C-150 crash in Montreal

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister

timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Colonel Sanders wrote:
I think that's why they limited later 172s to 30 degrees of flaps
No.
It has to do with an STC and an increase of gross weight I think.
Illya Kuryakin wrote:At least she put the gear down.
Illya
After 65 hrs it is hard not to blame yourself. After 1.5 hrs...
Runway is like 8000' and since YHU is a busy airport I guess they won't allow everyone stop&gs.

Zulutime, sounds like you handed it well after all :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
electricalfailure
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by electricalfailure »

We all should run to town hall and tell the mayor to take cars off the road, an accident will eventually happen.
---------- ADS -----------
 
GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by GyvAir »

zulutime wrote:On a day when my head was not "in the game" I took off with full flaps. The aircraft "popped up" in what felt like a hundred feet. Airspeed was right at stall and never increased. My eyes started scanning and low and behold the flaps were still down-full. The plane flew, though slow. I retracted one notch at a time but I have to say I didn't wait until the electric flaps made it to the next stage before moving up yet again. So, in reality I likely went from 40 degree to 0 degree without any pause in between. Had to keep the nose down to keep building airspeed. I considered simply pulling back the power and land back on the runway, (after all I had about 3600 ft ahead of me), but I chose to keep flying. I'm sure many here will have their idea of what is best in that scenario and will share their thoughts.
I did something very similar as a teenager on my second or third time solo. Was coming in for what was supposed to be a full stop landing, but decided at last moment that I didn't like the lack of stability I was currently experiencing and poured the coal to it... forgetting all about retracting the flaps. It felt like I'd hooked onto a steep escalator and I needed to push the nose way down in a manner I was totally unfamiliar with at that time to keep it flying in a normal seeming attitude. I'm pretty sure I slapped the flaps selector all the way to zero in one go once I realized what I had done wrong.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Illya Kuryakin
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Location: The Gulag Archipelago

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Illya Kuryakin »

I departed with full flaps. Total brain fart. It wasn't in a 150, and I had a very fat log book. Went up like an elevator. I recognized it instantly for what it was, and flew out of it.
On a second or third solo, she'd have had enough confusion going on to kill herself. Very happy that wasn't the outcome.
A 150 can kill you just as easily as a 747.....you just won't become as famous.
Illya
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.
DHQ
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:07 pm
Location: Ontario/Anywhere

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by DHQ »

timel wrote:Incident report came out: result is full flaps extended on T-O after touch and go (40 degrees) and it is not mechanical. It was the 3rd solo flight.
Where did you find that?
---------- ADS -----------
 
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

DHQ wrote:
timel wrote:Incident report came out: result is full flaps extended on T-O after touch and go (40 degrees) and it is not mechanical. It was the 3rd solo flight.
Where did you find that?
French sorry, nothing found for english version. School welcomes bst report.

http://www.rivesudexpress.ca/Actualites ... e-du-BST/1
---------- ADS -----------
 
GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by GyvAir »

Google Translate version of above article
Plane crash in Saint-Hubert

AVIATION. Air Richelieu has welcomed the findings of the investigation report of the Bureau of Transportation Safety Board (TSB) about the plane crash involving one of his young students.

The TSB concluded that the accident was due to human error control, and is not related to a failure of the unit. The Cessna 150, remember, crashed into the yard of a residence shortly after takeoff from the airport in Saint-Hubert, on July 12.

According to the survey, the elderly driver who was only 17 years old at the controls of the aircraft was practicing a maneuver of asking the unit to immediately take off again (touch and go). She forgot to raise the flaps during takeoff, causing a

aircraft stall followed the crash.

The investigation revealed that the flaps on the wings of the aircraft were down to 40 degrees at

the accident. This setting is commonly used by pilots during landing and not

off.

"The pilot was trained and qualified in accordance with the applicable certification criteria and had

passed all the stages of training required to obtain a permit to fly

solo. No element of the TSB report does not allow to assign the age of the pilot as a

factor involved in the accident. The training process is very strict and rigorous, and it is the

same for all students, regardless of their age, "said the director of Air Richelieu operations, Thierry Dugrippe.

"Incidents involving student pilots remain extremely rare, he added. For Air Richelieu, every accident is one accident too which is treated with the utmost seriousness. "

Over the past 20 years, the instructor Richard Blackburn reports two accidents that killed three people. In one case it is the suicide of a young driver in his twenties and in the other case, the unit was flying low and hit power son. The pilot and his passenger died.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Even though a buck fifty has 40 flap, it's hard
to think of a situation where you would actually
need that much drag.

I find the little Cessnas approach and land very
nicely with 20 flap. You get the stall speed down
and if you have to overshoot, you have a chance
in hell of climbing.

Many years ago, I was in the right seat of a buck fifty
with a sharp student in the circuit, and I asked him
if he had ever used 60 flap. Puzzled, he said no.

So, next circuit I had him level off at 500 AGL on
final, and when the runway numbers disappeared
under the nose, power off, nosed down vertically
and we dumped 40 flap and opened both doors
all the way. Each door is equivalent to another
10 flap - get it?

Well, the one thing Cessnas do well is descend,
and that's sure the case with a buck fifty when
you've got 40 flap on, and both doors open. We
made the runway.

As I said, I really can't think of any reasonably
normal approach when you would actually need
the drag of 40 flap in a buck fifty.

I think the 152, they reduced it to 30 flap max,
but put that horrible electric motor in and got
rid of the lovely johnson bar. Pity.

Thousands of times, I have seen students in
little Cessnas apply much too much flap far too
early on final, and then have to drag it in with
nearly full power. I'm not sure that's really the
best approach technique.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Shiny Side Up »

I find the little Cessnas approach and land very
nicely with 20 flap. You get the stall speed down
and if you have to overshoot, you have a chance
in hell of climbing.
This is the same way I train with them and the overshoot issue being the prime reason not to use all the flaps, especially since they're hardly necessary. This of course is almost heresy in the flight training world where almost all pilots are of the mode that approach control is done by modulating flaps. Don't, like, pull the throttle back or anything, or like control your speed. :|
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Shiny Side Up wrote:
I find the little Cessnas approach and land very
nicely with 20 flap. You get the stall speed down
and if you have to overshoot, you have a chance
in hell of climbing.
This is the same way I train with them and the overshoot issue being the prime reason not to use all the flaps, especially since they're hardly necessary. This of course is almost heresy in the flight training world where almost all pilots are of the mode that approach control is done by modulating flaps. Don't, like, pull the throttle back or anything, or like control your speed. :|
Full flaps = less Vso = lowest landing speed possible = more safety.
I mean 30-40-60 just don't forget to put them up on t&g and use your plane at it's maximum capacity. If you don't put them back up you might hurt yourself, other people or die. This girl was really lucky.

If you have over 20 kts of crosswind not more than 20 degrees flaps on a cessna, otherwise it should be full flaps.

If you have to overshoot in a king air and by mistake you put your flaps up instead of approach and you smash the runway because you didn't follow the procedure. Does it mean nobody should make a full flaps landing anymore?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

Full flaps = less Vso = lowest landing speed possible = more safety.
How much lower is the stall speed between flaps 20 degrees and full flaps in a C150/152?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Shiny Side Up »

timel wrote: Full flaps = less Vso = lowest landing speed possible = more safety.
If you have over 20 kts of crosswind not more than 20 degrees flaps on a cessna, otherwise it should be full flaps.
a) lowest landing speed possible doesn't automatically = more safety. In fact nothing = "more safety". Maybe the illusion of safety. I won't argue the points of it with you though, you've only proven how entrenched this is in the thought process.

b) You can land in a crosswind with full flaps too. Just like you can slip with full flaps and do lots of things. There are no hard and fast rules here, only pilot skill and decision making.
If you have to overshoot in a king air and by mistake you put your flaps up instead of approach and you smash the runway because you didn't follow the procedure. Does it mean nobody should make a full flaps landing anymore?
What on earth are you talking about? What do king airs have to do with this? You don't fly all airplanes the same, though a lot of instructors would like to pretend they're flying little airplanes like big airplanes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Cat Driver wrote:
Full flaps = less Vso = lowest landing speed possible = more safety.
How much lower is the stall speed between flaps 20 degrees and full flaps in a C150/152?
I agree it might be just a few knots, maybe 5kts, maybe less. I don't have the AFM.

Point is, flaps matter more on certain aircraft like a 747 and your student will now always fly a 150. It is not right to teach not to land full flaps because you are scared the apprentice will t-o full flaps or not overshoot safely.

If the student can't follow procedure and fly safely, than he should not be sent solo.
---------- ADS -----------
 
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

b) You can land in a crosswind with full flaps too. Just like you can slip with full flaps and do lots of things. There are no hard and fast rules here, only pilot skill and decision making.
Cessna full flaps landing with sideslips is not recommended.
Buy yes you can, I agree. But you know the result, student pilot smash it on the ground because elevator control kind of sucks.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by timel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
EPR
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:38 am
Location: South of 60, finally!

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by EPR »

GyvAir, I think your Instructor should have had you demonstrate a "go around" with full flap prior to going solo.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Keep the dirty side down.
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Shiny Side Up »

[sigh]
It is not right to teach not to land full flaps because you are scared the apprentice will t-o full flaps or not overshoot safely.
No, your goal is to make the student think about the use of the flaps and use discretion. Sometimes you will want the full flaps, sometimes you might not want to use any at all. You don't just dump them down without thinking and fly the airplane by rote.
your student will not always fly a 150.
I'll assume I corrected you appropriately, otherwise your statement wouldn't have made any point. The point is that today they are flying a 150/152, so fly it like a 150/152. Hopefully instill within them the thought process that will let them convert to flying a king air like a king air later on. But today they're flying a 150. Don't fly it like they're preparing to fly a King Air.
timel wrote:
Cessna 172 full flaps landing with sideslips is not recommended. Read your afm.
Do you know why its not recommended? Language is important here. Everything else they don't want you to do in a Cessna has the strong language of prohibited and may cause injury or death. But notably it doesn't say that about slipping with the flaps down. Did we think about that one? Or are we assuming that "not recommended" means the same as "prohibited". Are you just parroting what your instructor told you?
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

But today they're flying a 150. Don't fly it like they're preparing to fly a King Air.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Shiny Side Up wrote:[sigh]
It is not right to teach not to land full flaps because you are scared the apprentice will t-o full flaps or not overshoot safely.
No, your goal is to make the student think about the use of the flaps and use discretion. Sometimes you will want the full flaps, sometimes you might not want to use any at all. You don't just dump them down without thinking and fly the airplane by rote.
your student will not always fly a 150.
I'll assume I corrected you appropriately, otherwise your statement wouldn't have made any point. The point is that today they are flying a 150/152, so fly it like a 150/152. Hopefully instill within them the thought process that will let them convert to flying a king air like a king air later on. But today they're flying a 150. Don't fly it like they're preparing to fly a King Air.
timel wrote:
Cessna 172 full flaps landing with sideslips is not recommended. Read your afm.
Do you know why its not recommended? Language is important here. Everything else they don't want you to do in a Cessna has the strong language of prohibited and may cause injury or death. But notably it doesn't say that about slipping with the flaps down. Did we think about that one? Or are we assuming that "not recommended" means the same as "prohibited". Are you just parroting what your instructor told you?

Read page 4-20
http://alameda-aero.com/wp-content/uplo ... 72NPOH.pdf
Crosswind landing. Check the overshoot procedure too by the way, they wrote a procedure about it!! How about you teach it?

Recommend means: Cessna demonstrated 15 knots crosswing as safe. Do they prohibit more? No I landed safely a 172 once with gust up 39kts crosswind. Know what I landed it fine.

I don't get what you don't understand with lowest landing speed is safer? Less braking, less speed involved, if your runway is slippery or risks of aquaplaning?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Shiny Side Up »

I don't get what you don't understand with lowest landing speed is safer? Less braking, less speed involved, if your runway is slippery or the are risks of aquaplaning?
By your logic then is a 150 safer than a 172, are slow airplanes "more safe" than a fast landing airplane? Indeed what if the runway is slippery? Then land appropriately. Use discretion. Don't teach your students cookie cutter methods to fly based upon hypotheticals. Teach them to think, its the best thing you can do for them. Don't fly by rote.

Think harder, think for yourself. Don't be a button pushing checklist monkey.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Shiny Side Up wrote: This is the same way I train with them and the overshoot issue being the prime reason not to use all the flaps, especially since they're hardly necessary.

I was correcting you on that, now you have changed your speech. Yes yes yes, fly smart.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

One of the biggest problems many new low time flight instructors have is the inability to see the overall picture and they have a propensity to fixate on trying to pick fly shit out of pepper with boxing gloves on.

I don't get what you don't understand with lowest landing speed is safer? Less braking, less speed involved, if your runway is slippery or risks of aquaplaning?
We are discussing one of the most idiot proof airplanes ever designed for flight training, the added safety of touching down a couple of knots slower on long wide paved runways is often over ridden by the more obvious danger such a habit can produce.....like forgetting to raise the flaps on a go around and smashing up what should be a perfectly good idiot proof airplane.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

I mean come on guys! I can not believe that!
The only annoying thing with 40 flaps landing and a Cessna is the pronounced flare and strong crosswind. I am not saying don't land 20 degrees if you want to. Please do if you like it.

You won't have your students do full flaps landings because they might t-o with it not up, or because they might put flaps full up on overshoot instead or 20 degrees and than 10/10.



I mean... You just landed, while controlling your aircraft on the ground, flaps up, max power and carb heat off. I mean what a difficult flow. I am not saying incidents might not happen, especially not on a third solo. But if you can't do a flow of three item while controlling your aircraft. Don't become a pilot.

Next step is google eye telling you what to do?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Image

It is a sign of inexperience, when pilots tell you
that all aircraft MUST BE FLOWN THE SAME.

Male bovine excrement.

Ever flown the DHC-2 Beaver? Do you make
every landing full flap, on the Beaver?
---------- ADS -----------
 
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Compare oranges with oranges and apples with apples.

I have flown a SM1019 for aerial survey.
Know what 60 degrees flaps with a tail dragger turbine 337 hp over powerful. I would land it with 45 degrees max not 60, because if it would go wrong on runway it was easier to overshoot less flaps. And this is strictly a safety issue.

Now. Speaking of a 150. My point is : "I wont stop teaching my students from landing with full flaps because of they might forget the flaps on take off".
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by timel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

Speaking of a 150. My point is : "I wont stop teaching my students from landing with full flaps because of they might forget the flaps on take off".

What percentage of their landings do you teach them to use full flaps under normal conditions?

What lesson would you say is not taught fully and is least understood by students, and by default not understood by new low time instructors?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”