can't imagine what could have gone wrong," said his wife, Dorween Nyaketcho. "He told me, 'Hon, today is going to be a good day. The weather might change later on, but the morning's going to be fine.'"
..talk about ****ty and tragic
Curious on this one.. which claims are inflated? Pulling the chute automatically totals the plane and isn't a pleasant ride.. so I don't believe anyone is pulling their chutes unless they feel they need to. Of the situations I quoted above, these all seem like legit reasons.
The kit for a 172, per the website, is $15,500 and weighs 79 lbs for a 172..
-all things considered that's not that heavy or crazy expensive (compared to the GTN 650, G5, GFC500 installations many people are doing). If a 172 has a useful load of 1,000 lbs and has 42 gallon tanks, you'll still be able to get 669 lbs worth of people in there with full tanks, or 4 healthy adults, or 3 portly adults. I'd never require this kind of thing though.. let the free market speak for itself.. people who want it can buy an aftermarket BRS or a plane with one, and people who don't have a huge market of planes, both new and used, to pick from
My take is every pull isn't a "save", in terms of lives saved. Absent a chute, my intuition is there would have been some fraction that ended in a successful forced landing, as in, they might not be able to use the plane again, but the occupants remain on this side of the great divide. I won't get into the philosophy of whether some of the IMC incidents would have happened without the chute being in the back of the pilot's mind. . .and you could make the same argument for having an AP on board, imparting a sense of "security"
If it's a either/or, $15,500 and 79 pounds, versus the avionics upgrade, then the avionics win, to my mind.
If it's a either/or, $15,500 and 79 pounds, versus the avionics upgrade, then the avionics win, to my mind.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Funny but I’d strongly prefer a ‘chute over an AP / Wing leveler. With over 5K ASEL time I don’t feel like a basic wing leveler is all that big of a deal in any of the major risk areas that would make a ‘chute helpful.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
Not wing leveler, you’d want envelope protection. Chute can’t save you if say you stall spin on base to final turn...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Stingray Don
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
- Location
- Indianapolis, Indiana
- Display Name
Display name:
Stingray Don
Keep in mind that most 172s don’t have 1,000 lbs of useful load. Most are not 4 person aircraft as it is. My 172n has a little over 1,000 lbs useful load but that’s with a 180 conversion and 250 lb gross weight increase.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
^ This, the Cirrus perspective envelope protection is impressive, a bacon saver IMO. That said, if you fly with a system like this and hear it annunciating regularly, you need some remedial training. Don't get slow in the pattern.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
I don't know of ANY system that would really protect you from a base to final spin.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
True envelope protection would not allow it to happen in the first place.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RyanShort1
Final Approach
And some flying applications will require an override mode.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's how the perspective system works, you want to stall the plane, you have to physically fight the stick, which can be done, or you hold the AP disconnect button which stops the system, or you disarm the system. It's not idiot proof, but it will save a distracted pilot's bacon if he lets it get to that point. It's amazing stuff.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
Very few if implemented well. We’ve already have CWS buttons...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
idahoflier
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,609
- Display Name
Display name:
idahoflier
Agree. For my applications, flying over mountains, a parachute would definitely be more valuable than an AP.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Most of the time a competent pilot would hope to avoid stall spin stuff, but an engine out at the wrong time or an inhospitable bit of terrain or an major systems failure would make that chute more attractive by a long shot. I tend to think that the chute *flame suit on* is better as a backup to better pilot skills whereas the autopilot tends to degrade pilot skills...
That's cool, each to his own. in the quoted deployments above, it looks like losing control in IMC was a very common denominator. As in, push the "level" button, versus "pull the handle".
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,227
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I had picked those out since the majority of others were engine failure or power loss.. and the last time this came up there was several people who had said that you don't need a parachute during engine out since a competent pilot can glide down and make it out in one piece..
at the end of the day, a competent pilot in a mechanically perfect airplane doesn't need an autopilot or parachute, but as we know things do go wrong sometimes and it's nice to have the chute. They add weight and complexity to fighter jets, lifeboats and life jackets add weight and complexity to ships, but they become extremely valuable assets when things go south
I've never actually met someone who survived a crash or relatives of a deceased person from a crash who were thankful that a parachute was not on board
RyanShort1
Final Approach
There ARE failure modes with autopilots, some of them pretty bad.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,494
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
They are not mutually exclusive, so get both.
idahoflier
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,609
- Display Name
Display name:
idahoflier
They are when you can only afford one or the other... ;-)
cowman
Final Approach
Any speculation on what could have gone wrong?
On the subject of a chute, I'd say the main problem is that most of the types of airplanes that us mere mortals fly are older models that were never designed for a chute and probably don't have a particularly good solution for being retrofitted with one. I think the 172/182 are the only common ones you can do anything with.
On the subject of a chute, I'd say the main problem is that most of the types of airplanes that us mere mortals fly are older models that were never designed for a chute and probably don't have a particularly good solution for being retrofitted with one. I think the 172/182 are the only common ones you can do anything with.
Katamarino
Pattern Altitude
Why? There's 10 months to go. Half of my club aircraft haven't met it but have a perfectly solid plan to meet it before the deadline.
Probably not. Most GA policies have pretty low seat limits. Regardless of fault of their insured, their exposure is capped. So, insurance companies aren't really going to be driving that economic incentive.
I don't think anyone can reasonable doubt that having a parachute is better, all things being equal. The problem is that all things aren't equal. There is a large cost in terms of money, and possible weight (and therefore performance). If we knew which planes would need a chute before hand, then fine. But we don't. So, we pilot owners look at the equation from the stand point of costs vs. percentage change of loss x cost of the loss. It becomes really easy for us to think it won't happen to us, (and most would be correct) so the purchase price and upkeep isn't worth it.
I fly over freezing shark infested acid lakes of fire. The chute seems like a bad idea to me.
idahoflier
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,609
- Display Name
Display name:
idahoflier
Glad I don't fly where you do. All jokes aside, in the last 10 years there were 44 fatal airplane accidents ID. In the majority of those the NTSB report includes the words "mountainous terrain" so it's considered noteworthy. We will of course never know what the outcome of those accidents would have been had a parachute been installed, but in reviewing them it would appear 73% would have been survivable.
I personally knew two individuals who were killed in two separate accidents and there is no doubt in my mind that they, along with the other three people that died in those accidents, would be here today had they had a parachute available.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle