4 fatal - crash nw of Waterloo ON Aug 24 2012

[Colonel Sanders]

Student a little high & fast on base, overshot final, chopped power, pulled on full flap, started the turn, kept it shallow with aileron, and booted it around with rudder.

I really, really don't like it when people do that.

But he was doing what he was taught to do - keep
the bank angle shallow in the circuit.

It's too bad that Canada's flight training establishment
taught him to enter a spin turning final.

[Shiny Side Up]

It's too bad that Canada's flight training establishment
taught him to enter a spin turning final.

I don't know about that though, on one hand we're always saying that people don't know what the rudder is for and flying with their feet on the floor, the next we're saying that they're all flying around "booting" it around...

For once I don't think we can blame this specific part of the system but rather indivdual instruction that results in people just not knowing how to work the rudder period.

[cgzro]

FAR 23 for the NORMAL category requires testing to prove recovery from a one turn or 3 second spin (whichever is the longest) with normal recovery procedures.

Ok, thanks for confirming what I thought I remembered. So that aircraft should have been recoverable with normal control inputs as long as they were applied during the first rotation (or three seconds) and the aircraft W&B was in the normal category.

So the speculation that 'because there were 4 people on board and it was not in utility category resulted in an unrecoverable "flat" spin' is unlikely to be true, at least for the first turn or 3 seconds or unless his C of G was actually rear of Normal in which case all bets were off.

Peter

[Ivan42]

Could fuel loss have been a factor here? A C172 with 4 passengers would've had maybe half a tank of fuel. A return trip from Niagara comes to around 140nm, and with a full load they would've been on at least 3/4 power...

That's just a random thought. A lot of the discussion here makes more sense now, although I still reckon that the spin (if that's the likely cause) was entered unintentionally.

[Colonel Sanders]

Could fuel loss have been a factor here?

Sure - it's quite possible it ran out of fuel, then stalled/spun
during the forced approach. This is very common - has happened
many times in the past, and will happen many times in the future,
quite possibly to someone reading this right now, who thinks it
could "never happen to them".

Perhaps it is time for my "Tale of Two Comanches" which like
Seinfeld, seems to get played over and over again.

There was once a guy in a Comanche in the US that had an
exhaust leak and went to sleep. Ran out of gas, of course,
and the basic autopilot kept the wings level, and tried to maintain
altitude as the prop up front started to windmill. The electric
trim nicely slowed the airplane down, actually. The aircraft
descended, entered ground effect and landed not too badly
in a corn field. The pilot woke up with one heckuva headache
from the carbon monoxide poisoning and a broken wrist,
which really isn't bad considering he slept through the forced
approach.

Compare this with a guy I knew - he was a neighbour of my
old boss - that rented Wayne Rostad's old Comanche from a
now-long-gone school at Carp, near Ottawa. Nice guy, but
he never learned to use the fuel totalizer and ran it out of gas.
That should not have been a fatal mistake, but it was. During
maneuvering during the forced approach, he stalled/spun and
killed himself and his young grandson.

Now, I have a question for all the Hot Sticks and Golden Arms
here.

Who ended up with a better result? The guy that slept through
his forced approach, or the guy that very likely tried very hard
during his?

What can you learn from my Tale of Two Comanches?

I will give you a hint. If you look at the TC Flight Test results
for PPL and CPL over the last 70 years, which has been the
worst-performed maneuver for every one of those 70 years?

[Gessle64]

All this talk about flat spins, inverted spins...
The point is that the pilot stalled the plane. Only the pilot could have made this happen. It was not a training flight so there was no legitimate reason for the pilot to produce a stall. And there was no legitimate reason not to recover at the first indication. SOP-heavy FTUs simply aren't teaching basic flight skills properly. It will be interesting to see the investigation and FTU's response.

[Colonel Sanders]

FTUs simply aren't teaching basic flight skills properly

One has to wonder if:

1) FTU's simply don't think they're important any more, with huge
glass panels and plastic nosewheel airplanes, or

2) FTU's don't know there is a problem

3) FTU's are aware of it, but don't think there is a problem (they
just don't care)

[YYZSaabGuy]

The point is that the pilot stalled the plane. Only the pilot could have made this happen. It was not a training flight so there was no legitimate reason for the pilot to produce a stall. And there was no legitimate reason not to recover at the first indication. SOP-heavy FTUs simply aren't teaching basic flight skills properly. It will be interesting to see the investigation and FTU's response.

That's a bit unfair, isn't it? Whichever FTU(s) he trained at did their job well enough that he progressed to a CPL, which meant he demonstrated the ability to recognize and recover from a stall on at least two flight tests to the satisfaction of the TC examiner. So obviously he was taught at least this particular basic flight skill. I'm not sure an FTU is necessarily at fault on this one.

[Colonel Sanders]

Whichever FTU(s) he trained at did their job well enough that he progressed to a CPL, which meant he demonstrated the ability to recognize and recover from a stall on at least two flight tests to the satisfaction of the TC examiner

No. Very few PPL/CPL tests are carried out any more by TC inspectors.
They are all carried out by in-house examiners. Can you say "conflict of
interest"? I knew you could ...

I recently saw a candidate for a class 4 initial flight test that had great
difficulty flying a 172 in co-ordinated flight at normal speeds. He had
passed a PPL and CPL flight test, too - presumably using his FTU's examiner.

I know of a pilot examiner that has two prices - one for a normal test,
and another, higher price for a guaranteed pass.

[Shiny Side Up]

One has to wonder if:

1) FTU's simply don't think they're important any more, with huge
glass panels and plastic nosewheel airplanes, or

2) FTU's don't know there is a problem

3) FTU's are aware of it, but don't think there is a problem (they
just don't care)

Like most problems its probably a combination of all factors, hard to say what is the most prevalent. That said though, you could also replace "FTU" in the above with "Students" or "New pilots". Speaking with a lot of new students and new license holders is often very revealing about what they think are the important aspects of their flight training and needless to say they gravitate towards where they feel that those important issues are going to be adressed. FTUs might be the pushers, but the customers are all too willing.

As others have said though, I don't think this particular accident is one attributable to poor training. If it is, one has to accept that the whole system is corrupted (or at least large portions of it) and doesn't really care about the quality of pilots. Which now that I think if it is also a strong possibility.

[YYZSaabGuy]

No. Very few PPL/CPL tests are carried out any more by TC inspectors.
They are all carried out by in-house examiners. Can you say "conflict of
interest"? I knew you could ...

Fair enough, so let me rephrase: he passed at least two flight tests conducted either by TC inspectors or by TC-approved inspectors attached to his FTU(s), so either way he met TC flight test standards. Unless of course he was examined by the pilot examiner who runs the two-price scheme, which is impossible to know (the examiner in question is unlikely to step forward and 'fess up) but statistically improbable. Again, I'm not claiming to know what happened with this particular accident, and I'm sure there are accidents attributable to poor training - just not with the frequency that seems to
be the consensus view on this site.

Edited 1X by YYZSaabGuy: Spelling mistake.

[Colonel Sanders]

Everyone knows who the two-price examiner is,
including TC. In fact, he very well may have conducted
this pilot's flight test.

[CpnCrunch]

Maybe he just wasn't used to the spin characteristics of a fully loaded plane (having never experienced it) and assumed that rudder alone will stop the rotation.

Here's an interesting example in a 152 showing what happens if you hold the yoke back during a spin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2rm7n9Vz3c

[Gogona]

Here's an interesting example in a 152 showing what happens if you hold the yoke back during a spin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2rm7n9Vz3c

From the description below:
Rudder did nothing to stop rotation, had to put it into a spiral to recover.

What set of actions does that mean? o_O

[cgzro]

had to put it into a spiral to recover.

What set of actions does that mean?

Note the following is a technical answer to the above question but you should not be attempting this without proper training in a proper aircraft and only if the POH says its appriate... however ...

You can 'sometimes' stop a spin by rolling into the spin. This lowers the angle of attack on the wing on the inside of the spin, which is the one that is most deeply stalled, while it increases the angle of attack on the outside wing, the one that is least deeply stalled. This can reduce the drag/lift imbalance between the two wings and of course its that drag/lift difference which is causing the rotation. Needless to say trying to roll out of the spin has the exact opposite effect. A good analogy is a skid in a car. Steering into the direction your are sliding gets you out. Steer away from the direction you are sliding makes it worse...

This is why we say neutralize ailerons as part of normal spin recovery because incorrect position aggrevates things. Its also why you never try to lift a wing that has dropped in a stall with aileron. It takes a fair amount of recurrent spin training to overcome this primal instinct which seems to takeover even some very experienced pilots when startled.

[Rookie50]

FTUs simply aren't teaching basic flight skills properly

One has to wonder if:

1) FTU's simply don't think they're important any more, with huge
glass panels and plastic nosewheel airplanes, or

2) FTU's don't know there is a problem

3) FTU's are aware of it, but don't think there is a problem (they
just don't care)

As an overall principle,

The culture of (some ) FTU's, as I wrote in my other post, that in reality puts dollars ahead of safety in spite of promoting the latter (safety) as the guiding principle. I call this ridiculous propaganda. I do not trust any FTU very far. No excuses! Yes the pilot is responsible, and one can imagine how this TC report will come out, but where is held the responsibility of not just the
instructors of young pilots, but the culture and drive for profit and efficiency that is prevalent?

[Colonel Sanders]

culture ... puts dollars ahead of safety

Accidents are really expensive. If someone wants to
keep their costs down, they need to avoid having one.

[Doc]

Student a little high & fast on base, overshot final, chopped power, pulled on full flap, started the turn, kept it shallow with aileron, and booted it around with rudder.

I really, really don't like it when people do that.

But he was doing what he was taught to do - keep
the bank angle shallow in the circuit.

It's too bad that Canada's flight training establishment
taught him to enter a spin turning final.

Nobody does this. I like to overshoot final from base, turn onto final form the far side (S turn) with more than a little bank, This way I can check for traffic doing a straight in, that I might have descended on top of doing a nice square circuit. One of our guys calls this a "Cub check". I've spotted one on a couple of occasions. FTU's encourage square circuit. My wee technique can save your bacon.

[Instructor_Mike]

Everyone knows who the two-price examiner is,
including TC. In fact, he very well may have conducted
this pilot's flight test.

The pilot was a cadet at the FTU where I was a dispatcher and did my CPL. I don't know who did his flight test for his ppl, but we didn't have an in house examiner. I'm not sure if WWFC has one now or not.

[Rookie50]

Edited.

[Rookie50]

Edited as not relevant to the thread

[PilotDAR]

I speculate that a primary cause of this accident was an over exuberant pilot flying the 172 beyond the approved maneuvers of the normal category, forgetting that with people in the back seat, the plane will not behave as it would properly loaded in the utility category - though should still be recoverable.

I would further speculate that even at the CPL training level, the nuances of normal and utility category approved maneuvers might be lost on a pilot, particularly when he might decide to show his passengers "what the plane will do", or being distracted by his passengers, and letting the plane get much farther into the maneuver than he intended.

A good safety culture, combined with training of these peripheral aspects, is much more important than people realize. Pilots need to be taught that prompt, full and prolonged control application may be required for recovery at aft C of G. Properly flown, it's going to come recover, but it might not seem so for a while, and then the impatient pilot begins to experiment, and prolongs the spin.

For those pilots who do not carefully regard the importance of C of G position on handling, and very particularly spin recovery characteristics, I can assure you that it can make a huge difference. My spin testing of modified Cessnas, demonstrated to me that the characteristics of recovery between full forward C of G, and full aft are very different. Though the 172 is obviously intended for spinning in some configurations, where most other Cessnas are not, the aerodynamics and physics are very similar. If a lesser experienced pilot spun an aft loaded 172, recovery could have demanded good pilot skill be applied to the recovery, particularly of it occurred as a surprise. The aircraft was probably recoverable, but with attentive effort. A screaming passenger can also affect the pilot's effectiveness in such situations.

It is my hope that this unhappy event serves as a springboard for more awareness of spins in general, and operating an aircraft within its limitations - they are there for a reason. I fear that this pilot might have received only the quick demo of a spin, and really never understood all the variables. Pilots should be trained spins by very spin experienced instructors, and in a suitable aircraft, adversely loaded, just to really make the training meaningful - and memorable. Then repeat frequently!

[Ivan42]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/c ... 120911.asp

.....but it's cool to send up a bunch of flight school airplanes full of people that have never flown before, without the slightest training....

What?
So now only people with PPL's are allowed to fly in light aircraft as passengers? Or are you implying that the accident was caused by the pilot allowing his friends to fly the plane?

Am I missing something here?...the pilot of the plane had a PPL with around - if I recall correctly - 200 hours.

[Rookie50]

Edited not relevant to thread.

[Doc]

Round and round we go. Anything else to be learned here? Doubt it. I've heard the passengers all worked for Bombardier. Aerodynamics engineers?
I'm still hanging it out there....if spins weren't taught, PPL's wouldn't do them. Simple answer to a complicated question? Perhaps. Fact remains......I don't think they should be taught in a PPL course. I've never even come close to an inadvertent spin.......and, I'm willing to bet, I have more flight time than "you" do. Of course, I have NO idea what I'm talking about...."you" be the judge. "You" know best.