Scudrunners

[img width=500 height=281]https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews. ... 155225.jpg[/img]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2-killed-aft ... ort-police

[quote]Two people were killed when a small plane crashed and caught fire Saturday afternoon at a Massachusetts airport, officials said.[/quote]

A 172 isn't very hard to fly.  I am not making this up.  I must have around
a thousand hours (shudder) in them, and they are the kindest, gentlest
airplanes. This is like someone made a cow jump the Grand Canyon.

How do you make it do that?  I'm not a very good pilot, but I've never
had a 172 misbehave on me like that.  Are there rogue 172's out there?

If it’s an older model with 40°of flap travel then trying to climb (or not bothering to hold the nose down on an overshoot) with full flap can do that.

I dunno man.  Like being killed by a butterknife.  I suppose it's theoretically
possible, but I don't know how you would do it.

This is what pilots used to be able to do, before Facebook:

http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2015/08 ... t-air.html

[quote]This meant a high degree of timing precision was needed, typically inside of a 30 second window to hit each navigational waypoint to avoid flying into someone else's thermonuclear detonation.

In practice missions, the Canadian pilots proved to be highly skilled, usually hitting each navigational waypoint within 10 seconds of the plan.

Once fully operational in the nuclear strike role, the 1 Canadian Air Division was responsible for 20% of the 4th Allied Tactical Air Force's nuclear muscle- 4ATAF covered central and southern West Germany and included two Luftwaffe divisions, the USAF's Seventeenth Air Force, and a large number of Army air defense units.

The squadrons of the 1 Canadian Air Division were subject to each and everyone of the nuclear inspection and readiness drills that any nuclear-capable USAF unit had to not just endure, but pass with near perfect scores. [/quote]

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=9500.msg26830#msg26830 date=1550965924]
A 172 isn't very hard to fly.  I am not making this up.  I must have around a thousand hours (shudder) in them, and they are the kindest, gentlest airplanes. This is like someone made a cow jump the Grand Canyon.

How do you make it do that?  I'm not a very good pilot, but I've never had a 172 misbehave on me like that.  Are there rogue 172's out there?
[/quote]

Wait... what?  Does this mean that there HAS been a new cause of an aviation accident??  >:D

On Fox tonight (8 eastern, 7 central) ... "[i]When Good 172's Go Bad![/i]"

Hint: Buck straps, cattle prods, SID 100, and taking away their Xboxes.

You guys out west:  please treat your Cessnas better than your women, ok?

[url=[/url]

Don't do that to a poor, innocent 172.

https://patch.com/florida/lakeland/1-ki ... orida-home

https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1280&b ... nXRnOBwQ-M:

Stall/Spin perhaps? Would certainly account for the aircraft position.

High speed impact would have destroyed the aircraft - this looks like a low(er) speed impact.

Is spin training/recovery even practiced anymore? You can't learn spin recovery from a book!

There was an important placard missing:
[img width=500 height=375]http://images.planeboard.com/uploads/pr ... _20010.jpg[/img]

[quote author=Eric Janson link=topic=9500.msg26839#msg26839 date=1551042968]
Stall/Spin perhaps?
[/quote]
Most likely.  Some combination of flap, CG, trim, power, and a ‘pilot’ who was mostly along for the ride can end like that shortly after takeoff/overshoot.