Jump to content

Experimental Crash in Michigan


Runtoeat

Recommended Posts

An Aros Skyranger II experimental aircraft went down near Ann Arbor airport (KARB) yesterday. Witnesses indicated that the engine was silent and that prior to landing, the plane made a 180 degree turn just before impact. The pilot and his wife/passenger were transported by ambulance and are in critical condition. Last year, a Remos aircraft went down that was also based at KARB.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/pittsfield-township-couple-flies-over-their-home-moments-before-crashing-in-back-yard/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wishing them speedy recoveries, looks like a real hard landing......Read the Comments associated with the attached URL. They refer, at great pains, to it as an Ultralight. Anyway, see what your neighbors think about our little airplanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ann Arbor airport is the typical little airport that was started in a cow pasture with rolling hills and no one around for miles in the '20's. Now, it's surrounded by large homes that have been built on the airport boundary by affluent University of Michigan grads and faculty and business owners. The airport is struggling for it's survival and these last two incidents are bringing those who want to shut it down out of the woodwork. My only concern though is that the pilot and his wife make a full recovery. The Skyranger is a Light Sport aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If reporting on this accident is accurate, once again we see here the too-often deadly 180 degree turn attempt back to the runway after a TO engine failure. It sometimes ends well. It more often does not. Especially with a Light Sport, low weight, slow stall speed aircraft (like our CTs) a straight or near straight ahead minimum controllable airspeed landing, even with obstacles, will generally be the better option. But then, easy to say sitting in the armchair rather than in the left seat of the plane it is happening to. I know that first-hand...

 

I have had one engine failure on TO in a C182 years ago. It happens fast, is a shock when at 200 feet the engine goes <bang> and stops, and the temptation to kick it around and try to make it back to the runway is almost overwhelming. In my case I was lucky enough that it was a private runway in South Carolina (low elevation) that was a former drag strip and so was long enough that I had runway still ahead. I was able to get the plane down and stopped just short of the departure end. Smoked the brakes and put a flat spot on the main tires! There was nothing but pine forest ahead and I had a full bag of 82 gallons of avgas aboard. Would have been ugly. But the result of a 180 turn attempt gone bad - a cartwheeling crash or a full stall and nose in is no better - and a straight ahead into trees or other obstacles while very, very bad...is likely no worse and may be marginally better. A lot of luck in such a circumstance but as pilots we can do a lot to influence our luck in such situations. OK. Off the soapbox... Be careful out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think each take-off is different and each needs to be briefed. I think we CFI's generally do a pathetic job of teaching and reinforcing this. If we analyze each ariport and runway, we will probably arrive at some preferable courses of action. If we're on the ground, we stay on the ground. If we're in the air below a certain point, we IMMEDIATELY go and trim to best glide speed and make a decision on where to land. In my own case, based on my glider training and my CTSW experiments, if I am below 400' I will land straight ahead or generally so as best I can. If I am 400' or above, I will land on the departure runway or a cross runway unless there is a clearly better option ahead of me.

 

To make this work, we need to teach and apply the idea of briefing every departure based on the conditions of the runway we're using. The reason for briefing the departure is because it enhances the idea that when a problem occurs and is identified, an acceptable course of action will be implemented without delay. What the action is, such as whether you as an individual would even contemplate a turn back maneuver, is based on the environment, equipment and level of training and skill. It will be different for each of us.

 

It is easy to say "never turn back" but it is much better for us to think our way through these situations ahead of time and adopt a prudent action as the situation indicates.

 

To show that responses are situation dependent, consider that glider pilots are required by PTS to be able to do a turn back at 200'. None of us would dream of doing that in most other airplanes. I would do it in my CTSW at 400' because I've practiced it and know I can make it work with a margin. I would absolutely not recommend that anyone else try that since they should establish their own standards based on study and practice. I would not have done it in my Cessna T210 until probably 800' or preferable 1,000'.

 

We need to consciously consider and brief every departure. Next time you're riding with your buddy, after the mag check and whill taxing for takeoff, ifi it is safe and not distracting, ask him to tell you at what altitude he wold consider a turnback in the event of engine trouble and then ask him why. Decide for yourself if s/he has really thought about it or is mouthing platitudes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...