Anyone know anything??
Just heard through a friend....
Hope all are ok
182 down by Smithers
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
Its What I do
- Rank 2
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:23 pm
-
rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4409
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: 182 down by Smithers
It's a good thing that the CBC stated it is a stock photo! For a second I was worried that a Polish 182 had crashed in BC!
I thought for a pilot who was doing what he/she loved....
I thought for a pilot who was doing what he/she loved....
-
Schooner69A
- Rank 7
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: The Okanagan
Re: 182 down by Smithers
This was a commercial operator engaged in testing or actually using an underslung IR sensor along the Babine River to check for hot spots from last year's fires. This thing...http://www.airbornescientific.com/content/cessnacam
Sadly, three have been lost and one person has a broken arm.
The pilot was very high time and while I know where he was from, not the time to say now.
The pilot put out a Mayday in which he said he was not sure he could make some bush strip in that area, and I understand the site is near to whatever that place is. So engine failure most likely, possible something went wrong with that contraption underneath.
Sadly, three have been lost and one person has a broken arm.
The pilot was very high time and while I know where he was from, not the time to say now.
The pilot put out a Mayday in which he said he was not sure he could make some bush strip in that area, and I understand the site is near to whatever that place is. So engine failure most likely, possible something went wrong with that contraption underneath.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: 182 down by Smithers
Probably is.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
-
Capt. Underpants
- Rank 5
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am
Re: 182 down by Smithers
I understand this to be my neighbour. To the family and friends, I am very sorry for your loss. It was always a pleasure to have a visit with Lorne.
Re: 182 down by Smithers
The pilot's name is out there but nothing official yet. No word on the name of the injured passenger.
There is an update with the latest TSB report. Photo of wreckage. Wing missing, starboard stab ripped off, elevator ripped off that. Doesn't really look like an engine failure/forced approach gone wrong. Unless it was a very bad forced approach. It is in a gorge and not many people chose a gorge for a forced approach. They would have been 2000 AGL when the mayday went out, if they were in survey mode. The call to forestry was along the lines of not knowing if the Silver Hilton lodge strip could be reached.
That's a dodgy looking rig in that photo up at the top in this thread.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5258084/nort ... w-details/
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: 182 down by Smithers
I was thinking that too, and I make my living issuing STC's for things that hang from planes! I can't immediately see how its failure would cause an accident, but it still does not fill me with confidence.....That's a dodgy looking rig in that photo up at the top in this thread.
Re: 182 down by Smithers
The pilot was 66 and word is he had 40,000 hours. That may be a way of saying he had a lot of time. If it was an engine failure, that seems like something much more destructive than you would expect from a guy with that much time. It takes a lot of force to take the wing right off a 182, much more than you'd get treetopping at forced approach speed. Lot of force on those tail feathers hanging up in that tree.PilotDAR wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 8:29 pmI was thinking that too, and I make my living issuing STC's for things that hang from planes! I can't immediately see how its failure would cause an accident, but it still does not fill me with confidence.....That's a dodgy looking rig in that photo up at the top in this thread.
He didn't say he had an engine failure in the mayday to forestry. He said he was "having problems" and didn't think he could make the strip at Silver Hilton, a fishing lodge.
That box is held on by a cable system which is cinched down where each strut connects to the fuselage. It has no connection to any metal of the aircraft. It is only pressure and friction which keeps it in the position behind the nosewheel. If it lets loose on one side, the loop on the other can likely slide all the way up the strut to the wing connector. If it hangs on, you've got about a two foot drogue trailing and giving a fair bit of assymetric drag about 6 foot off to the side. If each side has an independent cable and one side snaps, then the box breaks loose and is flapping behind the strut on the other loop. That loop would almost certainly move up to the wing.
It was three hours into the flight. How much fuel can you carry with four on board a 182 with that rig and a bit of gear?
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: 182 down by Smithers
I went back and looked at the system owner's page. Watched the guy install the box and hand tighten that turnbuckle. That just doesn't seem right. It does seem to be a single cable, but the turnbuckle probably wouldn't come through the guide holes or whatever on the box, so it would trail if it separated. That wouldn't be a normal downward pull on that bottom strut fitting, would it?
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: 182 down by Smithers
That "cessnacam" box was stc'd in 1958, it's used for old fashioned camera's on the cheap. They could have jammed an ir camera in there but you would think they would use a standard ball for that.PilotDAR wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 8:29 pmI was thinking that too, and I make my living issuing STC's for things that hang from planes! I can't immediately see how its failure would cause an accident, but it still does not fill me with confidence.....That's a dodgy looking rig in that photo up at the top in this thread.
Re: 182 down by Smithers
I have no idea about the cause or factors of the accident of this thread. I do not attribute a cable attached camera to the accident, because I have no reason to think it was a factor.
However, if a client approached me to attach any item of mass under the belly of a Cessna by a cable around the wing struts, I would decline the project. My concerns would be: what if it came loose, and what of one or both cables released? Aside from persons and property on the ground, best case it comes off, and departs the plane entirely - not good, but least negative effect on the airplane. If one cable let go, yes, I imagine the remaining cable could shift up the wingstrut. Whether up the wingstrut, or still at the fuselage, there would be horrendous banging off the airframe. I've had this happen, it sounds worse than it is, but it's not good. Something banging off the aileron would annoy the pilot, but again, "I've had it happen, it feels and sounds worse than it is (Cessna ailerons are surprisingly tough!). If the object trailed up to the wing, and banged around up there, the 182 would remain yaw controllable, though it would be scary. I had four jumpers try hand over hand up the wingstrut of a 185 I was flying on a slow jump run (without briefing me). The first jumper was yaw controllable, the rest really weren't. They yelled "Yahoo" as I was pushing the nose down and adding power to prevent a spin entry. Cessnas have an amazing amount of control available, which most pilots really never have to use much - if in doubt, fly the plane, it has more ability to get you home than you might expect.
That said, I'm empathetic to a pilot who is simply startled by something going wrong. 'Having to analyze, plan to continue flying while you figure out what when wrong, and, what to do about it, and trying to calm passengers. That would be very distracting.
Survey flying may entice a pilot to fly more slowly, and with four occupants in a 182, slow flying will require more attention. When I STC external equipment on aircraft, often non essential occupants are not permitted during survey flying.
However, if a client approached me to attach any item of mass under the belly of a Cessna by a cable around the wing struts, I would decline the project. My concerns would be: what if it came loose, and what of one or both cables released? Aside from persons and property on the ground, best case it comes off, and departs the plane entirely - not good, but least negative effect on the airplane. If one cable let go, yes, I imagine the remaining cable could shift up the wingstrut. Whether up the wingstrut, or still at the fuselage, there would be horrendous banging off the airframe. I've had this happen, it sounds worse than it is, but it's not good. Something banging off the aileron would annoy the pilot, but again, "I've had it happen, it feels and sounds worse than it is (Cessna ailerons are surprisingly tough!). If the object trailed up to the wing, and banged around up there, the 182 would remain yaw controllable, though it would be scary. I had four jumpers try hand over hand up the wingstrut of a 185 I was flying on a slow jump run (without briefing me). The first jumper was yaw controllable, the rest really weren't. They yelled "Yahoo" as I was pushing the nose down and adding power to prevent a spin entry. Cessnas have an amazing amount of control available, which most pilots really never have to use much - if in doubt, fly the plane, it has more ability to get you home than you might expect.
That said, I'm empathetic to a pilot who is simply startled by something going wrong. 'Having to analyze, plan to continue flying while you figure out what when wrong, and, what to do about it, and trying to calm passengers. That would be very distracting.
Survey flying may entice a pilot to fly more slowly, and with four occupants in a 182, slow flying will require more attention. When I STC external equipment on aircraft, often non essential occupants are not permitted during survey flying.
-
corethatthermal
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: 182 down by Smithers
One would think that 4 in a C-182 would at least have 1 pax as non-essential!
Not too long ago, I was flying a C-206 in the Rockies and just entered very light rain when all of a sudden the whole aircraft shook like hell, Myself and observer were quite concerned, I reduced speed and headed directly to the airport. It turned out to be the RH wing strut vibrating at its oscillating frequency, brought upon by the airflow disturbance caused by the light rain! ( Google is your friend) 2 new bolts fixed that, but not before spending days flying trying to induce it again!
Once had a CH300 go into aileron flutter which induced the wing to flutter, Very disconcerting! It was during a buzz of the local airport and i had to pull up hard and lock the aileron in full right turn and let it roll until the flutter stopped. Chris Heintz made some odd departures from standard over the years and balance-less ailerons was one of them ( Having cable tension prevent flutter!!! )
Not too long ago, I was flying a C-206 in the Rockies and just entered very light rain when all of a sudden the whole aircraft shook like hell, Myself and observer were quite concerned, I reduced speed and headed directly to the airport. It turned out to be the RH wing strut vibrating at its oscillating frequency, brought upon by the airflow disturbance caused by the light rain! ( Google is your friend) 2 new bolts fixed that, but not before spending days flying trying to induce it again!
Once had a CH300 go into aileron flutter which induced the wing to flutter, Very disconcerting! It was during a buzz of the local airport and i had to pull up hard and lock the aileron in full right turn and let it roll until the flutter stopped. Chris Heintz made some odd departures from standard over the years and balance-less ailerons was one of them ( Having cable tension prevent flutter!!! )
Re: 182 down by Smithers
corethatthermal wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 12:09 pm One would think that 4 in a C-182 would at least have 1 pax as non-essential!
Not too long ago, I was flying a C-206 in the Rockies and just entered very light rain when all of a sudden the whole aircraft shook like hell, Myself and observer were quite concerned, I reduced speed and headed directly to the airport. It turned out to be the RH wing strut vibrating at its oscillating frequency, brought upon by the airflow disturbance caused by the light rain! ( Google is your friend) 2 new bolts fixed that, but not before spending days flying trying to induce it again!
Once had a CH300 go into aileron flutter which induced the wing to flutter, Very disconcerting! It was during a buzz of the local airport and i had to pull up hard and lock the aileron in full right turn and let it roll until the flutter stopped. Chris Heintz made some odd departures from standard over the years and balance-less ailerons was one of them ( Having cable tension prevent flutter!!! )
Interesting comments. Was the 206 strut loose to begin with?
As for the CH300, my theory, which could be wrong, is to not fly those sort of aircraft faster than normal,(ie what other people have been flying). I don't trust the workmanship and staying far away from VNE is my plan.
Re: 182 down by Smithers
Scuffing is eliminated with rubberized cushions between the pod and airframe, and the pod is attached with a 3/16 steel cable rated at 4400 lbs, the wings will fall off before the pod falls off. The CessnaCam is STC approved, it is not an experimental device.
Is that qood thing? Wouldn't it be better if the pod fell off?
Is that qood thing? Wouldn't it be better if the pod fell off?
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: 182 down by Smithers
Yeah, the Cessna wings have a fatigue life in the millions of hours (I've paid to have the analysis done!). A 3/16" steel cable, particularly when bent and pulled around sharp corners, and tensioned to mystery cable tensions, may not do as well. Perhaps nylon jacked cable? Harder to inspect for frayed wires. I have cabled things structurally, but that was with cables acting linear only, with properly swaged terminal ends, properly bolted, as intended in AC43.13 - no bending cables around corners, unless there's a proper pulley in that corner! The fact that something works, and has been STC'd (particularly a long time ago) is not a foolproof guarantee.with a 3/16 steel cable rated at 4400 lbs, the wings will fall off before the pod falls off. The CessnaCam is STC approved, it is not an experimental device.
Is that qood thing? Wouldn't it be better if the pod fell off?
Yes, when I have designed and approved things attached to aircraft, where there was any possibility of it coming off/being knocked off in flight, it was designed to break cleanly away from the aircraft. I designed, and installed under a flight permit, four underwing pylons for a Cessna 207. My client was miffed when I filed off the three locking pins for each very expensive Amphenol connector which connected the payload to the onboard computers, and tywrapped them together. I explained that if a pylon was knocked off/shook itself off in flight, I wanted it to separate cleanly. After the accident, the first thing my client told me was that the four pylons were found in the trees, and had separated cleanly when the airplane crashed. I still have them. judging by their condition, the wings were not damaged by the separation, the pylons took the damage as intended. The pilot was killed, and the plane burned, only the pylons survived. The last thing I wanted was one of my pylons letting go, and banging off an aileron by it's electrical cables. Accident caused by pilot sightseeing in the mountains, and loosing situational awareness in a valley, nothing to do with the highly modified plane carrying more than a million dollars of Environment Canada's atmospheric research equipment!
Again, I have no idea what happened in the case of this 182 accident. Perhaps that camera was a factor, perhaps not. But, there's no way that camera made the plane safer!
Re: 182 down by Smithers
I have yet to see any publication of the name of the pilot.......
