4 fatal - crash nw of Waterloo ON Aug 24 2012

[piston12]

Sulako says: "No Personal Attacks"
Sulako says "Strike 1"

[piston12]

Shiny says....and I would say that advanced pilots are often lacking substantially in some of the regards.


I would ask you to define "Advanced"

[Rookie50]

Aside from all this, someone -- or someones -- indicated they hadn't read their entire POH and it's limitations. And you are a licensed pilot? Do you have a death wish or are trying out as a test pilot? How could you fly an aircraft without knowing all the limitations in the POH! Scary. Do you think this is all your CfI's job to teach you? You should think hard about who is responsible to know their aircraft and enagage in some self study. Seriously.

[piston12]

If you've had any CRM training yet, you wil start to realize where the chain of events to this unfortunate accident started. Look at the small details that we already know.

Flat, nonrecoverable spin. Vertical trajectory......look at the media pictures. It's obvious.

Why did our pilot in question go to the practice area after filing a completely different route?
Why did he put it into a spin?
Was he a certified TC instructor who is authorized to demonstrate spins?
If not, was his acrobatic rating current? Did he actually have one?
If so, does his acrobatic rating cover the Cessna 172 SP?

I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the families of the passengers. Let's hope that this case study saved lives in the future!!!!

//Minor content removed by Sulako. Let's wait until the report comes in before pointing "First-Degree Murder" fingers.

[CpnCrunch]

Aside from all this, someone -- or someones -- indicated they hadn't read their entire POH and it's limitations. And you are a licensed pilot? Do you have a death wish or are trying out as a test pilot? How could you fly an aircraft without knowing all the limitations in the POH! Scary. Do you think this is all your CfI's job to teach you? You should think hard about who is responsible to know their aircraft and enagage in some self study. Seriously.

As far as I can remember, I did my entire PPL training without looking at a POH once! Not my fault - I never even knew such a thing existed. The first time I read one of the things was when I bought my own plane, and then I read the thing cover to cover many times and digested all the info. That was in the UK, but I'm not sure it's any better in Canada. You would think that studying the POH (and other related documentation) should be part of the PPL syllabus.

[wan2fly99]

Had a tear in my eye for those four young people who lost there lives. They could have been my kids.

Just thinking of the poor parents now who lost something very precious to them.

I call this hell on earth for the parents

It was a such a beautiful day to end in tragedy like this. I hope they find out what happene

[pilotuser]

I wonder if it makes people feel smart to come up with conclusions before they have any real information? Suddenly we are all accident investigators, showing people how smart we are by looking at a handful of pictures taken after emergency crews worked on the plane to get the bodies out...

Listen I have no problem with people talking about possible causes... but too many people here have come to a conclusion. If it turns out that this was say an unintentional spin or not even a spin, will the judgemental people be rushing back here to apologize for their conclusions?

This kid has been flying since he was 16, glider pilot licence, PPL at 17, a commercial pilot licence that he did in his spare time while going to University. He was an absolutely wonderful person, not a hot head at all. It is still possible he made a mistake, it is still possible he made a bad decision -- the investigation will hopefully tell us -- and no matter what the reason is, hopefully we will all learn from it. Great pilot, which I don't say from speculation -- I have done a number of his currency flights over the years.

As to the speculations, wondering why he was off his intended path, etc... its ridiculous... if you rent a plane and say I am going to fly local, taking some friends up, just want to show them what flying is all about... night or day.. most clubs are going to say have fun, fly safe. You don't have to come up with some elaborate plan to fly to Toronto and Niagara Falls and then sneak out to the practice area to do spins. Maybe one of his friends wasn't feeling well - but started feeling better, maybe they decided they would rather look for someone's house, maybe they decided they didn't want as long a flight... whatever... plans can change when you are on a sightseeing flight, and there are mechanisms to change them in the air -- doesn't make him a rogue pilot.

There was even someone who said he may have squawked 7700... if that's the case why is some guy sneaking off to do spins squawking a code that will draw attention... why would someone even try to change the transponder code while in an intentional spin that went bad?

I don't know what happened, you don't know, while people seem interested let's all learn more about aviation and accident causes -- lord knows I don't want to hear about any more of our friends in aviation passing away, but please don't drag his name through the mud. Please don't make this harder on his amazing family who might be reading anything they can hoping to find something that might help them through this terrible time in their lives.

Simply... have some respect.

[pilotuser]

Aside from all this, someone -- or someones -- indicated they hadn't read their entire POH and it's limitations. And you are a licensed pilot? Do you have a death wish or are trying out as a test pilot? How could you fly an aircraft without knowing all the limitations in the POH! Scary. Do you think this is all your CfI's job to teach you? You should think hard about who is responsible to know their aircraft and enagage in some self study. Seriously.

As far as I can remember, I did my entire PPL training without looking at a POH once! Not my fault - I never even knew such a thing existed. The first time I read one of the things was when I bought my own plane, and then I read the thing cover to cover many times and digested all the info. That was in the UK, but I'm not sure it's any better in Canada. You would think that studying the POH (and other related documentation) should be part of the PPL syllabus.

It's better here (at least now)... student are typically required to purchase a copy of the POH during their training, and schools usually have some sort of a POH pre-solo test. An open book exam is often the case. As part of the planning for the nav portion of your flight test, you need to use the POH to do some weight and balance and take-off / landing distance calculations, etc.

[Gogona]

You never read everything in the POH? Why not? Why would you expect your instructor to tell you everything that's in that book? Did you not feel any responsibility on your own to learn what's in there?

Did I ever say that? Of course I read! And not only POH, I have read (and still do) a lot of alternative sources other than the books in my school kit.
But you didn't get my idea, sorry

A good flight instructor should always MAKE SURE, the student knows his POH and realizes why he should never practice certain manoeuvres. And that's what my instructors were never bothered about. The only thing my FI said to me: "You should never spin the airplane solo, because it is very dangerous". And that's it.

Now assume, that wasn't me, but some other student pilot, who is neglecting with his flight training, and his only concern, is how to get his PPL shortly. So this student may think: "Okay, my instructor says that is dangerous, because I'm inexperienced pilot and gonna put him into troubles, cause he is responsible for me. But when I get my license, I would like to try that again!". Oh, don't tell me you have never heard the reasoning like this

So my question is – how flight instructors could know, if this particular student is smart and responsible enough or he/she is dumb, and his/her knowledge and attitude should be verified again and again? Meanwhile, reminding and explaining the most crucial subjects at least ONCE is not such a hard job to do, isn't it? But again, that's what I never got from my CFI's and that's what I consider as a lack of training. Simply because they didn't know who I'm and what is my actual attitude.

YOU NEVER SPIN A C172 of ANY MODEL WITH WEIGHT BEHIND STATION 1 and 2 !!!!!!! I don't care what you think spin training or avoidance training is at in Canada.
And if you try it with passengers, you are an idiot and should thrown in jail if you live to tell about it.

Hey, not so tough! Please, be respectful.
We have no proof yet that was an intentional spin. I should remind you, that's a SPECULATION only and not the actual fact. But there are still a lot of reasons, why C172 may stall and spin even in the perfect weather conditions.

[Ivan42]

A minor update here...WWFC still closed till Wednesday at least:

http://www.therecord.com/news/local/art ... d-by-crash

[Gogona]

The problem is NOT that recovery is not HAMMERED into students. The problem IS that you spin at all!

Doc, I understand you. And all of your arguments make sense to me.

Briefly, we should avoid the spin training for sake of those idiots, who entertain themselves spinning in the non-aerobatic airplanes.
But exactly the same we could say about VFR-into-IFR accidents. People get their basic 5-6 instrument hours and some of them believe, they are skilled enough to continue the flight in the marginal weather conditions. And in the same time, just a very few people get into the clouds flying day VFR accidentally. Does that mean, we should exclude instrument training from the PPL syllabus? I don't think so, because it's a very important skill for everybody.

Next, take a look at the night VFR accidents in USA. Unlike Canada, they are very common there just because Americans don't have any special night rating as we do. 5 (five!) hours of night dual circuits and you are legal to fly at night. And people fly! That sounds ridiculous for me, but some of the brand new private pilots in U.S. go for a complete night solo x-country right away.
Does that mean, FAA should ban teaching that? Again, I don't think so! But they might PROHIBIT all intentional night flying unless the pilot got an extended night training (like in Canada) or holds IFR rating. So pilot can only use his 5 hrs experience to find an airport and perform a safe landing in case of delays.

Therefore I believe, that adding the similar restriction on performing aerobatic manoeuvres in non-aerobatic aircraft (if you get caught doing that you may temporary or permanently lose your license) may cool these hot heads down.

And here is a perfect example why removing the spin training is not a solution, if the pilot is stupid himself: http://youtu.be/Ebzuox4nq7c Poor aircraft - http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1148354/ They don't practice spins in UK, don't they?

And after all, I DO NOT INSIST we really need in spin recovery training. Maybe you are right and we should avoid it. However, I trust to TC and would like to listen to their arguments/reasons as well.

[boogs82]

After reading the article it's clear that some of the information used to write it mighthave come from this forum. Be mindful about what you post because it's not only us reading here. I'm involved in another discussion forum where articles have been written with usernames quoted in the article.

My thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends involved. RIP.

[Bede]

I find this accident forum quite interesting and have been reading it and the TSB reports for sometime. What is particularly interesting is that AvCanada posters are able to, by and large, identify causal factors of most accidents long before the TSB, without engineering analysis, without a budget, and without access to all the information the TSB does. Furthermore, we are able to learn from mistakes months or years before a report is issued. I can't stand public speculation in the media because the reporters have no idea what they're talking about, but as professionals on this forum, we do a pretty good job. Of course, we often can't identify root causes (fatigue, company culture, etc).

Try it: Go through this board and compare the speculation from some of the more trusted members and then read the TSB report.

[pilotuser]

I find this accident forum quite interesting and have been reading it and the TSB reports for sometime. What is particularly interesting is that AvCanada posters are able to, by and large, identify causal factors of most accidents long before the TSB, without engineering analysis, without a budget, and without access to all the information the TSB does. Furthermore, we are able to learn from mistakes months or years before a report is issued. I can't stand public speculation in the media because the reporters have no idea what they're talking about, but as professionals on this forum, we do a pretty good job. Of course, we often can't identify root causes (fatigue, company culture, etc).

Try it: Go through this board and compare the speculation from some of the more trusted members and then read the TSB report.

At first as I was reading this I thought you were being sarcastic, then I read the end and realized you were being serious.

Well, within this very thread people have thrown out three or more scenarios... at least unintentional spin, intentional spin, and engine failure have all been mentioned. When we find out what happened, it is likely one of the many possible scenarios will be correct. But then two will be wrong...

[cdnpilot77]

I suspect 1 will be correct, 1 will be half correct and 1 will be completely incorrect because eyewitnesses and media can't differentiate between noises and movements airplanes make in various conditions.

[Doc]

I find this accident forum quite interesting and have been reading it and the TSB reports for sometime. What is particularly interesting is that AvCanada posters are able to, by and large, identify causal factors of most accidents long before the TSB, without engineering analysis, without a budget, and without access to all the information the TSB does. Furthermore, we are able to learn from mistakes months or years before a report is issued. I can't stand public speculation in the media because the reporters have no idea what they're talking about, but as professionals on this forum, we do a pretty good job. Of course, we often can't identify root causes (fatigue, company culture, etc).

Try it: Go through this board and compare the speculation from some of the more trusted members and then read the TSB report.

You are correct. We're pretty good at it. And often correct.

[Doc]

I find this accident forum quite interesting and have been reading it and the TSB reports for sometime. What is particularly interesting is that AvCanada posters are able to, by and large, identify causal factors of most accidents long before the TSB, without engineering analysis, without a budget, and without access to all the information the TSB does. Furthermore, we are able to learn from mistakes months or years before a report is issued. I can't stand public speculation in the media because the reporters have no idea what they're talking about, but as professionals on this forum, we do a pretty good job. Of course, we often can't identify root causes (fatigue, company culture, etc).

Try it: Go through this board and compare the speculation from some of the more trusted members and then read the TSB report.

At first as I was reading this I thought you were being sarcastic, then I read the end and realized you were being serious.

Well, within this very thread people have thrown out three or more scenarios... at least unintentional spin, intentional spin, and engine failure have all been mentioned. When we find out what happened, it is likely one of the many possible scenarios will be correct. But then two will be wrong...

Which is better than TSB's fall back answer to all things they can't pin point, and call it "pilot error". Pussys!!

[howard40]

A 172, flown in compliance with the flight manual, and spun , properly, will suffer no consequences requiring the "wings to be removed and repaired or inspected".It is at a slow airspeed with little to no g loading.
This airplane "likely" has "spun in" for currently unknown reasons , as reported by witness' and by the damage it suffered. A spiral would "likely" have strewn stuff around like a yard sale for yards... and more . this aircraft hardly broke more corn than its own footprint.
Sad....
Respectfully.

[126.7_STFU]

Not to be naive here, but I do have an honest question to those who have lots of experience with aerobatics. I know in theory (somewhat) and by studying specific cases what happens when you spin an aircraft (say a 172 ) , fully loaded. Usually you turn into ...




So that being said, can someone elaborate on why it would be so difficult to stop the rotation? If some sort of Bruce Almighty crap was going on, and you managed to spin your fully loaded CF-172 Skyhawk < (intimidation technique), what would you do? If one was to do the proper recovery procedure, what would inhibit you from regaining control? Intense laughter? Control surfaces not large / strong enough to counter the rotation? This isn't a starfighter after all.

[Doc]

Shiny Side Up, you're obviously an instructor. Who trained you to spin, and in what?

Would any qualifications I told you here convince you or otherwise change your mind? Being the internet, unlikely, so irrelevant to the discussion. You don't know me and I don't know you so I can only speculate that you realise your position in the arguement isn't as strong as you originally thought so wish to attack my experience instead. Let that go and let us reason together instead.

To be honest with you, I thought it was a reasonable question. Are you an instructor? This would generally be a yes, or no answer. Couldn't be much clearer?
The second part of the question was. Who trained you to spin? Another pretty easy answer would ad some credibility to your opinions on the subject.
The third part. In what? Well, in case you're new at this, that would be an enquiry as to the type of aircraft you received your spin training in.
Pretty easy, really?
Would it change my position on spins? Well, if you'd been trained in a Pitts Special with a qualified aerobatic instructor, yes it would go a long way towards me taking you seriously. If, however, you learned at the hands of a 300 hour instructor on your way to your PPL, well then I know you're full of crap. See the difference?

[sky's the limit]

Wow,

Reading this, I'm surprised anybody leaves the ground.

[iflyforpie]

So that being said, can someone elaborate on why it would be so difficult to stop the rotation? If some sort of Bruce Almighty crap was going on, and you managed to spin your fully loaded CF-172 Skyhawk < (intimidation technique), what would you do? If one was to do the proper recovery procedure, what would inhibit you from regaining control? Intense laughter? Control surfaces not large / strong enough to counter the rotation? This isn't a starfighter after all.

A fully loaded 172 would be harder to recover from a spin because of:

-Higher stall speed.

-Relaxed longitudinal and directional stability.

-Higher rotational inertia.

However, I do not think it would be difficult to recover with the correct technique. 172s... especially later ones (M and on) with the larger dorsals and rounded 'STOL' leading edges are almost impossible to properly spin in the first place.

Proper spin recovery techniques, like proper stall recovery techniques, are supposed to be taught with the worst case scenario in mind. This is why stalls in a 172 are taught with a positive check forward rather than a simple 'letting go' that will recover the aircraft in the Utility Category.

FWIW, I was taught spins on four occasions. First, demonstration and recovery as a PPL candidate with a ~1000 hr instructor in a 172; second, performing and recovering with another ~1000 hour instructor in a 172; third, demonstrating and recovering with a ~3000 hour Class 1 instructor as a Class 4 candidate in a 172; and finally, a variety of entries and recoveries from fully developed (6 turn) spins with a ~5000 hour Class 2 aerobatics instructor in a Citabria.

In the Citabria, we used three different recovery methods. PARE, neutralizing the controls, and letting go. I don't remember any significant difference in the three methods for autorotation to stop and the aircraft to recover from the stall.

Since all of that, I've only spun a plane once: a 150 I was flying by myself.

I don't think that spin training is dangerous. Spiral dives have more of a potential to become deadly from a proper recovery altitude. I don't think spins are hard on aircraft--a plane parked in a stiff prairie breeze is subject to as much stress. Again, the spiral dive is the biggest culprit if left for too long or a gust catches the aircraft.

However, some pilots are morbidly curious about the spin and some newer instructors a little too eager to show off to their students. I think that perhaps in addition to preaching and practicing avoidance (proper control, correcting wing drop with rudder, incipient spin recovery) that an Emergency Maneuvers Course taught by an experienced aerobatics instructor like the one I took should be required or at least encouraged more.

[mcrit]

Not to be naive here, but I do have an honest question to those who have lots of experience with aerobatics. I know in theory (somewhat) and by studying specific cases what happens when you spin an aircraft (say a 172 ) , fully loaded. Usually you turn into ...




So that being said, can someone elaborate on why it would be so difficult to stop the rotation? If some sort of Bruce Almighty crap was going on, and you managed to spin your fully loaded CF-172 Skyhawk < (intimidation technique), what would you do? If one was to do the proper recovery procedure, what would inhibit you from regaining control? Intense laughter? Control surfaces not large / strong enough to counter the rotation? This isn't a starfighter after all.

Most likely the C of G would be too far aft, making it very hard to lower the nose and break the stall. Also the higher weight of the aircraft would give it a larger moment of inertia making it harder to stop the rotation.

[howard40]

The whole point of a flight manual is that the plane has been tested to recover in "whatever " the required number of spin turns, with normal spin recovery inputs , IF you are in COMPLIANCE with the flight manual ( for a 172 utility mode).
If you spin a fully loaded C 172 that is not in compliance with the utility mode or category of course you attempt the normal spin recovery technique(s?). The whole point is that it is NOT gauranteed to work! if it does not work you may try to move some passengers forward etc, but none of those hero moves are much fun to perform as altitude is being used up and the world is going round and round.
I like flying,in fact I love flying. My wise old instructor told me that outside of the approved flight manual you are a test pilot, and due to that, results may "vary". Some of the variance I am not willing to experience. I imagine some C 172's have recovered from spins with all 4 seats full, the whole problem is that some may not, and because its not approved to do them there, you have to understand that the "not recover in the required number of turns with normal inputs", or "ever" , are two possible outcomes.

[Bede]

pilotuser,

I think I mentioned "knowledgeable" posters. You criticized my analysis by mentioning it could be an unintentional spin, intentional spin, or an engine failure. An engine failure is not even remotely credible unless a spin occurred after. That leaves spin- intentional or unintentional. The fact remains it was a spin. Determining whether the spin was intentional or not requires first hand accounts or CVR data- so speculation on this board is no worse than what the TSB investigation will determine given that neither exist.

If I was doing flight instruction right now, I would use this accident, even though there is no report out yet, as an excellent example of what happens when someone spins an aircraft with an aft CG and outside the AFM limits. We do not need to wait for a report to learn from this. In fact, based on the pictures I've seen and the damage patterns to the aircraft, I would conclude that the spin was flat, or well on it's way to going flat.

I have aircraft accident investigation training from an accredited institution (thankfully I've never had to do a real investigation) and feel entirely comfortable making interim conclusions so we can all learn from this prior to the report being issued by the TSB. The conclusions I have made are identical to those that some of the posters are making on this forum- pilots without any accident investigation training.

Have you gone through some of the previous threads and compared them to what the TSB concluded? Go ahead and find one where the AvCanada consensus opinion differed from the TSB report.