C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
It has happened but how do you manage to get that far into a flight without noticing the elevator is locked???
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:52 pm
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
Yes It is hard to understand. Improper use or lack of a checklist?? What else?
AP
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
Even if you do not use a checklist I can not imagine starting a take off without making sure you have enough fuel and it is selected properly and you have done and controls free and normal check......don't they teach that anymore?Yes It is hard to understand. Improper use or lack of a checklist?? What else?
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: The Okanagan
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
"TC might say two crew..."
I don't think TC mandates the number of crew; I do believe the manufacturer does that.
(Might be wrong; I've been out of that business for a few years)
I don't think TC mandates the number of crew; I do believe the manufacturer does that.
(Might be wrong; I've been out of that business for a few years)
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
It's hard to imagine the lack of situational awareness required to get to the take off roll, let alone continue a take off roll with a control lock left on. Would they also not notice a locked steering wheel in the car until fully hitting something, backing out of a parking space on the way to the airport?
Regardless, I don't think this is the case in this accident.
Regardless, I don't think this is the case in this accident.
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
No TC mandates the number of crew for aircraft certified in Canada and it can be different than the manufacturer. I've never seen it be less though. Always more.Schooner69A wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:59 pm "TC might say two crew..."
I don't think TC mandates the number of crew; I do believe the manufacturer does that.
(Might be wrong; I've been out of that business for a few years)
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:25 am
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
#19 Post by GyvAir » Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:55 pm
I've seen two DC3s flown single pilot in Canada. One Canadian registered and one N registered. Both flown by pilots sporting a bit of a renegade cowboy persona about them.
Gyvair,
Could you tell us about the Canadian registered one.
Thanks
I've seen two DC3s flown single pilot in Canada. One Canadian registered and one N registered. Both flown by pilots sporting a bit of a renegade cowboy persona about them.
Gyvair,
Could you tell us about the Canadian registered one.
Thanks
"I'd rather have it and not need than to need it and not have it" Capt. Augustus McCrae.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: The Okanagan
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
Victory: interesting. Has there ever been a case where the manufacturer said single pilot and TC mandated two pilots? The reason I ask is I spent some time in TC (years ago, admittedly) and never heard of TC going against the dictates of the manufacturer.
J
J
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
Yes, off the top of my head the DC-3 and Beech 1900.
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
This guy has some pretty good insight. Not pushing forward. For some reason.
https://www.facebook.com/dan.gryder/vid ... 468679866/
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
Interesting how both hands have to be used to push forward and raise the tail. From the captain's point of view, that means no right hand on throttles in the event that an RTO is required leading to a delay in closing the throttles. Something that could require immediate action in the event of an engine failure at low speed where directional control will be lost quickly.
Any further comments from CWE about this would be interesting to hear.
Any further comments from CWE about this would be interesting to hear.
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
I have never flown an airplane that required two hands to raise the tail ...ever... especially a DC3.Interesting how both hands have to be used to push forward and raise the tail.
If you can not raise the tail with one hand on the control wheel and the other hand on the throttles something is very wrong...reject the take off immediately.
As to the pilot in that video and his method of flying I guess we have different ideas and methods of controlling the airplane.
I have flown DC3's off of snow, ice, sand. gravel, grass, narrow gravel roads in the bush and of course paved runways.
I have never needed to use two hands on the control wheel, especially just before rotation and in the initial climb because I want to have complete control of the airplane...which means one hand on the control column and the other one on the throttles.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:54 pm
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
No expierence on the old 3, but with reference to forgetting control locks, a biz jet out of Boston shows that it can be forgotten.
https://youtu.be/dKgJqe7Ml9c
https://youtu.be/dKgJqe7Ml9c
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
Today was my time for jumpseat in the turbine DC-3 for an hour of observation. The pilot (a very highly experienced DC-3 fellow) did lift the tail as the airspeed came alive, by pushing gently with one hand, while he set power with the other - no problem. The tail was nicely up by 40 knots, and the aircraft was lifted off at 82 knots.
During a quiet time, I reviewed the flight manual. It includes, in the limitation section, that two pilots are required. This corresponds well with the Canadian standard which also says this. I think a pilot can fly most planes solo - until something starts to go wrong. In the DC-3, if there is a hydraulic emergency, you're going to need either a lot of time and altitude, or a second pilot, at least to pump.
The characteristics displayed in the video of the DC-3 which crashed the other day, are exactly those I experienced while flying many hours of stall flight testing (at altitude) in the turbine DC-3 eleven years ago - it's flying find as it slows, a gentle buffet, and the left wing drops suddenly. All of my stall testing was on one airframe, so I cannot compare to other aircraft, but this one was freshly rigged straight out of Basler, and I was flying it with Basler's training pilot, so I had the benefit of his great experience. I would not call the stall gentle. Many later model types have the benefit of improved aerodynamic design (like washout in the wings). An aircraft whose wings stall from the tips in is going to give you a real ride if you stall it. Perhaps the pilot of the accident aircraft was more used to more benign aircraft, and did not realize that dragging a DC-3 into the air in ground effect is going to lead to tears if you allow it to stall.
As for lateral deviation, though heavy, the DC-3 is one of the more forgiving taildraggers I've flown. If you keep it pointed where you want it to go, it'll go there. There's lots of rudder effectiveness available to keep it straight in a crosswind. My observation from lots of taildragger training is that some pilots don't use all of the rudder available to them, or use it with too much delay. Many's the time I've passionately said: "rudder, Rudder, RUDDER!" only to push the pedal myself, and find that there had been lots more available to apply. Thus, I perfer the most narrow runway available for taildragger training, as it is a more constricting reminder to the pilot to not deviate from the desired path. It's the wide runways while lure careless taildragger pilots into trouble, they think that because the runway is wide, they can use that width. No, not if you're halfway sideways on the runway, headed to the other side! My home runway allows me to deviate by 4 feet either side of center before I could hit a wingtip float off a runway light - I haven't hit one yet! If my tracks are within a foot either side of the previous flight's tracks, I'm pleased with myself.
The industry is making new planes which are progressively more forgiving and easy to fly, so pilots wanting to fly older planes well, will have to keep their skills more and more sharp, compared to what modern planes demand.
During a quiet time, I reviewed the flight manual. It includes, in the limitation section, that two pilots are required. This corresponds well with the Canadian standard which also says this. I think a pilot can fly most planes solo - until something starts to go wrong. In the DC-3, if there is a hydraulic emergency, you're going to need either a lot of time and altitude, or a second pilot, at least to pump.
The characteristics displayed in the video of the DC-3 which crashed the other day, are exactly those I experienced while flying many hours of stall flight testing (at altitude) in the turbine DC-3 eleven years ago - it's flying find as it slows, a gentle buffet, and the left wing drops suddenly. All of my stall testing was on one airframe, so I cannot compare to other aircraft, but this one was freshly rigged straight out of Basler, and I was flying it with Basler's training pilot, so I had the benefit of his great experience. I would not call the stall gentle. Many later model types have the benefit of improved aerodynamic design (like washout in the wings). An aircraft whose wings stall from the tips in is going to give you a real ride if you stall it. Perhaps the pilot of the accident aircraft was more used to more benign aircraft, and did not realize that dragging a DC-3 into the air in ground effect is going to lead to tears if you allow it to stall.
As for lateral deviation, though heavy, the DC-3 is one of the more forgiving taildraggers I've flown. If you keep it pointed where you want it to go, it'll go there. There's lots of rudder effectiveness available to keep it straight in a crosswind. My observation from lots of taildragger training is that some pilots don't use all of the rudder available to them, or use it with too much delay. Many's the time I've passionately said: "rudder, Rudder, RUDDER!" only to push the pedal myself, and find that there had been lots more available to apply. Thus, I perfer the most narrow runway available for taildragger training, as it is a more constricting reminder to the pilot to not deviate from the desired path. It's the wide runways while lure careless taildragger pilots into trouble, they think that because the runway is wide, they can use that width. No, not if you're halfway sideways on the runway, headed to the other side! My home runway allows me to deviate by 4 feet either side of center before I could hit a wingtip float off a runway light - I haven't hit one yet! If my tracks are within a foot either side of the previous flight's tracks, I'm pleased with myself.
The industry is making new planes which are progressively more forgiving and easy to fly, so pilots wanting to fly older planes well, will have to keep their skills more and more sharp, compared to what modern planes demand.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: The Okanagan
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
Victory:
All references to the DC-3 indicate 2 crew. As for the 1900, I think it was certified for 1 pilot, but that TC mandated 2 pilots for airline work? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that a corporate of private 1900 could be flown single pilot? (Unless TC has mandated something about the number of passengers. It's been nearly twenty years since I left the department. Stuff changes...)
All references to the DC-3 indicate 2 crew. As for the 1900, I think it was certified for 1 pilot, but that TC mandated 2 pilots for airline work? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that a corporate of private 1900 could be flown single pilot? (Unless TC has mandated something about the number of passengers. It's been nearly twenty years since I left the department. Stuff changes...)
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
Exactly PilotDar.The pilot (a very highly experienced DC-3 fellow) did lift the tail as the airspeed came alive, by pushing gently with one hand, while he set power with the other - no problem. The tail was nicely up by 40 knots, and the aircraft was lifted off at 82 knots.
Thanks for posting that because it is very important to give correct information about how a given airplane flies and the way that pilot in the video explained how to fly the DC3 is not correct...period...unless of course there is a ton of lead way back beyond the back bulkhead in his airplane.
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.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
If you watch the flightchops video with the same person instructing Steve, Steve raises the tail with one hand and the other on the throttles. I don't doubt the tail staying low being the reason for getting airborne early and dropping a wing, just a matter of learning why.
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
Well, it was late 90s if I have my times straight. I won't name names here. I had a look on the registry and the company doesn't appear to have any aircraft active. The plane has since been sold and has been Baslerized at some point. The flight I observed was presumably empty, but I don't know for sure. I had observed the plane sitting for a day or two. I recognized it from previous encounters. A person who I took to be the owner and one other person showed up one morning, poured a a couple pails of oil in the tanks plus assorted other pre-flight tinkerings. The owner of the aircraft/company got in and flew away. The other person then drove away in the vehicle they'd arrived in. As far as I know, the plane was normally operated with two crew. Any other time I'd seen it in action, it had been, at least. Not many DC3 missions that you wouldn't want/need the second pilot just to deal with the cargo anyway, even if you didn't let them touch anything in the cockpit.switchflicker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 7:01 am #19 Post by GyvAir » Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:55 pm
I've seen two DC3s flown single pilot in Canada. One Canadian registered and one N registered. Both flown by pilots sporting a bit of a renegade cowboy persona about them.
Gyvair,
Could you tell us about the Canadian registered one.
Thanks
The American one I referred to arrived in southern Ontario from Michigan with a skid of cargo in the early 90s. I don't remember the outfit's name at all. The pilot looked like he'd come in straight from Newport Beach. I'd almost bet there was a surfboard onboard, just in case. Flew in and out, single pilot. At the time, I was naive enough not to realize that it was odd until someone pointed it out.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
This is exactly how I used to fly the DC-3 - I remember that it took a lot of force to get the tail up. Tail not up by 60knots was an abort.cncpc wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 9:34 amThis guy has some pretty good insight. Not pushing forward. For some reason.
https://www.facebook.com/dan.gryder/vid ... 468679866/
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Re: C-47 Takeoff Groundloop and Crash
Is it possible that with the different variations of the DC3 out there that people have different perceptions of its flight characteristics because they are not all alike?