Losing Power And Crashing On Nose
02-17-2008, 05:15 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 151
That really does not look like it rolled on the ground at all, and more like it came in like that. The engine either went back into the cockpit or it creased at or near the firewall. The fuselage is crumpled.. I've seen noseovers and none of them look like that.
02-17-2008, 05:20 PM
#12
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,205
Yeah, it wasn't a nose over.
02-17-2008, 06:15 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 151
Does anybody see lines across the top of the photo?
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/200....near.Stanwood
maybe, a good approach followed by a flip on the wires or stall/spin to avoid???
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/200....near.Stanwood
maybe, a good approach followed by a flip on the wires or stall/spin to avoid???
02-17-2008, 08:10 PM
#14
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Engine Failures
A study was done sometime in the 1990's that claimed that when students were taught to terminate simulated engine failures to 100 feet or more above the ground when a real one happened they would do a fine job of gliding until reaching 100 feet AGL. At that point they would stop the glide and attempt to hold altitude until they would stall and crash.
SkyHigh
SkyHigh
02-17-2008, 08:34 PM
#15
Administrator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
The news reports say that the pilot is very experienced and worked with Angel Flight for 7 years, as well as winning second place at an International Aerobatic Club competition in 2004. It's difficult for me, a neophyte, to understand any of this, but I suppose it is not unheard of for even the most experienced to encounter problems from which they cannot recover.
02-17-2008, 11:26 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Fixed wing, left
Posts: 434
A study was done sometime in the 1990's that claimed that when students were taught to terminate simulated engine failures to 100 feet or more above the ground when a real one happened they would do a fine job of gliding until reaching 100 feet AGL. At that point they would stop the glide and attempt to hold altitude until they would stall and crash.
SkyHigh
SkyHigh
Even happens to experienced pilots. I know one personally who did pretty much the same thing. Walked away, but passed words of caution to keep speed up on landings....
02-18-2008, 05:03 AM
#17
Flying Farmer
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
A study was done sometime in the 1990's that claimed that when students were taught to terminate simulated engine failures to 100 feet or more above the ground when a real one happened they would do a fine job of gliding until reaching 100 feet AGL. At that point they would stop the glide and attempt to hold altitude until they would stall and crash.
SkyHigh
SkyHigh
02-18-2008, 10:24 AM
#20
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,205
As a CFI I was fortunate to have a deserted dirt strip out in the middle of nowhere to practice engine outs at. We'd do a low pass to check for obstructions, then do engine outs all the way to the flare...if the engine didn't get, we could have just landed. The student would really get a feel for whether the landing was going to work or not.
This was not in accordance with school policy, but the training was great and I felt there was no risk of damage if a landing was required (it was hard, dry, dirt).
