Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

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
User avatar
5x5
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:30 pm

Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#1 Post by 5x5 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:09 am

Hope this turns out OK for the pilot.

https://www.ottawamatters.com/local-new ... on-1086554
---------- ADS -----------
  
Being stupid around airplanes is a capital offence and nature is a hanging judge!

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Mark Twain

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3461
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#2 Post by pelmet » Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:07 pm

Quad City Challenger. Anybody have any flying experience on this type?
---------- ADS -----------
  

tractor driver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:33 am

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#3 Post by tractor driver » Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:59 am

Some,
Years ago used to operate a flight school. Maybe 300 hrs on type, that’s about it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3461
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#4 Post by pelmet » Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:22 pm

Thanks. More info would be nice. Handling issues, engine reliability, etc.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ktcanuck
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:58 am

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#5 Post by ktcanuck » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:07 pm

pelmet wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:22 pm
Thanks. More info would be nice. Handling issues, engine reliability, etc.
Are you an accident investigator then? The Challenger is a pretty common ultralight type with a Rotax engine. You can probably find out all you need to know from reliable and official sources. Does that help your need to know?
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1283
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#6 Post by cncpc » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:19 pm

pelmet wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:07 pm
Quad City Challenger. Anybody have any flying experience on this type?
I have a little. To me, it's a shitbox. I appreciate that others may have a more positive view.

I had a couple of bolts come out of the belt tower and total the prop about 2000 feet above the toll booth on the Coquihalla. Set up the approach on the highway northbound lane. At around 15 feet a van drives under me, and I lift up and when he is in front settle in. Wake turbulence. Blown first into the median area, then off to the right shoulder, and down over a little bank and into some bushes. Really poor rudder aileron coordination.

I do know others stand by them though.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3461
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#7 Post by pelmet » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:56 pm

ktcanuck wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:07 pm
pelmet wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:22 pm
Thanks. More info would be nice. Handling issues, engine reliability, etc.
Are you an accident investigator then? The Challenger is a pretty common ultralight type with a Rotax engine. You can probably find out all you need to know from reliable and official sources. Does that help your need to know?
Did not help at all. You seem extremely defensive.

However, I have been flying many different aircraft types and have considered trying the two stroke aircraft types but have to admit to significant hesitation. I hear a lot about engine reliability issues and the reality that homebuilts are likely only as good as the person who built it.

I fly several aircraft powered by the Rotax 912 engine aircraft but they are all four-stroke. These Quad-City sort of aircraft are two-stroke engines. I did talk recently to someone who seems to be in the know about the two stroke market but won't post anything now until I confirm what he said in order to be 100% that I am posting what he actually did say. Will take a little while I am afraid.

Until then, I know almost nothing about the type that crashed so if any more experience on type descriptions are available, that would be great.

And remember folks, what comes from the "reliable and official sources" will not likely give you the full story(but quite possibly some of it). That is one of the first lessons a newbie to flying should understand. Digging around, talking, discussing, and sorting through the BS will give you much more info. And in the end, you have to use some common sense and gut instinct to come to a conclusion. It can take years to get the full story on a particular accident or subject and many times....never.

This thread is a good example to the newbies abou how you can try to get info on an important subject and the sort of responses you will end up with and why it is so important to keep digging. One post appears to put the questionner on the defensive while giving no info whatsoever, then the next post has valuable information. You can see how much more useful the post by CNCPC was as compared to your absolutely no info post by ktcanuck. That doesn't mean that accurate info was posted as anyone can say anything on the internet and have an agenda but now(if I happened to be really interested in flying on type), I could look into it further. In reality, I am more just looking into things from a general overview at this point(and this does back up my concern about construction issues).

So then what does one do next. Hope for more info to be posted, try different forums, and different persons with hands-on experience or who at least sound credible while trying to get confirmation of their statements. With no further info, if I were particularly interested in flying a Quad-City Challenger, I might look into structural issues and whether this was a builder error or a common theme on this particular type.

My first prediction, there will be no "official" info(ie report) on this accident as the TSB will make it a class 5 investigation.

You are on your own much of the time when it comes to being a pilot.Always try to get more info.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#8 Post by AirFrame » Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:29 am

pelmet wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:56 pm
However, I have been flying many different aircraft types and have considered trying the two stroke aircraft types but have to admit to significant hesitation. I hear a lot about engine reliability issues and the reality that ultralights are likely only as good as the person who built it.
Fixed that for you.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3461
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#9 Post by pelmet » Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:37 pm

AirFrame wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:29 am
pelmet wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:56 pm
However, I have been flying many different aircraft types and have considered trying the two stroke aircraft types but have to admit to significant hesitation. I hear a lot about engine reliability issues and the reality that ultralights are likely only as good as the person who built it.
Fixed that for you.

I am no expert on homebuilts and ultralights but would it be safe to say that homebuilts are likely only as good as the person that built it. Same with ultralights.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#10 Post by AirFrame » Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:53 pm

pelmet wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:37 pm
I am no expert on homebuilts and ultralights but would it be safe to say that homebuilts are likely only as good as the person that built it. Same with ultralights.
It would be safe to say that any aircraft is only as good as the person, people, or company who build and maintain it.

That said, keep in mind that Ultralights have no mandated oversight during construction or subsequent maintenance. Just the builder/owner looking out for their own *ss. If mistakes are made during construction, it's likely that nobody will catch them.

Amateur-built aircraft (we have no "homebuilt" classification in Canada) are subject to significant oversight during construction. More so than even the litigious US, which is partly why so many Canadian AB aircraft disappear south when sold. So for AB aircraft, you have both the builder looking out for their *ss, and an inspector looking out for it as well. Subsequent maintenance is all done by the owner, so once it's flying you're no better off than the Ultralight owner, but at least at the outset, the plane was better inspected than the Ultralight. If it's maintained to the same standard it was built to, it should be fine.

Factory-built aircraft are also subject to oversight during construction, but even that doesn't prevent errors from getting through. AME's also miss things from time to time.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3461
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#11 Post by pelmet » Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:58 pm

AirFrame wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:53 pm
pelmet wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:37 pm
I am no expert on homebuilts and ultralights but would it be safe to say that homebuilts are likely only as good as the person that built it. Same with ultralights.
Ultralights have no mandated oversight during construction or subsequent maintenance. Just the builder/owner looking out for their own *ss. If mistakes are made during construction, it's likely that nobody will catch them.

Amateur-built aircraft (we have no "homebuilt" classification in Canada) are subject to significant oversight during construction. More so than even the litigious US, which is partly why so many Canadian AB aircraft disappear south when sold. So for AB aircraft, you have both the builder looking out for their *ss, and an inspector looking out for it as well. Subsequent maintenance is all done by the owner, so once it's flying you're no better off than the Ultralight owner, but at least at the outset, the plane was better inspected than the Ultralight. If it's maintained to the same standard it was built to, it should be fine.

Thanks for the details.
---------- ADS -----------
  

tractor driver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:33 am

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#12 Post by tractor driver » Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:53 pm

In our experience at the flight school, the Challenger was likely the most popular model of ultra light the students went to. The opportunity to fly, particularly with the visibility granted by the pusher engine configuration, with a “ light “ investment of both time and monetary resources was quite attractive. We at the school were quite careful to ensure that a safe environment was provided, and the training sufficiently comprehensive to achieve a continued safe environment once the pilot was on his/ her own.
That being said, the ultralight environment was mostly for recreation. The aircraft are light. Their constructoin is light. Their capacity for handling the environment is light. Their ability to endure aggressive treatment, whether in operation, or simple ground handling around the hangar is light. The initial pilot training is light. Expectations exceeding parameters often do not end well.
With experience, maintenance, and more rugged design, some models are quite capable, the Challenger seemed to fall somewhere near the middle. While doing film work for Discovery Channel, we used 2 stroke equipment in N., Central, S. America,
Europe and Africa with great success, in some truly engaging conditions conditions. As long as the limitations were respected, our use was uneventful, using both air and water cooled engines.
The ultra light aircraft is quite different than a general aviation aircraft, and needs to be treated as such. There were others we met who did not observe such cautions. They did not fare as well
This summer, while being based in CYYB, a pair of Challengers on puddle jumper amphibs taxied up and asked if they could look at our bombers and take some pictures. We of course obliged, and the pair told us of many of their recent adventures. A truly pleasant and enthusiastic pair of aviators.
We bid farewells and they flew off, with one of the aircraft loosing a wing minutes later.
A terrible tragedy, but not something I would blame on “ ultra lights”.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3461
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#13 Post by pelmet » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:19 pm

"C-ILUX, a private Quad City Challenger II Advanced Ultra-light aircraft, departed Ottawa/Carp (CYRP), ON for Peterborough (CYPQ), ON with 1 pilot on board. During cruise flight approximately 3.6 nm South of CYRP, control of the aircraft was lost for undetermined reasons. During the uncontrolled descent, the aircraft contacted guy wires running along the side of a road, and collided with terrain. The aircraft was substantially damaged, and the pilot sustained serious injuries."
---------- ADS -----------
  

jakeandelwood
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#14 Post by jakeandelwood » Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:35 pm

2 stroke engines can be very reliable, they have less moving parts. No camshaft, valves, rockers, pushrods or timing gears. Seems like that's the stuff that fails mostly on a 4 stroke engine.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2671
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#15 Post by PilotDAR » Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:44 am

2 stroke engines can be very reliable, they have less moving parts. No camshaft, valves, rockers, pushrods or timing gears. Seems like that's the stuff that fails mostly on a 4 stroke engine.
That's a pretty broad interpretation. Two stroke engines are more simple, with fewer moving parts, but those fewer parts are usually working a lot harder, and turning faster. I can think of many certified four stroke aircraft engines which are a half century old with many thousands of hours of operation, and still run very well. Few operating two stroke engines of a similar age come to my mind.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6675
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#16 Post by photofly » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:13 am

jakeandelwood wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:35 pm
2 stroke engines can be very reliable, they have less moving parts. No camshaft, valves, rockers, pushrods or timing gears. Seems like that's the stuff that fails mostly on a 4 stroke engine.
Fewer moving parts, not "less".

The lubrication on 2 strokes sucks big time.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

jakeandelwood
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#17 Post by jakeandelwood » Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:22 am

PilotDAR wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:44 am
2 stroke engines can be very reliable, they have less moving parts. No camshaft, valves, rockers, pushrods or timing gears. Seems like that's the stuff that fails mostly on a 4 stroke engine.
That's a pretty broad interpretation. Two stroke engines are more simple, with fewer moving parts, but those fewer parts are usually working a lot harder, and turning faster. I can think of many certified four stroke aircraft engines which are a half century old with many thousands of hours of operation, and still run very well. Few operating two stroke engines of a similar age come to my mind.
Google Detroit Diesel, they made some of the biggest and most reliable diesel engines out there, and they were supercharged 2 stroke. Trucks, busses, boats. Sucked fuel and friggin loud though.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2671
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#18 Post by PilotDAR » Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:13 am

Detroit Diesel, they made some of the biggest and most reliable diesel engines out there, and they were supercharged 2 stroke. Trucks, busses, boats.
Great engines, I'm sure..... Let's reserve the discussion of these engines until we see them installed in light GA aircraft....
---------- ADS -----------
  

jakeandelwood
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#19 Post by jakeandelwood » Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:22 am

photofly wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:13 am
jakeandelwood wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:35 pm
2 stroke engines can be very reliable, they have less moving parts. No camshaft, valves, rockers, pushrods or timing gears. Seems like that's the stuff that fails mostly on a 4 stroke engine.
Fewer moving parts, not "less".

The lubrication on 2 strokes sucks big time.
Thanks grammar check, 2 strokes can and do have a traditional oil system with a sump like any other engine. Weed wackers and outboards use the oil mixed with gas system because it's simple and compact. The Detroit Diesel design of the past in my opinion would be a great aircraft engine design if made of lightweight materials, and it could also use jet A. I doubt we'll ever see someone design a new, certified aviation piston engine in our lifetime.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6675
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#20 Post by photofly » Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:28 am

Reading up on the wikipedia entry on two stroke engines, it says:

Large two-stroke engines, including diesels, normally use a sump lubrication system similar to four-stroke engines. The cylinder must still be pressurized, but this is not done from the crankcase, but by an ancillary Roots-type blower or a specialized turbocharger (usually a turbo-compressor system) which has a "locked" compressor for starting (and during which it is powered by the engine's crankshaft), but which is "unlocked" for running (and during which it is powered by the engine's exhaust gases flowing through the turbine).

So if you need all those extra parts for lubrication, doesn't that wipe out some of the benefits of fewer moving parts?

I doubt we'll ever see someone design a new, certified aviation piston engine in our lifetime.
Are you discounting all the Thielert and Rotax engines that are certified? I'm not knowledgeable in detail about all the new engines out there, but I'm sure there are some.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 930
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#21 Post by rookiepilot » Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:40 pm

jakeandelwood wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:35 pm
2 stroke engines can be very reliable, they have less moving parts.
After you.......No thanks.
---------- ADS -----------
  

jakeandelwood
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#22 Post by jakeandelwood » Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:51 am

photofly wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:28 am
Reading up on the wikipedia entry on two stroke engines, it says:

Large two-stroke engines, including diesels, normally use a sump lubrication system similar to four-stroke engines. The cylinder must still be pressurized, but this is not done from the crankcase, but by an ancillary Roots-type blower or a specialized turbocharger (usually a turbo-compressor system) which has a "locked" compressor for starting (and during which it is powered by the engine's crankshaft), but which is "unlocked" for running (and during which it is powered by the engine's exhaust gases flowing through the turbine).

So if you need all those extra parts for lubrication, doesn't that wipe out some of the benefits of fewer moving parts?

I doubt we'll ever see someone design a new, certified aviation piston engine in our lifetime.
Are you discounting all the Thielert and Rotax engines that are certified? I'm not knowledgeable in detail about all the new engines out there, but I'm sure there are some.
"All those extra parts" you mean a supercharger or turbocharger? I believe many aircraft piston engines already have those, turbos anyways.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2671
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#23 Post by PilotDAR » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:24 am

"All those extra parts" you mean a supercharger or turbocharger? I believe many aircraft piston engines already have those, turbos anyways.
Yes, a few GA aircraft engines have superchargers, and turbochargers are common. Superchargers have more moving parts, and turbos are critical for lubrication.

How does this relate to an accident of a non-certified aircraft near Carp?
---------- ADS -----------
  

jakeandelwood
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#24 Post by jakeandelwood » Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:27 am

PilotDAR wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:24 am
"All those extra parts" you mean a supercharger or turbocharger? I believe many aircraft piston engines already have those, turbos anyways.
Yes, a few GA aircraft engines have superchargers, and turbochargers are common. Superchargers have more moving parts, and turbos are critical for lubrication.

How does this relate to an accident of a non-certified aircraft near Carp?
Yes, all these Av Canada forums stay on topic. A turbo is critical for lubrication? On what aircraft might that be?
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6675
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Small Plane Crash at Carp - Pilot Injured

#25 Post by photofly » Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:10 am

On the putative aircraft that has the high-reliability 2-stroke engine with a low moving part count and lubrication provided by oil that drains into a sump.

Keep up, please.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”