172 wire strike Duncan BC

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

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

Message
Author
CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2853
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#26 Post by CpnCrunch » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:07 pm

photofly wrote:What is your point?
My point is you can't always know for sure before touchdown whether you can safely take off again. Sure, you could say if not down by 200ft go around. However most pilots will land longer than that, so what number do you pick? It's really down to risk tolerance, as is the decision to do a full stop vs touch+go in the first place.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6585
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#27 Post by photofly » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:12 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
photofly wrote:What is your point?
My point is you can't always know for sure before touchdown whether you can safely take off again.
I don't think I've read any statement on this website with which I disagree more strongly.

If you're planning a touch-and-go, there's no way it should be a lottery as to whether you survive. If you don't know for sure abort the manoeuvre.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2853
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#28 Post by CpnCrunch » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:16 pm

photofly wrote: If you're planning a touch-and-go, there's no way it should be a lottery as to whether you survive. If you don't know for sure abort the manoeuvre.
Yes, of course. Nobody deliberately plans to have a bad day.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#29 Post by Cat Driver » Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:38 pm

As stated earlier, it's important to abort the manoeuvre before the touchdown, if you don't have room for the departure. That was my point about judgement being even more important than skill. There are lots of situations in flying where you can fly yourself into a situation from which safe recovery is impossible. This is just one example. It's part of piloting to avoid getting into those situations, either by heroic skill, or more simply, by changing your mind before it's too late.
It is not magic, it is no more than basic flight training as pointed out above..

If you can not touch down on the first couple of hundred feet of runway go get some more training because you should not be instructing.

If you can not figure out you are high and long and you must abandon the approach and landing and go around you should not get more training...you should quit flying before you kill someone.
---------- 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.

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2853
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#30 Post by CpnCrunch » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:56 am

Moved discussion to new thread.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by CpnCrunch on Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gear Jerker
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:48 am

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#31 Post by Gear Jerker » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:07 am

Guys, have some respect. She's been instructing out of Victoria and using the Duncan airport for training for over 10 years. I don't know exactly what happened, but it's not as though she/they don't know what abort points are when it comes to a short field landing/takeoff. It is a tragic accident. Sh!t happens. Why don't you flap your wallets instead of your mouths and help out a fellow aviator in need.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Look, it's f***in Patrick Swayze and Reveen!

FishermanIvan
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: YYZ

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#32 Post by FishermanIvan » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:46 am

Gear Jerker wrote:Guys, have some respect. She's been instructing out of Victoria and using the Duncan airport for training for over 10 years. I don't know exactly what happened, but it's not as though she/they don't know what abort points are when it comes to a short field landing/takeoff. It is a tragic accident. Sh!t happens. Why don't you flap your wallets instead of your mouths and help out a fellow aviator in need.
Beat me to it.

Can you find another place, guys?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Ryan

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6585
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#33 Post by photofly » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:56 am

Do you find this more respectful?

It's a tragic accident, couldn't have been prevented, shit happens. Nothing to consider, nothing to learn.
Certainly nobody could have made a mistake. In fact planes fly into trees every day. That's what insurance is for.

I'm sure the duo had a lot of experience at that airfield, and knew all about abort points. Maybe the rest of us need reminding though. Now seems as a good an opportunity as any.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#34 Post by Cat Driver » Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:43 am

If I suspect there may be a downdraft just before a runway caused by a steep drop off in front of the runway there is no way in hell I would be dragging it in low with power.
---------- 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.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3354
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#35 Post by pelmet » Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:59 pm

Took a very long time for the incident report to come out, Not sure why.....

"C-GZXB, a Cessna 172S aircraft operated by Victoria Flying Club, departed from Victoria Intl, BC (CYYJ) with an instructor and student pilot on board, to conduct a day visual flight rules training flight. About 1 ½ hours into the flight, an approach was made to Runway 31 at Duncan, BC (CAM3) to conduct a short-field landing. At about 1311 Pacific Standard Time, the aircraft touched down approximately one third of the runway beyond the threshold and a balked landing was attempted. The aircraft struck trees and then a power line off the north end of Runway 31 and came to rest upside down under the power lines, about 500 feet from the departure end of the runway. The instructor sustained serious injuries, while the student received minor injuries. The aircraft was substantially damaged, and the emergency locator transmitter activated. There was no fire."
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2853
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#36 Post by CpnCrunch » Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:09 am

Not really any new info, and still doesn't explain why they hadn't achieved flying speed. The only possibility I can think of is some screwup with the flaps.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3354
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#37 Post by pelmet » Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:51 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:Not really any new info, and still doesn't explain why they hadn't achieved flying speed. The only possibility I can think of is some screwup with the flaps.
Flaps could cause a problem if they were not retracted, or if retracted quickly at a low speed. Both unkowns. As well, the report states they touched down 1/3 down the runway, but it doesn't say how much runway was left when they initiated the go-around.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#38 Post by Cat Driver » Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:10 pm

2/3 's.
---------- 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.

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2853
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#39 Post by CpnCrunch » Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:26 pm

pelmet wrote: Flaps could cause a problem if they were not retracted, or if retracted quickly at a low speed. Both inkowns. As well, the report states they touched down 1/3 down the runway, but it doesn't say how much runway was left when they initiated the go-around.
You're right...they could have tried to stop, realised they weren't going to be able to, then initiated a go-around at low speed.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3354
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#40 Post by pelmet » Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:42 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
pelmet wrote: Flaps could cause a problem if they were not retracted, or if retracted quickly at a low speed. Both inkowns. As well, the report states they touched down 1/3 down the runway, but it doesn't say how much runway was left when they initiated the go-around.
You're right...they could have tried to stop, realised they weren't going to be able to, then initiated a go-around at low speed.
Quite ironic that I read this article posted below just today. While it is not specifically targeted at light aircraft, it is something to think about. There is no reason a short field practice can't be done on a long runway. It is good experience to eventually land on an actual short runway but there is little room for screwing around. Best to make the go-around before touchdown on a short runway like this. It is good go-around practice and you can just try again. There are times when you just have to plan in advance that there will be no screwing around if things don't go well. If you decide to go-around after having attempted to stop....all bets are off, especially if there are obstacles at the end of the runway.

"FAA Recommends Committed-to-stop Point for Landings
The FAA has released Information for Operators (InFO) 17009 to remind crews of turbine-powered aircraft of the importance in establishing a point during landing where a go-around or rejected landing procedure will not be initiated, and the only option will be bringing the aircraft to a stop. This recommendation stems from a July 2008 fatal accident in which a Hawker 800A crashed while attempting a go-around more than 17 seconds after touchdown on 5,500-foot Runway 30 at Minnesota’s Owatonna Degner Regional Airport.

While the FAA has investigated the potential benefits and risks associated with incorporating a committed-to-stop point in the aircraft flight manual, the agency said operational factors are too numerous and varied to establish a single committed-to-stop point. Thus, it believes that operators are in the best position to make this determination for their operation and type aircraft.

“Operators who establish committed-to-stop points would eliminate ambiguity for pilots making decisions during time-critical events,” the FAA said. The agency recommends that operators establish SOPs for flight crews to determine a point after touchdown where a go-around will not be initiated. This could be accomplished by any single procedure or combination of procedures, such as deploying reversers or lift-dump, spoilers or speed brakes and committing to stop below a certain airspeed and/or runway distance remaining."


https://content.govdelivery.com/attachm ... O17009.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2853
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#41 Post by CpnCrunch » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:49 pm

Final report now out:

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 7p0007.asp

They weren't doing a touch+go after all: they tried to take off again after realising they couldn't stop in time. Report seems to indicate that airspeed was too high and they floated, then bounced a few times while trying to force it on to the runway.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#42 Post by rookiepilot » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:12 pm

Ouch. Sad outcome at an unforgiving airport for training looks to me (never been there).

My shortest runway I can think of is 1800....with friendly stuff on either end. Gotta be on speed....
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2853
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#43 Post by CpnCrunch » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:37 pm

The report makes some incorrect implications about the decision to perform the landing, saying "leaving 174 feet of runway", and saying they didn't calculate the landing distance. I think in this case it was the writer of the report who didn't bother doing the proper calculations. There are no obstacles on the approach, and you can touch down rights at the threshold if you're on a normal 5+ degree glideslope. The CFS says there are trees, but as the report points out those trees are 350 from the threshold, so they don't constitute a "50 foot obstacle". Typically you would use the ground roll distance here rather than the 50-foot landing distance, planning to touch down shortly after the threshold, and it's pretty obvious that there is a large margin even touching down 1/3 of the way down the runway with a 2kt tailwind. (That runway is also 0.5% uphill which somewhat cancels out the tailwind). I'm certain the instructors have looked at the performance charts and knew it was safe under those conditions.

You do just need to apply firm braking in a 172S if you land 1/3 down the runway. The problem seems to be that they were still too fast when they touched down, and it all went badly wrong after that.

I'm wondering if putting the flaps to 20 degrees contributed to the inability to gain airspeed. Although the POH says to use 20 degrees of flap in a balked landing, it's talking about retracting from 30 degrees, and it says to retract to 10 degrees once 60kts is reached.
---------- ADS -----------
  

SuperchargedRS
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:30 am
Location: the stars playground

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#44 Post by SuperchargedRS » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:46 pm

FishermanIvan wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:26 am
So Kristen was hurt badly in this accident, and if you feel like helping out with her recovery, head on over here.

https://www.gofundme.com/kristen-ursel

Man...

:cry:

Donated, hope she has a good recovery
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#45 Post by rookiepilot » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:52 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:37 pm
The report makes some incorrect implications about the decision to perform the landing, saying "leaving 174 feet of runway", and saying they didn't calculate the landing distance. I think in this case it was the writer of the report who didn't bother doing the proper calculations. There are no obstacles on the approach, and you can touch down rights at the threshold if you're on a normal 5+ degree glideslope. The CFS says there are trees, but as the report points out those trees are 350 from the threshold, so they don't constitute a "50 foot obstacle". Typically you would use the ground roll distance here rather than the 50-foot landing distance, planning to touch down shortly after the threshold, and it's pretty obvious that there is a large margin even touching down 1/3 of the way down the runway with a 2kt tailwind. (That runway is also 0.5% uphill which somewhat cancels out the tailwind). I'm certain the instructors have looked at the performance charts and knew it was safe under those conditions.

You do just need to apply firm braking in a 172S if you land 1/3 down the runway. The problem seems to be that they were still too fast when they touched down, and it all went badly wrong after that.

I'm wondering if putting the flaps to 20 degrees contributed to the inability to gain airspeed. Although the POH says to use 20 degrees of flap in a balked landing, it's talking about retracting from 30 degrees, and it says to retract to 10 degrees once 60kts is reached.
1/3 down is 1000 feet left or less, on a damp runway. That is not a ton of margin with zero wind. First bounce should have been an immediate GA, sorry to say.

I have lots of time in the S and they love to float, and don't slow down well even at idle on a steep approach.

It's a 60 Kias approach airplane, and light can be done at 55. Probably less.

I wonder if circuit height winds were a 10-15 knot tailwind. (No PDW comments)

That would be a problem on that runway in that plane getting slowed unless approach was much shallower.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2853
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#46 Post by CpnCrunch » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:25 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:52 pm
First bounce should have been an immediate GA, sorry to say.

I have lots of time in the S and they love to float, and don't slow down well even at idle on a steep approach.

It's a 60 Kias approach airplane, and light can be done at 55. Probably less.
Yes, the main problem was the speed, and then the decisions made after that. If you're much above 60kt in that plane, you're not going to be able to get it down on a short runway.

From the sound of it, I don't think the mildly moist runway would have affected braking very much if any.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3354
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC

#47 Post by pelmet » Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:33 am

pelmet wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:59 pm
Took a very long time for the Cadors report to come out, Not sure why.....

"C-GZXB, a Cessna 172S aircraft operated by Victoria Flying Club, departed from Victoria Intl, BC (CYYJ) with an instructor and student pilot on board, to conduct a day visual flight rules training flight. About 1 ½ hours into the flight, an approach was made to Runway 31 at Duncan, BC (CAM3) to conduct a short-field landing. At about 1311 Pacific Standard Time, the aircraft touched down approximately one third of the runway beyond the threshold and a balked landing was attempted. The aircraft struck trees and then a power line off the north end of Runway 31 and came to rest upside down under the power lines, about 500 feet from the departure end of the runway. The instructor sustained serious injuries, while the student received minor injuries. The aircraft was substantially damaged, and the emergency locator transmitter activated. There was no fire."
pelmet wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:51 pm
Flaps could cause a problem if they were not retracted, or if retracted quickly at a low speed. Both unkowns. As well, the report states they touched down 1/3 down the runway, but it doesn't say how much runway was left when they initiated the go-around.
Cat Driver wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:10 pm
2/3 's.


As we can all see now in the final report, that answer wasn't anywhere close to correct. The dangers of assumption. Which is why I asked the obvious question.

"The aircraft touched down about one-third of the way down the runway, at which point the instructor took over control of the aircraft from the student pilot, retracted the flaps, and pulled the control column to the full nose-up position. However, the aircraft bounced and became airborne several times before the tires remained in contact with the runway, and it was therefore not possible to apply full braking until the aircraft's weight was fully transferred to the landing gear."


Lessons to be learned.....A172S only has 30 degrees flaps unlike some of the older models. That missing ten degrees does make a difference between the two. That being said, the type had operated in here plenty of times before but.....best not to land with a tailwind on a fairly critically short runway as each knot has a significant effect when the runway is tight and each knot of tailwind has significantly more detrimental effect as compared to the benefit of an equivalent amount of headwind. A damp runway doesn't help when max braking becomes a requirement which makes it even more important to plan in advance that....If there is a significant float, that is when the decision should be made to go-around if not earlier when high and fast. Once down an significantly down the runway after having applied lots of braking, it depending on what is at the end of the runway, it probably becomes preferable to have an overrun. Of course, there are ravines at the end of each runway which just means that going around in the event of any significant float is absolutely essential.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”