Early Analysis: N8845Z - Cessna 172 Forced Landing on Bridge May 14, 2022 Miami, FL
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- ASI Executive Director, Richard McSpadden, CFII, MEI, SES, MES, former Commander/Flight Leader for the USAF Thunderbirds, provides early analysis of an accident on May 14, 2022 when a Cessna 172 Skyhawk made an emergency landing on the Haulover Inlet Bridge in Miami Beach, Florida. On the ground, the airplane struck a minivan occupied by a woman and two small children who were not seriously injured. The collision caused the airplane to flip and catch fire. The pilot’s two adult relatives were able to escape the burning airplane with serious injuries. Sadly, 36 year old pilot and Miami International Airport tower controller Narciso Torres died in the accident. The flight departed North Perry Airport in Hollywood, Florida, around 12.:38 p.m., crossed the shoreline, and then flew south along the coast destined for Key West. It appears the pilot reported an engine problem to Miami’s Terminal Radar Approach Control facility shortly after flying along the coast. He then turned inland to the north in search of an emergency landing spot.
In Early Analysis: N8845Z, the AOPA Air Safety Institute makes a preliminary assessment of the accident, addressing notable portions of the tragic flight and highlighting areas the NTSB will likely investigate to determine a probable cause.
UPDATE: The National Transportation Safety Board has released its preliminary report (ERA22FA226) regarding the investigation into the Cessna 172 Skyhawk (N8845Z) accident on bridge in Miami, FL.
data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/105075/pdf
I don't know the different parts of the engine, but it doesn't sound like anything was wrong with the various parts discussed in the preliminary report. Can someone who knows more about this provide insight on what might have been the issue?
I noticed in the report that the fuel selector was set BETWEEN the both tanks and the right tank setting. Anyone familiar enough with the 172 to know if this shuts the flow of fuel if the selector is between settings?
@@chuckschillingvideosI don’t think so, 172 has fuel tank in both wings and you can control which side you use more, it wouldn’t much problem. All tho…I thought to be set Both to fly.
@@chuckschillingvideosthat shouldn't cause any issues, that's actually the normal setting while operating the engine. It just means that you're getting fuel from both the right and left fuel tank.
RIP Richard. Your early analyses have been invaluable and made everyone who’s watched them safer pilots. You’re going to be sorely missed.
Second that! 💔 Even as someone not involved in aviation but keenly interested in public safety & failure analysis, Richard's contributions on this channel have helped reinforce many valuable lessons for me and highlighted key factors of safety-related psychology applicable regardless of profession, industry or activity. Many sympathetic condolences to his friends & family, and grateful thanks for the valuable legacy he leaves.
@@anna_in_aotearoa3166 I get that, and as someone involved in aviation and who learned a lot from his videos this was the first accident that really made me have to spend real time deciding if it was worth it before I kept going. Hits really hard
All that beach…. And you pick a bridge….
should have aimed fo the beach line water ditching is much better than Miami traffic , the plane would have flipped but if they would have made it , whats sas is this going to end up being related to a fuel issue either water in the fuel or bad fuel
Bad fuel? Based on what information you’ve gotten from your aluminum foil headset?
@@bw162 you can make fun of me I don't care but the vast majority of engine failures shortly after take-off are bad fuel relate a lot of them are water related sorry to hurt your feelings
@@zackriden79 You can't hurt my feelings with your preposterous claim you know for a fact it was fuel contamination with absolutely no evidence. And with over 20,000 hours I can tell you that it is highly unlikely it was contamination that long after takeoff unless he had just changed tanks to one that hadn't been used since it was refueled presumed to be before his last departure, and you don't know that either.
P.S. I testified in a lawsuit involving a Cherokee 6 circa 1967. It was fuel contamination. There were rust rings in the fuel bowl. The pilot crashed it onto a street 3/4 of a mile from the departure end of the Bakersfield runway in California. I had an engine failure in a PA-30 5 miles from the departure runway because a mechanic hadn’t tightened the fuel line to the injector lines’ hub. I’ve had precautionary shutdown when a mag started to fail on a twin. And I had to make an emergency landing when a oil seal put oil all over the windshield outside of Grand Junction. There are lots of explanations and fuel contamination is the least likely IMO. And Zach, don’t make such statements as “he should have….”. No one has enough information to say what he should or shouldn’t have done. There any number of scenarios that may have prevented that. Are you omniscient to the point you can write the NTSB report now as to what caused the accident and what the pilot should have done?
Any injuries are the result of pilot error pure and simple!!
The error being…?
@@petep.2092 If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand the answer!!
Not so fast. You are assuming a lot. He never declared an emergency. He didn’t report a failure. His turn and flight path was more consistent with a plan to return to his dept. point then make a force landing with a total engine failure. The retracted flaps could suggest he was trying to extend the distance with minimal drag and decaying power. Decaying power may have lead him to belief he could limp back and take him to a point where going over the buildings to the ocean was not an option. From an article in “Air Facts”, a 172 with engine shut down and near a full stall, the prop stops windmilling. I can write a completely different scenario with what we know vs speculations.
Great commentary. Thanks for pointing out that ditching has a 90% chance of survival. Being a diver and having done Navy egress training twice, my perspective is a bit different than most, but operating on the principle of minimizing risk to innocent folks on the ground, I would have turned left, or even better, continued straight south into the wind and ditched it off the beach. Unlatch doors, tighten harness, hold your breath on entry, and if you find yourself under water, follow your bubbles. That’s where up is. Condolences to all involved.
Great advice
The advice on the bubbles is something I never considered till reading it a few years ago.
@@Great-Documentaries Absolutely. Nobody is saying land it ON the beach. You don't need to set it down a mile off coast either. Some common sense here.
I am wondering if that 90% also applies to a Cessna without a retractable undercarriage, as the wheels will touch the water first.
@@petervandentoorn376 He mentions that statistic is for fixed landing gear. He says high wing but corrects it on screen
Nice job, Boss. Thanks for the shout out. Those nice Google Earth graphics really give me a different view of what the pilot might have been looking at and influenced by.
Really?? His report is riddled with inaccurate information. He's actually telling people that if you have a high winged and fixed tricycle landing gear, that a water ditching will not result in the airplane flipping over and, in fact, lays a stat out there that 90% of water ditchings go off without the airplane flipping over. ??? Really?
@@On-Our-Radar-24News It is ironic that you are responding to AvWeb (and presumably Paul himself) who are the ones who actually looked at the accident data and came up with the stats. Do you have better info to the contrary? I suspect not. It’s the classic “I’ve heard this a bunch from my pilot friends so I am going to comment on it as if I know what I’m talking about”. Also, you’re misquoting. The stat is that 90% of ditchings are non-fatal, not that 90% don’t have the airplane flip over.
@@On-Our-Radar-24News Really???? Ask yourself that. This one flipped over and had a fatality and it was on land. I'd have gone for the water. Easier to dodge boats on the wider intercoastal/Biscayne Bay than cars on that bridge. I would also land into the wind and have flaps down. His 180 degree turn and choice of landing areas and leaving the flaps up all led to his death and injuries to others. Bad choice after bad choice after bad choice.
@@PuppyDogPilot This gentleman was a controller at Miami TRACON. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and reserve our judgment until more facts become available. It is easy for armchair pilots (as they are called) to question the pilot's decisions from the ground. However, the argument to the contrary can easily be made with the same vague information; one could conclude from the alternatives available to the pilot that his actions saved countless lives. At the end of the day, all survived except him, meaning he gave only his own life in his attempt to save everyone else's. Show a modicum of respect.
@@ridernotrunner Not sure how one can conclude that he saved countless lives when he almost killed a mom and her two kids. Sounds like endangering to me.
I look at emergencies & accidents regularly, but this one hits closer to home than normal as I too am an air traffic controller and pilot. Thanks Richard for this early analysis including the pointer to Paul's excellent video. One item that really sticks out to me from your analysis is the mention of the wind as being about 170 at 8 to 9 knots. Assuming that is correct, that means he landed with a tailwind, which can be the difference between life and death in a forced landing. Assuming something like 60 knots (about 69 mph) airspeed at touchdown, landing with an 8 to 9 knot tailwind means almost double the kinetic energy to be dissipated at touchdown compared to landing into the wind. This is one of the biggest mistakes I have seen pilots make in many forced landing situations. I highly recommend that pilots land into the wind in forced landing situations unless there is a compelling reason to avoid doing so.
As an aside, I am astonished that the NTSB does not routinely emphasize this aspect of forced landings when they investigate accidents. I have seen far too many accident reports where they note the direction of flight at touchdown and the local wind speed as separate data points with no emphasis and no connection. I really wish they would highlight cases where a pilot lands downwind and take a close look at whether landing upwind could have increased the survivability odds.
Great info there regarding wind direction and great comment overall.
Good call. I doubt a stressed pilot is going to know the wind direction however. Its cool that Garmins, and probably other, GPSes have the wind speed and direction on the front of the instrument. So lets see, if the guy could make stall speed at about 45kt, reduce it by another 8kt, we are down to 42.55MPH. Way betterer than what he was probably doing.
Imagine had he landed into the wind WITH 40 degrees of flaps.
Very good point. At ~2550lbs gross weight of a 172, going from 60 to 80 knots takes the kinetic energy from ~550kJ to ~978kJ. Massive difference.
I thought it was common knowledge to land with headwind if possible. Key words would be “if possible”. I think the pilot focused on one landing spot and stuck to it. Based on the commentary it sounded like he intentionally descended to target the landing spot. If he maintained glide speed he could have passed the bridge, turned around and landed with headwind instead?
It wasn't his plane and he probably thought a water landing would have resulted in severe damage. He gambled on a successful roadway touchdown which would keep the plane unscathed, but obviously it didn't pay off.
Need to survive and leave it to insurance.
@@Nicholas-f5 Agree.
Maybe, maybe not. He had two passengers in the plane, and I would hope their safety was his primary concern over and above the financial aspect of the event (leaving out, for the moment, the question of the safety of those on the ground and on the beach). I don't think there will be any way to know what internal calculations the pilot was making as the event unfolded.
The world, and the aviation community, is a better place with you and your organization in it. Salute!
Thank you for such a kind compliment.
Thank you Richard. I am saddened about the loss of life. I flew this exact route today with a student. The aircraft definitely had some power in order to make it to the bridge, HOWEVER, what isn't mentioned by Richard are Two Golf Courses that were reachable before the bridge. One of the courses is under renovation and would have been the ideal choice. Thank you.
Bad choices
I'm saddened that an innocent woman and her two small children were smashed head on into and injured by a guy flying a Cessna.
Better than the bridge
Wouldn't the beach be good or just in the water. If he had just gone straight he would have been 20 knots slower (had a 10 knot tail wind). If the beach was empty he could land on it, if the beach has people ditch in the water?
@@crissd8283 It was a Sat afternoon, great weather, that beach and the park surrounding it would have been packed...like the bridge and the roads feeding it.
Thank you, Richard, for your excellent commentary. Thanks for keeping us safe.
My condolences for the family of the Pilot
I was actually a few miles south heading northbound coming from MTH, also over the shoreline. Then saw the smoke, very sad. People from the area know Collins ave is heavy traffic going slow average speeds, lots of obstacles. Regardless to which place he picked he brought the plane down under control, and this is already a great job. I am thankful for the information on ditching, it is now on the top of my options over the area.
Should’ve tried near the shoreline.. it’s a lot easier for people to run out of the way than for cars too. Everytime I fly over busy roads, I think no way could I ever land and maneuver around all those cars. Usually, roads are never my “best place to land”.. so many power lines too you’d never see in time..
Before anyone too harshly judges the pilot, there is a LOT we don’t know. How long had he known of the engine “issue”? Did it first manifest itself as something small or catastrophic? Was it initially small enough to lead the pilot to believe he could return to his departure point and only after he had started his return, suffer a sudden failure or power decay? Maybe his Tx to ATC was made only to alert them to the turn he had made in his plan to return. It was NOT a mayday or announcement of an engine failure. Was he too low to reach the ocean when he experienced a total failure? Maybe he was only experiencing a decay in power which lead him to believe he could limp back. Perhaps his turn away from the ocean was a normal response to the closest way back while he still may have only had a small issue. Rather than perform a forced landing into the wind going south, perhaps he had already made the turn believing he would be able to return under power and then afterwards he experienced a complete engine failure. At that point perhaps he thought a 180-degree turn was too risky to complete and leave him room to find a suitable place. Everything we know thus far is consistent with a partial power loss issue initially. Otherwise he would have not merely told ATC he had an “issue”, he would have broadcast a mayday with an engine failure. It is also consistent with a windmilling prop which is unlikely with a catastrophic mechanical failure. It is way too early to broadcast for sake of your own ego what he did wrong and what you, a much better pilot, would have done. Until you have experience a REAL engine failure at low altitude with passengers likely screaming in your ears as they see the buildings ahead, don’t be too harsh. I am a retired ATP. I’ve learned, but for the grace of God…..
You said it. We should learn, not judge.👍
@@ricardokowalski1579The tuition expense is less and the bad Karma is even worse.
I am still wondering why the plane ended up on the approaching traffic side of the road.
It flipped over, as was reported.
Very sad. the pilot did what he could. Very unfortunate because the beach would have causes a lot of unnecessary deaths. He was really stuck between a rock and a hard place. Thank you for this video
He was a tower controller and been flying for over a decade. Damn good man father husband and and friend.
May he rest in eternal peace
There was a Golf Course close by which could have been option also. Terrible loss.
Paul's video surprised me, to be honest, and I'm glad he researched the issue. It's important information. It's just hard, and frankly excruciating to watch that snippet of video of the most commonplace GA aircraft on the planet, knowing the outcome just seconds away. Thank you, nonetheless, for this video and your analysis.
Nice thing about still water is you can land into the wind and there are no cars or people to hit. Ocean not as good, but plenty of people around if you ditch just off the beach.
Thank you for the early assessment and breakdown of events.
I wonder whether the presence of floatation devices or passengers' ability to swim could really be a consideration in the water as shallow as there.
crazy that a drone was recording and caught a passanger jumping out of the burning wreck
I own a 1965 172F VAPOR LOCK !!! These 145hp Cont engines are prone! My madden voyage after fueling it vapor locked!!!We glided for a long time. We landed safely. Upon getting home we did some research and found this is common with this model 172. Take off on both and after about 5-8 minutes switch to either tank and then switch every 30 min throughout the flight
This method has worked for us Crazy this would not be known to any new pilot of this make and model
I remember when I was studying for my Pvt tkt ,back in the 70s that if you fly down from NJ where Im from,down to Florida, dont think you can ignore the possibility of carb icing.
Sad
Addicted to this channel and I wouldn’t be caught dead flying a plane lol. Flying fascinates me though.
Love Air safety Institute. Excellent analysis, always.
This one hurts to watch if you take the time to get inside the pilot's head. I've had this "conversation" with myself more than once, and if I'm ever in a situation where I have to make this kind of choice under similar conditions, I'll be getting wet. I'd have dumped it off the beach in about 5' of water unless there were too many swimmers. Then, I'd be farther out or in the waterway to the West, but IMO the bridge was plan C at best. And the statistics he's talking about related to aircraft flipping over in the water hold true. I've paid special attention to this, and in most cases the plane stays right side up. I'm hoping the two passengers made full recoveries.
Should have ditched it in the water
I rarely get the chance to use the idiom 'Johnny on the Spot' but that firefighter definitely fits the description in this case.
Easy to be wise in hindsight but he seems to have decided to return to the takeoff airport and once he made that inland turn found he was stuck inland not being able to get back over those tall buildings and ditch it near the beach. I would have kept going straight and then ditched near the beach with full flaps.
I learned early in off airport landings on roads to land with traffic flow and if necessary to cut off the first car to get the space to flare and stop ..if you are at low speed or flaring you no longer have control until the wheels are rolling on the ground and never hit anything with the engine ,it will end up in your lap .the wings are disposable , even better the two at same time
I believe that I'd have stayed over the beach and tried to put it down either on the beach or in very little water.
I fear roads unless I am SURE wires are not an issue AND there is little traffic. I want to keep my and those with me uninjured more than saving the plane.
Even the impossible turn got Richard. So sad.
It will be interesting to hear from the surviving passengers. RIP pilot.
Thank you for the interesting point of the "windmilling prop" an indicator that the engine has not seezed by damaged parts.
🌏🇦🇺
Wow so sad he died .. that last clip of him coming in looked like it could of ended with everyone safe . Unfortunate
Excellent analysis. Valuable insights to share with pilots who may one day face such a decision-making situation. Much appreciated.
It's just me, but I think I would have chosen to go right. Land not on the sand, but just in the shallow water. Open up them doors, windows and hope I wouldn't kill anyone in the water. Sucks either way.
Thank you! Please make more videos!!!
Maybe a call to 911 to clear the road? And ad a horn?
He decided to land on the road to save the plane if you go to the water the plane is done. It's a borrowed plane and if you land on the road safely the plane is saved. You may not agree but that is something I'm sure he thought of
sadly, you are probably correct.
If that was the thought process, he put property over his life, and lost the bet. Always think human life over property.
@@cup_and_cone I completely understand and I think that You see all these videos of road landings Where the plane lands safely The plane is in perfect condition . If I was borrowing somebody's plane I think the thought would creep in your mind. Personally My flying career is young And I'm renting aircraft But the thought would still be there If I use the road the plane will be saved. No I don't live around water But after seeing the statistics on water ditching I would opt for that
@@hueginvieny7959 You're right, I think people see videos of planes landing on highways and think 'I'll do that if I'm ever in an emergency'. Which, by itself, is not a bad thought. But on a highly congested road, with other decent options, it's probably not a good idea. I often fly in rural areas and we have entire 4 lane highways that are rarely driven on and you can bet that's where I'd go....but given this pilot's situation -- landing into the wind (continuing south) along the beach (5-10 feet of water) was very likely survivable. It's easy to second guess his decision making but I wasn't there....I'll just say RIP and god bless him and thank goodness his pax survived.
You have obviously never been confronted with a REAL forced landing. From experience, let me assure you the ONLY criteria is survivability. If that criteria results in saving the plane, it’s just an after-the-fact bonus.
Great analysis. Would a DA40 flipped on water be possible to open? Instead of doors it has a canopy... The back door also opens upwards.
Thank you for these level headed analyses so early in the investigation. As the lone pilot and aviation enthusiast in my office, I was called on for my opinion. Your videos help keep me from spreading misinformation so often distributed by the non-aviation media. Unfortunately we'll never know what went through the pilot's mind.
the indian creek golf corse looked 100 % do able
Exactly!!
Could it be that he was aiming at Haulover Park? 25.909422, -80.123375
Yes, (normal disclamer that I am *not* second guessing anybody) the golf course was a better option. But he had to commit to it as he completed the turn. Maybe he was focused on completing the turn, and had already decided to go to the Park that he had seen coming from the north.
The math is close enough (?),
1200 ft at 8 to 1 ratio 9000 feet and change (1.7 miles)
1.8 miles from 90th street to the bridge
Not a lot of time to think at 1200 ft over a populated area. Pilot is relaxed, second leg of the day, and the weather was great. Not complacency, just human limits.
@@ricardokowalski1579 its before the bridge and he started losing power its right there ... follow the ADSB
@@zackriden79 yes, the golf course is south of the bridge. And yes it was a better option.
My comment is that he may have not seen the golf course, since he was coming from the north. Was he already fixated on the Park since he flew past it?
Sounds like the pilot was a hero and everyone survived except him, just my humble opinion
Great job, I appreciate your videos… no nonsense, no drama or continuous personal backstories.!
I wonder if some loss aversion was involved, i.e. preferring a hazardous road landing over ditching in the expectation that he'd save the expensive airplane.
I landed a mooney on a road and hit a car out of Livermore Airport and no injuries totalled the car, and the plane but everyone was unharmed.
From that approach view, that break in the beach would have possibly put me off that path. There is a water path under the bridge that separates the beach, and he would have landed there instead of the bridge. To me a bridge is a more solid spot, though hitting a car is dangerous for all involved.
I would choose the beach or the water any day over a bridge..... And there's no excuse for not having the flaps down it would have lowered his landing speed it only makes sense
Why did you guys stop making the fascinating style of videos you used to make several years ago?
First time seeing the car dash cam of the airplane about to land, very telling about the speed and configuration. What a shame he had no flaps, he was hauling speed down the road. Full flaps would've saved the pilot's life as the ground speed is then significantly reduced, forward speed is what kills. These light aircraft awkward city landings usually have a decent outcome if properly configured with flaps.
If the car was travelling at 60mph and the plane struck at 80 mph you have a 140mph collision. I'm curious why only the pilot died? Was he wearing a shoulder harness?
Plus tailwind
@@scottmoseley5122 I don't believe speeds combine like that.
@Nicholas Yup, the speed at which they are approaching each other would be a hefty 140 mph. They do "add up" or "subtract" but not always a straightforward addition or subtraction like you were taught in 2nd grade. The speed and direction of each is called a vector and vector addition uses trigonometry to find out what the result will be after they collide. It's useful for figuring out where pool balls will end up after they collide, or figuring out how hard to hit a pool ball and at what angle to make it go a certain distance and in a particular direction 🙂
@@Nicholas-f5 Close enough even given the angles, wouldn't you say?
It looks like he tried to land right down the middle to try and avoid the light poles on the right and I’m totally guessing that the left landing gear hit the red vehicle, which caused the craft to flip over.
I wonder if the outcome would have been different if the vehicle weren’t there or somehow saw the approaching airplane and switched lanes. I realize this is impossible to anticipate, but I have to wonder.
Gut wrenching and sad. Condolences to the pilot’s family.
I believe he hit another red SUV and he squashed the front of it, so I don’t know what part of his plane hit the vehicle. He ended up upside down past that SUV.
They hit an SUV. The woman driving somehow couldn’t avoid the plane like every other car
@@jakeesco4573 American drivers are absolute shit. However your statement is still uncalled for. We know nothing.
@@jakeesco4573 She was AHEAD of the plane and there would have been no reason for her to expect that an airplane was running up on her. Sheesh. What is wrong with you?
Poor ADM. Rough engine and turns into and stays within a heavy residential area.
Nicely done, as complete as could be done at this point, and tactful.
None seems to be talking about the 2 golf courses within distance. That could've been an option as well.
Do you know what golf courses have LOTS OF? Trees. Lots and lots of trees. Trees are these tall, solid things that tend to break things that strike them.
@@chuckschillingvideos Except both Normandy and Indian Creek country club golf courses have plenty open spaces without trees, you know what's also solid and tends to damage things they come in contact with? Cars.
@@Mr_Plop1 Very true, but golf courses have the added complication of elevation changes (aka hills) and water features (aka lakes). I just don't think that golf courses are the ne pas ultra of off-airport landing sites like so many seem to think they are.
Thanks for a great analysis.
Hindsight is 20/20, but I can't help thinking about deploying the flaps, maybe full flaps earlier, and landing on the road section, where the two directions are still separate. I somewhat doubt that landing on the narrower, more crowded bridge was a deliberate choice, simply because you can depart the bridge during landing and fall into the water anyway. I think the bridge was aimed at simply bcause it was at the end of the glide distance, while flaps deployment would have shortened the glide significantly and allowed landing on a road with no opposite traffic.
Of course, so much easier from my goddam armchair. But my takeaway is the old adage: let's not stretch the glide by keeping the flaps retracted.
He was at 1200 feet , none of those airports he could make it
Why not? Explain pls.
I have seveal hours in a c-172, including the six cylinder, did most all of my IFR training and flight check in one, If I had been in his position, I most certainly would have took the beach with full flaps, from the best I can tell.
I was there that day running a charter boat at the Haulover sandbars. One minute there was nothing, the next there was a fireball. At that point, being a pilot was hardly a glimmer in my eye. Seeing this through a different lens now. Sad story.
That stat on ditching survival is not one I was aware of. Definitely makes ditching the most appealing option in crowded south Florida. Saturday is that area would be extremely busy in both the ICW and the beach. I would have probably tried an into the wind ditch on the icw. Or tried one of the smooth protected pockets of water on the icw. There was probably a 1-3 foot chop in the ocean.
I listened to Paul B's analysis of ditching and got a somewhat different message from it. You may or may not flip (there was no "you are not likely to flip" that I heard), but you have great odds (90%, plus or minus) of surviving.
On a high wing, with fixed gear... you’ll be upside down on ditching
Wow. I used to live right there were it happened. I did a lot of my flight training at Opa Locka and my practical test was at North Perry.
I think a significant factor in the pilot choosing to stay inland was that it was NOT HIS AIRPLANE. I'm sure he didn't want to be responsible for the total loss of the aircraft if he ditched, and probably felt confident he could successfully land on the road/bridge without significant damage.
My question was related to this. I wonder if there is a “save the airplane“ bias. If the pilot would have known the 90% survival rate on a water ditch versus probability of fatality on road landing, it may have caused him to make a different decision. God rest his soul.
Great analysis, as always. It's hard to believe that you are gone. The important work of your organization continues, though.
I'd like to better understand the research done with respect to aircraft flipping - the 2022 footage of a Cessna with fixed gear that ditched in Seattle's Alki beach has me convinced otherwise. ua-cam.com/video/5xP5XqijL74/v-deo.html
Please post a link in your comments, if available.
Also, thank you for the great videos!
A new episode. Thanks.
I see a lot of idiots who are under the mistaken belief that the aircraft was traveling in the opposite direction of the vehicular traffic path on the road he was attempting to set down upon. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Look at 3:22. The aircraft is northbound and directly above the northbound lanes. I guess people think that because there was a red SUV going the opposite direction in this frame that it has to be THE SUV that the airplane struck, but this is obviously not the case at all.
Golf course to the west?
With no flaps and a tailwind, he was hauling buns. The initial turn back is what set the stage for this fatal tragedy. Even if he had to land on the beach, he then would have been carrying 20-30 mph less groundspeed, and a rollout on sand is half that of asphalt. Also have to wonder if this 'engine problem' was something that was noticed before, and maybe ignored because it was momentary and then cleared up. Borrowing and flying an unfamiliar aircraft is also fraught with risks.
Maybe I'm wrong, but why didn't he try to ditch just off the beach? Less chance of hitting anything that way, plus there would have been no fire.
Personally I would've aimed for the beach. More area to land, and less obstructions.
Isn’t there a video of a 208 successfully ditching?
Anyone notice the concrete curb between the two directions of traffic on the bridge? I think this definitely didn't help, and may have caused a loss of control or contributed to it.
or the light poles on either side
Roads are not designed with airplanes as a consideration.
Yep, then again it's not intended as an airstrip. These low medians are quite common and any pilot attempting to set a plane down on a roadway has to allow for the possibility of such obstructions, which he may or may not see before the decision point.
Just from a public safety planning perspective, I'm curious (and will go have a wee Google) as to whether there are any cities/towns with busy GA airports that DO plan out at least some of their big nearby arterial routes with potential emergency landings in mind...? 🤔 Presumably not feasible to eliminate the lightpoles & overpasses, but perhaps possible to increase minimum road-width and avoid central concrete islands etc...?
Very difficult decision for the pilot and though in hindsight it seems ironclad that a ditching would have yielded a better outcome, there is no way to know for certain. I guess I would have ditched the aircraft in his situation, but - when ditching an aircraft with fixed landing gear, there is a high likelihood of the aircraft flipping upon contact with the water. At this point, the count of great options was down to 0.
Minivan & suv drivers cant even save themselves. He took a gamble on landing with jaded motorists. He aced it down that last car f’ed all this talents to save all.
If it hadn't been for that SUV this would be virtually a non-story.
A driver sees a plane in his rear view mirror will probably hit his brakes and ruin your final flair
Su prótesis silba demasiado, por favor limpie el audio.
Sad news. Interesting analysis.
I would like learn more about ditching a fixed tri gear airplane. I fly a RV12 and have large reservations about a water landing. If the plane were to flip I believe this would fatally trap you inside the bubble canopy as it sinks. I realize pressure would equalize if you allowed the pane to fully fill with water but we all know how disorientating a upside down environment is. Furthermore people become confused in open door helicopters when sinking inverted and have perished. I think fighting with the canopy while upside down would prove too much especially with injuries or a passenger that needs assistance. If you have any suggestions I’m all ears.
I will add one piece of advice about ditching in an engine-out situation that has been published for years but which very few know or understand. I first learned about it when doing a detailed study about the "Miracle on the Hudson" landing in 2009. When the NTSB put some pilots in the simulator afterwards to test out various scenarios, something interesting happened when they specifically tested ditching techniques.
Sully's actual landing had a vertical rate at touchdown of 12.5 feet per second, or about 750 feet per minute, which puts the vertical rate about on par with a carrier landing. It had to be the hardest touchdown of his airline career. But in the simulator runs, all but one of the other pilots also had comparably hard landings. The one exception was by an Airbus test pilot who "used a technique that involved approaching the water at a high speed, leveling the airplane a few feet above the water [...], and then bleeding off the airspeed in ground effect until the airplane settled into the water." (page 50 of NTSB Accident Report AAR-10/03). This was also discussed on day 2 of the 3-day NTSB hearings.
Because it's better to land "slow" than to land "fast", most pilots instinctively fly "slow" on final approach, but then don't have the energy reserve for the roundout. That's what happened to Sully and to all but one of the pilots in the simulator. It's counterintuitive to fly "fast" on final, but AS LONG AS YOU CAN ACCURATELY GAUGE YOUR HEIGHT ABOUT THE WATER, using this technique allows you to roundout and then hold it off, hold it off, hold it off, hold it off, touching down in a full-stall landing in essentially level flight, which is guaranteed to mean landing with as little kinetic energy as possible.
This technique has actually been published for decades in the AIM. In section 6-3-3 (Ditching Procedures), near the end of the section, it says "If no power is available, a greater than normal approach speed should be used down to the flare-out." I will add the same caveat that I made above with the all-caps section: this is the technique to use AS LONG AS YOU CAN ACCURATELY GAUGE YOUR HEIGHT ABOVE THE WATER. At night or over open water without nearby visual references, a pilot cannot accurately gauge this and so should use a different technique (flaps full down, pitch trim at or near the full nose-up position), but when landing just off a Miami beach or in the Hudson River during daylight hours, this "fly fast so as to land slow" is the preferred technique and is the one I would use personally.
I'm not an expert in the RV12 but I was fortunate to have an exceptional CFI and we practiced 'what if' scenarios ad nauseum. The one thing that always stuck in my head was MAKE SURE THE DOOR IS UNLATCHED. He even encouraged me to shove a t shirt, rag, folded up cardboard, etc. into the door to ensure it won't close after impact. He said "Your job is to get out of the aircraft IMMEDIATELY and you don't want to be fumbling with door handles or latches after impact". I assume he'd advise you to ensure your canopy is unlatched and stays that way once you've made a decision to ditch.
@Perseus1275 we all have to manage risk. I avoid water for this very reason. I am more interested in the raw data to help someone decide on a water ditching vs landing in a 300ft long parking lot with a block wall at the end. When the engine quits at 400 ft on climb out.
@@zidoocfi this is the technique I use on ALL my landings that I teach. Fly it to the ground and then level off!
@@chuckgorman103 According to AvWeb you have a 90% survival rate for ditching. What are your odds on hitting a wall?
I would provide the following analysis regarding the crash in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on the bridge.
The Cessna 172 took off on April 14th, 2022, at approximately 12:42 p.m. The conditions upon take-off, the temperature was around 79 degrees, and relative humidity was 92 percent.
He had been in-flight for about 10 minutes at an altitude of 1200 feet when he began turning inland and going back north, parallel to the freeway. Based on his glide path, it is assumed he had lost engine power.
With only limited data, as mentioned above, I would surmise that the possibility of Carburetor icing would be the most probable cause of engine failure. The temperature and humidity would be a perfect scenario for icing.
The pilot, along with two other passengers, aided in potential distraction, did not notice the signs of icing, which would have been engine speed reduction, and did not apply carburetor heating to mitigate the continued icing until engine failure occurred.
Very possible. They could've also added carb heat to try to help that but got spooked when it made the engine only run rougher as it naturally does, and turned the carb heat back off.
I've been making sure my students don't forget carb heat in their emergency engine out flow and tell them the engine will run rougher, but that's temporary and aiding your issue.
Not a pilot here. Why don't you ALWAYS use carb heat
@@easternwoods4378 Depends on the engine type and installation. Carb heat reduces engine power slightly to moderately.
Do you know if the pilot was wearing a shoulder harness?
I have to admit the lagoon-ish thing to the left is an attractive place.
Flying low over the beach is fun until your engine quits. Get flight following, file a VFR flight plan, do what you have to do, but get as much distance between you and the ground as possible. Shelf of the class B was 3,000 and he's at 1,200. At least get higher. Preferably request entry into the class B. I'm more interested in safety than sightseeing.
This. I did all my training in Nevada, and we'd consistently fly at 10,500 or 11,500 for cross countries, or do our practice area training between 7,000 and 9,000. Field elevation was 2,205., so we never had less than 4,800 feet from the terrain and us.
When I moved to the East Coast I was surprised to see people flying in Class G, less than a thousand feet off the ground. The time allotted to handle an emergency is 20 seconds if you're lucky. Fly high. You only have one engine.
Best to ditch in shallow water by the beach for sure.
Update as NTSB investigates see ya in 2 years Maybe.
Alright so the guy on the tiktok isn’t dead
Looks like he hit the vehicle and flipped. If the bridge was clear they could have made it. Sad all around.
It was Saturday afternoon on A1A...there was zero chance the bridge would have been clear.
@@cup_and_cone
I know. Just an all around sad situation. I've always wondered why planes don't have loud train horns for emergency landings like this. It's just an idea to attempt to get people's attention as they are attempting to land like this.
Definitely Florida.....The shiny hairy back runners 5:38 are 1000% dedicated to their route. Nothing will stop them!
Flying GA isn’t worth it
Likely decided against the water landing because he wasn't the owner of the aircraft.
Well. Watched all of this video. Was hoping for some kind of recommendation...like...loss of power look 30 degrees left of right, do not do a 180. Basically never above TPA for duration of flight. Streets should be your last option to consider in a populated, congested area. That should be taught to students from day 1 on. Flotation devices, pax swimming ability are no excuse to become a missile on a highway. There is plenty of water, and plenty shallows, with lots of eyes and bystanders to help. Also, had 2 golf courses nearby. Putting innocent people in jeopardy is unacceptable. Now the lawyers will likely come calling on the deceased family in civil court. Thank goodness the SUV occupants survived.
Did the old 1950's 172 have lap belts the 2 passengers survived maybe they braced during the crash the pilot wasn't able to. I suspect he wanted to land on the road hoping to save the aircraft he knew a salt water landing would total the aircraft.
2 in Colorado in the last couple of weeks. There's a lot this year for the GA community. Sad but we can learn from them
Didn't look like the prop was turning in the video. My condolences to the pilot's family. God bless them.
In Portugal there was a similar occurrence near Lisbon where the pilot decided to land on a full beach and killed 2 people on the ground. Ditching is our friend, fellow pilots!