Richard McSpadden Crash

That's certainly consistent with a typical "180" back to the runway. Once you complete the 180 you've got another big turn in the opposite direction to come close to the runway itself. (That's one other reason the proving to yourself that a 180 degree turn uses only xxx feet of altitude is a completely useless metric when used to determine a safe "turn-back" altitude, yet I see people use it frequently.)
You mean 90-270, assuming a downwind landing? One of the magazines did an article on impossible turns a while back. I’ll have to find it. There’s also some merit in a sloppy turn to crash land on airport property, which is generally flat.
 
Last edited:
Depending on how you do it and what the wind direction is, it can be 180 left, another 90 left then another 90 right. It's still a loss of altitude and/or airspeed in every turn, So 180 + 90 + 90 is still a 360 degree turn regardless of the directions of the turns themselves. It's deadly at a low altitude and a low airspeed but it can be done, which has a tendency to bait people into doing it, but it's still deadly in most cases.
 
You mean 90-270, assuming a downwind landing? One of the magazines did an article on impossible turns a while back. I’ll have to find it. There’s also some merit in a sloppy turn to crash land on airport property, which is generally flat.
I mentioned it in a Kitplanes article back in 2022.
1696817200886.png
This is a "single turn" situation, not a 90/270 setup. Drawing this made me appreciate how BAD THE VISIBILITY IS while performing this maneuver. Note the RV-driver has to look behind and above himself for much of the initial setup turn. Don't know how one does this with a high-wing airplane, with the wing blocking the view for much of the maneuver.

Been so long since I've flown in a high wing airplane, but am wondering about one thing: In a right turn, is the visibility better for the right front seat occupant or the left? The accident airplane was a Cardinal, which has better visibility than other high-wing Cessnas. Would a left-turn vs. a right-turn in this scenario imply which person had the controls? Would McSpadden, in the right seat, have preferred to turn right if he was flying?

Ron Wanttaja
 
Hi everyone.

I think we need to wait for better data before we can analyze.
I posted a couple of more pics just in case someone can pinpoint a closer location.

Based on the airplane on the little inset map in the second image, I dropped a red "X" on the map. Is this the crash location?
1696817514049.png
Ron Wanttaja
 
The accident airplane was a Cardinal, which has better visibility than other high-wing Cessnas. Would a left-turn vs. a right-turn in this scenario imply which person had the controls? Would McSpadden, in the right seat, have preferred to turn right if he was flying?

Ron Wanttaja
I'm not sure I agree about better visibility, especially in a turn. A lot of it depends on how tall you are and how far back you sit.
 
Is this the crash location?
Hi Ron and everyone.
There is not enough accurate data to tell exactly where the location is?
Given some of the information available in some of the articles this may be close, but I was not able to see / find a location where there is a 30 Ft drop around the area.
I wish we could get some some more accurate information to be able to learn something from this unfortunate accident. As it stands it's just a lot of approximation based on articles, eye witnesses.
 
I don’t think the pine trees are as good of an option for a slick Cardinal as they are for a Cub or a floatplane… the floatplane or a Cub has a bunch more stuff hanging off the airframe to “catch” it. A slick Cardinal with the gear up is a lot more likely to have a long and probably deadly drop from the treetops. Better to fly it into the treetops than a stall/spin, sure, but don’t fool yourself about tall trees being great.
Uh, buddy, here in the Adirondacks you have VERY few emergency choices that are NOT trees. Those choices include ponds, lakes, rivers, mountainsides and other swampy, boggy areas that would not be ideal. Pine trees are the softest choice, compared to dense growths of hardwood, A246B942-9BCE-40B3-9918-5AC03E3570AD.jpeg5AE5C35C-2AA3-47E3-AA14-B92DC4EA2C22.jpeg09611C87-1F0C-4E2F-87BC-158696336E66.jpegslick airframe or not. ;)
 
Hi Ron and everyone.
There is not enough accurate data to tell exactly where the location is?
Given some of the information available in some of the articles this may be close, but I was not able to see / find a location where there is a 30 Ft drop around the area.
I've done a little online analysis.

First is this picture from a local TV station:
1696835782688.png
Notice the orange roof on the building behind the crash. If you do a Google Earth search of the area, there aren't THAT many orange-roofed buildings in the area of the airport:
1696835884938.png
There are three with the same approximate orange color (an additional one red), about the middle/left side of this image, almost in a row. One is way bigger than the one in the TV station image, the other is kind of by itself in the middle of some trees that aren't apparent in the TV station capture.

However, the third one (furthest to the right of the three) looks pretty good. There's a building to the left that looks somewhat like the image on the TV image (bear in mind that the Google Earth imagery is two years old) and there's another building behind it that seems to match the TV shot.

I've zoomed in and marked the approximate location. This is a clear area with dirt apparently piled up, matching the crash photo.

1696836628559.png

If you draw a line from the "X" to the red-roofed building, you can see that the building next to it and the one behind seem to line up. It's obvious the terrain with the "X" is rough (hard to tell if it's higher or lower), and there are power lines that show up in the TV image. Note that the road is Recycle Circle, and one news report said, "The plane was sideways, down near the bottom of an embankment at the end of the runway, visible from Recycle Circle Road."

Distances are hard to gauge from the telephoto TV image, it could be a bit further to the northwest.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
@wanttaja You need to work for Bellingcat. That's some impressive OSINT.

They almost made the airport. Neither wing is deformed, which suggests no spin. Looks to me like they did a good job of flying it to the end, put it into the clearing, and just ran into a hard object on rollout with more energy than their nose could absorb. That was so close to being survivable. An impressive piece of flying with terrible luck at the end.
 
I don’t think the pine trees are as good of an option for a slick Cardinal as they are for a Cub or a floatplane… the floatplane or a Cub has a bunch more stuff hanging off the airframe to “catch” it. A slick Cardinal with the gear up is a lot more likely to have a long and probably deadly drop from the treetops. Better to fly it into the treetops than a stall/spin, sure, but don’t fool yourself about tall trees being great.
That's true to some extent (although in some situations there would be time to lower the gear), but in any airplane if the impact with tree tops occurs at a slow airspeed and the airframe remains largely intact the wings can do a pretty good job of keeping the plane from dropping quickly. It's certainly not the only alternative with an engine failure, but there are clearly times where it can be the best one.
 
The plane was probably moved for that picture.....Ron.
You're obviously right. I suspect the actual impact point is at about the 10'clock of what I show, in the ravine in that area. One of the news videos show the plane with a strap around it.

Ron Wanttaja
 
@wanttaja You need to work for Bellingcat. That's some impressive OSINT.

They almost made the airport. Neither wing is deformed, which suggests no spin. Looks to me like they did a good job of flying it to the end, put it into the clearing, and just ran into a hard object on rollout with more energy than their nose could absorb. That was so close to being survivable. An impressive piece of flying with terrible luck at the end.
That highlights one of the things I don't like about the "do the impossible turn" suggestion: It's a VERY ragged edge between saving the airplane and killing the occupants. Pull it off, you're alive and the airplane is probably undamaged. Blow it, and you're likely dead.

A couple of years back, I did a presentation for the EAA online Homebuilt Week. Titled "What Kills Us," I discussed fatal accidents. As part of that, I covered the survival rate after engine failure, both when the pilot keeps control of the aircraft, and when he or she stalls out during the forced landing. This is homebuilts, but the same probably applies to production-type aircraft:
1696863015147.png
So no, I'm not a fan of the "impossible turn". I try keep it from the litany of possibilities if the engine fails...more so since I fly a very draggy open-cockpit wire-braced airplane which drops like a manhole cover with the engine off.

On my first visit to Disneyland decades ago, I bought a postcard from the "Pirates of the Caribbean" ride. The graphics don't matter, but the text is appropriate:

Mind this, ye swabs, if you chose to compete
Tis' a mighty fine line between success and defeat....


It *is* a mighty fine line between success and defeat in a loss of power on takeoff scenario.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Yup....there are numerous scenarios with a runway under you that are unattainable.
 
So no, I'm not a fan of the "impossible turn".
Me either, but as soon as you call something impossible there’s a rush to prove you wrong, often with flawed assumptions.
 
Maybe, with terrain falling away from the airport, it gave a visual illusion of being higher above the airport elevation and that impossible turn seemed possible? I live and fly in the flatlands, terrain elevation doesn’t change very much very quickly.
 
Maybe, with terrain falling away from the airport, it gave a visual illusion of being higher above the airport elevation and that impossible turn seemed possible? I live and fly in the flatlands, terrain elevation doesn’t change very much very quickly.
That’s one of my takeaways as well. For instance, the golf course that seemed to be within gliding distance when looking at the planview is actually mostly above the runway elevation. Some decisions and limitations become more apparent when you look at things in 3D. Viable options were few.
 
This is where a tool like ForeFlight can come in handy to learn your plane. Using the green glide ring during level cruise, it’s eye opening how far you CAN’T make it. Look out ahead, to either side, and behind to get a sight-picture of what’s too far to make. That sight picture should be the same whether you do the exercise at 1000 ft or 10,000 ft.

Wind and terrain changes the rings significantly.

Not sure how useful this tool would be at engine out below pattern altitude, and you best be flying the plane, but perhaps something to learn while practicing T&Gs at a given airspeed and various winds.
 
I mentioned it in a Kitplanes article back in 2022.
View attachment 121245
This is a "single turn" situation, not a 90/270 setup. Drawing this made me appreciate how BAD THE VISIBILITY IS while performing this maneuver. Note the RV-driver has to look behind and above himself for much of the initial setup turn. Don't know how one does this with a high-wing airplane, with the wing blocking the view for much of the maneuver.

Been so long since I've flown in a high wing airplane, but am wondering about one thing: In a right turn, is the visibility better for the right front seat occupant or the left? The accident airplane was a Cardinal, which has better visibility than other high-wing Cessnas. Would a left-turn vs. a right-turn in this scenario imply which person had the controls? Would McSpadden, in the right seat, have preferred to turn right if he was flying?

Ron Wanttaja
The energy maximizing approach in this particular situation would seem to have been a 220(ish) turn to the right that resulted in the airplane touching down on the tabletop of the airfield - forget the runway, pavement, and the like. If there's energy left after the 220, try to line up with the runway as much as possible.

The real goal of the "impossible" turn is to return to a relatively safe place (the flat area of the airport) and not hit anything hard. Putting the airplane on the numbers and coasting off at the second turnoff is bonus points.
 
I don't even do that. "Thumbs up" points to the up aileron during the preflight, whether using a stick or yoke. On the takeoff roll I just do the same thing and always point my thumb into the crosswind component and focus on rudders to keep aligned. It's a little unusual to have the wind at 1000 feet be from the opposite direction, but certainly it can happen and should be factored in.
So rule of thumb - which way do you turn? Into the wind to stay close and maintain altitude, or with the wind to speed your progression over the ground? Or “it depends”?
 
So rule of thumb - which way do you turn? Into the wind to stay close and maintain altitude, or with the wind to speed your progression over the ground? Or “it depends”?
IMO turn(or not) toward whatever will get you to a flat surface quicker, you wont have time to think of the wind….. You have less than a minute to live or die. Brain will go into flight or fright and wind direction will factor zero into your decision at 500 feet. Nor the silly green circle on your iPad. Push stick down and find a flat spot. At my local airport for example if I depart west I know I have to turn right if shiat hits fan at 500…there is a little cozy spot I have eyed previously…so I dont have to think about it. I try and find the good places to land at any airport before I depart…esp new ones. I check weather then google maps…so you guys dont have to after. Anyhow my 2c. Of course these engines quit on you the one day when you forget to check crap …and especially if you are famous.
 
So rule of thumb - which way do you turn? Into the wind to stay close and maintain altitude, or with the wind to speed your progression over the ground? Or “it depends”?
Always into the wind unless you know you have a better alternative in the other direction. (You can't "maintain altitude" with a failed engine when you're already close to best glide airspeed.) Turning away from the wind just increases your distance from the runway, and in that case when you try to recover that loss you have to head back into the wind.
 
Always into the wind unless you know you have a better alternative in the other direction. (You can't "maintain altitude" with a failed engine when you're already close to best glide airspeed.) Turning away from the wind just increases your distance from the runway, and in that case when you try to recover that loss you have to head back into the wind.
All other things being equal, that would be my vote too. If you decided to bail out of a turn back attempt I’d rather be turned toward the wind as much as possible to reduce ground speed.
 
All other things being equal, that would be my vote too. If you decided to bail out of a turn back attempt I’d rather be turned toward the wind as much as possible to reduce ground speed.
Good point as well, especially with a strong crosswind component. And don't discount the visual perception if you turn downwind. It LOOKS like you must be going fast enough to avoid a stall, and with so much going on, looking at the ASI isn't always a high priority.
 
Richard owned a Super Cub.....and was a regular at the airport. Do we really need to discuss the pilot's qualifications?

“He used to fly his P-51 Mustang to practice and land in the stadium parking lot and really **** off (49ers head coach) Bill Walsh,” Naiman recalled.

Both of these pilots were very qualified....and had more experience than any here.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone been discussing qualifications? We don't even know much about what happened in this case.

I've assumed that both occupants were very highly qualified.
 
Appears to be highly experienced.

Yes.....here's McSpadden:

CFI/FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR - AIRPLANE SINGLE AND MULTIENGINE (2023-11-30)
CFI/FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR - INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE (2023-11-30)
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND LIMITED TO CENTER THRUST
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE SEA
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
REM PILOT/REMOTE PILOT - SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM
 
All other things being equal, that would be my vote too. If you decided to bail out of a turn back attempt I’d rather be turned toward the wind as much as possible to reduce ground speed.
If you are too low for a turnaround, then usually you took off INTO the wind. You may not have to turn much. It is another reason the currently best practice method is to land within the 60 degree v shaped area in front of you INTO THE WIND!!
 
So rule of thumb - which way do you turn? Into the wind to stay close and maintain altitude, or with the wind to speed your progression over the ground? Or “it depends”?
Wind is just one of the factors to consider, in the brief seconds or split-seconds you have. For instance, regardless of wind, a departure from runway 27 at KIPT will ALWAYS be a right turn and vice versa for RWY 9. Why? There’s a mountain on the south side of the runway sticking up 2000´ above the field. This comment is not directed at the pilots of this accident due to their familiarity with the field, but this is why we teach students the importance of preflight preparation, not just of the aircraft, but of the details of the flight.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, there are certain things that you will be completely unable to prepare for…but let’s take the ones we CAN prepare for out of the equation.

Based on what I’ve read so far, and with the limited details available, I believe that the pilots made a decision consistent with their best judgement given the conditions and information available to them at that time. We can sit here and second guess them, and I know Spad would WANT us to analyze the accident so that we can learn from it, but at the end of the day, I wasn’t at the controls when the emergency event occurred. There will likely always be details that those two pilots were privy to yet we never will.

In the end, two highly experienced pilots - one of whom had analyzed accidents more than any of us, and consequently had that knowledge on which to draw - got caught in a bad situation and unfortunately did not survive. Their loss is our loss too as a community, but let their loss not be wasted. Let it be our gain, as well, by becoming better students of our own flights, more aware of our options, and hopefully, in turn, safer pilots.
 
Yes.....here's McSpadden:

CFI/FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR - AIRPLANE SINGLE AND MULTIENGINE (2023-11-30)
CFI/FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR - INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE (2023-11-30)
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND LIMITED TO CENTER THRUST
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE SEA
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA
PILOT/COMMERCIAL - INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
REM PILOT/REMOTE PILOT - SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM
And he was Thunderbird One back in his USAF days.
 
Today is Richard McSpadden’s memorial. 11-12am at the AOPA NAAC hangar.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7956.jpeg
    IMG_7956.jpeg
    499.5 KB · Views: 37
Richard owned a Super Cub.....and was a regular at the airport. Do we really need to discuss the pilot's qualifications?

“He used to fly his P-51 Mustang to practice and land in the stadium parking lot and really **** off (49ers head coach) Bill Walsh,” Naiman recalled.

Both of these pilots were very qualified....and had more experience than any here.
What??. Land his P-51 in a parking lot?
 
Looking at those photos I have to wonder if this plane had shoulder harnesses. It doesn't look that bad
 
Back
Top