4 fatal - crash nw of Waterloo ON Aug 24 2012

[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.

[Doc]

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.

Great post Bede. I often wonder about all the posts we get saying we should wait for the "official" report from TSB before we even comment on possible causes to accidents. I find TSB reports to be often "sanitized" and even politically motivated. Their findings more often than not reflect precisely what posters such as us were saying at the time. This was so obviously a spin accident. I find the chances against it being an "accidental" or unplanned spin to be astronomical.

[Beefitarian]

I find the chances against it being an "accidental" or unplanned spin to be astronomical

I disagree, it could easily happen. What if he went to the practice area to show the passengers where he learned to fly. There was something they wanted to get a better look at. He descended and slowed the plane down and was distracted looking at an object. Turned toward it like We have with a lighter plane at normal speed a hundred times.

Outside wing stalls and not only are you caught off gaurd because the plane spun away from your turn, you end up in a much faster spin than you have ever seen in a 172 trying to practice them with an instructor.

[pdw]

With the lighter fuel-load later in the flight is it also easier into 'slipping' that type of turn ... as the rear pax's weights don't change ?

[Shiny Side Up]

With the lighter fuel-load later in the flight is it also easier into 'slipping' that type of turn ... as the rear pax's weights don't change ?

It largely depends on which way the pilot turns after they pass by the object on the ground depending on which "observer" or passenger they are favoring with the view. Typically though when pilots "buzz" something they also entering a climb at this point, with slow speed, if they are also turning, high power, the pilot is making a left turn while looking over his shoulder at the intended buzzee will likely make a skidding turn to the left, the best recipe for getting into a spin. With a rearward CoG the pilot is also more likely to nose up in a turn, especially if they have relatively low time or low ammount of currency and especially if they don't usually fly said airplane with a more rearward CoG.

In this case though, the inadvertant entrance to the spin is usually the end of a causal chain of events and decisions which led to the accident rather than a stand alone cause.

[SoundAir11]

I agree with many others, the photos show an impact consistent with that of a flat spin. No evidence of lateral or forward movement, collapsed cabin, aircraft relatively intact,corn field undisturbed around wreckage.
I instructed over 30yrs ago and during that time I took about 20 hours of Aerobatic instruction in a Citbaria. My instructor covered spins in detail as it was relevant to CPL/PPL teaching.
The C-172 was certified to recover form a fully developed stall in 1 1/2 turns in the utility category. The weight and aft CG resulting from passengers in the back makes a significant difference. Spin recovery is prolonged. Most light General Aviation a/c have limited elevator deflection agnles, an aft CG causes the a/c to stall more completely. The elevator effectiveness decreases because the airplanes spin angle of attack has increased. However, as angle of attack increases, the amount of nose down elevator required for recovery increases. Conversely the ability of the elevator to provide an adequate nose-down moment decreases.

The two main causes of a flat spin are an aft CG and and a high power setting.

Pure conjecture and speculation on my part but perhaps the chain of events were as follows:

- For whatever reason, either intentional or unintentional the aircraft stalls and enters a spin
- Attempts are made to recover from the spin however the aft CG and increased weight delays the recovery and the aircraft continues to rapidly lose altitude in an attitude and scenario unfamiliar to the pilot
- Out of desperation the pilot adds full power (consistent with the witness account of increased engine nosie) causing the aircraft attitude to go almost completley flat and unfortunately unrecoverable.
A STALL WARNING IS ALSO A SPIN WARNING

[slam525i]

- Out of desperation the pilot adds full power (consistent with the witness account of increased engine nosie) causing the aircraft attitude to go almost completley flat and unfortunately unrecoverable.

I understand that adding power causes the airplane to pitch up, but wouldn't the additional airflow over the tail have increased elevator effectiveness and helped breaking out of the spin?

[Bushav8er]

"The pilot got the engine going again," she said. "It was nice and strong, full power, but only for a second or two. Then it just went dead."

The group had been out on a sightseeing trip over Niagara Falls and Toronto for nearly two hours before they crashed, CTV Toronto’s Ashley Rowe reported.

This sounds very much like a 'fuel' issue.

Sad, sadder still if it was indeed preventable.

[Deltawidget]

I was very sad to hear about this, condolences to the deceased's family and fellow aviators.

I managed to find a poh for the 172s

Utility useful load: 545 lbs

With 4 occupants and even minimal fuel, its almost certain the aircraft was outside of the utility weight limits

[SoundAir11]

I understand that adding power causes the airplane to pitch up, but wouldn't the additional airflow over the tail have increased elevator effectiveness and helped breaking out of the spin?

It may have a very slight effect but not enough for the elevator to provide a sufficient nose down moment to offset the higher angle of attack and more complete stall.

In a normal spin, for most single engine light aircraft like the C-172, the rudder is primary for recovery followed shortly by elevators neutral or slightly forward of neutral. The delay in applying down elevator, maybe about half a turn, is recommended so that the rudder can begin taking effect before elevators come into play. If forward stick is applied first, the wake from the horizontal tail can mask the rudder and reduce its effectiveness. Spin recovery would then take longer.

[Colonel Sanders]

the pilot adds full power causing the aircraft attitude to go almost completley flat and unfortunately unrecoverable

Not sure anyone cares about the facts in this thread,
but only in an upright spin yawing left will adding
power raise the nose, via gyroscopic precession.

In an upright spin yawing right, adding power
will drive the nose down, via gyroscopic precession.
This may or may not be a good thing, depending
upon what else is happening at the time. Driving
the nose down with forward elevator, for example,
can markedly reduce the radius of gyration and like
a spinning skater pulling her arms in, can violently
accelerate a fully developed spin.

[noon_crue]

This sounds very much like a 'fuel' issue.

Sad, sadder still if it was indeed preventable.[/quote]

Can you please clarify 'fuel' issue?

Also, I understand people wanting to draw conclusions based on what has been reported through the media, and how everyone is commenting on spin training, and how you should or shouldn't fly an airplane. But I feel that this thread has been hi-jacked for far too long. There was 4 deaths, in a tragic accident, and everyone is arguing over proper flight training.

[Colonel Sanders]

causing the aircraft attitude to go almost completley flat and unfortunately unrecoverable

Uh, no. You can easily recover from a flat spin
which was entered by adding power. What you
do is reduce power.

[ogc]

This sounds very much like a 'fuel' issue.

Sad, sadder still if it was indeed preventable.

Can you please clarify 'fuel' issue?

Also, I understand people wanting to draw conclusions based on what has been reported through the media, and how everyone is commenting on spin training, and how you should or shouldn't fly an airplane. But I feel that this thread has been hi-jacked for far too long. There was 4 deaths, in a tragic accident, and everyone is arguing over proper flight training.

I was thinking fuel could have been a problem, but didnt mention it.

From what I recall in a 172R or S model, you definitely cant have full tanks with 4 people on board. Im thinking more like half. Standard tanks, are what 48 gallons? Full tanks you would have around 5 hours of endurance, if they took off with what he thought were "half" tanks you are looking at 2-3 hours.

I dont have a POH in front of me, I am going from memory, but it is a possibility that he could have ran into a lack of fuel.

[Bede]

There was 4 deaths, in a tragic accident, and everyone is arguing over proper flight training.

That is correct. It was tragic and 4 people died. We are trying to learn from this accident so 4 more people don't need to die a needless death. This thread is actually one of the better ones on this forum.

[Colonel Sanders]

it is a possibility that he could have ran into a lack of fuel

Sure - and than accidentally stalled/spun during the forced approach.

The sad thing is that when the TSB brings the report out in a couple
years, no one will care then.

[flyinthebug]

This sounds very much like a 'fuel' issue.

Sad, sadder still if it was indeed preventable.

Can you please clarify 'fuel' issue?

Also, I understand people wanting to draw conclusions based on what has been reported through the media, and how everyone is commenting on spin training, and how you should or shouldn't fly an airplane. But I feel that this thread has been hi-jacked for far too long. There was 4 deaths, in a tragic accident, and everyone is arguing over proper flight training.

noon_crue...I understand how you might feel the thread is being hijacked by discussions of flight training and fuel burn. For us pilots, we look at ALL the possibilities and discuss them to further our understanding of what may have went wrong. We intend no disrespect to the people lost in this tragic accident, we only hope to learn from it to avoid a repeat of it in the future. Did this pilot receive "too much" stall/spin training that he felt he could do it outside the utility categorey of the aircraft? Or was it that he received NO stall/spin training and was not familiar with the recovery technique? Then there is the fuel issue. They took off from Kitchener with 4 adults on board. That means he had to sacrifice fuel to accomodate his load. They did an approx 2 hour flight to and from the Falls, likely spent 15-30 mins sight seeing at the Falls before they started back. Then they overflew Kitchener and flew an extra 30(ish) SM to the practice area, at night, why?? 2 1/2 + hours?? Unless he stopped for fuel that we dont know about, it would be pushing the range for this particular aircraft.

There are many unanswered questions and you are witnessing dozens of professional pilots discuss the possible causes. Instead of viewing this as a disrespect to the 4 young people lost, try to look at it like a bunch of experts in the field are offering potential senarios of how this played out. Id be willing to bet that at least one of us has nailed it, and it will be read about 12-18 months later in the TBS accident report.

No one on this thread has suggested they have it all figured out and absolute. That would be disrespectful to the family and friends. BUT speculation by experts in the field, is not a disrespect but rather a show OF respect to those lost...in hopes we can learn from what went wrong on this particular flight.

I believe by your newly joined handle that you could be related or close to some or all onboard that flight. If that is the case, I offer my personal condolences to your and your family. This is a difficult time for all if us, and I can only imagine what this accident has done to the families of the victims. Im sincerely sorry, but this thread is one of the most informative in this entire forum, and I believe we can all learn from this tragedy.

With Respect,
FTB
Fly safe all.

[noon_crue]

I understand that everyone is trying to voice their opinions, so something like this doesn't happen again, but it seems like for a period of time the comments have gotten out of hand. I understand that people all want to know what happened as well. We all want to know.

We do know that this aircraft had 27 gallon tanks, and had close to 40G when he took off. so running out of fuel would not have been an issue. and if it was fuel starvation, it would not just drop out of the sky. We all know that.

[fleet16b]

There was 4 deaths, in a tragic accident, and everyone is arguing over proper flight training.

That is correct. It was tragic and 4 people died. We are trying to learn from this accident so 4 more people don't need to die a needless death. This thread is actually one of the better ones on this forum.

Guys
We are all saddened by this tragic accident and I do not think anyone is being disrespectful by discussing possible scenarios. No blame has been put on anyone and we are all waiting for the official report.
The young pilot that was lost in this accident was like all of us very passionate about aviation and I am sure that some or all of his passengers were also.
That being said, I would bet that he would encourage discussion about his death so that others may learn from what happened. It would be a tribute to all of them if the discussion on this thread saved even one life.

I absolutely agree that this is one of the better threads that I have seen on this Forum.

[pdw]

We do know that this aircraft had 27 gallon tanks, and had close to 40G when he took off. so running out of fuel would not have been an issue.

Except, also the slight chance when 15-20 gal left don't burn off quite equal in 'both' over the course of those hours, then seeing there is possibility of turns involved.

[slam525i]

Except the chance when 15G are left and might not be 100% equal both sides over the course of 2hrs plus ... when turns are involved.

C172 have "Both" on the fuel selector.