Michigan recruit in second plane crash

Dad wasn't doing too well as a pilot. Interesting how a 13 year old can get committed to a college on a sports program.

He's not 13 years old, he's in the class of '13. 2013. :wink2:
 
yeah he is 16
6 '6
 
Last edited:
The cabin looks remarkably intact for the death and serious injury. I guess the engine and mount could have been pushed into the cabin. Good thing there was no fire, at least the kid has a fighting chance now.
 
More proof that just because you love something doesn't mean you should be doing it.

Amen to that! I still have yet to see if I can do it again, and then decide if I should be!

BTW, if I'm in a second crash, you won't be able to get me off the ground even if you put a bomb under my butt! :yikes:
 
More proof that just because you love something doesn't mean you should be doing it.

Well we do not know if the second one was his fault. A little early and harsh to jump to that conclusion don't ya think. He was in mid flight at altitude so looks like a engine failure. Who knows at this point.
 
The first accident was blamed on 'running out of fuel' yet the 6 gallons of unusable fuel were supposedly enough to burn the plane to a crisp :confused: . Looking at the report, they managed to proove that there was no fuel in the engine at the time of impact, I dont think they did that great of a job prooving that there was no fuel in the tanks.
 
Well we do not know if the second one was his fault. A little early and harsh to jump to that conclusion don't ya think. He was in mid flight at altitude so looks like a engine failure. Who knows at this point.

True, but then again, the most common cause of engine failure is empty fuel tanks. We'll see what the NTSB has to say.
 
The first accident was blamed on 'running out of fuel' yet the 6 gallons of unusable fuel were supposedly enough to burn the plane to a crisp :confused: . Looking at the report, they managed to proove that there was no fuel in the engine at the time of impact, I dont think they did that great of a job proving that there was no fuel in the tanks.

6 Gallons of 100LL is a s--tload of fire. I once poured 5 gallons of gasoline on a big pile of wood that was formerly a barn by dumping it on the middle. I stood at the edge of the pile with my lighter and lit it. I ran a good 6 strides through the flame as it spread out. Luckily it was winter and I was fully covered and insulated and it was just one of those "DUDE! You just ran out of the middle of a fire!" moments that called for another shot of Jack. That pile of wood was fully involved when the gasoline burned off. 6 gallons of gas is a bunch of energy. In that plane it can take you 75 miles at 170mph.... Burning 6 gallons of gasoline will destroy an airplane and kill people in it without a problem, so saying "We had a fire" is not evidence that he had not run the plane out of usable fuel. His discription of the event in the report says he ran both tanks dry. The fact that it had been a long time since he had topped off tanks shows that he ascribes to the "Don't carry more fuel than you need" theory, (nothing wrong with that, it just leaves a larger openning for running out of fuel) so there is a good chance that the NTSB analysis is correct.
 
Last edited:
Amen to that! I still have yet to see if I can do it again, and then decide if I should be!

BTW, if I'm in a second crash, you won't be able to get me off the ground even if you put a bomb under my butt! :yikes:
It's comments like this that make me ask the question....
If you had a serious crash in an automobile, would you give up driving?
It's like comments about airplane crashes at the airport. There's always someone who says "I knew this would happen."
I have had several serious crashes, and several of my cars (parked) have been in serious accidents. Unless I KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt, the accidents were my fault, I'm not going to give up.
I wouldn't be giving up flying either.
 
The plane was flown for 12 hours since last and nobody thought to fuel up? :yikes:

It was 12 hrs since it was topped off the last time. After that, fuel was added based on the fuel totalizer reading it seems.

The method used by the NTSB (or more likely the FAA in this particular case) was to guesstimate the fuel burn, the amount added + tank capacity and to decide that it wasn't enough.
 
It's comments like this that make me ask the question....
If you had a serious crash in an automobile, would you give up driving?
It's like comments about airplane crashes at the airport. There's always someone who says "I knew this would happen."
I have had several serious crashes, and several of my cars (parked) have been in serious accidents. Unless I KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt, the accidents were my fault, I'm not going to give up.
I wouldn't be giving up flying either.

I couldn't say it better myself! That's why my first post included me feeling like a puss. The crash scared me big time. I want to get over this. I flew almost daily and loved it. I feel so chickenchit. I will get in the air again. If I crash again, all bets are off! :D:D
 
The cabin looks remarkably intact for the death and serious injury. I guess the engine and mount could have been pushed into the cabin. Good thing there was no fire, at least he has a fighting chance now.

More along the lines of the pilot and wife ate the dashboard/panel. Not a lot of energy absorbing crumple zones in GA plane.
 
Seriously? That's all a monocoque airplane is is one big crumple zone.

If you don't isolate the pax from the energy absorption the point is moot.

Armchair (but experienced) guess is that the injuries were face/head/neck. Instrument panels aren't nice to heads. Sudden deceleration isn't nice to the neck.

The prime reason for a drug induced coma is to try and minimize the complications of a head injury.
 
I bet they did not have airbags. Glad I have them, this is one case where I think they could have helped by the looks of it.
 
I bet they did not have airbags. Glad I have them, this is one case where I think they could have helped by the looks of it.
Possibly.This is the type of accident where they might be helpful. I have a center stick so it did not take much to convince me to have them installed for the front seats.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/13/idUS197842+13-Jan-2011+BW20110113

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmlArptnHKg&feature=related

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/ss1101.pdf
 
If you don't isolate the pax from the energy absorption the point is moot.

Armchair (but experienced) guess is that the injuries were face/head/neck. Instrument panels aren't nice to heads. Sudden deceleration isn't nice to the neck.

The prime reason for a drug induced coma is to try and minimize the complications of a head injury.


You'd be amazed at how well an engine, engine mount and firewall absorb energy. With a good harness system I was able to walk away form 3 Ag wrecks. Keep it under control until you can't and try to keep the fuel out of the cabin.
 
You'd be amazed at how well an engine, engine mount and firewall absorb energy. With a good harness system I was able to walk away form 3 Ag wrecks. Keep it under control until you can't and try to keep the fuel out of the cabin.
How did you manage to crash three Ag planes in your short Ag career? I hope you're better at running a boat :)
 
How did you manage to crash three Ag planes in your short Ag career? I hope you're better at running a boat :)

LOL, huh? A plane a year. One wind sheer, that was my fault, I should have stuck to my guns and not flown. Boss said "Contract day, gotta..." I looked at the DTN and I thought I could beat the front, the front won the race. One was a prop counterweight departed the aircraft, the other a cylinder semi departed (broke clean at the base but "stuff" kept it kinda there and then it just locked up with a "BANG RRRRR WHOP!!!". Nothing to do in either one of those situations except go in right in front of you best you can. I wasn't going all that fast when I lost elevator authority. Luckily I never went into beans, they can get ugly fast deceleration.

Never bent a boat without telling the owner "You know if I do this we're taking damage right?" first. As long as I don't think I'm gonna hurt someone, I'll dent someones equipment if that's what they need me to do to make it do its mission. In over 25 years at it I've never hurt anyone. There have been times I have said "No, we'll get someone hurt" and refused to do it that way, but usually we get the job done. Ag planes run on much thinner physical safety margins than boats and they are constructed representing that. You look at modern ag planes (which includes the Ag Cat and everything since) it is designed around the knowledge that this aircraft will most likely end its life in a crumpled mess and they try to protect the pilot pretty well. The exception to this is the Pawnees prior to the D model, the ones still carrying the fuel up front. That is bad design and should no longer be accepted for ag work.
 
I bet they did not have airbags. Glad I have them, this is one case where I think they could have helped by the looks of it.

Appended is the NTSB review of a couple of accidents with airbag equipped aircraft. Interesting reading with pics and diagrams. Not enough to derive statistical information, but it illustrates the benefits and limitations of the concept in real-life situations.
 

Attachments

  • ss1101.pdf
    4.4 MB · Views: 12
LOL, huh? A plane a year. One wind sheer, that was my fault, I should have stuck to my guns and not flown. Boss said "Contract day, gotta..." I looked at the DTN and I thought I could beat the front, the front won the race. One was a prop counterweight departed the aircraft, the other a cylinder semi departed (broke clean at the base but "stuff" kept it kinda there and then it just locked up with a "BANG RRRRR WHOP!!!". Nothing to do in either one of those situations except go in right in front of you best you can. I wasn't going all that fast when I lost elevator authority. Luckily I never went into beans, they can get ugly fast deceleration.

Never bent a boat without telling the owner "You know if I do this we're taking damage right?" first. As long as I don't think I'm gonna hurt someone, I'll dent someones equipment if that's what they need me to do to make it do its mission. In over 25 years at it I've never hurt anyone. There have been times I have said "No, we'll get someone hurt" and refused to do it that way, but usually we get the job done. Ag planes run on much thinner physical safety margins than boats and they are constructed representing that. You look at modern ag planes (which includes the Ag Cat and everything since) it is designed around the knowledge that this aircraft will most likely end its life in a crumpled mess and they try to protect the pilot pretty well. The exception to this is the Pawnees prior to the D model, the ones still carrying the fuel up front. That is bad design and should no longer be accepted for ag work.
Maybe my families operation was lucky but they operated 300 hp stearmans with no ability to dump the load. Did so year after year...for a good 40 years or so without bending an airplane or getting hurt. I think there were a few times they put it down in a field and later flew it out after fixing the issue.

They didn't really make any money. But they managed to make a living.
 
Maybe my families operation was lucky but they operated 300 hp stearmans with no ability to dump the load. Did so year after year...for a good 40 years or so without bending an airplane or getting hurt. I think there were a few times they put it down in a field and later flew it out after fixing the issue.

They didn't really make any money. But they managed to make a living.


Yep, when you are in charge of your own maint, things are easier to control. When you are paid to fill a seat, you get what they give you.
 
In over 25 years at it I've never hurt anyone. There have been times I have said "No, we'll get someone hurt" and refused to do it that way, but usually we get the job done.
Didn't your first mate get cut up during a hurricane once?

CALLEBS: Now, who was your -- who was the person on board with you? Because she cut her hands kind of badly. An ambulance is now on the way.

HEINEMAN: Oh, OK. Lucy (ph). I didn't know she was hurt. That's my mate, Andrea (ph).

Ref: http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/04/smn.04.html
 
Didn't your first mate get cut up during a hurricane once?



Ref: http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/04/smn.04.html

Hey, don't question Henning!! He's a super cool fighter jet pilot kind of guy!

CALLEBS: He's a little too cavalier for this kind of condition. Certainly don't want to recommend anybody else get out in these kind of -- this kind of weather and this kind of boat. But perhaps his coolness may be allaying the concern, the anxiety that he must have felt as he tried to drift (ph) that luxury yacht and put into that area -- Stephen.

FRAZIER: You're right, Sean. He's giving us that kind of super- cool, jet fighter pilot attitude. But what he did was pretty -- pretty well handled in very desperate moments. And thanks for that update, and for giving us a chance to -- to meet with him. Sean Callebs in West Palm Beach, we'll be back.
 
Didn't your first mate get cut up during a hurricane once?



Ref: http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/04/smn.04.html

I didn't get her hurt, that was her panicing and trying to climb over a gate. I probably shouldn't have let her get off the boat, she had already done a lot. She drove a boat on a single engine in confined water in a hurricane while I went down aft and tried to troubleshoot for a restart. I figured it was safer to let her go as wound up as she was. I never said nobody ever got hurt. I can't protect people from themselves, just my actions. As soon as we got up against the dock, she was wild eyed and "had to get off" and rather than have some kind of altercation I didn't have time for because I needed to secure the boat still, I let her go to shore. I didn't realize the gate to the marina would be locked from the inside as well. Normally you can walk out without a problem. One thing I didn't foresee in the midst of a hurricane, shame on me. She did end up with a couple cool scars that make for a great stigmata story at parties....
 
Last edited:
NTSB Identification: CEN11FA417
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, June 24, 2011 in Charlevoix, MI
Aircraft: BEECH A36, registration: N88MN
Injuries: 2 Fatal,1 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On June 24, 2011, approximately 1935 eastern daylight time, a Beech A36 single-engine airplane, N88MN, sustained substantial damage when it impacted terrain and a residential garage while maneuvering near Charlevoix, Michigan. The private pilot and one passenger sustained fatal injuries, and one passenger sustained serious injuries. The airplane was registered to Microjet LLC, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and operated by the pilot. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The flight had departed Smith Field Airport (SMD), Fort Wayne, Indiana, approximately 1730.

According to preliminary air traffic control and witness information, the pilot called on the Charlevoix Municipal Airport (CVX) common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) that he was executing the RNAV global positioning system (GPS) runway 27 instrument approach. Witnesses who were located at CVX reported that the cloud ceiling was 200 feet above ground level and the visibility was 1 mile at the time the pilot called CTAF to report the approach. The witnesses observed the airplane break out of the clouds approximately halfway down runway 27 (4,550 feet by 75 feet). They heard the airplane's engine increase power and observed the airplane enter a left turn, then a turn back to the right around a water tower located southwest of CVX. The airplane stayed approximately 200 feet AGL during the turn around the airport. The airplane then entered a right downwind leg for runway 27. Witnesses observed the airplane begin a right turn toward runway 27, pitch nose up, and then roll to the left. The airplane impacted the yard of a residence adjacent to the north perimeter of CVX. The airplane came to rest upright, partially within a three stall garage attached to the residence.

At 1914, the CVX automated weather observing system (AWOS) reported the wind from 260 degrees at 9 knots, visibility 1 3/4 miles, mist, sky broken at 400 feet, overcast at 700 feet, temperature 11 degrees Celsius, dew point 10 degrees Celsius, and an altimeter setting of 29.71 inches of Mercury.

At 1954, the CVX AWOS reported the wind from 250 degrees at 10 knots, gusting to 14 knots, visibility 2 miles, drizzle, overcast at 200 feet, temperature 11 degrees Celsius, dew point 10 degrees Celsius, and an altimeter setting of 29.72 inches of Mercury.

The accident site showed that the initial ground scar, located approximately 75 feet from the main wreckage, contained the left wing tip fuel tank fairing and pitot tube. The main wreckage consisted of the fuselage, engine, empennage, and both wings. The three-bladed propeller was separated from the engine crankshaft and came to rest adjacent to the main wreckage. Examination of the main wreckage showed the landing gear was extended and the flaps were retracted. Flight control continuity was established from all flight control surfaces to the cockpit.Index for Jun2011 | Index of months
 
According to preliminary air traffic control and witness information, the pilot called on the Charlevoix Municipal Airport (CVX) common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) that he was executing the RNAV global positioning system (GPS) runway 27 instrument approach. Witnesses who were located at CVX reported that the cloud ceiling was 200 feet above ground level and the visibility was 1 mile at the time the pilot called CTAF to report the approach. The witnesses observed the airplane break out of the clouds approximately halfway down runway 27 (4,550 feet by 75 feet). They heard the airplane's engine increase power and observed the airplane enter a left turn, then a turn back to the right around a water tower located southwest of CVX. The airplane stayed approximately 200 feet AGL during the turn around the airport. The airplane then entered a right downwind leg for runway 27. Witnesses observed the airplane begin a right turn toward runway 27,
It all sounds just fine up to here. He could have done the approach better, but he was working with what he had.
pitch nose up, and then roll to the left. The airplane impacted the yard of a residence adjacent to the north perimeter of CVX. The airplane came to rest upright, partially within a three stall garage attached to the residence.
WTF? Spacial disorientation? Optical illusion? Control system catastrophic failure?

Having spent a fair few hours flying pipeline <200' AGL in marginal Class G conditions shall we say, I think I may know what got him. I think maybe he was looking out the side window trying to keep the contact approach and as he was coming around an he looked out front and there was a dangler hanging out of a cloud right in front of him and he pulled by instinct. I've looked up from watching the pipe and been scared s-less by those things because they look just like a cell tower coming out of low vis, and cell towers go up weekly at 199' with no lights. He just didn't get it recovered from the snap roll in time to get pulled out.

If it weren't for the previous accident, he probably would have gone missed.... Is that what you'd call "Irony"?
 
Last edited:
Could have also been due to lower pattern and the sensation of higher speed due to limited visual reference. Slowing to what "felt like" correct speed caused him to get slow and stall spin when he lowered the wing for the turn. Results were the same either way.
 
Could have also been due to lower pattern and the sensation of higher speed due to limited visual reference. Slowing to what "felt like" correct speed caused him to get slow and stall spin when he lowered the wing for the turn. Results were the same either way.

The "Nose Up" is what bothers me with that as well as that he had added power to maneuver, I doubt he had gotten too slow.
 
WTF? Spacial disorientation? Optical illusion? Control system catastrophic failure?

How about the more likely: Circle to land below minimums (700-1 for class A/B ), forget to put flaps down, get too slow on turn to final and stall it into the ground ?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top