170B hits skydiver's chute during touch-and-go at X49; everyone survives

I would have thought the very first instinct would be to defend a fellow pilot, or at least wait until all the facts were in, giving them the benefit of the doubt until then.

Just kinda surprises me to see the knee-jerk condemnation. Attack, really.

And, yes, it has a troll-like quality to it.
 
Calling dissenting opinions trolling is no substitute for an argument. And it clearly shows posters lack the character to accept anything other then ego soothing mutual appreciation.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Calling dissenting opinions trolling is no substitute for an argument.
Click to expand...

The arguments have been made.

One can simply read through this thread to find them.

I will continue to give fellow pilots the benefit of the doubt - others may choose not to.

And I can be quite vocal in my condemnation of other pilot's actions when it is warranted.

I just don't think that it is in this case - yet.
 
I think we need to gather some more facts before drawing a firm conclusion.

Until then, it APPEARS to me that all the pilot did was prevent the jumper from getting chewed up in the prop.
 
MBDiagMan said:
I think we need to gather some more facts before drawing a firm conclusion.

Until then, it APPEARS to me that all the pilot did was prevent the jumper from getting chewed up in the prop.
Click to expand...
Look at the pictures of the control surfaces the pilot took no evasive action, he didn't even flinch because he never saw the parachute until after the crash.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Look at the pictures of the control surfaces the pilot took no evasive action, he didn't even flinch because he never saw the parachute until after the crash.
Click to expand...

And yet he looks like he's in a pretty steep climb pre-impact. Not exactly standard, textbook attitude for a T&G at ten feet over the runway... :rolleyes:
 
ClimbnSink said:
Look at the pictures of the control surfaces the pilot took no evasive action, he didn't even flinch because he never saw the parachute until after the crash.
Click to expand...

Just how much deflection would you expect to see in a pull up situation on a modestly powered GA aircraft.

Even a hard pull up will only result in an inch or two of elevator movement.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Look at the pictures of the control surfaces the pilot took no evasive action, he didn't even flinch because he never saw the parachute until after the crash.
Click to expand...

The pictures show otherwise. You're simply WRONG.
 
tmyers said:
Just how much deflection would you expect to see in a pull up situation on a modestly powered GA aircraft.

Even a hard pull up will only result in an inch or two of elevator movement.
Click to expand...

The picture I see shows the elevator at about 3/4s of full up travel.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Look at the pictures of the control surfaces the pilot took no evasive action, he didn't even flinch because he never saw the parachute until after the crash.
Click to expand...

Yep lets make a hard turn to the left 5 ft off the ground in a 145hp 170 and stall or at minimum end up in the power lines! How about a hard right in the direction the diver is jumping and probably stall and end up in the hangars! Good training/instinct teaches just as when a bird pulls into view is pull up because the bird/diver will be diving. If you stall going straight your chances of getting out of that plane unharmed are a whole lot better than a stall at low speeds in a hard bank 5-10 feet off the ground.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    171.3 KB · Views: 24
Ruthless53 said:
Yep lets make a hard turn to the left 5 ft off the ground in a 145hp 170 and stall or at minimum end up in the power lines! How about a hard right in the direction the diver is jumping and probably stall and end up in the hangars! Good training/instinct teaches just as when a bird pulls into view is pull up because the bird/diver will be diving. If you stall going straight your chances of getting out of that plane unharmed are a whole lot better than a stall at low speeds in a hard bank 5-10 feet off the ground.
Click to expand...
Another old pilot incapable of turning, what a hero.:rolleyes2:
 
If one believes one's elevator is deflected as much as the one in the picture, one needs to take a go pro camera and mount it to their airplane and learn something.

I believe they will find they do not deflect the elevator this much on a normal flight. I have pics of my airplane flying at different speeds and my airplane never deflects the elevator as much as in the pic. That was some major deflection in that pic.

Tony
 
tmyers said:
Just how much deflection would you expect to see in a pull up situation on a modestly powered GA aircraft.

Even a hard pull up will only result in an inch or two of elevator movement.
Click to expand...

The Troll's comment is ridiculous.

Considering the 170 was in the process of LANDING, the significant increase in AoA and climb that we see in the video is indicative of pulling up to avoid the guy. Not something that a pilot would do if they didn't see the guy before the collision.
 
Ruthless53 said:
I'm 31 by the way and I am a hero......to my son at least. That pilot is a hero. He fought so you could get on the Internet and act like a douche bag!
Click to expand...
Being in a war 70 years ago absolves you of criticism for blind piloting?:lol:
 
There are many members here, it's always amusing when one out of hundreds sticks out, for all the wrong reasons.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Being in a war 70 years ago absolves you of criticism for blind piloting?:lol:
Click to expand...

Not at all but it should earn him a little respect instead of keyboard bashing him. Fact is he did more to save that jumpers life than 80% of pilots who would have frozen for a split second and reacted to late. Turning the plane as hard as needed at that low of altitude and speed would have more than likely resulted in a major crash. Turn the wrong way and you kill the jumper and yourself. Fact is both are alive with minor injuries and he should be congratulated but instead you act like an idiot and criticize him saying he should've done "this" instead when in fact "this" could've very well killed both of them or somebody else.
 
I'm thinking that at altitude that would be a pretty wild "stunt" for a movie.
 
Ruthless53 said:
Not at all but it should earn him a little respect instead of keyboard bashing him. Fact is he did more to save that jumpers life than 80% of pilots who would have frozen for a split second and reacted to late. Turning the plane as hard as needed at that low of altitude and speed would have more than likely resulted in a major crash. Turn the wrong way and you kill the jumper and yourself. Fact is both are alive with minor injuries and he should be congratulated but instead you act like an idiot and criticize him saying he should've done "this" instead when in fact "this" could've very well killed both of them or somebody else.
Click to expand...
Congratulated for running someone over:nono:
 
ClimbnSink said:
Congratulated for running someone over:nono:
Click to expand...

I'm wondering, if you knew that you were about to hit a biker, would you swerve you car as to not kill him? would you be a hero or a reckless driver?
 
Fearless Tower said:
The Troll's comment is ridiculous.

Considering the 170 was in the process of LANDING, the significant increase in AoA and climb that we see in the video is indicative of pulling up to avoid the guy. Not something that a pilot would do if they didn't see the guy before the collision.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Maybe he was looking for full elevator up plus the vectored thrust nozzle like on a 22!
 
jenkins said:
Really old pilots should not be allowed to fly. This old fella is clearly in the wrong. I hope the outcome is one more old incompetent pilot off the circuit and a full recovery otherwise.
Click to expand...
really young pilots much more dangerous (<25 year old) , I know, i fly with them both as a flight instructor in gliders and airplanes, should we ground young pilots too?

the old fella clearly wrong? so sky divers can land anywhere they want? how about JFK? and if a 747 hits them the 747's fault?
 
mphawk said:
really young pilots much more dangerous (<25 year old) , I know, i fly with them both as a flight instructor in gliders and airplanes, should we ground young pilots too?

the old fella clearly wrong? so sky divers can land anywhere they want? how about JFK? and if a 747 hits them the 747's fault?
Click to expand...
sky divers have landing zones, i doubt that be the end of an active runway.
 
mphawk said:
sky divers have landing zones, i doubt that be the end of an active runway.
Click to expand...

Wow you brought this thread back from the grave!

But stuff happens, bad spot, winds change, student skydiver screws up, etc
 
Or post spam links into the regular forum....

However since he seems to have latched on to skydiving posts, I suspect he searched for that term and decided to put his belated two cents in on that for whatever reason.
 
mphawk said:
sky divers have landing zones, i doubt that be the end of an active runway.
Click to expand...

08A used to a jump zone that was adjacent to short final for runway 27. Numerous instances with students on final and all of a sudden a jumper appears in the upper part of the windscreen on his 'approach' to the landing zone. Definite hazard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top