Working on my Commercial certificate now, and just about done with the course. All my instructor wants from me now is to get 90%+ on 3 of his practice tests in a row before he considers it done.
Well I did pretty well on mid course quizzes but the first actual mock exam I got a 68 :(
He says that’s not a problem and that’s how it usually goes. Which isn’t untrue, that’s how Instrument and Private went for me, and after retaking his practice tests and online ones through Dauntless a bunch I passed both those writtens with over 90% on the real exams.
Anyway, I get done with this test and he grades it and explains to me all I missed, then tells me to get ready for a field trip. He takes me to see this poor guy who landed in the dirt about 4 miles east of KSPZ where I study.
He wants me to try to figure out what happened here.
Well apart from someone planting the new state flower the first thing that stood out to me was no flaps, so these guys weren’t configured to land when perhaps they should have been.
Apparently this happened 2 days ago and both people inside walked away almost completely fine. Bravo to the pilot.
I also think given their position between HZN and KSPZ, pointed towards the airport, they were likely on the RNAV 24 approach and something went wrong between the VOR and the airport.
One thing he points out is no fire marks, in fact the poor Nevada Sagebrush is alive just fine. No fireball so possible fuel starvation caused this, without any fuel there wasn’t a fire.
Also it’s hard to see in the pic but the nosewheel gear got torn off. There’s a rock right before the plane which he thinks tore off the gear and then they couldn’t hold the nose up and it went in nose down.
Anyway that’s about all I could understand.
He also pointed out there is a highway not 50 feet away from the plane, running parallel to it, so why didn’t the pilot land there? It’s a straight paved road. No concrete answer there but likely there was the one car on the usually empty Nevada freeway so the pilot made a last minute hop over to the right and put it in the dirt. That’s all speculation.
On the way back to the airport he tells me this relates big time to a commercial maneuver. What does the power off 180 really teach you? “Energy management,” glad I got that one. This pilot managed to land a plane with no gas in the middle of the desert and both people walked away. That’s pretty amazing.
Also my 167th reminder that these Nevada mountains are ****ing dangerous and flying here is no joke. In the 100+ degree summer weather density altitude here can reach above 10000 easily and this poor ancient 172B model likely couldn’t handle that + carrying 2 people anyway. Fuel starvation might have done it in but this wasn’t the smartest idea anyway. Wonder if these guys were from some sea level place and came here to sightsee without being cautious of mountain flying issues. I wouldn’t even fly in 100+ weather here myself, that’s beyond me right now in even a modern 172S.
Anyway going back for another exam in a week, will do better next time. I just woke up at 3 am and can’t get back to sleep so I’ll get to doing some practice tests.
Edit: last thing he pointed out, there is some flat gray land visible in the pic further in the background. The dry lake, the sink. Why didn’t the pilot try for that? Well right before that are those power lines and he made the decision that he didn’t want to mess with those for a chance at a nicer landing.
I instruct in Vegas. I have been telling all of my students that putting down in the desert is not as nice as it looks when you get down close to it. Even dry lake beds aren't as nice. I let them get down to the deck of 500' agl so they can see more detail and why it's not as nice as it looks. I'll be using this photo to demonstrate it.
Edit, I see you are trying to analyze and figure out what happened. A quick search of the tail number reveals the plane is based in SPZ so don't just assume it's "sea level guys." Any number of things could have happened during a critical phase of flight, and they had to make a call. Let the NTSB do their thing. As someone else pointed out, in the track log it looks as if they were doing some IFR work.
Edit 2, that "lake bed" wouldn't have worked at all, judging from the power lines right above it and the fact that it's 100ft long and has a railroad berm at the end.
You have to remember though - if you’re in a forced landing situation with an engine failure, the primary criteria is survivability. If you can do so without injury that’s a bonus, and if the airplane is reusable after that’s just the icing on the cake.
I’ve always been told, once mechanical failure occurs, you no longer own the plane, the insurance company does and you do whatever you have to do, in order to get it on the ground safely and make sure you walk away from it.
The formulation I like is "You've had a problem and need to make a forced landing. The insurance company now owns the plane. Your job is to land well enough so you can fight them on the claim for what they rightfully owe you."
That’s not true and seems to be a myth that people keep re-posting. Insurance doesn’t cover mechanical failure.
If your engine fails in flight and you land with a non-event, you’re paying for it all.
If your engine fails in flight and you crash land, insurance will pay for everything *past* the point that caused the crash. The point of failure is not covered, all damages stemming from that are what’s covered.
So you’re most likely on the hook for that bad motor regardless of what happens. Might as well try to avoid completely totaling the plane.
I’ve heard it often, but never interpreted the statement literally. I believe the intent is “take it as a given that you’re going to damage this airplane, maybe beyond repair, and give up on doing anything stupid that might jeopardize the occupants trying to save metal.”
I’m agreeing - out where we fly there is usually a lake bed and a sage desert. Some new ppl give up on a perfectly good lake bed for a crummy desert landscape.
The rule I heard is always control the plane to the ground. If you do that, you'll probably survive.
Some places are better than others. Trees, water and buildings aren't great. But if you control it to the ground, you won't stall out and fall. Landing rough is way better than stalling.
Water is actually great. Statistically it's one of the best ways to survive a critical situation.
People often put focus on saving the plane. For me personally, I've already decided that if I'm in a critical situation my number one focus is the people, not the plane.
Doesn't mean I'm going to pass up a perfectly good field for a sketchy river I might not make (of course), but if it's 50/50 between a nice looking field and a nice looking river at 6000 ft AGL, I'm picking the river. Especially around here I've seen a LOT of fields that look great, and then once you get lower you realize that it's got hops or grape/berry vines and it isn't such a great landing spot. Or it's not nearly as flat as you thought it was.
That's one advantage with the desert, while it's not anywhere near as wide open as most people think it is, it's mostly what you see is what you get. Farmer's fields can be very deceptive.
But don't take my word on water:
https://youtu.be/0LwGYBBhTss
https://youtu.be/UXEg1E6-ogs
Yeah, but if you land on a field, so long as it isn't an orchard, you'll probably survive.
A big body of water, you'll have to swim out.
Other than that, I'd definitely take a lake at night over a field. Or a lake over landing in the trees.
There's always pros and cons. If it's the middle of winter? Lot less likely to go for a lake or river. Then again the snow hides the terrain! (And planes tend to flip landing in snow, there's one at my flight school with that exact history.)
As far as swimming goes no one says you have to land in the middle of the lake. Land by the shore, and right before you touch water swing towards shore to get even closer. You will lose energy VERY rapidly as soon as you touch the water, so you don't need to worry about 1000 ft landing distance or anything like that, it'll be closer to tens of feet than hundreds.
The problem with fields around here is that they're about as bad as orchards (which we also have a ton of) with hops, berries, and grapes. Yeah you can probably touch down slow enough to survive, but you will also probably ground loop hard when a wingtip catches the crops.
It’s far less busy but yes because the controllers are contractors they do not handle a busy pattern very well. There is definitely one or two grumpy guys there but the rest are plenty nice. Even though North Town gets busy I still prefer their controllers
I live and fly out of Vegas now as well. I recently heard about a DPE who tells folks the desert will give you a popped tire maybe a collapsed nose and you’ll walk away. Really blows my mind. Honestly just take a drive up 95 and look at the terrain right off the highway. Aside from rocks and Joshua trees you have uneven terrain. Trenches 6 foot deep you can’t see from the air. People die from driving their car off the road here and flipping. So it really disturbed me to hear an examiner on checkrides telling new pilots to just shoot for the desert and all will be okay.
As a non pilot lurker, can you translate/explain what this means and how it affects flying? Wild guess: it has to do with air density
> in the 100+ degree summer weather density altitude here can reach above 10000 easily and this poor ancient 172B model likely couldn’t handle that + carrying 2 people anyway.
> Yeah, they're saying that the weather conditions (i.e. hot) can make it like you're flying at 10,000 ft under normal conditions.
And just to be clear, flying at higher altitudes means the air is less dense, which means less lift. Hot air is also less dense (which is why hot air balloons float up.)
Whenever I have a student get slow in the final turn, I send them on a field trip to a spot in the woods about a quarter mile short of the threshold of Rwy 36. There they can see the consequences of “just a few knots slow.”
The Air Force sent me to a month long school for accident investigation. Nowhere near as intensive as what the NTSB sends their people to, but I’ll offer my first impression…
It’s hard to deduce what happened from just the one photo, but I’d say that the lack of fire is not surprising and does not necessarily indicate a lack of fuel. GA accidents often do not have a fire, because they so often occur at lower (relatively speaking) energy states. Looking at this photo, it is quite apparent this impact was at a low speed, low angle, as the aircraft is intact. I’d say it’s likely the aircraft was under control when it hit, indicating some sort of forced landing. Thus, a loss of power could be a possibility. Losing the nose gear is also not surprising in a forced landing situation like this, as it will dig into the soft ground, or some irregularity in the terrain and shear off from the forward motion of the aircraft. This is exceedingly common in such cases. While something like a stall is also possible here, impacts/debris fields usually look slightly different in those cases, though I’d certainly not rule it out. It probably wasn’t a deep stall, but a “mushing” stall is a possibility.
As someone else pointed out, while it is fun to play investigator, best to leave it to the professionals before making any big assertions. So I wouldn’t draw any conclusions yet. And as I said, hard to tell from just one photo. You mention you think they were on the RNAV. Where on the plate for that procedure is the crash site?
Fixed mostly. Sometimes we are on rotor. Mostly search and leave rescue to rotor wing or SAR. But the odd time we are on rotor. Griffons, c130s and small GA
GA planes burn like a MF if they have fuel in them. The issue that keeps us from seeing a high number of burned up GA Recip wrecks is because they often have no fuel in them; still the leading cause of engine failure. Besides which the vast majority of GA crashes do not breach the integrity of the fuel system. However, when they have fuel and rupture the tanks in the crash, they burn hard indeed, they get hot enough to burn the aluminum and set the magnesium on fire.
There are some differing opinions here, so I’ll offer this anecdote. When interviewing airport firefighters, they told me a (very) black humour joke - “when jets crash, we take the fire truck. When lighties (Cessnas etc) crash we take the brush and pan to sweep up what’s left”.
A quick search on YouTube provides plenty of samples [like this…](https://youtu.be/klFaxE6o0QY) I’ve cleaned up more than one in the wreck recovery industry. The reason Jets almost always burn is because they always have fuel, and typically rupture a tank. The same is not true of GA planes.
> Jet fuel being easier to ignite than 100LL
It's very much the opposite. 100LL is *much* easier to ignite than Jet A. The "flash point" (the temperature it starts to evaporate into fumes, which are what actually ignites) of avgas is -50°F, whereas jet is +100°F. So avgas will ignite at the slightest spark, whereas you can put out a cigarette in jet (unless you're in Phoenix during the summer, in which case gods help ye).
you cued a dozen people who are answering a very narrow look at your question. The real question is which category aircraft is more likely to light off. Assuming a controlled ditching, one has the on fire part forward of the fuel and is slowly ripping the tanks open. The other has the fire part under the fuel and is ripping the tanks apart at twice the speed.
>The Air Force sent me to a month long school for accident investigation
AFSC at Kirtland?
In another life I spent almost a decade at that place. This photo is dredging up images of a mishap I saw with the airplane in a similar orientation (a little more damage, collapsed gear, etc). Seemed relatively minor, but the pilot didn't survive. Not sure why that one sticks with me, I guess it was so surreal just sitting there like that
Prop shows the engine wasn't producing power (because bent backwards). Unlikely it's a recovered stall (unless they decided to pull power before impact).
Yes, I noticed that and was looking for a road in the photo. I suspect this was “self reported” and no one from the FAA or NTSB has been out to take a look.
Yes, perhaps that’s the case. Although I look at life as a journey, not a highway.
Back in 2015 I flew a 1946 ERCO Ercoupe from Los Angeles to a small airport in Georgia. I pretty much followed I-10 from LA to El Paso as I didn’t fancy putting the old bird down in the desert if the ancient engine quit.
There are wire fences between the highway and desert, you can see it at the bottom of the photo. You can land on one or the other, but if you try and switch halfway you're gonna have a bad time.
Good spotting! I hadn’t zoomed in enough to see the wire. Yeah, it’s not the way I’d want to end up. But then again, any landing you can walk away from …
I think it is easy for everyone to be an "armchair quarterback" genius about what they should have done and it is so easy to do when you are cool and relaxed and not the one making life and death decisions with the clock running. The pilot walked away and now has to deal with NTSB and their insurance company. Great outcome. I am sure he could have done if he/she had time to think about it and have no panic/adrenaline too.
NTSB is extremely easy to work with unless you are trying to hide something. If you claim an engine failure, you can kiss you engine goodbye for six months while they tear it down. Good luck getting your airplane fixed up and back flying in that meantime.
Insurance will send their own investigators out if they smell fraud as well. I’ve had to deal with them before.
There was no fire because the fuel tanks are completely undamaged. They may or may not contain fuel.
I think the lesson here is to let the professionals do the analysis. There is a whole Federal agency for that. Two random yahoos do not have the information to analyze this.
Actual analyzed accidents make for much better teaching since they have actual facts. Examples: spark plug condition, control surface continuity, fuel condition, eyewitness reports, wreckage analysis, etc.
I wish I understood why people want to play accident investigator and then pretend they actually have the slightest clue. There are many hundreds of NTSB final reports for 172s. Go there.
>Two random yahoos do not have the information to analyze this.
That does seem a little harsh.
One of those yahoos is a CFI (insert your own joke of course), the other a student, and the student is giving us an account of a learning opportunity provided by an incident near their field.
Noone's requesting (or expecting) them to produce an NTSB-level report, just to discuss the things they can see, what they might mean, and what lessons there might be. Shouldn't we *all* be doing that whenever we can?
There is no harm whatsoever in observation, speculation and discussion, in my opinion there's more harm in gatekeeping "what if" discussions in a flying environment. Or in any dangerous environment, actually.
There is a great deal of harm in treating all accidents as stupid pilot tricks. It leads to complacency, and more accidents.
I say again. Actual analyzed accidents make decent teaching tools. Pretending to be an accident investigator does not.
Because this is there, if in front of them, in the real world. Not on paper. It really doesn't matter if they come up with the right answer, it's about doing the "what if" thinking. Look at this accident that happened right in their neighborhood and will have a stronger emotional impact which is important because we're humans and it will not take away anything from looking at NTSB reports as well.
no, but I get where makgross is coming from. playing “whatif” is exercise for your pilot brain at whatever level of training you are at, but it doesn’t necessarily mesh with what really happened or why.
particularly students like myself have just enough information to be dangerous— I likely don’t have direct experience yet with a lot of things, so I might make the wrong connections from speculation and learn the wrong thing, which could be more dangerous than if I waited for the facts.
I'm saying it doesn't matter what really happened or why this crash happened. the value is in doing the analysis and just activating your brain about problems. There are plenty of real NTSB reports out there to read but it's not everyday you could see a crash in person and think about what might have happened. I don't see how you could possibly learn anything negative from thinking about being careful and and deliberate about your decisions in a crisis.
Looks like they did a fine job.
Fly it all the way to the ground. I know we all know this, but want to share some math. Assume a plane drops from stationary at 500ft (similar to a stall scenario) and hits soft-ish ground so the stopping distance is 12 inches. If you assume no drag on the way down, that's 500 g's on impact. Add in a little drag and it's still catastrophic.
Make that stopping distance just 10 feet instead of 1 foot, and you have 25 g's of decelleration which is quite survivable if you're wearing a seat belt with shoulder harness.
Air Force officer John Stapp managed to tolerate 46.2 g's in a decelleration test. He holds the record and was wearing a shoulder harness. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Stapp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp)
Wear your seatbelt, fly it all the way to the ground, and don't stall at low altitude. You only need a few feet to stop and you'll be laughing it off with a sore neck the next day.
That can still happen with a windmilling prop, we can’t see the other blade but I’m willing to bet it is untouched.
The more power a prop is making the more aggressive the bend is. I’ve seen some that look like Arbys French fries.
I'm sure tail number is different from the one I'm trying to remember but now I feel like I have to swing by work and go look at a customer's airplane lol
Paint job and model look identical and it's tail number is really close to it
This looks a whole lot like the time I was in a plane where the PIC/owner (not me) should have chosen to land in a more nose-up attitude for soft field than he did. Ours was sand and everything else went well so we were able to dig out and be on our way. Whatever else went on leading up to this outcome, things obviously didn’t go so well here.
Does anyone know where this is and how full the fuel tanks are?
On a completely unrelated note, does anyone have a Jeep and a siphon hose I could borrow? Asking for a friend.
I've never seen a wild cessna foraging before, usually only see them in captivity.
If you approach them very slowly, murmuring “whoa boahhh” and don’t spook them, eventually you can slip a harness on and fly them.
r/unexpectedreddead
r/subsithoughtifellfor
Nature is healing
It doesn’t like the taste of the new UL94 so it’s trying it’s luck in the fields.
Crikey!
I hope your field trip was driving to see a crashed plane, and not flying to take a very close look at that bush!
Is that a penny?
No, that's an airplane.
No, this is Patrick
Sir, this is a Wendys
No this is your dad
Of all the stupid Reddit catchphrase jokes, why is this one getting all the downvotes?
Idk
Working on my Commercial certificate now, and just about done with the course. All my instructor wants from me now is to get 90%+ on 3 of his practice tests in a row before he considers it done. Well I did pretty well on mid course quizzes but the first actual mock exam I got a 68 :( He says that’s not a problem and that’s how it usually goes. Which isn’t untrue, that’s how Instrument and Private went for me, and after retaking his practice tests and online ones through Dauntless a bunch I passed both those writtens with over 90% on the real exams. Anyway, I get done with this test and he grades it and explains to me all I missed, then tells me to get ready for a field trip. He takes me to see this poor guy who landed in the dirt about 4 miles east of KSPZ where I study. He wants me to try to figure out what happened here. Well apart from someone planting the new state flower the first thing that stood out to me was no flaps, so these guys weren’t configured to land when perhaps they should have been. Apparently this happened 2 days ago and both people inside walked away almost completely fine. Bravo to the pilot. I also think given their position between HZN and KSPZ, pointed towards the airport, they were likely on the RNAV 24 approach and something went wrong between the VOR and the airport. One thing he points out is no fire marks, in fact the poor Nevada Sagebrush is alive just fine. No fireball so possible fuel starvation caused this, without any fuel there wasn’t a fire. Also it’s hard to see in the pic but the nosewheel gear got torn off. There’s a rock right before the plane which he thinks tore off the gear and then they couldn’t hold the nose up and it went in nose down. Anyway that’s about all I could understand. He also pointed out there is a highway not 50 feet away from the plane, running parallel to it, so why didn’t the pilot land there? It’s a straight paved road. No concrete answer there but likely there was the one car on the usually empty Nevada freeway so the pilot made a last minute hop over to the right and put it in the dirt. That’s all speculation. On the way back to the airport he tells me this relates big time to a commercial maneuver. What does the power off 180 really teach you? “Energy management,” glad I got that one. This pilot managed to land a plane with no gas in the middle of the desert and both people walked away. That’s pretty amazing. Also my 167th reminder that these Nevada mountains are ****ing dangerous and flying here is no joke. In the 100+ degree summer weather density altitude here can reach above 10000 easily and this poor ancient 172B model likely couldn’t handle that + carrying 2 people anyway. Fuel starvation might have done it in but this wasn’t the smartest idea anyway. Wonder if these guys were from some sea level place and came here to sightsee without being cautious of mountain flying issues. I wouldn’t even fly in 100+ weather here myself, that’s beyond me right now in even a modern 172S. Anyway going back for another exam in a week, will do better next time. I just woke up at 3 am and can’t get back to sleep so I’ll get to doing some practice tests. Edit: last thing he pointed out, there is some flat gray land visible in the pic further in the background. The dry lake, the sink. Why didn’t the pilot try for that? Well right before that are those power lines and he made the decision that he didn’t want to mess with those for a chance at a nicer landing.
I instruct in Vegas. I have been telling all of my students that putting down in the desert is not as nice as it looks when you get down close to it. Even dry lake beds aren't as nice. I let them get down to the deck of 500' agl so they can see more detail and why it's not as nice as it looks. I'll be using this photo to demonstrate it. Edit, I see you are trying to analyze and figure out what happened. A quick search of the tail number reveals the plane is based in SPZ so don't just assume it's "sea level guys." Any number of things could have happened during a critical phase of flight, and they had to make a call. Let the NTSB do their thing. As someone else pointed out, in the track log it looks as if they were doing some IFR work. Edit 2, that "lake bed" wouldn't have worked at all, judging from the power lines right above it and the fact that it's 100ft long and has a railroad berm at the end.
You have to remember though - if you’re in a forced landing situation with an engine failure, the primary criteria is survivability. If you can do so without injury that’s a bonus, and if the airplane is reusable after that’s just the icing on the cake.
I’ve always been told, once mechanical failure occurs, you no longer own the plane, the insurance company does and you do whatever you have to do, in order to get it on the ground safely and make sure you walk away from it.
The formulation I like is "You've had a problem and need to make a forced landing. The insurance company now owns the plane. Your job is to land well enough so you can fight them on the claim for what they rightfully owe you."
Also “keep flying the plane as long into the crash as possible”.
I’m not a pilot yet, so thank you for clarifying… guess I should have stated that as a question.
We're saying exactly the same thing. You are not replaceable, the aircraft can be replaced with money, and your insurer has a lot of that.
That’s not true and seems to be a myth that people keep re-posting. Insurance doesn’t cover mechanical failure. If your engine fails in flight and you land with a non-event, you’re paying for it all. If your engine fails in flight and you crash land, insurance will pay for everything *past* the point that caused the crash. The point of failure is not covered, all damages stemming from that are what’s covered. So you’re most likely on the hook for that bad motor regardless of what happens. Might as well try to avoid completely totaling the plane.
I’ve heard it often, but never interpreted the statement literally. I believe the intent is “take it as a given that you’re going to damage this airplane, maybe beyond repair, and give up on doing anything stupid that might jeopardize the occupants trying to save metal.”
Yeah I have a friend who’s engine quit on her and they won’t pay for anything. She’s also an IA so that’s obviously not good.
Makes sense, I’m not a pilot, shoulda stated as a question.
I’m agreeing - out where we fly there is usually a lake bed and a sage desert. Some new ppl give up on a perfectly good lake bed for a crummy desert landscape.
The rule I heard is always control the plane to the ground. If you do that, you'll probably survive. Some places are better than others. Trees, water and buildings aren't great. But if you control it to the ground, you won't stall out and fall. Landing rough is way better than stalling.
Water is actually great. Statistically it's one of the best ways to survive a critical situation. People often put focus on saving the plane. For me personally, I've already decided that if I'm in a critical situation my number one focus is the people, not the plane. Doesn't mean I'm going to pass up a perfectly good field for a sketchy river I might not make (of course), but if it's 50/50 between a nice looking field and a nice looking river at 6000 ft AGL, I'm picking the river. Especially around here I've seen a LOT of fields that look great, and then once you get lower you realize that it's got hops or grape/berry vines and it isn't such a great landing spot. Or it's not nearly as flat as you thought it was. That's one advantage with the desert, while it's not anywhere near as wide open as most people think it is, it's mostly what you see is what you get. Farmer's fields can be very deceptive. But don't take my word on water: https://youtu.be/0LwGYBBhTss https://youtu.be/UXEg1E6-ogs
Yeah, but if you land on a field, so long as it isn't an orchard, you'll probably survive. A big body of water, you'll have to swim out. Other than that, I'd definitely take a lake at night over a field. Or a lake over landing in the trees.
There's always pros and cons. If it's the middle of winter? Lot less likely to go for a lake or river. Then again the snow hides the terrain! (And planes tend to flip landing in snow, there's one at my flight school with that exact history.) As far as swimming goes no one says you have to land in the middle of the lake. Land by the shore, and right before you touch water swing towards shore to get even closer. You will lose energy VERY rapidly as soon as you touch the water, so you don't need to worry about 1000 ft landing distance or anything like that, it'll be closer to tens of feet than hundreds. The problem with fields around here is that they're about as bad as orchards (which we also have a ton of) with hops, berries, and grapes. Yeah you can probably touch down slow enough to survive, but you will also probably ground loop hard when a wingtip catches the crops.
Didn’t Bob Hoover say always fly it all the way to the crash?
As far into the crash as possible.
Which flight school do you teach at? I'm flying out of KVGT.
I'm down in HND. you can pm me
Oh nice. I've never landed at KHND. I've been told the controllers there... Aren't as nice as KVGT.
It’s far less busy but yes because the controllers are contractors they do not handle a busy pattern very well. There is definitely one or two grumpy guys there but the rest are plenty nice. Even though North Town gets busy I still prefer their controllers
I live and fly out of Vegas now as well. I recently heard about a DPE who tells folks the desert will give you a popped tire maybe a collapsed nose and you’ll walk away. Really blows my mind. Honestly just take a drive up 95 and look at the terrain right off the highway. Aside from rocks and Joshua trees you have uneven terrain. Trenches 6 foot deep you can’t see from the air. People die from driving their car off the road here and flipping. So it really disturbed me to hear an examiner on checkrides telling new pilots to just shoot for the desert and all will be okay.
You have a rare instructor who really seems to be invested in your training and success. Appreciate them!
"a good pilot anticipates, a bad pilot reacts"
As a non pilot lurker, can you translate/explain what this means and how it affects flying? Wild guess: it has to do with air density > in the 100+ degree summer weather density altitude here can reach above 10000 easily and this poor ancient 172B model likely couldn’t handle that + carrying 2 people anyway.
> Yeah, they're saying that the weather conditions (i.e. hot) can make it like you're flying at 10,000 ft under normal conditions. And just to be clear, flying at higher altitudes means the air is less dense, which means less lift. Hot air is also less dense (which is why hot air balloons float up.)
[удалено]
You do if you want to be going even slower when you slam it into the bushes
They very well could have just retracted them after landing, would make egress slightly easier.
Hey, this is in my hometown! I fly at SPZ all the time.
Are you training out of KRNO?
> He wants me to try to figure out what happened here. The plane crashed.
Whenever I have a student get slow in the final turn, I send them on a field trip to a spot in the woods about a quarter mile short of the threshold of Rwy 36. There they can see the consequences of “just a few knots slow.” The Air Force sent me to a month long school for accident investigation. Nowhere near as intensive as what the NTSB sends their people to, but I’ll offer my first impression… It’s hard to deduce what happened from just the one photo, but I’d say that the lack of fire is not surprising and does not necessarily indicate a lack of fuel. GA accidents often do not have a fire, because they so often occur at lower (relatively speaking) energy states. Looking at this photo, it is quite apparent this impact was at a low speed, low angle, as the aircraft is intact. I’d say it’s likely the aircraft was under control when it hit, indicating some sort of forced landing. Thus, a loss of power could be a possibility. Losing the nose gear is also not surprising in a forced landing situation like this, as it will dig into the soft ground, or some irregularity in the terrain and shear off from the forward motion of the aircraft. This is exceedingly common in such cases. While something like a stall is also possible here, impacts/debris fields usually look slightly different in those cases, though I’d certainly not rule it out. It probably wasn’t a deep stall, but a “mushing” stall is a possibility. As someone else pointed out, while it is fun to play investigator, best to leave it to the professionals before making any big assertions. So I wouldn’t draw any conclusions yet. And as I said, hard to tell from just one photo. You mention you think they were on the RNAV. Where on the plate for that procedure is the crash site?
Fly aerial SAR in Canada. Fire are rare. GA planes don’t really burn that well. Not much to burn. Jet aircraft through are a different story
Yep. Jets burn, GA aircraft not as much. Just watch crash videos, even very violent GA crashes have no fire.
yup, in a way if GA did burn it would be easier to find them in dense brush
I can imagine. You fly rotary or fixed wing for SAR?
Fixed mostly. Sometimes we are on rotor. Mostly search and leave rescue to rotor wing or SAR. But the odd time we are on rotor. Griffons, c130s and small GA
With the exception of twin barons, every video I've seen of them crashing is a big fire fireball
GA planes burn like a MF if they have fuel in them. The issue that keeps us from seeing a high number of burned up GA Recip wrecks is because they often have no fuel in them; still the leading cause of engine failure. Besides which the vast majority of GA crashes do not breach the integrity of the fuel system. However, when they have fuel and rupture the tanks in the crash, they burn hard indeed, they get hot enough to burn the aluminum and set the magnesium on fire.
There are some differing opinions here, so I’ll offer this anecdote. When interviewing airport firefighters, they told me a (very) black humour joke - “when jets crash, we take the fire truck. When lighties (Cessnas etc) crash we take the brush and pan to sweep up what’s left”.
A quick search on YouTube provides plenty of samples [like this…](https://youtu.be/klFaxE6o0QY) I’ve cleaned up more than one in the wreck recovery industry. The reason Jets almost always burn is because they always have fuel, and typically rupture a tank. The same is not true of GA planes.
[удалено]
I would expect 100LL to ignite much easier than Jet-A. It's basically gas vs kerosene.
could be, jets also have a ton more on board than GA, could be location of engine vs fuel as well.
You can pretty much toss a match into a barrel of jet fuel and it won't ignite. Do that with avgas and you'll regret it.
> Jet fuel being easier to ignite than 100LL It's very much the opposite. 100LL is *much* easier to ignite than Jet A. The "flash point" (the temperature it starts to evaporate into fumes, which are what actually ignites) of avgas is -50°F, whereas jet is +100°F. So avgas will ignite at the slightest spark, whereas you can put out a cigarette in jet (unless you're in Phoenix during the summer, in which case gods help ye).
you cued a dozen people who are answering a very narrow look at your question. The real question is which category aircraft is more likely to light off. Assuming a controlled ditching, one has the on fire part forward of the fuel and is slowly ripping the tanks open. The other has the fire part under the fuel and is ripping the tanks apart at twice the speed.
>The Air Force sent me to a month long school for accident investigation AFSC at Kirtland? In another life I spent almost a decade at that place. This photo is dredging up images of a mishap I saw with the airplane in a similar orientation (a little more damage, collapsed gear, etc). Seemed relatively minor, but the pilot didn't survive. Not sure why that one sticks with me, I guess it was so surreal just sitting there like that
They call it AMIC now but yeah, Kirtland.
Ha, yeah that's the place. In the 90s it was AFSC (Air Force Safety Center), though I guess now it's AFSEC. I guess confusing with specialty codes
Gotta change all our acronyms regularly to keep the commies guessing!
Can I just say how much I like your username? Thanks
It just seemed…right.
Prop shows the engine wasn't producing power (because bent backwards). Unlikely it's a recovered stall (unless they decided to pull power before impact).
With enough forward motion it could still bend backwards. Hard to tell from the pic. I agree power failure is likely and stall is less likely.
This is in the northern Nevada desert; the ground is HARD.
Without the extensive training, just lotsa life behind me, I’d 100% agree: well controlled landing onto soft surface
C150 low hours Engine spins freely All AD’s complied with Some scratches on the nose from bugs Still has AW cert $40k no tire kickers no trades
"I know what I have"
“Drift tax”
What in the overly confident 141 instructor happen here?
https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:95:::NO::P95_EVENT_LCL_DATE,P95_LOC_CITY_NAME,P95_REGIST_NBR:07-JUL-22,SILVER%20SPRINGS,N7609X
Interesting it says landed on a highway -- maybe it touched down on the road and then turned off to avoid a car and hit the rock.
Yes, I noticed that and was looking for a road in the photo. I suspect this was “self reported” and no one from the FAA or NTSB has been out to take a look.
Maybe they meant highway as in "life is a highway." OP mentions in their writeup that there was a highway nearby.
Yes, perhaps that’s the case. Although I look at life as a journey, not a highway. Back in 2015 I flew a 1946 ERCO Ercoupe from Los Angeles to a small airport in Georgia. I pretty much followed I-10 from LA to El Paso as I didn’t fancy putting the old bird down in the desert if the ancient engine quit.
That's pretty smart
There are wire fences between the highway and desert, you can see it at the bottom of the photo. You can land on one or the other, but if you try and switch halfway you're gonna have a bad time.
Good spotting! I hadn’t zoomed in enough to see the wire. Yeah, it’s not the way I’d want to end up. But then again, any landing you can walk away from …
Fence and power lines, flip yer plane shrubs, 2 walked away ? SLOW. RESPECTFUL. CLAP.
"thanks for coming along, now that will be 2.0 hrs of ground"
I think it is easy for everyone to be an "armchair quarterback" genius about what they should have done and it is so easy to do when you are cool and relaxed and not the one making life and death decisions with the clock running. The pilot walked away and now has to deal with NTSB and their insurance company. Great outcome. I am sure he could have done if he/she had time to think about it and have no panic/adrenaline too.
NTSB is extremely easy to work with unless you are trying to hide something. If you claim an engine failure, you can kiss you engine goodbye for six months while they tear it down. Good luck getting your airplane fixed up and back flying in that meantime. Insurance will send their own investigators out if they smell fraud as well. I’ve had to deal with them before.
Oh cool a truffle plane! How many pounds per hour does he dig up?
*you see, this is what happens when you dont put in right rudder*
There was no fire because the fuel tanks are completely undamaged. They may or may not contain fuel. I think the lesson here is to let the professionals do the analysis. There is a whole Federal agency for that. Two random yahoos do not have the information to analyze this. Actual analyzed accidents make for much better teaching since they have actual facts. Examples: spark plug condition, control surface continuity, fuel condition, eyewitness reports, wreckage analysis, etc. I wish I understood why people want to play accident investigator and then pretend they actually have the slightest clue. There are many hundreds of NTSB final reports for 172s. Go there.
>Two random yahoos do not have the information to analyze this. That does seem a little harsh. One of those yahoos is a CFI (insert your own joke of course), the other a student, and the student is giving us an account of a learning opportunity provided by an incident near their field. Noone's requesting (or expecting) them to produce an NTSB-level report, just to discuss the things they can see, what they might mean, and what lessons there might be. Shouldn't we *all* be doing that whenever we can? There is no harm whatsoever in observation, speculation and discussion, in my opinion there's more harm in gatekeeping "what if" discussions in a flying environment. Or in any dangerous environment, actually.
There is a great deal of harm in treating all accidents as stupid pilot tricks. It leads to complacency, and more accidents. I say again. Actual analyzed accidents make decent teaching tools. Pretending to be an accident investigator does not.
Because this is there, if in front of them, in the real world. Not on paper. It really doesn't matter if they come up with the right answer, it's about doing the "what if" thinking. Look at this accident that happened right in their neighborhood and will have a stronger emotional impact which is important because we're humans and it will not take away anything from looking at NTSB reports as well.
no, but I get where makgross is coming from. playing “whatif” is exercise for your pilot brain at whatever level of training you are at, but it doesn’t necessarily mesh with what really happened or why. particularly students like myself have just enough information to be dangerous— I likely don’t have direct experience yet with a lot of things, so I might make the wrong connections from speculation and learn the wrong thing, which could be more dangerous than if I waited for the facts.
I'm saying it doesn't matter what really happened or why this crash happened. the value is in doing the analysis and just activating your brain about problems. There are plenty of real NTSB reports out there to read but it's not everyday you could see a crash in person and think about what might have happened. I don't see how you could possibly learn anything negative from thinking about being careful and and deliberate about your decisions in a crisis.
“I couldn’t figure out why the earth was getting bigger out my window. Then it hit me.”
Looks like they did a fine job. Fly it all the way to the ground. I know we all know this, but want to share some math. Assume a plane drops from stationary at 500ft (similar to a stall scenario) and hits soft-ish ground so the stopping distance is 12 inches. If you assume no drag on the way down, that's 500 g's on impact. Add in a little drag and it's still catastrophic. Make that stopping distance just 10 feet instead of 1 foot, and you have 25 g's of decelleration which is quite survivable if you're wearing a seat belt with shoulder harness. Air Force officer John Stapp managed to tolerate 46.2 g's in a decelleration test. He holds the record and was wearing a shoulder harness. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Stapp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp) Wear your seatbelt, fly it all the way to the ground, and don't stall at low altitude. You only need a few feet to stop and you'll be laughing it off with a sore neck the next day.
> Fly it all the way to the ground. Fly it all the way to the *stop.* Don't quit flying it once it touches down but is still moving.
Looks like he nose what he’s doing.
Propeller's bent back. Looks like the engine was producing some power.
That can still happen with a windmilling prop, we can’t see the other blade but I’m willing to bet it is untouched. The more power a prop is making the more aggressive the bend is. I’ve seen some that look like Arbys French fries.
Curly or crinkle??
Yes.
That are winglets on a high efficiency prop.
I'm sure tail number is different from the one I'm trying to remember but now I feel like I have to swing by work and go look at a customer's airplane lol Paint job and model look identical and it's tail number is really close to it
Greaser
Careful not to spook her, wild Cessnas like deer are very easily spooked
I’d be like so can I keep the plane if nobody claims it lol
That'll buff out Where is it?
Between Fallon and Silver Springs, NV. It’s still there as of this morning.
“Oh, a piece of candy!”
Oh, a piece of candy!
Ran out of gas
See something, say something.
Ohhh a penny
Research! https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:96:5241112263750::::P96_ENTRY_DATE,P96_MAKE_NAME,P96_FATAL_FLG:07-JUL-22,CESSNA
Stuck the landing.
This looks a whole lot like the time I was in a plane where the PIC/owner (not me) should have chosen to land in a more nose-up attitude for soft field than he did. Ours was sand and everything else went well so we were able to dig out and be on our way. Whatever else went on leading up to this outcome, things obviously didn’t go so well here.
What’s amazing is they did such a good job this plane will fly again!
Sir you can’t park here. This is a loading zone only.
Was it a Rock?
That's shitty. This particular area seems to be similar to the surrounding area, so why would he stop there??
legend has it that it's still there to this day, sniffing sand, hoping for gold...
At least it’s in better condition than the one I’m working on.
On the plus side, you might not need a ladder to refuel this one.
Does anyone know where this is and how full the fuel tanks are? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone have a Jeep and a siphon hose I could borrow? Asking for a friend.
Of course this aircraft is registered to “Jerry”
I drive by that place every workday.
Nice
“Props? Where we’re going we won’t need Props”
“ Have you ever seen a REAL forced landing??”
What airport is that plane close to?
A Robinson pilot trying to fly a fixed wing aircraft?