Plane registered to Roy Halladay crashes in Gulf off Florida

[Cat Driver]

How is your recovery coming PilotDAR?

[pdw]

but I won't be blaming the winds

No. Definitely not.

EDIT:
Getting stung by shear, is usually from distraction ahead of time IMO (by 'unecessary antics' etc / maybe not paying attention). Accidental stall/spin at Low Level partly resulting thru faster bleedoff of IAS (helped in-part by the negative shearzone / decreased performance) is maybe one in a hundred accidents, but only hear about those when serious or fatal.

The bug bite, becomes a distraction as/after it happens when also very wide awake at attention. Maybe also 'one in a hundred' except that beesting victims will talk about it / report .. so it makes a story / report; the fatal crashes with those, unlike the total occurrances overall, are infrequent.

ps: -- wind is defined as 5kts or more one direction
-- shear is 2 directions whether or not "windshear"
--9kts shear (4 1/2 kts component either direction) is not peanuts for a steep ascent thru it as shown by NTSB again in this case ... yet is not a "windhear" per say .. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

The rapid speed it is seen pitched up thru that mild shearzone from the positive/low side of a lighter transition (from a cooler north component) to the opposing negative/high side (into the warmer southerly component) is still the issue here, I'm very sure of that.

[Cliff Jumper]

but I won't be blaming the winds

No. Definitely not.

?????

PDW how can you respond with that statement? .....you 'blame' the wind every time.

In almost every case you discuss it's about as likely a factor as bees. Yes, bees.

Theoretically the pilot of this accident could have been attacked by a swarm of bees, which caused the accident.

Do you think that is absurd? You should if you don't. It's not impossible mind you, it's just completely absurd.

If I were to come on here, on every accident thread an spout my theory about bees, what would you think of me?

[AirFrame]

If I were to come on here, on every accident thread an spout my theory about bees, what would you think of me?

Maybe he'd just tell you to buzz off...

[pdw]

I've seldom used the w word

IMO learning from a report could be compromised where an 'occasionally contributing factor' that is too rarely obvious to prove, and also often not easily traceable from wx-records, remains untapped as one more significant supporting reason why it is such a bad idea going so steep at low altitude.

[Cliff Jumper]

You proved my point exactly pdw.

You suggest (strongly) that we should consider the wind again. And again. And again.

I say bees. I want everyone to consider bees. It could have been bees after all. Or a green laser attack from a ISIS controlled UAV.

It's important to consider. The shear could have been caused by a large swarm of bees that were agitated by the green laser.

Your rambling nonsense is no less absurd.

For your own well being, please print out a few of your posts, and discuss them with your CAME at your next medical. If they are sensible, it should be an enjoyable conversation. If not, he can help you get the help that you need.

[PilotDAR]

Pilots should always consider wind. However, short of flying in a gale, the effects of the wind may end up as a very secondary factor, when a pilot is low flying maneuvering like a fool. A wise pilot will of course, consider the wind all the time. Indeed, while picking up out of a confined area in the helicopter, I recalled a very gentle whisp of wind from my approach, maybe 2 or 3 knots. That, as the headwind I planned, made a difference. However, I was in a well planned, no rush phase of flight.

Water pilots in particuar, have to learn that you cannot safely fly a water plane as though it is a jetski with wings. Landing and takeoff on water require preplanning, which will include several overflights at altitude first. During these flights, the wise pilot will note the wind, as well as rocks, sandbars, floating debris, the intended mooring/docking plane, and traffic. The wise pilot has a lot to think about for a safe water landing.

Flying insects (I'm not sure if they were bees) were the reason for a fight for me. I responded to a fire call fr smoke at Strawberry Island in Lake Simcoe. I got overhead, no fire, a cloud of insects! I called off our marine response. The column of insects was pleasingly symmetrical and not deformed by windshear. My flight was not interfered with by lasers.

I have experienced windshear. It always occurred in atmospheric conditions where other nearby "weather" would tell the wise pilot to be on guard. If "weather" were nearby, I would be double thinking landing and certainly not horsing around, jetskiing in the sky.

[5x5]

and certainly not horsing around, jetskiing in the sky.

But PilotDAR, that's exactly what Icon wants you to be doing - based on their marketing and promotional material. Along with their apparent feeling that low flying is goooood.

[Brock_Landers]

I read an accident report once where a helicopter was hovering at an airport and a bee flew in the window and stung the pilot in the face. He took his hand off the collective to smack the bee and the helicopter descended and rolled over. I’ve also had a big bumble bee get stuck in my pitot tube and lost airspeed indication.

Also this thread has gone haywire.

[rookiepilot]

PDW,

You want to get worked up about a weather related accident, here's one:

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 7s#p978076

Right on your doorstep. Just curious, why are these guys still operating?

Their site still talks about Florida trips.

Also curious if there was any external pressure applied to return the plane.

To me this is just as bad as some of the northern operators stories.

Been a year. Likely be 2 more years to hear the obvious.

[anofly]

crumb fellas... wind ..
Think about how long and hard you have to train, apprentice, practice, be observed etc, to get an airshow surface waiver so you can fool around over a runway ..... now think about how long this path was to be doing the same thing at 20 odd feet over the water....

[Cat Driver]

Think about how long and hard you have to train, apprentice, practice, be observed etc, to get an airshow surface waiver so you can fool around over a runway .....

In Europe our airshow display licenses were restricted to two hundred feet above the ground....and they policed it with radar guns. The first time you got lower you were given a warning.

The second time they suspended your airdisplay license.

Oh, by the way getting the license was not easy and there was an annual flight retest.

Two hundred feet was a very good floor because then all the spectators could see the airplane all the time....not so for the surface display, only those up close can see it.

[pdw]

The "200" included military as well ? ... thinking about the hunter tragedy...

[AirFrame]

The "200" included military as well ? ... thinking about the hunter tragedy...

I don't think the Hunter was aiming for a ground-level pass... He just f-ed up his top gate and totally blew through his floor on the way down.

[pdw]

That's right, wasn't quite over the airport yet when initiating that fateful loop inbound to the show area from treetop level.

[PilotDAR]

Chances of survival are inversely proportionate to angle of arrival. If the surface is water, this rule is made even more significant. The water will grab an errantly flown aircraft, yet while grabbing the plane water does not yield to relieve crash forces much. Mr. Halladay did not appear to flying to assure a safe contact with the water.

[Broken Slinky]

that's exactly what Icon wants you to be doing - based on their marketing and promotional material.

Seems that's the marketing for AirCam as well. Noticing a lot of photos and videos on Facebook showing pilots running low and fast over ground and water.
Sure doesn't leave a lot of "outs" when the law of averages catches up to you.

[mosky]

For the Aircam i would have to disagree.

First, the words 'fast' and 'Aircam' do not belong together in the same sentence.

Typical aircam flying is at 50 to 60 mph and with Vso of 38 mph you have a good margin (1.5+) over your stall speed. Given that at these speeds you're still only running about 1/4 throttle since the aircam has twice (2x100hp) the horsepower of the Icon there is power to spare should you have to climb or turn to avoid any hazards and 200hp at 1,600# GW at 55 mph will give one heck of a climb gradient.

Not to say that low flying of any kind is not without it's hazards but if you look at any of Lockwood's videos you'd be very hard pressed to see any of the maneuvering like some other's videos. i don't think you can find one of their videos showing any more than 30 to 45 degrees of bank and certainly not right on the surface of the water or land. All of Lockwood's videos are also prefaced with a disclaimer about low flying WARNING - Flying low over terrain involves risk and requires additional diligence and planning to avoid potential collision with with terrain, wires and ground based obstacles. Always make a reconnaissance flight over your intended route at a safe altitude to check for obstacles, wires and turbulence before flying low over the terrain.

The aircam is marketed as 'Low and Slow' , not as a jetski with wings and certainly not in the same manner as the Icon. I honestly cannot see the point of flying something like the aircam over 1,000' AGL. it's just MADE to fly at less than 1,000' with unmatched visibility. Having enough power to take off on ONE engine (even on amphibs) certainly adds an element of safety and security when flying the aircraft down low. Engine failure is simple. Advance both throttles (high compression Rotax = 'dead' engine with simply stop and cannot windmill), add some rudder to keep straight and fly away.

Certainly not the same marketing in my opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkQOy-lS7-8

[pdw]

WARNING - Flying low over terrain involves risk and requires additional diligence and planning to avoid potential collision with with terrain, wires and ground based obstacles. Always make a reconnaissance flight over your intended route at a safe altitude to check for obstacles, wires and turbulence before flying low over the terrain.

When Canadian cigarrette warnings first showed up on the outside packaging years ago it was a fairly basic message too; but there the sales have something to do with addiction. Lately, and I'm sure most have heard it on the news, the most recent package proposals are starting to read like you're a goner if you touch them. Where does the aircraft buyer first come in contact with such a warning.

[Broken Slinky]

For the Aircam i would have to disagree.

First, the words 'fast' and 'Aircam' do not belong together in the same sentence.

Typical aircam flying is at 50 to 60 mph and with Vso of 38 mph you have a good margin (1.5+) over your stall speed. Given that at these speeds you're still only running about 1/4 throttle since the aircam has twice (2x100hp) the horsepower of the Icon there is power to spare should you have to climb or turn to avoid any hazards and 200hp at 1,600# GW at 55 mph will give one heck of a climb gradient.

Not to say that low flying of any kind is not without it's hazards but if you look at any of Lockwood's videos you'd be very hard pressed to see any of the maneuvering like some other's videos. i don't think you can find one of their videos showing any more than 30 to 45 degrees of bank and certainly not right on the surface of the water or land. All of Lockwood's videos are also prefaced with a disclaimer about low flying WARNING - Flying low over terrain involves risk and requires additional diligence and planning to avoid potential collision with with terrain, wires and ground based obstacles. Always make a reconnaissance flight over your intended route at a safe altitude to check for obstacles, wires and turbulence before flying low over the terrain.

The aircam is marketed as 'Low and Slow' , not as a jetski with wings and certainly not in the same manner as the Icon. I honestly cannot see the point of flying something like the aircam over 1,000' AGL. it's just MADE to fly at less than 1,000' with unmatched visibility. Having enough power to take off on ONE engine (even on amphibs) certainly adds an element of safety and security when flying the aircraft down low. Engine failure is simple. Advance both throttles (high compression Rotax = 'dead' engine with simply stop and cannot windmill), add some rudder to keep straight and fly away.

Certainly not the same marketing in my opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkQOy-lS7-8

Just take a look at these times: 0:25, 0:41, 0:57, 2:28, 2:54, 3:37, 3:40, 4:29, 4:56, 5:44. They were less than 500' from boats and built up areas, less then 50' off land masses or water and flying over flocks of birds. Disclaimers or not, they're promoting questionable flying behaviors too. Even a crash at slow 30mph can be deadly. It's all about kinetic energy.
I can't preach though, I've done my fair share of flying, boating and driving that could have easily gotten me killed if just one thing went wrong. They have to sell aircraft and no one is going to buy a toy based on a 3 hour video in straight and level flight at 9,500' in perfectly clear skies with the autopilot engaged.