CFI and student die in crash SMO

exncsurfer said:
I'm thinking to go vertical like that, the cfi might have pushed in the power for a go around hoping they'd let go. IDK if there was witness statement as to whether they heard the engine rpm's come up or not. I wonder, if they did add power, if the outcome would have been any better without it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the CFI added power for go-around, but adding power would've aggravated it for sure. Would have made it much easier to pitch up, and harder to push the nose down, with nowhere near enough horsepower to maintain the resultant climb.

I'm guessing it went along the lines of student starting to bork the approach, CFI adding power for go-around, student freezing with a deathgrip on aft stick(probably more-so with the sudden added thrust and rising nose), CFI fighting for the controls as the nose shoots way up, then the rest of the bad things happened
 
A disturbing thing about the audio, is that you hear some sort of moaning. Total speculation I know, but what if the student had a seizure induced by stress, and ended up grabbing the stick full aft during the seizure?, that plus the full power on go around would make it go full vertical and left.
 
Feh said:
A disturbing thing about the audio, is that you hear some sort of moaning. Total speculation I know, but what if the student had a seizure induced by stress, and ended up grabbing the stick full aft during the seizure?, that plus the full power on go around would make it go full vertical and left.
Click to expand...
why does everybody go from hearing moaning to thinking somebody had a seizure? they were in an out of control airplane with the mic keyed. it's the least surprising detail to me
 
Had freeze ups happen a couple of times. Only once in the landing phase. Had to overpower the guy but luckily he didn’t pull the nose up or anything.

Hadn’t thought much about it until this thread. Another reminder of why I don’t want to instruct longer than I have too, at least outside of those I want to instruct.
 
GaryM said:
That's certainly a real issue, but I think it usually manifests under acceleration, during take-off. I wouldn't expect it during deceleration for landing.
Click to expand...
I can from first hand experience tell you that this IS most definitely a potential issue.
Happened to me flying solo not long after I upgraded to the school's 172 from the 152 after my PPL checkride. The front two legs of the seat were out/on top of the track, and the seat tipped back when tried to flare. I've enjoyed the past 31 years thanks only to quick enough reflexes with my left hand to grab the top edge of the glare shield and a glare shield just barely strong enough to hold me.

Oddly enough, it was a night rental checkout for me and it was the seventh landing on that flight. Some were with an instructor, but I was solo when it happened. I want to say I had done a few circuits solo before it happened.

I have always slid the seat all the way to the forward stops, then back two notches for my happy spot. It could have been off track I suppose before I ever picked up the keys from the school, but I think what probably happened was the seat stops were not correct and I went forward enough for the legs to come off track, and when I went back two they were somehow sitting on top of the tracks. I suppose something must have just barely holding it those first 6 landings. I can't fully understand it....

Anyway, the seat has been a firm check habit item for me ever since.
 
Even in my Archer, I always put one hand on rhe glare shield at takeoff rotation. I figure it will save me more than the throttle quadrant for those few seconds until I trust the seat. Not much good from pulling the throttle back at that moment can be accomplished. The old mill better work or ive got bigger problems.
 
Feh said:
A disturbing thing about the audio, is that you hear some sort of moaning. Total speculation I know, but what if the student had a seizure induced by stress, and ended up grabbing the stick full aft during the seizure?, that plus the full power on go around would make it go full vertical and left.
Click to expand...
Sounded more like a couple of low grunts than moaning, not that it matters.
 
Prelim released: https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/105890/pdf

"A security video camera located on the southeast side of the airport, adjacent to the runway 21 threshold, and facing north, captured the final landing approach segment. The video showed the airplane descending over the runway threshold markings at an altitude of about 25 ft above ground level (agl) and then passing to the left and out of the cameras field of view. A second camera, similarly positioned, but facing northwest captured the other end of the runway threshold markings. As the airplane came into view, the main landing gear was already on the ground, and the airplane then began to climb in a slightly nose-up attitude. Over the next three seconds, the airplane pitched up to an almost vertical attitude and climbed out of the cameras field of view. The shadow of the airplane on the runway surface indicated that it continued to climb for another two seconds, before descending and striking the ground about 5 seconds later."
 
Thanks for posting that. To me, the significant part of that report is this:

"The pilot responded that it was to be a full-stop landing, and a few seconds later, the audio captured the
instructor screaming, “let go, let go....... let go, let go, let go”."

That's just horrible.
 
Albany Tom said:
Thanks for posting that. To me, the significant part of that report is this:

"The pilot responded that it was to be a full-stop landing, and a few seconds later, the audio captured the
instructor screaming, “let go, let go....... let go, let go, let go”."

That's just horrible.
Click to expand...

Other than that, “mains already on the ground” is what got me. Wtf?
 
Other than that, “mains already on the ground” is what got me. Wtf?
Click to expand...

Me too. According to the report, one witness reported a hard landing. If so, and my pure speculative guess, it could be that the mains hit hard (what the camera may have captured) and the CFI may have initiated a go-around. Sadly it sounds like the student grabbed the stick and pulled back to the stop and refused to let go. Terrible accident.
 
rtk11 said:
Me too. According to the report, one witness reported a hard landing. If so, and my pure speculative guess, it could be that the mains hit hard (what the camera may have captured) and the CFI may have initiated a go-around. Sadly it sounds like the student grabbed the stick and pulled back to the stop and refused to let go. Terrible accident.
Click to expand...
i just really doubt that they landed hard under the instructor's action...to me I think what's most likely is for some reason the student tried taking over on/near touchdown and after the touchdown and then lifting off again, instructor went full power just to try and save it but the student doesn't let go

why somebody would do that is quite a mystery
 
Student *incorrect/inappropriate reaction to stress is not a mystery... it's a given. An occupational hazard. So much so we even have a *term for it for documentation purposes, at least on team DoD side. We lose more people to training accidents than combat losses in the USAF. Even in WWII, training losses nipped at the heels of combat losses.

Flight training has always been derided as unskilled scutwork befitting of the untalented and deserving of low pay (only exception I could find to that pay disparity was the military, which is why I stayed). But nothing could be further from the truth. I do like to retort with that little present-day statistic above, when my combat-coded brethren get a little too uppity about their self-worth while in mixed company.
 
I believe that most pilots would agree that the correct action to take to recover from a stall is not intuitive or instinctive. It has to be learned. So we send up students and instructors, where one of them has a demonstrated skill set, and the other doesn't, and we leave it to which one is physically stronger to determine the outcome of a bad situation. To make if worse, the panicked student likely may be all wound up on adrenaline, which doesn't help the instructor at all. The FAA and others have spend billions, collectively, on safety improvements, most recently with all sorts of electronic/computer tech, but we're still using the same mechanical coupling for student and instructor that was being used 100 years ago.

I know that we aren't losing hundreds of people a day in instruction, as we are with automobile accidents, but it still seems silly to me that there's not a solution to this.

In the RC world, with the radios I used to fly with, there was a lever on the left that you could use to give the student the ability to control the aircraft. To take over, the instructor just lets go of that lever, and control belongs to the instructor. All of this to keep a student from flying the model plane into a bystander, or stall and crash it. And yes, way, way simpler in a system that is already all electric and doesn't have to be certified at all. How many full sized training accidents a year would have been recoverable if the instructor had an ability to absolutely override the student? This thread's accident is one of them, pretty clearly, in my opinion.

Until then, we just say "Yep, statistically these flight will be fine. As long as your son/daughter doesn't panic and kill them both, everything will be fine. And that's pretty rare. Only happens a couple of times a year. Not really worth fixing. Way bigger problems in the world to worry about than saving only X lives a year. Plus, it would be hard to do."

Ok, I'm rambling/ranting again. Soapbox down.
 
Albany Tom said:
I believe that most pilots would agree that the correct action to take to recover from a stall is not intuitive or instinctive. It has to be learned. So we send up students and instructors, where one of them has a demonstrated skill set, and the other doesn't, and we leave it to which one is physically stronger to determine the outcome of a bad situation. To make if worse, the panicked student likely may be all wound up on adrenaline, which doesn't help the instructor at all. The FAA and others have spend billions, collectively, on safety improvements, most recently with all sorts of electronic/computer tech, but we're still using the same mechanical coupling for student and instructor that was being used 100 years ago.

I know that we aren't losing hundreds of people a day in instruction, as we are with automobile accidents, but it still seems silly to me that there's not a solution to this.

In the RC world, with the radios I used to fly with, there was a lever on the left that you could use to give the student the ability to control the aircraft. To take over, the instructor just lets go of that lever, and control belongs to the instructor. All of this to keep a student from flying the model plane into a bystander, or stall and crash it. And yes, way, way simpler in a system that is already all electric and doesn't have to be certified at all. How many full sized training accidents a year would have been recoverable if the instructor had an ability to absolutely override the student? This thread's accident is one of them, pretty clearly, in my opinion.

Until then, we just say "Yep, statistically these flight will be fine. As long as your son/daughter doesn't panic and kill them both, everything will be fine. And that's pretty rare. Only happens a couple of times a year. Not really worth fixing. Way bigger problems in the world to worry about than saving only X lives a year. Plus, it would be hard to do."

Ok, I'm rambling/ranting again. Soapbox down.
Click to expand...
in my opinion, any mechanism like you're describing is going to be way more likely to cause a crash because of an accidental activation. you're flying along turning base to final and for some reason it turns on and your stick/yoke no longer works
 
readytocopy995 said:
in my opinion, any mechanism like you're describing is going to be way more likely to cause a crash because of an accidental activation. you're flying along turning base to final and for some reason it turns on and your stick/yoke no longer works
Click to expand...

That's a valid concern. It might even be that the system would have to be removed for anything other than primary training, and that might make it non-economical for some fleets. But I think it's worth investigation. The argument that the safety system would make overall operation more dangerous was made for anti-lock brakes, laminated windshields, and for some is still relevant for airbags in cars...and if those systems aren't designed properly they can make operation more, not less dangerous.

If it were just rotational, I'd lean toward something like an electric drill clutch. But that wouldn't even work for roll, because you'd lose alignment with center of the yoke. So the next thought was a break away of some sort, but as you point out, that's a one shot that couldn't be used for single pilot operation. If the controls were a stick, maybe just a really stiff coil spring. That wouldn't bend under any normal control through, but that could be overridden by the instructor in an emergency. For a yoke, for pulling, maybe a slip system, like the crash-telescoping system in a car, but held in place with a strong rare-earth magnet. Wouldn't be easy, but might be possible.

I'm sure the above might sound silly, but I still believe a mechanical override is a better plan than yelling, or trying to hit the student with a flashlight or a fist.
 
Albany Tom said:
I'm sure the above might sound silly, but I still believe a mechanical override is a better plan than yelling, or trying to hit the student with a flashlight or a fist.
Click to expand...

For a stick or a yoke all you would need is a solenoid that could be activated to detach the students control by disengaging a lock pin type set-up. I'm not suggesting at all that this is a good idea but I do appreciate the fact that you are at least looking for a solution ... :)
 
Albany Tom said:
That's a valid concern. It might even be that the system would have to be removed for anything other than primary training, and that might make it non-economical for some fleets. But I think it's worth investigation. The argument that the safety system would make overall operation more dangerous was made for anti-lock brakes, laminated windshields, and for some is still relevant for airbags in cars...and if those systems aren't designed properly they can make operation more, not less dangerous.

If it were just rotational, I'd lean toward something like an electric drill clutch. But that wouldn't even work for roll, because you'd lose alignment with center of the yoke. So the next thought was a break away of some sort, but as you point out, that's a one shot that couldn't be used for single pilot operation. If the controls were a stick, maybe just a really stiff coil spring. That wouldn't bend under any normal control through, but that could be overridden by the instructor in an emergency. For a yoke, for pulling, maybe a slip system, like the crash-telescoping system in a car, but held in place with a strong rare-earth magnet. Wouldn't be easy, but might be possible.

I'm sure the above might sound silly, but I still believe a mechanical override is a better plan than yelling, or trying to hit the student with a flashlight or a fist.
Click to expand...
i don't think this sort of problem happens enough to where there is a solution. if you're driving a car, you shouldn't reach over and grab the steering wheel from the driver. it's that simple. "my controls" needs to result in letting go. it's that easy
 
readytocopy995 said:
i don't think this sort of problem happens enough to where there is a solution. if you're driving a car, you shouldn't reach over and grab the steering wheel from the driver. it's that simple. "my controls" needs to result in letting go. it's that easy
Click to expand...

Well, for high performance (track) driving instructors, we are taught how to do that. And I have had to do that.

But what else are you going to do, no dual controls.
 
This situation may not be that common, but it sure is not rare. It never happened to me, but it happened to my Dad when he instructed for the Navy, and it happened to fried in a Tomahawk.

For my Dad, it was in an SNJ (Navy T-6) and the student froze on the controls in a spin. He was able to smack the student in the head to get him to release.

For my friend, a female primary student, a number of hours into learning, on the way out to the practice area jammed the yoke full forward and locked her arms. By the time he could chop down on her elbow joint with his forearm to unlock them, they were past vertical. Luckily, I had given him some aerobatic instruction, so he knew to roll, then pull rather than pulling back through the vertical. He estimates they pulled out at less than 100 feet AGL.
 
As long as we have mechanical linkages between the two control stations and the flight controls, I don't think we'll have effective overrides. Such overrides would also be mechanical and subject to failure, jamming, etc.

The next generation of fly-by-wire flight controls in light aircraft will most definitely have overrides, as well as many other safeguards to prevent these types of accidents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Feh
Pinecone said:
Well, for high performance (track) driving instructors, we are taught how to do that. And I have had to do that.

But what else are you going to do, no dual controls.
Click to expand...
i'm saying you have to go into driving a car or being a passenger/student in an airplane understanding that you cannot just yank the wheel or controls when you are told or expected not to do so

no amount of safeguards is going to stop a person not listening to you telling them to stop
 
That is true.

At least in most cars on the track, as the instructor I can grab the handbrake. :D
 
readytocopy995 said:
...

no amount of safeguards is going to stop a person not listening to you telling them to stop
Click to expand...

Yep, a verbal instruction clearly doesn't work all the time, which is why I'm proposing a mechanical or electro-mechanical solution.

If it were in the late 60's/early 70's, and NASA was trying to fix this, they'd probably use explosive bolts. Instructor hits the special protected button and 40 milliseconds or whatever later "boom", the student doesn't have a control wheel that's connected to the aircraft anymore. Very possible. Probably even fun. But noisy, expensive, and it would be a one-shot.

Those systems can be made to be reliable, though. From quick research, the Apollo rockets had more than 200 pyrotechnic devices on them, and they never had a failure. Something like .9999 reliability projected from the testing they did.

For disconnecting a student, there should be simpler, less expensive solutions though.

Will a solution happen? Probably not. Just a couple of lives a year, so nobody cares but their families. So meanwhile, if you're instructor and your student is going to take you down, key the mike like this fellow did, so maybe we can add that accident to the tally. No sarcasm intended on this one.
 
Albany Tom said:
Yep, a verbal instruction clearly doesn't work all the time, which is why I'm proposing a mechanical or electro-mechanical solution.

If it were in the late 60's/early 70's, and NASA was trying to fix this, they'd probably use explosive bolts. Instructor hits the special protected button and 40 milliseconds or whatever later "boom", the student doesn't have a control wheel that's connected to the aircraft anymore. Very possible. Probably even fun. But noisy, expensive, and it would be a one-shot.

Those systems can be made to be reliable, though. From quick research, the Apollo rockets had more than 200 pyrotechnic devices on them, and they never had a failure. Something like .9999 reliability projected from the testing they did.

For disconnecting a student, there should be simpler, less expensive solutions though.

Will a solution happen? Probably not. Just a couple of lives a year, so nobody cares but their families. So meanwhile, if you're instructor and your student is going to take you down, key the mike like this fellow did, so maybe we can add that accident to the tally. No sarcasm intended on this one.
Click to expand...

So the student reaches over and grabs the other stick. Or the passenger disconnects the pilot's stick. Or any number of other likewise permutations, rendering such a hypothetical safety device pointless. The solution is don't touch stuff you're not supposed to touch. Most of us learn this before age 5.
 
dmspilot said:
So the student reaches over and grabs the other stick. Or the passenger disconnects the pilot's stick. Or any number of other likewise permutations, rendering such a hypothetical safety device pointless. The solution is don't touch stuff you're not supposed to touch. Most of us learn this before age 5.
Click to expand...

You have obviously not spent time around younger folks. They do not seem to have learned this.

You could put in a key interlock, so it is only active when the PIC is in the right seat.

Yes, they could still reach over to grab your controls, but I suspect, they will spend some time screwing with the controls in their hands before they realize they have been disconnected.

The biggest impediment is FAA approval.
 
Pinecone said:
The biggest impediment is FAA approval.
Click to expand...
The biggest impediment is mitigating all of the new potentially catastrophic failure modes such a system would introduce, all to prevent what is already an unlikely occurrence.

Nauga,
who would just teach his singing raccoon to bite
 
Maybe just wire a taser to the students seat with the switch on the instructor's side. Wired into the 24 volt system, and using a fair transformer, the jolt would likely toss the student into the rear seat of a C-172 so weight & balance might be an issue ... :D
 
nauga said:
The biggest impediment is mitigating all of the new potentially catastrophic failure modes such a system would introduce, all to prevent what is already an unlikely occurrence.

Nauga,
who would just teach his singing raccoon to bite
Click to expand...

Based on what? It is not NRSB reportable. Unless you were there, you don't know it happened. And if it leads to a crash, it may not be figured out.
 
Pinecone said:
Based on what? It is not NRSB reportable. Unless you were there, you don't know it happened. And if it leads to a crash, it may not be figured out.
Click to expand...
See, that's what the singing raccoon is for. I'm all but certain some of these 'no cause determined' accidents could have been prevented by a singing raccoon, so I think everyone should carry one...just in case, y'know. Teaching him to bite more than doubles the effectiveness if you think a large percentage of these (probably not the single-occupant incidents, presumably) are due to a passenger overreacting. Win-win.

Nauga,
and the masked singer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top