Plane down Chicago area

MikeTuggle said:
Not a bad idea but.... in my "spin recovery" training, rudder was required. In a non-functional rudder situation, I am not sure what he could have done. :confused:
Click to expand...

+1, I have thought about this same thing. One thing that concerns me when purposely spinning the airplane during training. But I suppose we would have bailed out and pulled the D ring on the chutes, worse case scenario.
 
Ryanb said:
I agree, it does seem like there have been more than normal lately. Will be interested to hear the cause of this one.
Click to expand...

Seems about normal. We hear about a crash with fatalities about every other day, sometimes every day. That coincides with the average in 2014 where there were 220 something crashes with fatalities.
 
AKBill said:
I think the reason "The accident rate has been declining for decades" is there are fewer folks in GA
Click to expand...

Accident rate would be unaffected by number of aircraft flying (except maybe collision risk).
 
AKBill said:
I think the reason "The accident rate has been declining for decades" is there are fewer folks in GA
Click to expand...

Fewer people flying doesn't change the *rate*, it changes the total quantity. IOW if the rate is 1 per 100K, and there are 100K hours flown in a year then you expect one fatal accident. If there are a million hours flown in the year then you expect 10 fatal accidents.

That the *rate* is declining is a good thing regardless of the number of pilots and total hours flown by the entire fleet.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Well, we know from experience that is not the case (Boeing 737 comes to mind).....

Looks like Ben beat me to it.
Click to expand...

Before you post crap learn something. A 737 has a hyd ruder system not a cable system.

Second if you read the ntsb reports and the engineering reports the U.S. air could be controlled but not at the speed it was flying. At a higher speed, which is still a landable speed, The aircraft is still controlable with a hard over.

Bob
 
unsafervguy said:
Before you post crap learn something. A 737 has a hyd ruder system not a cable system.

Second if you read the ntsb reports and the engineering reports the U.S. air could be controlled but not at the speed it was flying. At a higher speed, which is still a landable speed, The aircraft is still controlable with a hard over.

Bob
Click to expand...

I sure the hell don't want to be in it.....:no::no::no::no::no::no::no::no::no::no::no::no::no::no:
 
unsafervguy said:
Before you post crap learn something. A 737 has a hyd ruder system not a cable system.

Second if you read the ntsb reports and the engineering reports the U.S. air could be controlled but not at the speed it was flying. At a higher speed, which is still a landable speed, The aircraft is still controlable with a hard over.

Bob
Click to expand...

Actually, there are cables that run from the rudder pedals back to a hydraulic power control unit in the tail. There is actually a bit more to it than that (quadrants, pushrods, etc.) but basically the pedals move cables which reposition the PCU with then moves the rudder.
 
weirdjim said:
That rudder has TWO cables, one for full starboard deflection and one for full port deflection. Even if BOTH of them broke, as the quote says, it would simply weathervane. Otherwise you have rudder one way or the other. Unless it just came out of maintenance and they find an open-end jammed in the mechanisms.

Jim
Click to expand...

I know of no aircraft that uses cables that does not have at least two.
 
unsafervguy said:
Before you post crap learn something. A 737 has a hyd ruder system not a cable system.

Second if you read the ntsb reports and the engineering reports the U.S. air could be controlled but not at the speed it was flying. At a higher speed, which is still a landable speed, The aircraft is still controlable with a hard over.

Bob
Click to expand...

CLTSi?????
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Sorry for your loss.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Later last night, the club president sent out an email to the membership confirming it. I only knew him from membership meetings and we only spoke a couple for times but he seemed like a pretty decent person. Regardless, he was a fellow aviator and we were members of the same club and flew the same aircraft so it does hit close to home. This is especially true if it ends up being a mechanical.
 
unsafervguy said:
Before you post crap learn something. A 737 has a hyd ruder system not a cable system.



Second if you read the ntsb reports and the engineering reports the U.S. air could be controlled but not at the speed it was flying. At a higher speed, which is still a landable speed, The aircraft is still controlable with a hard over.



Bob
Click to expand...

Lighten up Francis.

My post was a simple offhandedly comment, which even with your little tirade is still correct. Those aircraft were not controllable with full rudder deflection. I never specified all speeds, just the speeds they were at.

I also never said anything about a cable rudder system.

And yes, I have read the NTSB reports and am familiar with the B737 rudder system.

If you're going to try up crap on someone, at least get yer crap together.

And have a nice day.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Thanks. Later last night, the club president sent out an email to the membership confirming it. I only knew him from membership meetings and we only spoke a couple for times but he seemed like a pretty decent person. Regardless, he was a fellow aviator and we were members of the same club and flew the same aircraft so it does hit close to home. This is especially true if it ends up being a mechanical.
Click to expand...


Are you able to share he name (or PM it to me?). I am wondering if I knew him as well.
 
dans2992 said:
Are you able to share he name (or PM it to me?). I am wondering if I knew him as well.
Click to expand...

Last I heard they were still pending next of kin notification before they wanted any of us giving out his name. I guess they were having trouble locating kin.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I think he's referring to the number of accidents that have been popping up in the news.
Click to expand...

I don't see evidence of that increasing either. In any case, with a fatal GA accident occurring, on average in the US, four times a week (and previously much more), there are always plenty for the news to choose from.
 
Bonchie said:
1.05 fatalities per 100,000 hours flown. I wonder how they come up with that number with so many unfiled VFR flights.
Click to expand...

One source of information is the flight hours we report each time we have an FAA medical exam.
 
nddons said:
I've been flying for 10 years, and have never been in a spin, accidentally or on purpose. I bet 90% of us non-CFI pilots can say the same thing. I think that is a fault in our training. Spin recovery - PARE - is still just a theory to me.

Every time I see a smoking hole, I think I should take an upset recovery course somewhere.
Click to expand...

Even though I am not a CFI, I took the CFI spin course so that I would better know how to react if I got in a spin. Then went on to take two emergency procedure courses practicing things like stuck rudder, elevator, aileron and engine out scenarios. I personally think this should be required training.
 
FTLAUSA said:
Even though I am not a CFI, I took the CFI spin course so that I would better know how to react if I got in a spin. Then went on to take two emergency procedure courses practicing things like stuck rudder, elevator, aileron and engine out scenarios. I personally think this should be required training.
Click to expand...


Can you tell me where those courses are offered?

And welcome to POA!
 
FTLAUSA said:
Even though I am not a CFI, I took the CFI spin course so that I would better know how to react if I got in a spin. Then went on to take two emergency procedure courses practicing things like stuck rudder, elevator, aileron and engine out scenarios. I personally think this should be required training.
Click to expand...

Spin recovery USED TO BE required training for the PPL. When it was removed from the syllabus, training and checkride fatalities decreased significantly. What price safety? Training for dangerous thing increases the danger of the training.

I learned basic stall recovery (flew to break in training and on checkride), since then I recover at onset rather than full stall. My concentration is on AVOIDING a stall, and I don't go out and do them for fun.
 
Hank S said:
Spin recovery USED TO BE required training for the PPL. When it was removed from the syllabus, training and checkride fatalities decreased significantly. What price safety? Training for dangerous thing increases the danger of the training.



I learned basic stall recovery (flew to break in training and on checkride), since then I recover at onset rather than full stall. My concentration is on AVOIDING a stall, and I don't go out and do them for fun.
Click to expand...


I think that's the same with all of us. Yet, people still stall and spin.
 
nddons said:
I think that's the same with all of us. Yet, people still stall and spin.
Click to expand...

And people still want required spin training again, too, which I was responding to.

Most stall/spins happen at unrecoverable altitudes . . . And many planes now are not approved for spins. My plane is not only not approved for spins, but says that a fully-developed one turn spin may require two thousand feet to recover, if it recovers.

While it may be fun to go tumble through the sky it an aerobatic aircraft, requiring such training has clearly been shown to be counterproductive.
 
nddons said:
I think that's the same with all of us. Yet, people still stall and spin.
Click to expand...
I've spun a plane precisely once. The control and power inputs were so abnormal and extreme, to me, that I always find it astonishing that it happens accidentally.

I mean, every stringer and flight control was screaming "Danger!" as we approached the break. It was obvious that the plane was extremely unhappy, and it was telling me in no uncertain terms.

My guess is that you would have to be completely absorbed doing something else (like, say, restarting a stopped engine, or trying to clear an obstacle) in order to unintentionally get into such an extreme flight regime.
 
nddons said:
I think that's the same with all of us. Yet, people still stall and spin.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the majority of the stall spin accidents that happen today occur at low altitude where you generally don't have the altitude to recover, even if you know how to recover.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes, but the majority of the stall spin accidents that happen today occur at low altitude where you generally don't have the altitude to recover, even if you know how to recover.
Click to expand...


That's true, and that's probably why you see B-52 patterns and nothing greater than 30 degrees of bank on base and final. That spin demon lives out there "somewhere", and our training says to avoid him at all costs. So we overcompensate without really understanding it.
 
weirdjim said:
And your point?

Jim
Click to expand...

My point was that you wrote the following:

weirdjim said:
That rudder has TWO cables, one for full starboard deflection and one for full port deflection. Even if BOTH of them broke, as the quote says, it would simply weathervane. Otherwise you have rudder one way or the other. Unless it just came out of maintenance and they find an open-end jammed in the mechanisms.
Jim
Click to expand...

I was simply stating that it is just not that rudder that has two cables. Do you disagree?
 
I came here to say this really hit home. I actually walked past that plane (I fly out of DPA at the parking spot next to and one over) on Friday. I took up a couple, with the husband being brand new to GA. We had a great flight, great lunch, tied down my rental and walked away and past this plane going home. The couple are still willing to go flying with me, and even wants to fly up to Canada to do some camping and fishing, but man this really hits home for me. And I didnt even know the pilot, just knew the plane.

RIP
 
charheep said:
I came here to say this really hit home. I actually walked past that plane (I fly out of DPA at the parking spot next to and one over) on Friday. I took up a couple, with the husband being brand new to GA. We had a great flight, great lunch, tied down my rental and walked away and past this plane going home. The couple are still willing to go flying with me, and even wants to fly up to Canada to do some camping and fishing, but man this really hits home for me. And I didnt even know the pilot, just knew the plane.

RIP
Click to expand...

The plane was kept in one of the T-hangars off Taxiway E, not at a tie down by any of the rental fleets. You must have it confused with another.
 
Did Fox Flying Club get another hangar? I thought 81898 was in that hangar - then again, that was years ago...
 
dans2992 said:
Did Fox Flying Club get another hangar? I thought 81898 was in that hangar - then again, that was years ago...
Click to expand...

All the fox planes have been in hangars for a while now 3-5 years or so. There has also been a bit of shuffling around over the same period. The goal was to get them all over on Echo, but I've been gone for a couple years and am not sure where everything is these days.
 
rwellner98 said:
All the fox planes have been in hangars for a while now 3-5 years or so. There has also been a bit of shuffling around over the same period. The goal was to get them all over on Echo, but I've been gone for a couple years and am not sure where everything is these days.
Click to expand...

They are all at Echo. The last one moved over to Echo from the hangars by Alpha in late 2013.
 
nddons said:
Can you tell me where those courses are offered?

And welcome to POA!
Click to expand...

I took the courses at Wingover Aerobatics in Leesberg FL, but they are offered by many schools. They are obviously not for everyone, but I learned the flight envelope better doing the courses and experienced that a flight control emergency can be managed with training.
 
Hank S said:
Spin recovery USED TO BE required training for the PPL. When it was removed from the syllabus, training and checkride fatalities decreased significantly. What price safety? Training for dangerous thing increases the danger of the training.

I learned basic stall recovery (flew to break in training and on checkride), since then I recover at onset rather than full stall. My concentration is on AVOIDING a stall, and I don't go out and do them for fun.
Click to expand...

Spin training is a controversial topic, but it was right for me. I used to be afraid of a stalls and spins in PPL training. Now I don't fear them, I understand them and respect them. Fear leads to hesitation and distraction. I only practice spins in aerobatic aircraft, and I think they should only be taught by aerobatic instructors in aerobatic aircraft. I also think it's important to understand cross controlled stalls and accelerated stalls and to have practiced them enough to recognize onset and to correct immediately.

There is lots of truth to the statement that spins in the base to final turn are not recoverable, but that to me does not mean that you should not have experienced a spin in my opinion. In any event, cross controlled stalls are probably the more important training for avoiding the base to final situation, and I think those are barely covered at all in PPL training. They should not be practiced in anything other than an aerobatic plane, by the way. You will be upside down if not immediately corrected.
 
SkyDog58 said:
They are all at Echo. The last one moved over to Echo from the hangars by Alpha in late 2013.
Click to expand...

There isnt a 172 parked at the North ramp? Right next to the car entrance? Huh, then I guess I didnt walk past it.

Still a sad situation.
 
charheep said:
There isnt a 172 parked at the North ramp? Right next to the car entrance? Huh, then I guess I didnt walk past it.
Click to expand...

There are still several 172's parked in the ever dwindling north ramp inventory, but none belong to the club. Not for a long time.
 
SkyDog58 said:
My point was that you wrote the following:



I was simply stating that it is just not that rudder that has two cables. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Not in single engine light aircraft. The point was that another post said that "the (THE) rudder cable broke. My point was THAT RUDDER (the one they were talking about) had two cables. I was not addressing the universe of rudder cables.

No, no disagreement, I have yet to annual a SEL aircraft with a single rudder cable.

On the other hand, I have milked cows that had a single udder cable :goofy:

Jim
 
Latest update: http://www.chicagotribune.com/subur...tlett-plane-crash-st-0707-20150706-story.html

"The DuPage County coroner's office said Sunday that an autopsy showed the victim in a small plane crash Friday afternoon died of "multiple traumatic injuries." Identification is delayed, however, because the county is seeking dental records before making a positive identification, according to a release from the coroner's office."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top