Sport Pilot Talk

VANCOUVER -- One person was killed and another injured when a small plane crashed at Pearson Field Airport in Vancouver late Wednesday afternoon, authorities told KGW. (Pearson Field claims to be the first US Airport. It is just north of Portland Oregon) http://www.kgw.com/news/Small-plane-cra ... 05305.html

Two men were in the plane when it went down, according to the Vancouver Fire Department. One victim was pronounced dead at the crash scene after bystanders tried to resuscitate him with CPR.

"We all just chipped in and did what we could," said one witness who wished to remain anonymous.

The second person was rushed to a local hospital in critical condition, officials said.

The view from Sky-8 just after 4 p.m. showed that both wings had snapped off the plane. The wreckage was scattered near the runway on the west end of the airport.

A witness told KGW the plane took off, flew about 200 yards, then stalled, spun and dove to the ground.
(the Columbian newspaper says: Witnesses said the aircraft, a home-built craft owned by Woodward, had just taken off from Pearson and was 200 to 300 feet off the ground when its engine started sputtering. The plane circled the field in what looked like an attempt to land and crashed in a grassy area between the runway and Fort Vancouver.)

"It was a loud crunch," said witness John Larson.

The plane was a fixed wing single-engine aircraft registered to an owner in Vancouver. It was described as an amateur-built experimental plane.

Pearson Field is located east of I-5 and just north of Highway 14 and the Columbia River.

The airport is operated by the City of Vancouver and it's the only airport in the U.S. that operates totally within the boundaries of a national historic reserve.

"I've been with the city for 23 years and I can't remember the last fatality here at Pearson," said Cpl. Duane Boynton of the Vancouver Police Department. Pearson Field is the oldest operating airfield in the United States dating to the landing of the dirigible Gelatine,

h[img]ttp://www.earlyaeroplanes.com/archive/airship ... rtland.jpg[/img] piloted by Lincoln Beachey, upon the polo grounds of the Vancouver Barracks in 1905.[2] Located in the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, it is also the only airport in the United States that operates totally within the boundaries of a national historic reserve.[3] Primarily used for general aviation, the airfield's lone runway is located directly beneath the final approach to nearby Portland International Airport. The airport lies next to the Lewis and Clark Highway and the Columbia River. It is the only airport in Washington that is a satellite airport.

Well that is a pretty provocative headline which is accurate for different people in different situation in different ways.
It might be illustrative to look at a google map of the area. It is heavily built up. Without more information, we don't know if the plane took off from the end of the runway or a mid-point.
The passenger was a skilled mechanic.
The engine was a Rotax, apparently a radial, in a KitFox.
Other media reports have witness statements that seem somewhat at odds with the one cited. In fact, the internal witness comments are in conflict.
This situation is a good example of the value of briefing a departure. One is a leg up on being spring loaded for immediate reactions if one is necessary. That can save time.
The crash sounds like it might be consistent with a stall or stall-spin based on trying to stretch a glide. But, we don't know yet.
It would be a useful exercise for everyone to pull up the google maps of this airport and make a determiniation of where you think is the best place to put the plane down in the event of an engine problem on a west departure.
What do you think? Straight ahead into the interstate clover leaf? Left turn into the river? Right turn into a built-up area?
And how do we know - beyond the speculation of witnesses who don't necessarily know what is going on - that there was an attempt to get back to the airport? Maybe they had a landing spot in mind?
Well, make up any story you'd like.

Jim, Rotax doesn't make a radial engine, but there is a company called Rotec that does. They are often confused, but there has been at least one installed in a Kit Fox. It likely was not a radial engine. Kit Fox used a cowling that was made to look like it had a radial engine installed, but some used a 582 Rotax. I'm sure other models were used as well.

Thanks for correcting me on the Rotax issue. The FAA site says Rotax, so you're comment on the 582 may be on. I likely confused the Rotec and Rotax names when looking at the cowling on the picture of the KitFox. My mistake is a good example of the thing I was warning against - leaping to conclusions.

I don't like to second-guess a pilot's decision in an accident situation since it is a virtual certainty that I won't have all the facts. What I can do is ask myself what I would do in what I believe would be a similar situation.

Before I take-off at any airport, I determine what I would do if the engine failed. Different airports require different plans. Sometimes there won't be a 'good' option -- just the best option. In my case, I will never turn back to the airport if I'm below 700' AGL. Current glider pilots or those that practice dead-stick more than I may have a lower threshold. That's what being PIC is all about.

My suggestion is take this report and learn from the situation.

Coincidentally this terrible accident happened within a few days of a new audio tape was made public about this very subject.
The old/bold pilot said to look at every airport map before you take off.
Figure out at what point you have reached "the point of no return". On my CTSW they say 300 feet above ground level but I wonder if 600 agl feet would be more prudent.

As part of your routine before taking off, tell yourself...."If power out at under 500 feet at this airport there is a golf course straight ahead....there is a freeway to the left, and there are mowed fields to my right."

Hitting the ground from 300 feet is fatal but hitting the ground at a mere 20mph with a parachute produce much better outcomes.

ussyorktown wrote:On my CTSW they say 300 feet above ground level but I wonder if 600 agl feet would be more prudent.

Who is the "they" and what are they saying? To do a turn back to the airport and land on the departure runway?
I have run my CTSW through a test twice and my comfort level is not less than 450 feet right now, and that assumes I've briefed the takeoff. My test was at full gross and with the engine at idle. I don't know what I'd find with no engine. Some would argue that even 600 feet is too low.
I've not seen a turnback altitude in print from FD. If anyone has seen one, I'd like the reference, please.

Please share the results of your test on when it unsafe to try to return to airport w/ no power.
I got the 300 feet from that flight school in California. 600 is what Flight Design says.

ussyorktown wrote:Please share the results of your test on when it unsafe to try to return to airport w/ no power.
I got the 300 feet from that flight school in California. 600 is what Flight Design says.

I went out with a friend and got to about 2500 AGL. I lined up with a road, slowed the airplane to take-off configuration, set 15° flaps, added full power and pitched to 59 kias to emulate take-off.
I flew, my friend watched the altimeter. He pulled the throttle to idle with no warning. I responded with a nose down push and turn into the wind to avoid being blown downwind from the runway (road) (you need to know what the wind is doing). We did this twice. One time I made it back online with a 400 ft altitude loss. The second time was 450 feet.

Based on this, I would not even think about a turn back at less than 450 feet, and would feel a lot better at 600 feet. The 300' altitude sounds very optimistic to me. Where does FD say 600 feet? Can you provide the reference?

I'm with JN on this one.

I practiced this 500 feet off the deck. No winds, cool morning, engine at idle, on the top of my game. I was able to get turned around and lined up in 300 feet. 60 knots, 45 degree banks, ball centered.

What this tells me is that with the engine dead, it's going to cost me at least another 100 feet. Coming as a surprise will cost another 50 feet. That makes 450.

The thing that really bothers me about this debate is that it's not the turn that kills people, it's the stall/spin. Keep the airspeed up, the ball centered and you can turn whatever way gives you the best chances.

... add to all of the above.
Being REALLY cool under pressure in a situation like that is vital.
Practice safely. Emotions are probably as critical as airmanship.

Flight Design POH Supplement Page 7

• After take-off, release the back pressure on the stick slowly as airspeed builds to 59 kts. (110 km/h). Climb to a minimum height of 600 ft. in straight ahead flight at 59 kts. (110 km/h) before attempting to turn the aircraft.

EMERGENCIES
POWER LOSS IMMEDIATELY AFTER
TAKEOFF — NO RESTART
MAINTAIN AIRCRAFT CONTROL
FLAPS TAKEOFF 15° — 54 KTS
FUEL VALVE — OFF
IGNITION/MASTER — OFF

POWER LOSS IN FLIGHT
BEST GLIDE 0° FLAPS 63 KTS
NOTE WIND DIRECTION/SPEED
PICK LANDING SITE
PLAN APPROACH TO SITE
FUEL VALVE — ON
MASTERS — ON
IGNITION — RESTART
IF NO RESTART AND TIME PERMITS
SQUAWK 7700
DECLARE MAYDAY — 121.5
SEATBELTS
FUEL VALVE — OFF
KEY/MASTERS — OFF
LATCH DOORS OPEN
LAND TAIL LOW — 40° FLAPS, 43 KTS,
STICK FULL AFT

ELECTRICAL FIRE
ALL ELECTRICAL + MASTER OFF
CABIN AIR VENTS — OPEN
IF FIRE OUT — BATTERY ON ONLY IF
CRITICAL
RESET CIRCUIT BREAKERS IF CRITICAL
LAND ASAP

IN-FLIGHT ENGINE FIRE
FUEL SHUTOFF VALVE — CLOSED
KEY — OFF
CABIN HEAR — OFF
THROTTLE — FULL
INCREASE AIRSPEED TO EXTINGUISH
SLIP AWAY FROM SMOKE IF POSSIBLE.
LAND ASAP — 43 KTS/40° FLAPS
IF NOT EXTINGUISHED AND NO SAFE
LANDING, FLY AIRCRAFT TO 700ʼ AGL,
SLOW IF ABLE, ACTIVATE BRS!
ENGINE FIRE DURING START
CONTINUE CRANKING ENGINE
IF STARTS — RUN A FEW SECONDS
THEN SHUTDOWN.
IF NO START — FUEL VALVE CLOSED,
THROTTLE OPEN, CRANK ENGINE.
MASTERS/IGNITION — OFF
EVACUATE WITH FIRE EXTINGUISHER
ICING
CARB HEAT — ON
CABIN HEAT — ON
CONSIDER 180° STD RATE TURN
ATTAIN HIGHER OR LOWER ALTITUDE
INCREASE RPM
MAKE 0° FLAP LANDING AT HIGHER
THAN NORMAL AIRSPEED.
BALLISTIC RECOVERY SYSTEM
TIGHTEN HARNESSES
KEY AND MASTERS — OFF
FUEL VALVE — OFF
SLOW IF ABLE BEFORE ACTIVATING BRS
(revised 09/24/2010)
O

ussyorktown wrote:Flight Design POH Supplement Page 7

• After take-off, release the back pressure on the stick slowly as airspeed builds to 59 kts. (110 km/h). Climb to a minimum height of 600 ft. in straight ahead flight at 59 kts. (110 km/h) before attempting to turn the aircraft.

I would not take this to mean the "impossible turn", I'd take it to mean any turn. Having said that, I know a CFI, very experienced mountain man, who says turn at 400' so that if you have a problem your next turn is not 180 (or more) but 90 (or more).

In blunt terms, unless you already have practiced and know you can do the turn back, I'd personally not recommend anyone do it even at 600 feet. I know it can be done - but if it isn't done right it can kill you. Go out at altitude, with an isntructor if you wish, and practice. Then, factor in what you know and are comfortable with in you departure briefing.

BTW, this is a differnet thread I'd like to start on the differences between theh SW and LS POHs.

During your test runs, is anyone giving a 5 second count before you do anything to allow for the surprise factor. I did this with my instructor and in. Tecnam found that 700 would be a good altitude and again, I always brief myself on where I'm heading if. Lose he noggin on takeoff. Departing rwy 29 I have the Chesapeake bay straight ahead. However there is. Shallow inlet which would be an option