CTLS down in Greenville, TX

[dstclair]

http://www.heraldbanner.com/topnews/x49 ... igh-School
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Small- ... 75901.html

I was going to fly over and take a look this morning but low morning clouds and strong gusty winds are keeping me on the ground today.

According to witnesses, the plane flipped over multiple times end-over-end but both occupants received only minor injuries. The cabin looks to be intact and a testament to the engineering.

[Merlinspop]

That speaks very well of the design. Very glad for the occupants.

[ct4me]

Great piloting and the "safety egg" gave a great result. We heard from the pilot, jeffrey. Except for scrapes, bumps, and a bit of whiplash, they are fine! The engine (just over 1600 hours) seized. They were set to glide into Greenville airport but headwinds thwarted that plan. They elected to not use the 'chute because of the heavily populated area and the appearance of a sports park with lots of fields. Unfortunately, there was a big ditch and some berms in the field they landed in. Jeff promises the rest of the story and pictures...

[FastEddieB]

Since not everyone here frequents the CTFlyer site, I will repost a comment I made ther:

Great outcome.

But although luckily no one was hurt, I think it again reinforces the inherent danger in any off-airport landing, even on a field that looks pretty darn good. Almost perfect, even.

Certainly one time I'd rather have a high wing than a low wing with a canopy!

And someone needs to start the discussion...would a chute pull have been a good option here? Hard to imagine it doing even more damage than what we see here. I wonder if it was even considered.

But all's well that ends well!


His account relates a reluctance to pull because of undue hazard to people on the ground.

But how warranted is that reluctance? I don't think anyone on the ground has been killed, or even injured, by a plane descending under parachute. The BRS goes off with a large BANG! followed by a slow descent, giving most people a chance to avoid it most of the time. On the other hand, people on the ground have been injured and killed by planes gliding in*.

The structure of the CT made a huge difference in the survivability of the event - it could have caused serious injuries or death in another plane.

I want everyone to know I am NOT faulting the pilot's decision not to pull - it resulted in a survivable conclusion, and a descent under BRS may not have. Hence the "All's well that ends well" in my post. But each event like this gives us a little more data to crunch if and when it's our time to make the BRS decision, or even better, to ponder before having to make that choice.


*One such example, which left an impression on me, here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35896336/ns/u ... y-landing/

[roger lee]

There was nothing wrong with the landing itself. There was a small ditch that wasn't visible from the air. No ditch no crash and he would have been okay. From the air it looked like a perfect landing spot. I would have done the same. I wouldn't have pulled the chute either. He was able to direct the plane this way, after a chute pull he was at the mercy of the wind and he was in a high traffic area.

[dstclair]

There was a small ditch that wasn't visible from the air. No ditch no crash and he would have been okay. From the air it looked like a perfect landing spot. I would have done the same. I wouldn't have pulled the chute either. He was able to direct the plane this way, after a chute pull he was at the mercy of the wind and he was in a high traffic area.

The inability to truly assess an unimproved landing area from the air is the major reason why I've decided to pull the chute if I have any doubt about where I'll put it down.

[MovingOn]

.......

[roger lee]

Since 1980 I have had 6-7 engine outs and never damaged a plane and I had chutes for the last 3. That said it could happen tomorrow. What made all these easy was I have turned off my engine at least a 100 times to practice so a dead engine isn't an over powering adrenalin fueled mental blocking emergency. You do the best you can and my concern is walking away first and plane damage second. I'll sacrifice the plane before my hide or my passenger. If you can get the plane on the ground at 45 mph or less then contact with a road sign to a wing or a collapse to the front wheel will still let me walk away. Even if you careen off a fence you'll walk away. These are not head on impacts and or sudden stops. When I taught drivers training for evasive and defensive driving for fire and police you teach when an collision is imminent pick your target. A side swipe or careening off an object to dissipate energy is preferable to head-on sudden stops. I still want that choice. If he pulled the chute over a busy city area what's to keep a car from smashing you if you land on a road or floating into a crowd or power lines? If the plane is flyable I get to choose.

Jeff had a very viable landing spot it was just Murphy's law he found that ditch on such a nice field. Sounds like he did a good job and no one could have predicted the ditch.

Not knowing what you would do in an engine out emergency and what type of glider pilot you are, how calm you are and how well you can hit a target is a very good reason many should be practicing engine outs and that means engine out not at idle. If you are uncomfortable doing this take a CFI who can handle this with you. Real engine out landings are no different than regular landings except there are no go arounds.

[MovingOn]

.......

[FastEddieB]

Good point.

6,700 hours in all sorts of planes over 39 years, some owned, some not, and...

1 complete engine stoppage right after takeoff in a cropduster. Landed straight ahead on runway remaining.

Maybe a handful of roughness/partial/temporary power losses, none of which required an off airport landing.

6 or 7 engine outs in relatively fewer hours does seem to call for further explanation. It does sound like a lot to me as well.

Oh, and the only time I recall purposely shutting down an engine was in multiengine training.

[ct4me]

Several of Roger's were those darn 2-stroke Ultralights, where many of the "I've heard..." stories about Rotax come from.

[roger lee]

It's not the total hours you fly, but the aircraft you fly and the places you go.

Several were in the two stroke days and in different aircraft, not to mention ones where you turn the engine off on purpose. Practice like you play is the best thing you can do for yourself. Once you do something enough it no longer is intimidating. I've landed between trees, on roads with cars, under and between power lines and over the top of barbered wire fences sliding in under power lines. Fly the plane don't let it mentally dominate you and don't let adrenalin and panic make you become tunnel visioned and afraid to do what is necessary. You just keep a cool head and land like you would any other time.
Only one of my engine outs was it on the runway.
I used to practice auto rotations in my helicopter all the time too. When I first learned I spent hour after hour doing them. Most guys are afraid to do that without a CFI on board, but he won't be there when it happens for real. Some day you just have to have faith in yourself and do it like you trained. Do all things turn out as we want, absolutely not. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

Glider pilots do it all the time. Why should they have all the fun.

[MovingOn]

.......

[CharlieTango]

Reasonable people can disagree. Shutting down a perfectly good engine in a single engine airplane to practice engine out emergencies is a bad idea.

Back in the 1980s when 2-stroke powered very light aircraft were common it was a good idea for some. The first step is to kill the motor on short final after the runway is assured and then to build the skill from farther out and higher up.

When our attitude was that it is not a matter of if but a matter of when building dead stick skills offset the risk.

[MovingOn]

.......