VIDEO: Cessna 182 Crash after Engine Failure on Final Approach, Nov 2020

[cncpc]

You're already here.

Post of the year

And you're right on time. Take your meds today Pelmet? Been to your passive aggressive anger management class?

Like I said, Trump supporter. The Angry Child response made famous by the man now known as the Convict Elect.

[RatherBeFlying]

Slowing up to stretch a glide doesn't work well in a headwind. You might want to speed up.

Not much in the way of options except for the railroad track parallel to 12. Likely hard on the airframe, but perhaps more survivable than taking a chance on the usual utility poles and wires along an urban street.

Flying to join the circuit leaves more options in the case of a nasty surprise. In gliders over hostile terrain you want to always have glide to landable areas.

[cncpc]

The sideshow above aside, from what can be seen as the aircraft appears in the video, the pilot had it under control until a wing snagged something right near the tip. In the sequence between that and the nose impact, there was enough damage that fuel got outside a tank or tanks, and there was a source of ignition. The fire was not survivable, although the impact most probably was.

Most likely the master had to be still on for that to set off. Can't know if fuel was selected off, but if you don't know why the engine quit, you'd be reluctant to ensure no restart by switching tanks to off. It seems that the fuel source likely came from damage to the wing structure and a burst tank or broken line in the seperation, with sparking wiring causing the ignite. So selecting OFF wouldn't have made a difference, other than for the master switch.

It is good advice to say that once in the circuit, and with power, you shouldn't leave yourself in the position of not being able to make the runway without power.

[photofly]

The 182 model P was the last to have bladder tanks; I understand these are more crash-worthy and less likely to spill fuel on impact. The Q model and later has a wet wing, with increased fuel capacity, but possibly more risk.

[pelmet]

The 182 model P was the last to have bladder tanks; I understand these are more crash-worthy and less likely to spill fuel on impact. The Q model and later has a wet wing, with increased fuel capacity, but possibly more risk.

Incorrect....I have flown a couple of Q models with bladder tanks.

[photofly]

The bladders were changed to a wet wing in 1978, and the Q model POH (from 1978) I have shows the increased fuel capacity of 92 gallons, from the wet wing, unchanged through to the present day. Q models prior to that, who knows. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the Q model was the first to use wet wings instead of bladders.

Anyhoo... if this was a T model, it had wet wings.

[pelmet]

The bladders were changed to a wet wing in 1978, and the Q model POH (from 1978) I have shows the increased fuel capacity of 92 gallons, from the wet wing, unchanged through to the present day. Q models prior to that, who knows. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the Q model was the first to use wet wings instead of bladders.

Anyhoo... if this was a T model, it had wet wings.

Thanks,

The earlier Q models had what were called standard(61 gallon capacity) or long range(80.0 gallon capacity) tanks. Later models had 92 gallon capacity fuel tanks with a filler collar to measure reduced a reduced quantity. I have never flown the 92 gallon version.
https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... E/3A13.pdf

Line 2 of Page 7-23 of the POH linked below mentions bladders......
https://www.bakersfieldflyingclub.com/w ... BN-POH.pdf

[cncpc]

Slowing up to stretch a glide doesn't work well in a headwind. You might want to speed up.

Not much in the way of options except for the railroad track parallel to 12. Likely hard on the airframe, but perhaps more survivable than taking a chance on the usual utility poles and wires along an urban street.

Flying to join the circuit leaves more options in the case of a nasty surprise. In gliders over hostile terrain you want to always have glide to landable areas.

I think the aircraft hit the first pole on the right past the blue bin and truck and beside the red truck. You can see the pole vibrating after being struck, or the wire twanged. He may have been dragging a broken hot wire from the line and that arced when something metal touched the ground. It sure seemed to stop quickly in the air.

whitman crash.jpg (822.97 KiB) Viewed 671 times

[broken_slinky]

Looking at Google maps, you'd wonder why the city/airport wouldn't have bought the houses on each end of the runway for those just in case moments. Those 3 houses are really close to the threshold.

[PilotDAR]

Though it would be ideal to have a clear undershoot area, not every airport owner can afford the cost of the property, particularly in a city. I knew an airport owner who was required to buy three vacant residential lots to prevent them being built upon. That was really expensive relative to the return on that investment!

I've flown into many airports where an undershoot would end really badly. One, off the coast of Iceland, is a sheer rock cliff 300 feet high! So it's up to the prudent pilot to plan the approach to minimize the criticality of the outcome following an engine failure. I agree that sometime the established circuit, or ATC instructions may make this difficult, so maybe fly your approach a little higher to give you more choice if it quits...