Indiana Jones and the Fairway of near death

[Multigunner]

Harrison Ford cracked up his WW2 era trainer recently.
I know there are a number of experianced pilots among our members, any comments or analysis of the crash?

From the looks of it and witnesses stantements he'd have probably made a good landing if he hadn't clipped a tree.

I've seen these old Ryans at local airfields. they seem to be pilot friendly and designed for rough student pilot landings.

I figure the plane can be restored, though at great cost since parts won't be easy to find.

[Artful]

You must have missed this thread
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?271388-Millenium-Falcon-crash-landing

[TheDoctor]

Not everyone goes to the pit. Ford's seriously anti gun.

[Artful]

Not here
http://www.2acheck.com/the-boycott-list/nras-list-of-antis/
but did find this...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34310


HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICAHARRISON FORD SLAMS BUSH POLICY, GUNSIn Spain interview: 'I regret what we as a country have done so far'
Published: 08/28/2003 at 1:00 AMIn an interview in Madrid, Harrison Ford became the latest Hollywood actor to criticize the Bush administration while on foreign soil.




“I’m very disturbed about the direction American foreign policy is going,” said Ford, according to the Australian Associated Press.




image: http://www.wnd.com/images2/homicide.jpg
http://www.wnd.com/images2/homicide.jpgborder=0 width=202 height=235>
Harrison Ford in his latest film “Hollywood Homicide”


Ford, in Spain to promote his new release “Hollywood Homicide,” noted U.S. post-war casualties have exceeded those during the actual conflict.
“I think something needs to be done to help alleviate the conditions which have created a disenfranchised and angry faction in the Middle East,” said the 62-year-old Ford, the Australian news wire reported.
“I don’t think military intervention is the correct solution,” he said. “I regret what we as a country have done so far.”
While Ford has starred in many shoot-’em-up thrillers, he said he abhors America’s liberal gun laws.
“I’m very troubled by the proliferation of arms, at the fact so many people in the United States carry guns,” he said, according to the AAP. “It obviously contributes greatly to the crime problems we have. I’m sure gun laws should be strengthened in the United States. I just don’t know the correct mechanism.”
He pointed out his new film, about two moonlighting Los Angeles policeman, is a comedy.
Ford said many of today’s films “are more akin to video games than stories about human life and relationships.”
“It seems everybody is only going for the big hit, for the most return,” he said.
The veteran actor announced he will revive the role of adventure-hero Indiana Jones in the fourth installment of the series, scheduled for release in 2005.


Now I have to decide if going to new Star Wars movie when it comes out.
:sad:
Hate to give my money to Anti's

[Multigunner]

I'm only interested in the aircraft and the accident, with some interest in the pilot's skill not the pilot's politics.

I've always liked the older trainers, a family friend used to collect and restore these, and he had a large private airfield where other collectors stored their own rare planes.

[oldred]

But that was a WW11 FIGHTER plane, don'cha watch the news! :rolleyes:


Most of the accounts I have heard/read about that accident call that plane a "fighter", those idiots can't leave anything like it really is and just have sensationalize everything they report about aircraft accidents no matter how goofy they make it sound! Seems like most of the time whenever there is an accident involving a Jet aircraft those guys manage to get in a reference to "High octane jet fuel" as if that somehow makes it more dangerous, never mind that octane ratings have no relevance to jet fuel (which is basically just glorified kerosene anyway) and "High octane" would have absolutely no bearing on how dangerous or flammable it would be anyway! Sorry about the news rant but being a pilot for many years it just gripes me listening to the total BS from the news concerning aircraft accidents.

Glad he wasn't hurt more seriously than he was, in the end that's about all that really counts.

[Charley]

There was also the ignorant reporter asking about the famous "black box", flight data recorder. Couldn't understand why the aircraft didn't have one!

[Houndog]

Seems like most of the time whenever there is an accident involving a Jet aircraft those guys manage to get in a reference to "High octane jet fuel" as if that somehow makes it more dangerous, never mind that octane ratings have no relevance to jet fuel (which is basically just glorified kerosene anyway) and "High octane" would have absolutely no bearing on how dangerous or flammable it would be anyway! Sorry about the news rant but being a pilot for many years it just gripes me listening to the total BS from the news concerning aircraft accidents.

Glad he wasn't hurt more seriously than he was, in the end that's about all that really counts.

Amen to what you said about the jet fuel! Waaaay back when I just started trucking I used to get a load of jet fuel ocasionally. Jet fuel isn't even placarded as flamable in transport! It ships as a combustable, with a MUCH lower ignition hazard label than Gasoline!

[opos]

Wonder if the fighter plane had high capacity magazines in the 50's?...mistake? He turned back...never turn back to the airport when it goes quiet.

[Rufus Krile]

What came out of this is that if you have to crash a plane on a Thursday afternoon, a golf course is the best place.... just FULL of doctors.

[flyingmonkey35]

Their was a snake in the cockpit.

Indy hates snake's.

[Multigunner]

Their was a snake in the cockpit.

Best explanation so far.



He turned back...never turn back to the airport when it goes quiet.
From what I've heard he had already gained plenty of altitude when the engine quit, enough that he figured he could afford to scrub off some speed in a turn and try to glide back to the air field, obviously he was mistaken. Then again there may have been much worse places to try to land if he had not made that turn.

A lot of people have crashed when they tried to turn after an engine failure. In the air speed is life in more ways than one.

Smaller private aircraft and some older large aircraft aren't required to have a flight data recorder, but as compact as GPS devices are these days it might be a good idea to fit a GPS with position recording option at the very least. If for no other reason than for insurance purposes and to act as a lowjack if a plane were stolen.
That still wouldn't give useful information about mechanical failures but might settle doubts about pilot error in some cases.

There were enough witnesses and contact with the tower that there should be no mystery to this crash. The engine appears to be intact so examination should reveal the cause of the failure.
Could have been as simple as a clogged fuel line.

[Multigunner]

Found a audio of his contact with the tower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5SZVAkV7G8
Sounds like he had more than 3,000 feet of altitude. Those old Ryans could glide quite a ways despite the drag from the radial engine.

[Multigunner]

Found this report on a similar crash of a PT22 due to a faulty fuel gauge that indicated fuel in the tank when it was actually empty.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.mobilit.belgium.be/nl/binaries/2009_04_tcm466-225451.pdf&sa=U&ei=2J76VILxOcarggS6xoCwBQ&ved=0CA0QFjAF&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFRcezQQgnj-I_1jhWf2yRop9cFwg

[Duckiller]

You don't turn back because they tend to stall. Not a good thing when you are low and slow. He didn't put it down on a freeway or into a house. He picked a spot that would do minimal damage to other people. While he didn't walk away from the landing he is going to survive it. Overall not a bad outcome.

[oldred]

You don't turn back because they tend to stall. Not a good thing when you are low and slow.

In this case he was supposedly at 3000'+ and if that's correct he should have had enough room to turn and make it back, or at least it probably would have been a reasonable decision point depending on the situation. Not knowing all the particulars we can only speculate and I suppose only Ford himself will ever know for sure if he would do things differently if he had it to do over again.


You are correct however about the turning back upon losing power during takeoff and this has gotten even some high time pilots, I personally lost a friend (a doctor with about 400 hrs logged) when he, his nephew and a flight instructor (of all people, who should have known better!) tried to climb out of a small airport in a Mooney 201 surrounded by mountains even knowing of an engine problem before the takeoff attempt. The engine quit and the instructor who was piloting the thing, and not having any decent landing options, attempted to turn from what was later estimated at less than 1500 ft, they went into the classic stall&spin as a result and crashed into a residential area in someone's front yard but missing the house. I have flown out of this airport many times and the landing options are sparse indeed, a town to the East starting less than 1/2 mile from the runway and nothing but low mountains on two other sides and even higher terrain to the South but still even attempting to land on a road with power lines and traffic beats spinning straight in!

It was later determined the engine had a sticking intake valve and these guys knew the engine was running rough before they attempted to leave, the decision was made to try and get the aircraft back to it's home airport to be checked out. Three of them climbed into an airplane with a known engine problem, tried to take off from a small airport with a relatively short runway and almost no good landing options in case of trouble! The engine was not making enough power to climb at a high enough rate to clear the mountains so the pilot radioed the airport manager, who was watching the takeoff and was standing outside with a handheld radio talking with the pilot, and told him they were going to return to the airport but before he could even start the turn the engine lost almost all power. He attempted the turn anyway with the resulting stall/spin and uncontrolled crash killing all of them upon impact.

Get there ittus" got three of them that day!

[WILCO]

Their was a snake in the cockpit.

Indy hates snake's.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/praising-the-lord-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/praising.lord-emoticon-2907.html) http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/awesome-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/awesome-emoticon-2969.html) http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/praising-the-lord-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/praising.lord-emoticon-2907.html)

[popper]

The slip in a turn without power will get you every time. When I was a kid I saw the mechanic cleaning the grass out of an aircoupe carb - that didn't make it. Cute plane and I was told the gal flying was cute too, neither survived.

[oldred]

Climb out is a particularly bad situation, slow not all that much above stall speed and close to the ground with a nose high attitude. I think the first step and the worst in the series of mistakes is failure to set up the correct attitude for the glide, already slow and close to the ground the last thing a pilot wants to do is lose any altitude by pushing down the nose, in spite of what he/she was taught, which is exactly what needs to be done! It's kind of like a car/truck driver holding the brakes during a slide, the wheels have already stopped turning but people simply panic and refuse to let up on that brake pedal to regain the steering! It's not unusual for some to push that pedal so hard they actually burst a brake line or even the master cylinder as if pushing harder on the pedal is going to slow a vehicle that already has the tires locked and sliding! What happens is that as long as the wheels are sliding and not turning the steering is lost, releasing that brake pedal will let the front wheels resume turning and allow the driver to at least control the direction the vehicle is going but that rarely happens, instead of doing what needs to be done they just push harder and compound an already dire situation!

What's that have to do with an airplane crash? Everything actually because it's the same impulse that all to often get's someone killed when they otherwise might have been able to alleviate the situation by regaining at least directional control. In that stall/spin scenario it's just like the car driver who refuses to release the brakes and instead just pushes harder, the pilot (likely subconsciously) refuses to give up any altitude by trading altitude for airspeed and tries to hold the airplane in the air with the stick/control yoke -just like a car driver trying to slow the car even with the wheels already locked. The pilot then attempts the turn at the wrong, nose high, attitude and just barely above stall speed, once the turn is initiated the downward wing will stall and the spin is an inevitable result with no room for recovery. This scenario has happened countless times but just like that driver who also knows better with that brake pedal panic all to often overrides rational thinking and an accident results.

[opos]

When he turned back to try for runway 3 he put the ocean onshore wind at his tail...so any lift he might have gotten from a head wind was now a tail wind...the turn back...the change of lift forces because of the wind going from head wind to tail wind...all difficult...Flying out over the ocean with normal prevailing onshore winds can be deadly as shown by this example...probably what similar things occurred to the crash involving John Denver in his homebuilt as well...

[oldred]

I think the final finding was that Denver had forgotten to turn on a fuel valve that the builder (this was a newly purchased homebuilt and I think it was his first solo flight in it) had located behind the seat in an odd place, a deviation from the designer's plans for whatever was his reasoning. This was an uncommon aircraft design which utilizes a canard configuration with the wing at the back of the fuselage, this aircraft is designed to be highly stall resistant and in fact is nearly stall proof, it simply goes into a kind of "mush" in a flat attitude and a fairly high rate of decent. Apparently the accident was caused when the engine stopped from fuel starvation and he had to twist around to the back of the aircraft and stretch to reach this ridiculously located selector valve and in doing so inadvertently pushed hard on the left rudder pedal causing the plane to roll inverted and nose down into a steep dive, he didn't have enough altitude to recover. It's easy to see how the rudder pedal could have been fully depressed in such a situation since there would have been a strong tendency to not only fully straighten the leg but also to push downward with the toes when attempting to fully stretch one's body to the rear when in a sitting position. It's interesting to try it, while sitting in a chair try reaching directly behind as far as possible without extending the leg and foot downward! It's somewhat difficult to do and I am sure he, nor few other people not expecting it, would have thought about this before trying to reach for that valve especially with the engine already starving for fuel.

Strange how such a seemingly minor deviation from the plan design could lead to tragedy like that.

[opos]

Climb out is a particularly bad situation, slow not all that much above stall speed and close to the ground with a nose high attitude. I think the first step and the worst in the series of mistakes is failure to set up the correct attitude for the glide, already slow and close to the ground the last thing a pilot wants to do is lose any altitude by pushing down the nose, in spite of what he/she was taught, which is exactly what needs to be done! It's kind of like a car/truck driver holding the brakes during a slide, the wheels have already stopped turning but people simply panic and refuse to let up on that brake pedal to regain the steering! It's not unusual for some to push that pedal so hard they actually burst a brake line or even the master cylinder as if pushing harder on the pedal is going to slow a vehicle that already has the tires locked and sliding! What happens is that as long as the wheels are sliding and not turning the steering is lost, releasing that brake pedal will let the front wheels resume turning and allow the driver to at least control the direction the vehicle is going but that rarely happens, instead of doing what needs to be done they just push harder and compound an already dire situation!

What's that have to do with an airplane crash? Everything actually because it's the same impulse that all to often get's someone killed when they otherwise might have been able to alleviate the situation by regaining at least directional control. In that stall/spin scenario it's just like the car driver who refuses to release the brakes and instead just pushes harder, the pilot (likely subconsciously) refuses to give up any altitude by trading altitude for airspeed and tries to hold the airplane in the air with the stick/control yoke -just like a car driver trying to slow the car even with the wheels already locked. The pilot then attempts the turn at the wrong, nose high, attitude and just barely above stall speed, once the turn is initiated the downward wing will stall and the spin is an inevitable result with no room for recovery. This scenario has happened countless times but just like that driver who also knows better with that brake pedal panic all to often overrides rational thinking and an accident results.


Had a flight instructor many years ago that had a nasty little trick...we flew in and out of a small uncontrolled airfield that had hardly any traffic...he'd have me line up and pour the coals to it and about 1/2 way down the runway he'd slide his hand to the mixture control and pull the mixture shutting the power down..purpose? to see if I'd yank back on the yoke to try and gain altitude...never did...just pushed it down a bit and set to flare...we must have done a thousand of those "one runway" "touch and stop" events...I'd watch him..big tall guy..and he'd sort of slide forward with his knees pushed forward...always knew when it was going to go silent...great instructor with the right attitude.

[opos]

I think the final finding was that Denver had forgotten to turn on a fuel valve that the builder (this was a newly purchased homebuilt and I think it was his first solo flight in it) had located behind the seat in an odd place, a deviation from the designer's plans for whatever was his reasoning. This was an uncommon aircraft design which utilizes a canard configuration with the wing at the back of the fuselage, this aircraft is designed to be highly stall resistant and in fact is nearly stall proof, it simply goes into a kind of "mush" in a flat attitude and a fairly high rate of decent. Apparently the accident was caused when the engine stopped from fuel starvation and he had to twist around to the back of the aircraft and stretch to reach this ridiculously located selector valve and in doing so inadvertently pushed hard on the left rudder pedal causing the plane to roll inverted and nose down into a steep dive, he didn't have enough altitude to recover. It's easy to see how the rudder pedal could have been fully depressed in such a situation since there would have been a strong tendency to not only fully straighten the leg but also to push downward with the toes when attempting to fully stretch one's body to the rear when in a sitting position. It's interesting to try it, while sitting in a chair try reaching directly behind as far as possible without extending the leg and foot downward! It's somewhat difficult to do and I am sure he, nor few other people not expecting it, would have thought about this before trying to reach for that valve especially with the engine already starving for fuel.

Strange how such a seemingly minor deviation from the plan design could lead to tragedy like that.

I'd forgotten about that..Denver's was one of the only ones of that type with that modification....so probably the onshore/offshore winds had little effect..just that where he flew out over the ocean has very unpredictable winds but the prevailing is usually onshore. I flew my old Bonanza out of Hawthorne airport in LA..right next to LAX and sort of parallel...departure over the ocean right where the big boys fly...this was a very long time ago...flew right into one of the infrequent wind shifts and just really glad I always gave a little added speed before takeoff "for the wife and kids"...it sank pretty good before things settled down...just some sweat and near dirty shorts on that one.

[oldred]

I once flew a Cherokee 6 from a small private strip where I had landed to wait out a summer thunder storm, this strip was paved (thinly) but very short due to the fact that it normally was only used for his Citabria and short as it was had trees on each end, not a problem for his airplane however. I set up a short-field takeoff and let'er rip but as soon as I pulled the nose up I knew something was seriously wrong and at the same time it hit me that I had forgotten to lower the flaps! I used up way too much of that short runway and could not climb fast enough, I don't know by how much I cleared those tree tops but I would guess it could have been measured in inches instead of feet! Scared the living,,, you know what out of me and just goes to show that even minor procedures can benefit from following a checklist. As is usually the case preceding an accident I got in a hurry, I had waited out the rain storm there and was late getting back home, you would think that important things like that would never be overlooked but it does happen!

[waksupi]

I saw a report that Brian Williams was also in the plane, but was unharmed when they were shot down.

[oldred]

Lol, Good one! Williams is never going to live that down and I can't see why they don't just wash their hands of him and forget about him! They think people will forget and in a few months they will be able to slip him back in but I think the damage is done and he's finished, at least I hope so and maybe it will make a few of them think twice.

[oldred]

Had a flight instructor many years ago that had a nasty little trick...we flew in and out of a small uncontrolled airfield that had hardly any traffic...he'd have me line up and pour the coals to it and about 1/2 way down the runway he'd slide his hand to the mixture control and pull the mixture shutting the power down..purpose? to see if I'd yank back on the yoke to try and gain altitude...never did...just pushed it down a bit and set to flare...we must have done a thousand of those "one runway" "touch and stop" events...I'd watch him..big tall guy..and he'd sort of slide forward with his knees pushed forward...always knew when it was going to go silent...great instructor with the right attitude.


Had a similar experience back in the late eighties when I was working on a rotor-craft rating (that I never completed due to a job change), the instructor shut off the fuel and the engine would not restart! This was in a Hughs 300C and we over the airport at the time so it was rather uneventful but I got my first (and only) exposure to a full auto-rotational landing!

[rockrat]

Dad was a pilot/navigator in the USAF (B-29's& B-47's) and warned me about instructors. When I started my flight training, I kept my hand on the throttle/mixture and kept an eye on the fuel control too, taking off and landing. Instructor wasn't too happy about not getting to pull the mixture or throttle on me. Have good vision to the side, so always caught him trying to mess with the fuel too.

I remember an article in a flying mag one time, about turning back to the field if your engine quit. I believe it was that even the best of pilots would need at least 800ft of altitude to be successful.

[historicfirearms]

I am a CFI and one of the things I have people do on flight reviews is a simulated engine out 180 degree turn. Noting the altitude before and after the completion of the turn, and knowing it is coming, about the best you can expect is a 500 foot drop for that turn. Heavier and faster aircraft will loose much more altitude. Too bad about Ford's Ryan. That is one cool airplane, hope they can rebuild.

[MtGun44]

Tail wind would have HELPED him reach the runway, not hurt him.

When I was a new pilot, I practiced 180 turns to return to the runway.
The best I could do with a flat, skidding turn in a Cessna 150 was about 300-350ft
lost, so I knew that below 500 ft above the ground, I was going to pick
the best spot with 30 degrees right or left and put it there.

Once had to walk the debris field with an FAA accident investigator after a
guy at one of our fly-ins killed himself and his wife trying to turn back
to the airport in a VERY heavy Vari-Eze after the fuel cap came off and
went through the pusher prop, causing a huge vibration as the prop
lost part of a blade. Very sad, sobering and he could have likely made it if
he had just angled 30 deg left and made as good a landing as he could.
There was a plowed field where he hit, but 20 deg nose low and 40 deg left
bank. Very sad.

Ford did well, but I had a friend that owned one of those and she said the stall
was sharp and nasty. Good that he did as well as he did. If he had added
shoulder belts, he probably wouldn't have a gashed face, they didn't use them
originally.

[oldred]

The thing is that regardless of how forbidding the potential landing options may be a controlled crash will always beat spinning straight in even onto the longest flattest runway in the world!

[snuffy]

I am a CFI and one of the things I have people do on flight reviews is a simulated engine out 180 degree turn. Noting the altitude before and after the completion of the turn, and knowing it is coming, about the best you can expect is a 500 foot drop for that turn. Heavier and faster aircraft will loose much more altitude. Too bad about Ford's Ryan. That is one cool airplane, hope they can rebuild.

I don't buy into the theory that a turn looses any more altitude that the same amount of time in a straight ahead direction.

I'm an inactive commercial pilot. Over 400 hours, but haven't flown as pilot in command since 1973. If that theory was ever expressed by my instructor(s), I don't remember it.

A coordinated turn should not present any more drag that straight ahead flight. Keeping the nose down to maintain optimum glide speed in either maneuver should result in the same amount of lost altitude.

We don't know why he decided to turn around. But what I DO know is he continued to fly the airplane. Meaning resisting the natural instinct to pull back on the stick. One of the most important lesson I learned as a student pilot is to continue "to fly the airplane"! Meaning prepare for the developing emergency but keep the nose down, pick a landing spot, and make the approach. My instructor was famous for slipping his left hand down to the front of the seats where the fuel selector was, shutting it off, then back on quickly to simulate engine failure. We then throttled the engine back to begin looking for a field or road.

Planes that spin in are result of a pilot that pulled back on the stick/wheel, stalled the wings, then spin in without enough room/altitude to recover.

[oldred]

Planes that spin in are result of a pilot that pulled back on the stick/wheel, stalled the wings, then spin in without enough room/altitude to recover.

Planes that spin in these situations are usually the result of stalling one wing in a low speed turn!

A turn at near stall speed can result in the low wing stalling while the upper wing continues to produce lift resulting in a spin, if the turn is initiated in a nose high or even flat attitude the problem can be compounded. As far as losing altitude in the turn as opposed to straight ahead I think maybe you are missing the point, the loss takes away from what the aircraft has to make the runway accessible as opposed to gliding in straight ahead. In other words that altitude is lost off a short distance and by the time the aircraft is pointed at the runway he is still almost the same distance away as when the turn was started but now much lower.


Every situation is going to be different and there is no "iron clad" rule for a sequence of events except to maintain control above all else! It's going to be up to the pilot to quickly analyze the situation and decide for him/herself what's the best course of action but a panicked attempt to return to the runway when sufficient altitude is not available will almost always result in disaster. It's when the pilot knows, or at least fears, that he/she does not have enough altitude but still elects to try and return to the runway that the trouble starts. In those situations there is that sometimes overpowering instinctive urge to try and hold the aircraft up with the stick and get back to that runway!

[historicfirearms]

You loose some of your vertical component of lift in a turn, so yes, you will loose more altitude in a turn than in a straight ahead descent.

[opos]

I am a CFI and one of the things I have people do on flight reviews is a simulated engine out 180 degree turn. Noting the altitude before and after the completion of the turn, and knowing it is coming, about the best you can expect is a 500 foot drop for that turn. Heavier and faster aircraft will loose much more altitude. Too bad about Ford's Ryan. That is one cool airplane, hope they can rebuild.

I think the effect of changing from a probably 10-15 knot headwind (prevailing from the northwest in that area most of the time) to a downwind with 10-15 at your back would probably lead to much more than 500 feet loss...it does depend on the airplane...my old v tail doctor killer (Bonanza) would fall like a rock in that configuration as would the old Tripacer I flew many years ago...I'm sure the 22 was a much lighter wing loading but still going to a tailwind from a headwind would probably cause a significant loss of altitude...if the headwind going off runway 21 (he tried to get back to 3) was 15 knots and he reversed and got a tail wind of 15 knots the net effect could have been a 30 knot shift and that would have a dramatic effect on any airplane..just assuming the wind was as normal for Santa Monica...the fact he took off to the West says the wind direction was normal for that time of day.

[oldred]

[EDIT: Opos you and I must have been typing at the same time and my reply was to Historic, not really important I suppose but it looked a bit confusing]

Agreed and the reasons should be obvious, even then whether or not the turn loses more altitude than a straight ahead decent has no bearing on getting back to the runway or not. The fact is the aircraft WILL lose altitude and from the time the turn is initiated until the 180 is completed altitude WILL be lost yet the aircraft will still be essentially the same distance from the runway but at the lower height!

The fact is that when a pilot is faced with the almost certain fate of a (semi) controlled crash onto an off-airport spot with the likelihood of damage to the craft and possibly the occupants then that strong urge to avoid that by returning to the runway can become almost overpowering to some folks and lead to irrational thinking.


A kind of comical side note here, on my first solo I also experienced my first emergency, well at least I was sure it was an emergency at time! The plane was a 1967 Cessna 150 and during pre-flight I had left the small inspection door on the right side of the cowling open while I was discussing the oil level with my instructor, I finished the pre-flight but forgot to fasten the two fasteners that holds the darn thing down. Initial climb out was uneventful except for that indescribable and completely incomparable feeling of loneliness at the sight of that empty right seat.:shock:

The problem started when I banked into the turn and the plane stated to disintegrate! At least at the time I was SURE it was falling apart, I mean it sure sounded like it to me at the time! When I rolled level but still in the climb it quietened a bit but was still beating away and of course I was thinking it was the engine although I couldn't think of anything in the engine that would sound like that. I kept telling myself "don't panic just figure out the best and quickest place to get this thing back on the ground in one piece" but by that time I was reaching pattern altitude and it seemed to settle down and all seemed well, the banging stopped and the engine was smooth and responsive when I blipped the throttle a little bit but still all I could think of was to get back on the ground in one piece! The rattling started again when I once again turned and upon turning final it was more of a loud banging than than a rattle but the landing was uneventful and I taxied back to the ramp to meet the instructor. I have to admit when I pulled the mixture back to kill the engine after stopping I realized that I was so tensed up I was hurting and my instructor, not yet knowing what had happened, was laughing at me because I was so visibly shaken. Of course he took it very seriously after I told him what happened and although after discovering that inspection door we both realized that I was never in any real danger it still wasn't much of a laughing matter until later. Now I can still get a good laugh out of that one but at the time it sure didn't seem very funny!

[opos]

One other thing that's overlooked a lot when discussing this situation is the increased distance "back" to the runway as opposed to the distance when the engine quits...the slow and gentle bank required to keep the dead stick airplane from stalling moves the airplane far off to the side of the outbound flight path...so a 180 degree turn will put the heading parallel to the runway but perhaps a mile off to the side depending on which way the 180 degree turn is initiated...the plane doesn't just "pivot" right back toward the runway...it makes a big wide circular path...as I recall they figure you have to "over turn" the 180 degree manuver by some 45 degrees to get back to the departing runway...so the added "mileage" will also become a serious issue. I have no idea what the prevailing winds were..I don't know what his altitude was (there have been many estimates of 3000 feet..it will be interesting to see what the reports say ...the few amateur pictures and videos of the plane appear to be way lower than 3000 feet as he "turned base" to make the approach)...

We live right off the Eastern edge of the canyon just East of Montgomery field in San Diego...I watch the coming and going all the time...we have had a number of crashes over the years from the "impossible turn" (FAA language)...In Fords case he probably had no real choice as the ocean is only a couple of miles from the runway (if he was really at 3000 feet in that little trainer I'd speculate he was over the ocean by the time it went quiet...nobody knows for sure but the laws of physics and gravity don't change..gravity never rests and the amount of "wind" over and under the wing has a definite effect on lift..as does the change of attitude of the wing either in a bank or in a up and down motion...

He's damn lucky...I'm just a few years older than him...I don't fly any more as I'm too old...nor do I run a small fishing boat 30 miles offshore by myself as I used to do...I began flying in the 50's while a "ramp rat" while going to college in Colorado...learned in a J3 at 6000 ft. altitude airfield...never had one go quiet without some nutty instructor playing with the mixture to "see how I'd react"....but I do know it happens..things mechanical fail...Flying has a wonderful aura about it and I loved every minute (well almost ever minute) but antiques are antiques and high performance aircraft are meant for high performance...my "modern" Bonanza was as deadly or more so than the puddle jumper he was flying...they all got their tricks...again..he's lucky and I'd hate to see him buy it that way...he has had at least 3 "incidents" now and survived them all...that's a lot for one man...don't much care for some of his public views but that's another story.

[oldred]

One other thing that's overlooked a lot when discussing this situation is the increased distance "back" to the runway as opposed to the distance when the engine quits...the slow and gentle bank required to keep the dead stick airplane from stalling moves the airplane far off to the side of the outbound flight path...so a 180 degree turn will put the heading parallel to the runway but perhaps a mile off to the side depending on which way the 180 degree turn is initiated...the plane doesn't just "pivot" right back toward the runway...

Yep that's what I have been talking about and even if the turn can be completed without a lot of drift, well not drift but a wide swing, the aircraft would still be as far from the runway as when the turn was stated but with less altitude left.

[TreeKiller]

Never heard what was in front or to the sides of him as to a place to land. If he had to set it on the street how many people could of been involved in the accident? I understand that the city has allowed houses to be built all the way around it.

[opos]

Santa Monica hates that field being there...it's been a bit issue for years...lots of movie folk fly in and out for sport and there is a good bit of private flying for business purposes done there as well....don't think Santa Monica will ever be very friendly to any of it. On Ford's deal it probably has his relationship to the ocean as a factor....if he was over the water or not....other than the little 9 hole golf course the area is pretty densely built up...it shows up pretty good on Google Earth..

[MtGun44]

"I don't buy into the theory that a turn looses any more altitude that the same amount of
time in a straight ahead direction."
NOT an opinion, hard, technical fact. In a turn your lift vector is NOT pointed straight up.
So, you lose altitude OR you pull back more on the stick so that the component of the
lift vector that is pointing up is the same - so now you are making more lift, and making
more lift makes more drag, so you drop faster.

Either way you cut it, a turn costs altitude. The minimum loss is a skidded flat-ish turn
where the lift vector is mostly straight up and you are making only a modest amount
of added drag due to the fuselage not being straight to the airflow.

Turns lose altitude, whether you believe it or not does not change the fact.

I built and fly a Long EZ, and have about 1000 hours in that type aircraft.

oldred's explanation odf John Denver's is pretty close. A few corrections.
Denver had a number of hours in his Long EZ, not first flight. The normal position
in the Long EZ for the fuel valve is on the floor between your legs, easy to reach.
Many of the older design fuel valves have tapered cones as the moving part to make
them seal better, but the design sucks, they tend to bind as fuel washes off the
lube. I have a different design that does not do that.

In addition the builder of Denver's bird wanted no fuel lines in the cabin, so kept
all lines outside and put the fuel valve on the aft (engine) side of the firewall (rear
engine aircraft). He put a 6 ft or so extension on the selector shaft. Because of
the binding, the original handle - located on the left at about kidney height (think
of a recliner chair) had broken off. There was a small set of vise-grip pliers clamped
permanently on the shaft as the "fix". Denver did not check his fuel quantity for
the tank he was using (two wing tanks, left and right) and ran out at low altitude
over the water. In trying to switch - you MUST use your right hand to reach the left
kidney area - which means taking your hand off of the right-mounted side-stick
controller. He apparently pushed with his right foot to get leverage to twist to the
left to get to the handle. Rudder in a swept wing aircraft (actually in any aircraft with
normal dihedral effect) will cause roll. He was apparently looking at the handle as
the aircraft rolled inverted and hit the water.

[oldred]

Thanks for the corrections, I have often wondered about the accuracy of the explanations from the fly-ins that was my source of info on that. That particular accident was somewhat more of an interest to me since I admired Denver quite a bit.


Good to see another homebuilder here, I have been an EAA member since '77 and hope to complete a Kitfox "one -of-these-days"!

[snuffy]

Okay, I see that I was wrong. It's not the first time, and certainly not the last.

Upon thinking about it, I remember,(well kind of), my instructor saying a turn is dirtier that straight ahead flight. It's certain I would need at least 20 hours of duel instruction to get back into solo flight, then some solo flight before carrying passengers. Not going to happen, unless I win the lottery. I think there's a FFA requirement along those parameters.




A kind of comical side note here, on my first solo I also experienced my first emergency, well at least I was sure it was an emergency at time! The plane was a 1967 Cessna 150 and during pre-flight I had left the small inspection door on the right side of the cowling open while I was discussing the oil level with my instructor, I finished the pre-flight but forgot to fasten the two fasteners that holds the darn thing down. Initial climb out was uneventful except for that indescribable and completely incomparable feeling of loneliness at the sight of that empty right seat.:shock:

That happened to me, same airplane, same cover ,(where you reach in to check the oil), but in my case it was during flight. I was working towards my private pilots ticket.It simply came loose, the flapping was violent, I could see it. I went into slow flight,(nose high, on the verge of stall speed). Returned to the airport, landed, had a talk with the A&E mechanic. He replaced the catches, they were simply worn out. The C-150 was older than I was, had seen many hours of flight. A bit of a white knuckle flight!

[opos]

Okay, I see that I was wrong. It's not the first time, and certainly not the last.

Upon thinking about it, I remember,(well kind of), my instructor saying a turn is dirtier that straight ahead flight. It's certain I would need at least 20 hours of duel instruction to get back into solo flight, then some solo flight before carrying passengers. Not going to happen, unless I win the lottery. I think there's a FFA requirement along those parameters.




That happened to me, same airplane, same cover ,(where you reach in to check the oil), but in my case it was during flight. I was working towards my private pilots ticket.It simply came loose, the flapping was violent, I could see it. I went into slow flight,(nose high, on the verge of stall speed). Returned to the airport, landed, had a talk with the A&E mechanic. He replaced the catches, they were simply worn out. The C-150 was older than I was, had seen many hours of flight. A bit of a white knuckle flight!

You live in a great place for aircraft what with the EAA flyins, etc...nice area..I only flew a Cessna 150 a few times....Never was really comfortable in one...most of my earlier flying was in higher altitudes and I'm a "large person" so the altitude and weight were always a bit of a concern....been a lot of folks trained in them over the years...

I have heard many times that when a person get's their first private pilot's license with about 40 hours that within the first 100 hours after that they will be called on to "save their lives" by properly applying some of the "skills" they learned in training to the real world problems that will come up. I have been really fortunate in my past flying days...couple of serious scares but all went well..I'm not of an age or health that would allow me to fly any more..Eastwood said it "Man's got to know his limitations" and that's for sure with me.

I don't know how anyone would react to the situation with Ford. I have a buddy that flew for Pan Am for many years...high time left seat on a 747 toward the end of his career...he was interested in just doing some sport flying around our area and had a man "check him out" in a Cherokee of some sort...he flew it for a few hours and parked it...he no longer flys a light aircraft at all..said it's nowhere near what he had spent a lifetime doing and relearning things was just too much for him....he said something I said and felt about flying in Southern California near large airports...no place for an amateur in a professional's airspace....Wish some of the folks had the opportunity to just sit and listen to air traffic radio for a while..it's amazing anything ever get's done right.

[snuffy]

You live in a great place for aircraft what with the EAA flyins, etc...nice area..I only flew a Cessna 150 a few times....Never was really comfortable in one...most of my earlier flying was in higher altitudes and I'm a "large person" so the altitude and weight were always a bit of a concern....been a lot of folks trained in them over the years...

I have heard many times that when a person get's their first private pilot's license with about 40 hours that within the first 100 hours after that they will be called on to "save their lives" by properly applying some of the "skills" they learned in training to the real world problems that will come up. I have been really fortunate in my past flying days...couple of serious scares but all went well..I'm not of an age or health that would allow me to fly any more..Eastwood said it "Man's got to know his limitations" and that's for sure with me.

I never go to the EAA "air venture" fly in. They are there for one reason, to make money! That makes it a 100$ day just to park, take a shuttle to the main gate, then pay to get in. If you actually want to go on the flight line, that's an additional fee. Then if it's a hot day, 5$ for a 16 oz Coke on the flight line is the lowest price to be found.

Then the fact that they've in effect taken over the airport, closing public roads, and buying up all property around it. During the convention, they take over the south side of Oshkosh, changing traffic patterns, closing more roads on the east side of the airport, (so you can't even walk in to watch the airshow for free.) The airport has lost any commercial air carriers, the terminal is closed and falling apart.

The one real emergency that I encountered was during practicing a stall series getting ready for my private pilot check ride. I went into a stall, didn't drop the nose in time,(this in a Cessna 150), I even had a bit of left rudder applied at the time. It broke very quickly into a spin. Never had been in a spin until then! The natural reaction is to pull the wheel back into your gut. That just keeps you in a spin.

I remembered a talk I had with my dad. He owned, (half owned), a Taylor craft. I went on rides with him many times as a child. He said he had a spin happen when he pulled the "T" craft up abruptly. He remembered ground talk with other pilots that to get out of a spin, you push the wheel/stick forward, then immediately bring it back to level the plane out. The wings stay stalled until you "clean up" the airfoils. This allows the wing to "fly" again. That's what I did, I didn't want to, but I knew I must, and it worked.

Rules for the student planes had us climb to 2500 feet AGL,(above ground level), before practicing stalls. Good rule, I had dropped 1000 feet in just a few seconds.

[oldred]

That 150 is easy to recover from a spin, just let go! If you get into a spin during a power on stall the power needs to be pulled back but basically the aircraft will recover on it's on in just a couple of seconds by letting go of the controls, a little forward pressure as soon as the horizon is in the right place over the nose to prevent a new stall and all is well. In the 150 spins can be fun if you like that sort of thing!

[Multigunner]

A few years back an Airbus crashed at sea and it was a mystery till they found the black box.
What happened was the flight computer got confused by conflicting information due to an iced up pitot tube and cut off the auto pilot.
Then more serious control and warning signal failures followed leaving the computer to turning on the stall warning in level or nose down attitude and turning it off when the pilot raised the nose. The exact opposite of what it should have been.
He scrubbed off way too much air speed trying to keep the plane in an attitude that the computer wrongly signaled was safe.
The pilot at the controls was an inexperianced relief co pilot, the regular pilot being in the back taking a mandated nap because of the long flight time. By the time the more experianced pilot woke up and got to the controls he only had time to say "we are dead".

[snuffy]

That 150 is easy to recover from a spin, just let go! If you get into a spin during a power on stall the power needs to be pulled back but basically the aircraft will recover on it's on in just a couple of seconds by letting go of the controls, a little forward pressure as soon as the horizon is in the right place over the nose to prevent a new stall and all is well. In the 150 spins can be fun if you like that sort of thing!

It sure is! After I got over the fright, like a couple of days later,,,-- I went and did it on purpose. Great fun! I happened to mention it to another student pilot, he said lets go up and do some together. He sat in the right seat, did a couple from there. Some more hangar talk that might save a life some day. I have no doubt I would have been killed that day without that short talk with my dad in our living room.

The school I was at did not teach spins and their recovery during private pilot courses. I mentioned it to one of the instructors, he said it was only taught to commercial pilot students. I told him what happened, he said he would bring it up to the owner.

Yeah the C-150 will fly itself out of a sin by releasing the controls. Pushing the wheel forward increases the airspeed dramatically, once the airfoils clean up. While in a spin, you reach a terminal velocity that does not increase.

[opos]

Have spun a number of planes on purpose over the years but never had the stones to try the Bonanza..they were solidly placarded against spins and I understand that they meant it...but had a friend that flew Bonanza's for many years as lead pilot for Cutter Carco aviation out of Albuquerque when they flew in and out of Los Alamos Lab in the 60's with "special people" on board..he loved my Bonanza..it was a 53 C model that had many upgrades (to P model specs) and it flew like a dream...if you were cautious. We went up to just fly one day and he offered to scare me good and show me how Bonanza pilots got killed on approach...we went to about 5K agl (10K above sea level at ABQ)and he set me up for a simulated approach to a "small uncontrolled strip" like the old Sunland strip at El Paso...flaps, gear, slow and tight..right pattern with no ability to pull out of final to the left (Sunland had a mountain)..I'm "just turning final" when he said.."some guy in a Cessna just pulled onto the runway to take off...get us out of here"..I gave it the power and began to pull up and right out of the "pattern" when the v tail washed out and we just sort of slid backwards and shuddered ...thought we were going over on our back".....he reached over and with his left hand "flew it out of the mess"...I was shaking and sweating....he showed me something that very few pilots ever get to see and that's an unrecoverable crash scenario that had a very happy ending and a huge learning experience...got to fly the Bonanza with the trim and do lots of things at once to keep from losing the tail in that kind of situation...I had a couple hundred hours in the Bonanza at that time and thought I knew it pretty well...always something to learn...Old "62 Charlie" is in a bunch of pieces and parts now after crashing on approach (not me thank God) back East when the engine died on final and they went into a bunch of trees..no fatalaties but 2 bad injuries and a totaled airplane.

133487

[Surculus]

Now I have to decide if going to new Star Wars movie when it comes out.
:sad:
Hate to give my money to Anti's

Well that's an easy one then: Star Wars is now a Disney product, & DisneyCorp is anti-gun. [Dunno how Walt felt about them, but he's been gone a long time now. He can't have been too opposed to firearms tho'; I'm old enough to remember when they still had shooting galleries in Frontierland...

[MtGun44]

That Airbus pilot held the stick full aft while the computer was saying "STALL --- STALL -- STALL ---STALL"
for LITERALLY 15 minutes!

Sorry, he was just an idiot and clearly had not the slightest idea what makes an airplane
fly, regardless of a few thousand hours 'guiding the autopilot' on Airbuses.

When the command pilot finally got into the seat, the guy in the right seat that killed
them said, "How can it be stalled? I've been holding the stick back the whole time."

A 50 hour Cessna 150 pilot knows that if you hold the stick (wheel in the Cessna) fully back
the airplane WILL STALL. Release the back pressure to recover. Clearly, this guy
did not understand that extremely fundamental thing about controlling an airplane,
yet had made it to being an airline co-pilot.
And the command pilot after a few seconds to assess the situation said, "You idiot,
you have killed us." They hit the water a couple seconds later having fallen over
40,000 ft in a deep stall, commanded by the "pilot" in the right seat.

I have been to the Oshkosk Fly In every year since 1980, with only two misses.
I had always flown in until a few years ago.

[oldred]

Oshkosh has been on my "to-do" list since back in the 70's but realistically I know I will never make it, when the EAA tried the Tullahoma Tn meet in the late 70's I did manage to make that one but that's the only EAA organized Fly-in I have ever manage despite being a member for nearly 40 years now (Dang! Has it been that long? :shock:)

I have been involved in building a couple of homebuilts, a Wag-Aero "Cubby" and a first generation Kitfox, being a professional welder I did the welding on the Cubby but was more of just a helper on the Kitfox. I have a Kitfox project of my own now that will most likely get passed down to my Son since I have more pressing things to do these days, far more than I will ever finish in my lifetime. These days flying amounts to renting a Cessna 172 to occasionally taking kids for rides and just trying to stay current.

The fact is GREED and Lawyers have ruined flying with absolutely stupid lawsuits and enormous awards being paid out by the manufacturers for pilot stupidity! In 1977 a new Cessna 152 could be bought for less than $18,000 but only 8 years later the last one was built at over $60,000 and good clean examples to day of 150's sell for more than they did new even figuring inflation! Even the very basic smallest factory built aircraft today runs in the hundreds of thousands and climbing every year! The reason was the skyrocketing cost of building airplanes due to product liability insurance that has just about kept up with doctor malpractice insurance, basically these scum sucking lawyers did to flying what malpractice lawsuits did to health care! In 1975 I could rent a Cessna 150 for $14/hr "Wet" while today the 152 at the same airport is $120/hr and the 172 I rent sometimes borders on robbery! I am aware that $14 is not nearly as much as it was in '75 but no way would inflation account for that much increase and aircraft prices have risen at a MUCH greater rate than that! The bottom line is that flying has reached the point to where it truly is a rich man's game and it's simply gotten so costly I have just about lost interest.

[Multigunner]

Flight 447
A lot more to it than the audion would indicate.


In an article in Vanity Fair, William Langewiesche noted that once the angle of attack was so extreme, the system rejected the data as invalid and temporarily stopped the stall warnings. However, "this led to a perverse reversal that lasted nearly to the impact: each time Bonin happened to lower the nose, rendering the angle of attack marginally less severe, the stall warning sounded again—a negative reinforcement that may have locked him into his pattern of pitching up" which increased the angle of attack and thus prevented the plane from getting out of its stall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Human_factors_and_computer_i nteraction

With the computer on the fritz there was no governing factor to prevent the pilot from putting the plane in a stall condition and the conflicting information confused the pilot.
If he had more experiance he would have ignored the false information from the computer and corrected the problem by instinct.



Other reports (including the final BEA report) point to poor Human Computer Interface (HCI) of the Airbus as a significant factor contributing to the crash. As reported by AIN Online, the final BEA report provides an explanation for most of the pitch-up inputs by the pilot flying (PF), left unexplained in the Popular Mechanics piece.[233] The Flight Director (FD) display was misleading and probably accounted for most of the inputs. Furthermore, the pitch-up input at the beginning of the fatal sequence of events appears to be the consequence of an altimeter error. The investigators also pointed to the lack of a clear display of the airspeed inconsistencies even though the computers had identified them. Some systems generated failure messages only about the consequences but never mentioned the origin of the problem. The investigators recommended that a blocked pitot tube should be clearly indicated as such to the crew on the flight displays. The Telegraph pointed out the absence of Angle of Attack information, which is so important in identifying and preventing a stall.[234] The paper stated that "though angle of attack readings are sent to onboard computers, there are no displays in modern jets to convey this critical information to the crews". Spiegel indicated the difficulty the pilots faced in diagnosing the problem: "One alarm after another lit up the cockpit monitors. One after another, the autopilot, the automatic engine control system, and the flight computers shut themselves off".[235] Against the backdrop of confusing information, difficulty with aural cognition (due to heavy buffeting from the storm as well as the stall) and zero external visibility, the pilots had less than three minutes to identify the problem and take corrective action. The Der Spiegel report asserts that such a crash "could happen again".

Thats the problem with relying on computers, garbage in garbage out.

[Don Purcell]

Learned to fly in a 152. Nice flying plane in calm conditions but would bet you to pieces in turbulence. It made you learn how to fly. After a few hours I had a chance to fly a Cherokee 180. That was like stepping into a Cadillac, nice ground handling and solid in the air. I've heard it said that if you want to learn how to handle a warbird start with the easy ones first. Start out in a F6F Hellcat then a P-51 then advance to the T-6. Once you've mastered the T-6 you can handle anything!

[oldred]

I would give almost anything to climb into one of those old warbirds! If there ever was a "greatest generation" of men who experienced something that will never again be experienced on this Earth it was those WW11 fighter pilots! NOTHING before or since can even come close! I know Jets are awesome and I'm not trying to take away from that it's just that the type of thing that happened in the skies during 1941 trough 1945 will NEVER be experienced again, can you just imagine climbing into a Hellcat on an old carrier or a P38 Lightning on some pacific island and going out in groups to go at it face to face with Jap fighters? Can you just imagine a strafing or bombing run on a big battleship or aircraft carrier? It will NEVER be that personal again with today's stand-off "kill'em from a 100 miles away" aircraft and systems, and now even pilot-less aircraft will likely soon be taking over those duties!

[Don Purcell]

As far as shooting goes I remember Chuck Yeager said that a study was done years ago about fighter pilots in World War Two. I don't remember the exact numbers but most of the enemy aircraft shot down during the war were shot down by only around 15% of the pilots and most of those were country boys that grew up shooting and understood how to lead your target.

[oldred]

Something that always puzzled me is that as limited as the ammo supply was they sure wasted a lot of it! Watching those old videos (films) of shoot-downs the tracers can be seen still firing at a falling aircraft long after it becomes apparent that it's already dead. I have watched a couple of these where the pilot continues to fire at a burning and crashing plane almost until it hits the ground, next time you see one of these old action shots just watch and see what I am talking about.

[Multigunner]

A few WW 1 pilots liked to down their prey with short bursts but almost always when attacking from a blind spot.

Also a probable wouldn't count towards becoming an ace, too many pilots from either side managed to pull out after a power drive that snuffed out flames to survive and make it home.

With hard fought battles at sea the Japanese if they knew they weren't going to make it home would try to nail a USN vessel or shore emplacement with their last breath.
I've read of just that happening at a Flying Tiger airfield. The Japanese pilot had circled the field then dove on a hanger. When they examined his corpse he had bullet wounds from an earlier fight.

The images from gun camera footage are more telling than what the pilot doing the shooting would have been able to see clearly with all the vibrating of engine and guns along with buffeting and with his hands full flying and shooting.
Unless a wing fell off some of those tough old birds could survive a terrible pounding.

Saburo Sakai took a .30 through the head that blew out one eye and still flew home across hundreds of miles of ocean.

[Don Purcell]

oldred, know what you are talking about. Caught up in the moment (tunnel vision?), adrenaline?, first kill? You see the same thing during anti-aircraft fire from ships in the Pacific. I'm sure you have seen the clip of a Japanese aircraft with one wing gone and falling in a vertical twirling movement (not a spin) and a wall of tracers following him down. Sometimes even after the aircraft has impacted the sea you will notice a mass of projectiles churning up the water. Intense. If you read the book "Masters of the AIR" about the 8th Air Force bombing of Europe it tells about after the Luftwaffe was pretty much neutralized in the last months of the war that fighter attacks were almost a non issue. However the mass of antiaircraft fire was worse as you had to sit there and take it. In frustration some of the gunners would fire at the flack bursts to at least feel they were doing something. Pretty rough.

[oldred]

I read one account of the final attack on the Musashi, one of the pilots was out of ammo but dove in anyway hoping to draw fire away from some of the dive bombers making their attacks, flying in close in all that AA fire he opened his canopy and fired his .38 at them as he went by!

[Boz330]

The fact is GREED and Lawyers have ruined flying with absolutely stupid lawsuits and enormous awards being paid out by the manufacturers for pilot stupidity! In 1977 a new Cessna 152 could be bought for less than $18,000 but only 8 years later the last one was built at over $60,000 and good clean examples to day of 150's sell for more than they did new even figuring inflation! Even the very basic smallest factory built aircraft today runs in the hundreds of thousands and climbing every year! The reason was the skyrocketing cost of building airplanes due to product liability insurance that has just about kept up with doctor malpractice insurance, basically these scum sucking lawyers did to flying what malpractice lawsuits did to health care! In 1975 I could rent a Cessna 150 for $14/hr "Wet" while today the 152 at the same airport is $120/hr and the 172 I rent sometimes borders on robbery! I am aware that $14 is not nearly as much as it was in '75 but no way would inflation account for that much increase and aircraft prices have risen at a MUCH greater rate than that! The bottom line is that flying has reached the point to where it truly is a rich man's game and it's simply gotten so costly I have just about lost interest.


I got my license in 72 and a 150 was $9.75 wet. It went to $10 and I remember ******** about the outrageous increase.
It isn't just the lawyers that have increased the cost of aviation. The FAA has also regulated things to the point of ridiculousness. I own/operate a Certificated Repair Station and the amount of paperwork and regulation has increased exponentially since 74 when I got into it. Only 6% of all aircraft accidents are maintenance issues, the rest are pilot error, but you can't regulate against stupidity, but you can regulate maintenance.
When I got my first repair station certificate it took me a month to write it up and submit it. A month after that I was in business. This was after working in one for 22 years. When the FAA decided that they would change the rules back in 2002 they gave all repair stations 1 year to submit new manuals for operation. It took a 1 and 1/2 years for that manual to be approved with multiple changes during that time. A year after that the FAA required all repair stations to submit training manuals. I am a one person repair station but had to come up with a manual to train myself. Even the local inspectors said that it was ridiculous but I had to do it anyway. The really stupid part is that I have to evaluated whether I need additional training or not. From what I understand now is that it is 2 to 3 years wait for a new repair station to become certificated. How do you go into business knowing it will be that long before you make your first dollar. And in the 13 years since this fantastic upgrade in maintenance the 6% rate of maintenance issues is exactly the same. In the mean time I figured an increase of almost 3 hours in paperwork for the average job I do. Guess who pays for that.
On another note when I got my license almost every airport in KY had an FBO with rental aircraft an instructor and usually an A&P around. Now you land at a KY airport there is no one around, and you pump your own gas and you better have a credit card. Meanwhile the 5 million dollar terminal building (built by the FAA) is locked because the local county can't afford to man it and you have to pee in the bushes.

Bob

[oldred]

Meanwhile the 5 million dollar terminal building (built by the FAA) is locked because the local county can't afford to man it and you have to pee in the bushes.

Bob


Lol! Been there and done that, more than once!

[Don Purcell]

The Federal Aviation Administration might just as well take out the Aviation part and leave the Federal and Administration. The best thing is if they would just leave period.

[oldred]

Was it Ronald Regan who said that some of the scariest words you will ever hear are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help".

[Boz330]

Probably was.
I really get along good with the local guys but have a real problem with what comes out of DC. I truly believe that the attitude of the hierarchy is that once general aviation is crushed then they will only have to deal with the airlines making their jobs much simpler. There was a time when a blue collar guy could afford to own an aircraft if that was his passion. Not anymore, it is rapidly becoming an upper middle class luxury.
I am a partner in this beauty and can't afford to even put gas in it anymore.

Bob

[Don Purcell]

Boz330, after all they can't let the sheep roam around free can they? Beautiful airplane by the way.

[Boz330]

Boz330, after all they can't let the sheep roam around free can they? Beautiful airplane by the way.
Looks good now and flys good, but you should have seen it on the trailer when we brought it in. In the dictionary under basket case is a picture of this 180.:shock: It took 3 years to put it back together.

Bob