Fatal Sundridge, Ont., plane crash likely due to troubled landing attempt: report
- Scudrunner
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:18 am
- Location: Drinking Coffee in FBO Lounge
- Contact:
5 out of 2 Pilots are Dyslexic.
- Colonel
- Posts: 2564
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:02 pm
- Location: Over The Runway
I am very familiar with both the M20J - used to own one - and that airport- used to routinely fly my Maule in and out of there, years ago.
Trying to say something constructive about this accident.
All I can observe is that flying a nosewheel aircraft does not absolve the need for a bare minimum of basic stick and rudder skill, which I have been harping about for decades.
I know that private pilots love to push buttons because they think it makes them Just Like A Four Bar, but every once in a while, you need to be able to fly an aircraft, if you're going to be a pilot. Sorry about that.
Trying to say something constructive about this accident.
All I can observe is that flying a nosewheel aircraft does not absolve the need for a bare minimum of basic stick and rudder skill, which I have been harping about for decades.
I know that private pilots love to push buttons because they think it makes them Just Like A Four Bar, but every once in a while, you need to be able to fly an aircraft, if you're going to be a pilot. Sorry about that.
45 / 47 => 95 3/4%
-
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:21 pm
- Location: Group W Bench
This accident reminds me of a Cessna I saw in the shop once, that was severely damaged, the fuselage was bent just behind the rear window, and the nosewheel was bent about 30 degrees backwards, bending all the structure behind it. It apparently had a "touch and go" with two severe bounces like this one, except after said crash and dash (literally) it flew 100 miles back home where the damage was assessed. Oh and of course the prop was struck and both wingtips were drug. Amazingly it was repaired and returned to service. One can't help but wonder what sort of damage was incurred in this "go around".
The details of my life are quite inconsequential...
-
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:24 am
One of the 172s I used to teach on had the same thing happen, except it was only flown about eight miles after the crash and dash.
- Colonel
- Posts: 2564
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:02 pm
- Location: Over The Runway
I found the M20J that we owned (and other Mooneys that I instructed on) to be a bit slippery. You could not disregard “the numbers” during your approach.
If you did, it was easy to end up at 100 mph at 200 feet which was much too fast. If you continued the approach you would enter ground effect and with those long low wings, you would float and float and float and burn runway like a Liberal burns taxpayer money.
When that happens, you CANNOT force the aircraft onto the ground. A porpoise is likely and we’re not talking a friendly one like Flipper. No, this porpoise is going to tear your landing gear off and wreck your prop and engine. Bad porpoise! Here’s a Cherokee doing that.
I know a guy wrecked a T-33 doing that.
When you are on short final in a Mooney substantially faster than your correct approach speed, you must overshoot because you cannot dissipate the excess energy.
I know. No one cares. Got that.
Note that while you cannot land a Mooney at 100 mph on short final in any reasonable runway distance (maybe at the Cape?) ….
You can land a Pitts going 200 mph on short final in a reasonable distance. Me, Sean, Freddy, Skip do it all the time. Ask any decent airshow pilot to land out of a surface loop.
Sometimes, it’s useful to learn about your airplane even if you’re not allowed in Canada any more.
If you did, it was easy to end up at 100 mph at 200 feet which was much too fast. If you continued the approach you would enter ground effect and with those long low wings, you would float and float and float and burn runway like a Liberal burns taxpayer money.
When that happens, you CANNOT force the aircraft onto the ground. A porpoise is likely and we’re not talking a friendly one like Flipper. No, this porpoise is going to tear your landing gear off and wreck your prop and engine. Bad porpoise! Here’s a Cherokee doing that.
I know a guy wrecked a T-33 doing that.
When you are on short final in a Mooney substantially faster than your correct approach speed, you must overshoot because you cannot dissipate the excess energy.
I know. No one cares. Got that.
Note that while you cannot land a Mooney at 100 mph on short final in any reasonable runway distance (maybe at the Cape?) ….
You can land a Pitts going 200 mph on short final in a reasonable distance. Me, Sean, Freddy, Skip do it all the time. Ask any decent airshow pilot to land out of a surface loop.
Sometimes, it’s useful to learn about your airplane even if you’re not allowed in Canada any more.
45 / 47 => 95 3/4%
-
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:24 am
The airlines did a study a few years ago and found the same: instances where their stable approach policy required a go-around were instead being salvaged into a safe landing. As a result there were changes made to many airlines’ stable approach guidelines allowing a lot more leeway to fix it.
I for one think it’s nice to see safety rules change to see some wiggle room and trust in the people you have to do the right thing.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 11 Replies
- 5592 Views
-
Last post by Liquid_Charlie
-
- 4 Replies
- 2202 Views
-
Last post by TwinOtterFan
-
- 5 Replies
- 4217 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner