800 hour private IFR rated pilot here. Since you asked, I've watched it at least 15 times, and from the video I just don't see them not clearing those trees. If he levels it off for a moment to get speed (which will build fairly quickly) he could then have pulled for a Vx climb and from what I see cleared the trees. This is backed up by doing some geometry and math. The CFI nosed it over with about 700 feet of runway left (using the runway markings in the video and Google maps). The plane is already 20 feet or so in the air. The Cherokee 140 at max gross has a takeoff distance over a 50 foot obstacle of around 1200 feet. There's another 700 feet or so of clear area off the end of the runway before the first trees. So that's 1,400 feet of total room. 200 more than the plane needs to get 50 feet in the air from a dead stop at 0 ft AGL. Now I do see there is slightly rising terrain off the end of the runway and the trees maybe taller than the proverbial 50ft obstacle, but honestly every time I watch it I'm thinking if they had just brought the nose down a little bit, they'd have gotten speed and been able to clear. But then I wasn't the one in the cockpit so maybe it looked a lot different, maybe the plane wasn't climbing as well as it should. IDK. Either way, it's too bad that this will end up on the CFI's insurance and his record.
Too bad, but the cfi instructor was the one who brought it upon himself. We hold records of people's mistakes for a reason. The cfi instructor was pilot in command and let the less experienced student pilot fly the plane into such a degraded flight profile that even a more experienced pilot taking controls apparently was not enough to right the situation. That is neglect and the fault of the pilot in charge of the airplane.
Thank god nobody was hurt. This should be a learning experience for all of us. Don’t laugh this can happen to us all . Humility is a hell of a teacher.
Me as a 1400 hour CFI I definitely would not have taken a student pilot to an airport with such a short runway. Especially a student with 250 hours and has gone through 14 CFI's. I don't know what he was thinking; must have been a relatively new CFI.
Is that so atypical? When I did my ultralight training it was out of a 1000 foot grass strip. A STOL ultralight doesn't need much room, but 1000 foot was still pretty tight, and there were obstacles at both ends. We all just got used it and learned to either make our approach dead on or go around (and we all got a lot of practice doing go arounds).
The reference to Stick and Rudder, actually page 85 where Wolfgang has the heading Holding It Down, is a good one. Wolfgang is discussing an application of his principle the law of the roller coaster. He is answering the airspeed vs altitude argument clearly on the side of airspeed. He, in my day before PTS which predated ACS , was showing why airspeed (on the takeoff or go around) is more important here. He was, without knowing it, explaining why we had more incidents and accidents but no more fatalities. "If the take-off is from a small field surrounded by tall obstructions, the working of the roller-coaster effect can be quite dramatic--if an experienced pilot is at the controls. The inexperienced pilot has a strong tendency to point the nose up steeply and simply hope that the airplane will climb out. But it is easy to overdo this and by trying to get too much altitude too quickly, to kill one's speed and stall, perhaps 50 feet off the ground. The experienced pilot will therefore point his nose up only as high as absolutely necessary to clear obstructions. In fact, if the take-off is from a very tight field, he will often point the ship's nose actually at the obstructions --maybe a half height of the trees. This does not help the airplane gain height, but it does help it gain speed. And the experienced pilot does not worry because he knows (without thinking about it) that speed and height are two forms of the same thing, and for various reasons he prefers to have that thing in the form of speed. And he knows that he can always at the last moment convert speed into height by pulling the nose up; the airplane will then 'zoom' and clear the obstructions." Wolfgang is explaining what crop dusters do on every takeoff and every spray run. He is taking about the absolute best short field technique developed by experienced pilots and not by mathematicians. He is explaining how horribly later PTS and ACS Vx or Vy as appropriate thinking non experienced pilots could endanger students and their instructors. He was explaining, without even knowing it, why we still have the same number of fatalities with fewer incidents and accidents. Yes, I would have talked to the student about being too fast for short field landing, that the POH is too fast for short field landing, that ACS is too fast for short field landing. And when he passed over the numbers, I would have said go around and I would have blocked any attempt to pitch up. I would have yelled, "level in low ground effect," the same as on every takeoff and every go around until something forced pitch up to zoom over with the outcome of the maneuver never in doubt.
I just realized, Munden, that you don't see such short strips with trees out your way, except in the Wilderness areas. The advantage of the mountains and high desert is that airports are long and down drainage egress is good. To take Wolfgang's, and mine, techniques to the ninth degree, in your country we would just continue in ground effect, in a loaded Ag plane anyway, out over the desert an on to the crop to be sprayed. Back here in the Midwest and East, finding the down drainage egress is more difficult but still relevant. In this accident, landing and taking off the opposite way with a little tailwind would have been appropriate because of no obstructions and down drainage egress.
I flew with a glider pilot once who came just short on an approach for landing behind a treeline. He simply pointed his nose down before the trees, gaining speed and pulling it up to "camel back" over the tree line and land comfortably behind the tree line. I have always kept that experience in my mind, just in case I would come short during an engine out emergency landing.
When I was learning to fly ultralights, one time my instructor says: "Okay, tell me when you think you can make the runway and we're going simulate an engine failure." I tell him when and he pulls power to idle. It's all good at first, but I start thinking I'm too low after a while and I want to abort, but he tells me I'm carrying extra speed and I don't even need to flaps, so I retract flaps, level out, and we make it over the road and into the airfield at a pretty normal approach speed and I manage a nice smooth landing. The instructors at that school liked giving us surprise challenges like that and it wasn't the only time they gave me one.
The airplane definitely looks like it's climbing (0:56) when the instructor pitches the nose over. So with ~900 ft available (4 strips + 300 grass) the likelihood of climbing over the trees is good. BUT, we're sitting here in comfortable chairs with no stressors and unlimited time to run calculations on maps.
Vx kill pilots and instructors on takeoff and go around. It is too slow for maneuvering flight. If messed up just a little, we will climb slower than Vso in ground effect. Climbing out of ground effect and into the beginning of height above ground no longer in ground effect, we first mush and if pitch up is then increased stall. So we have quickly climbed high enough to kill in a stall.
I haven't read a lot of these NTSB reports, but now I'm interested to do so. The CFI's statement sounds pretty defensive, but also thoughtful and probably very appropriate. This student sounds like a piece of work: bought an airplane and went through 14 CFIs and 250h of flight time, and reading between the lines, it sounds like there was an antagonistic relationship between them.
I don't see the math adding up to him not clearing the trees or the plane not having enough performance. The take off distance for a PA-28-140 over a 50 foot obstacle is 1220 feet. The plane was already airborne and flying when the go around was initiated, and it appeared to be done at around 1/3 of the runway. The CFI claimed they were doing 60mph, and there appeared to be no performance issues with the airplane, lack of power, engine issues, etc. A normal take off roll is 800 feet, and the trees are 800 feet away from the runway end according to Airnav. Using that math, when the go around was initiated, they should have had close to 2000 feet of distance, while airborne, to climb 60 feet, which is more than the 1220 required to climb over the obstacle, when starting from stationary. The take off distance is 800 feet and to clear a 50 foot obstacle is 1220 feet, so while flying, it should only take 420 feet to climb over a 50 foot obstacle. They had close to 5x that distance. There are some nuances here, like the trees are 60 feet high and the takeoff distance is based on a 50 foot obstacle. But, overall, I don't see anything based on the POH and the airport information that should have prevented a successful go around with a pretty large margin. Am I missing something here...? The numbers don't add up for the go around as far as I can tell, but of course I wasn't there...
If you are low enough to be in ground effect when you initiate a go around, you can use that ground effect to gain speed up to Vx. Then climb at Vx until clear of all obstacles, then accelerate to Vy to continue the climb. And keep it smooth to preserve as much energy as possible. That’s a much better way to do it than pushing the nose forward, gaining as much speed as you can until right before crashing into the trees, then zooming up to clear the trees, and then nosing over again. I don’t know anybody who would recommend that approach. Not being in the cockpit at the time, hard for me to say, whether it would have been possible to clear the trees, but I IMHO, poor decision-making in the first place, to even consider going to that airport, all things considered. Use a better airport with a longer runway, fewer obstructions, and a larger buffer for mistakes until the student pilot is REALLY good with short field landing and takeoff techniques. THEN try it out on a shorter runway.
It appears they would've had sufficient distance to accelerate, retract flaps to recommended best setting for a Vx climb, then climb at Vx over the trees easily. However, I am not personally familiar with the performance of that aircraft, so if the instructor truly believed they weren't going to make it by claiming the "inefficient wing" and lack of power played factors, possibly he was correct. But I still think he let himself get into a bad situation by letting the student pitch up a bit too much on the go-around, I always advance the nose down until I am level over the runway, usually in ground effect, to accelerate then retract flaps and go. It appears the instructor had to lower the angle of attack enough to where they began a descent instead of leveling off as to not stall, and by then, the amount of runway/clear area to accelerate was getting slim. If the student had not pitched up as much, according to the instructor as he said the airspeed fell below rotation speed, I think they would've made it.
It does seem from the video that the trees would have been easily cleared. However, I do believe landing on remaining grass is the best call if there’s any doubt in your mind. Flying into the top of the tree at 70 knots is fatal; rolling into their bottoms at 25 knots is almost certainly not.
Student with ~90 hours dual/solo combined. They only needed 20ish kts to climb out at Vx. Stay in ground effect and climb out, careful with those flaps though. It just doesn’t look like the trees would be an issue. I wonder, did the CFI get spooked? Over react?
The CFI blaming the student on this one is wild. Who was the PIC here? CFI admits the aircraft floated half way down the runway, then makes corrective action with 1/4 of the runway remaining... lots of red flags. It was only when they had already used up 3/4 of the runway that the CFI took action... Seems like lots of excuses in the report but they don't add up. You float with excess airspeed, not a tailwind right? Your groundspeed will be higher but it doesn't mean you somehow magically float.
I agree. The student with 250 hours 14 cfi is bonkers. I would never instruct him. My opinion the cfi should have said my plane and initiated a go around before they even come into frame. I would imagine he should know by the time he crosses the threshold if he’s stable or not.
I know right? Who wants a CFI that lets things deteriorate, smashes your airplane into the dirt, then jumps out with a big red arrow and sign that says "LOOK NTSB, THIS STUDENT IS A MORON! NOT MY FAULT!". Then adds insult to injury (damaging your airplane) by disclosing your personal training history while throwing you under the bus!
I'd like to hear your thoughts as a CFI on this take, what did they do with the flaps? I noticed flaps weren't mentioned in the FAA report. If you watch the video, even though grainy, I believe you can see the flaps retract during the go around and they go in and the plane begins to descend in a nose high attitude. Flap retraction seems to be an issue with go arounds, and watching the actual flaps here and just the reaction of the plane itself, I believe they retracted the flaps fully and early on initiation of go around (engine revs and then the flaps begin to go in). I don't fly a cherokee but I know on the 172 if you initiate a go around and dump the flaps before you gain speed, it will drop just like this plane did. they should have had more than enough runway and power in that plane with two people in it to complete that go around successfully. I think one of them dumped the flaps during the go around and lost the lift due to slow speeds.
I read about this a while ago on Kathryn's report, because I was checking for everything that has happened mentioning airports near me. Cool to find video of this finally! I've actually taken off from the CFI's home base (1B9) and have an (unconfirmed) guess what school this would have been. If my guess is right, I switched away from that school to another school after they didn't seem forthcoming in response to questions about their aircraft, instructors or maintenance, and I observed a worrisome amount of oil on the undercarriage of the plane during preflight. I felt I needed perspective to judge if I should be trusting the CFI when he said "It's fine." I did trust him that once, and nothing bad happened, but I watched the oil gauge like a hawk the whole way. (My CFI was not the one in this video unless he changed his name). Once I got to do a pre-flight on another Cessna and found it was comparatively dry underneath, I knew I had made the right call to try another school. To be fair, I will say that the instructor I abandoned did seem to have better stick and rudder skills than the new one. He was faster and smoother with trimming and configuring the plane and had smoother landings. Still happy with the trade, safety first. Soon after I read about the accident in this video I watched something that suggested that some students however earnest aren't cut out for piloting. With that level of hours and number of CFI's it seems likely someone should have had a "difficult talk" with him... or perhaps several instructors already had given him the talk and he responded by finding a new instructor.
The burning question is WHY? I’d argue that this strip is pushing limits for a PPL student, regardless of ability and aptitude. Simply not enough margin if things don’t go right… as demonstrated in this video. Can a student land at a strip like this? Of course. Is it a good way to instruct (benefit vs risk)? Experience is crucial in airmanship, something a student (or low time certificated pilot) has not yet accrued.
As a student pilot with an insignificant amount of hours, I would like to think that I would attempt a short-field landing and initiate a go-around if I miss my first touchdown point.
This is weird. First, Appreciate the videos man I’ve been enjoying them. Best of luck on your journey. I’m just starting mine finally after 3 years working to get to this point. What’s weird is, I’m from nj. I’m up in mass and have a 1958 175 in pre buy. I drove up late wed night and slept at a rest stop just a few minutes from Mansfield airport. I wake up, go to the airport and have breakfast. Then I ask where such and Such shop was and the guy was like no one here by that name. I realized I was at the wrong airport 😂. It was at a similar named airport thankfully not that far away. I did my pre trip planning just before falling asleep to take a nap before leaving. It made me realize just that easy it can happen with avionics and I had a whole discussion with the seller who is a cfi and experienced pilot. So it was good to bring added awareness to my mind. I won’t ever forget that now.
I had an engine failure with a turned rod bearing not oiling right on a 400 SMOH GO-300 coming out of Santa Fe. The mechanic who rebuilt removed and replaced the engine at Santa Domingo Pueblo, where I landed and flew it back out, said pilots run it too slow. 3200 max rpm on the engine, 2300 on the prop I think. I ran it fast because I was always in the mountains, but had had it for a short time.
@ yea I’ve learned a lot about this setup. Lol. With the gear box and 6 cylinders they need high rpm to keep cool. I’ve read if they make it past their half life they were ran properly. Fortunately this one has a good history. Previous to current owner bought it from his relative and the proper information seems to have been passed down. We’ll see how this deal plays out. Had to send out oil. Was little bit of brass/bronze color material in oil filter. BUT it’s the first filter and change with filter. It was on just screen prior. So this could even be from breakin. Sellers are amazing so I authorized rest of inspection. We’ll figure it out and I think it can be sorted out. If in the end I get a 0 time plane I’ll raise my price a bit. Otherwise they agreed to do whatever is necessary to make it 100%. Lot of brass bronze parts it could be. Lab should hopefully tell us more.
Im currently reading the same book 😊… I’ve had it for years but never read more than a few pages of it but since im about to finally start flight training again in a couple of months i figured i would read it in its entirety.
Good on you. Read the whole thing and then read it again. Wolfgang was still a bit German grammar oriented so a bit awkward, but he knew flying. His principles, the law of the roller coaster, what the airplane wants to do, etc. were my bible before PTS. Having learned those excellent energy management principles and teaching at high DA airports in the trainers with small Continental engines, those principles and that excellent energy management was 50% of my total energy on most takeoffs with a student. Fuel energy was the other 50%. ACS are testing standards not safety standards. Once you have get that license to learn, get with an old crop duster and learn the better energy management we old guys learned from Wolfgang without the idiotic Vx or Vy as appropriate mathematically. Math does not take human factors, the rivers of air we fly in , and that the tactical situation can become fluid into account.
@ Thanks for the advice! I live in Arkansas and see crop dusters all the time, never considered approaching them for learning, I will definitely utilize that resource.
@@dareallyst Talk to everyone you can - just be aware that some people have better advice than others. Foundations like Stick and Rudder are extremely valuable.
Many years since I owned a plane and flew as a low time private pilot, I would have pitched down to level flight at the FIRST INDICATION that the student had pitched up. Level flight would have generated air speed (and kinetic energy) to then trade for increased altitude to get above the height of the trees. Then return to a shallow incline to establish positive rate of climb over the trees.
Im only a commercial rated pilot but if the student struggled with go arounds and this runway was short with obstacles, why not do a full stop taxi back?
Gut feeling is he could have made it but it's hard to really tell for sure from the video. I would have finessed it, like you read in Stick and Rudder. I've been in these underpowered planes but if you're familiar with them you can feel their edges and get them to do a lot more than you might expect. But only with some specific experience! Maybe in this case the student had more experience than that CFI!
Tough spot. That airplane has about a 600 fpm perfect world rate of climb and he stated they were already below rotation speed with a tailwind. That means he would have maybe gained 35-45 feet by the time he reached the trees. What is the density altitude there? I am okay with his attempt to land straight ahead, but the lack of judgement was flying down wind with a known problem student on a short field. All the other dots lined up against them starting from there. They already shot a go around and yet it is as if he was caught off guard on the second attempt.
so weird. I started watching these kinds of videos about two years ago and can’t get enough. There’s no way I could afford to drop 15 grand or whatever it is to learn to fly, but I sure have learned a lot about flying that I never would have known. More importantly, I have learned not to just jump in an airplane with just anybody. Ha ha.
My only experience is about 150 odd hours in ultralights years ago (solod and finished my certificate shortly before life got in the way). I mostly flew an Aeroprakt A-22 which is a small plane with a comparatively big engine, and always out of sea-level airfields. That little plane could accelerate down the runway and get into a climb so fast that I found it quite challenging to actually perform all the steps of a proper take-off quickly enough. It was all over almost too fast for my brain to even perceive all of it. It was like an anti-jet. The only thing it _didn't_ do quickly was cruise. So my perceptions of a normal take-off are probably kind of atypical. Watching something like a 172 take-off looks like slow-motion to my eye. To me, aborting the take-off at that point looks like utter madness. At first I assumed it was an engine failure because otherwise it makes no sense at all. The plane was climbing, if rather slowly, and it looked like it was about half way to tree top height. My eye is telling me it had plenty of room to make it over the tree line even at that rate of climb, and the time taken to land again and come to a stop seems like it would give enough time to put the nose down gain quite a bit of airspeed in level flight. I just can't see how landing at that point could possibly take less space than clearing the tree height would. On the other hand, I'm used to an airplane that gains airspeed and altitude almost _too_ eagerly.
12:54 Now like I’m not a pilot However I do flight sim & am studying in an online ground school So what I _think_ I would’ve done is: Pushed the nose down to fly straight & level over the runway while applying full throttle (military style) Then climbed at Vx to clear the trees Then either climb at Vy _or,_ pitch down again after the trees to gain _even more_ airspeed (if I was close to stalling), then climb at Vy
Yeah, there was a balloon, but I'm really not seeing it as bad as was described in the report. The report makes it sound like the plane was pointed straight up. It was overpitched, but doesn't look near a power-on stall. The ballooning results in trading airspeed for extra altitude, but if you correct it, you get that energy back as airspeed. Climbing out at an airspeed below Vx is inefficient, but again if you correct it quickly, the total amount of energy lost is small. If the situation is such that you can only just barely make it out on a go-around with 2/3 of the runway remaining with absolutely perfect energy management, then I agree it's simply the wrong airport to be operating at.
The CFI with less than 100 hours instructing is the only source for the "14 CFIs" number. If the student had started training, stopped due to life getting busy, then restarted 250 hours is not super crazy. The CFI, despite being PIC and responsible for ANYTHING the student does - and training for these scenarios - stood behind the student and gave him a shove when he heard the NTSB bus coming round the corner. And disclosed personal details he has no right or business disclosing. What a clown. I agree they could have made it but there's no reason to a) accept the students suggestion for such a short runway then blame the student. You're the CFI ya jackwagon, students make fatal suggestions all the time. It's your job to say NO. b) You don't let the aircraft get 75% down the runway then call go-around. As CFI you should have margin to account for aggressive pitching and call it earlier. In fact you should have mentally noted several decision points on the runway, knowing you'd takeover if you pass the decision point in a bad state. You say pitching aggressively has been a problem (more dissing your student)... then why weren't your hands on the control following him just in case?
The other thing I'll say is you seem to take the brand new baby CFI's description of events as fact but don't even give the student's version a single thought. What if the CFI really did panic just a bit? What if the CFI is mis-remembering? Crikes for all we know the 14 CFIs thing could have been hearsay the CFI got from the intake people or an outright lie. We have no idea. Even if the student is unfit to be a pilot the student might still be correct about this situation.
@@xenadu02 Totally agree - the CFI should have seen that there was a tailwind, and should have seen that they had too much energy to make that landing long before they got to the runway. Even at 150HP and two bubbas in there, they had plenty of time to clear those trees. The length of that runway was enough to land if they did everything perfectly, but if anything was out of place, an early go-around was the right answer. Also, it's really easy to practice short field landings on a long runway - once nailed there, go to an actual short runway. My view is the CFI needs more training.
I really think I would have done a go around and made it in that situation. Although I can’t really be sure because it may have looked very different in the airplane.
Idk man… it looks like from the video that the student was having trouble landing on the smaller runway, did a perfectly normal go around, and then the CFI panicked, took controls and crashed them into the field ahead.
To answer your question. With the camera angle it’s hard to tell and of course not being in the plane it’s easy to say this or that. My argument is that he should have already initiated a go around by the time he comes in frame if the approach wasn’t stable. Clearly it wasn’t and they were behind the airplane from what it seems there. HOWEVER forget all of that because if when I am a cfi, a student came to me and had 13 previous instructors, I would not instruct the student or let them in my plane.
You would be surprised. I have passed up many instructors because of lack of skill. Bunch of kids that are just building hrs. Not actually trainining. Been thru over 20 instructor's until i found one i liked and was gonna be around. Most leaving for airlines..... Is another hige issue
So what's the rotation point on this runway on say a hot summer day? This is filmed in December. 140hp isn't stellar but he's already halfway up the tree height before the CFI panics and takes over controls. And he has half the runway left plus the grassy area at the end of the runway. It might take more skill to hit a tree at the end of the runway than to avoid it. I'm sorry but the CFI panicked here. That poor plane & engine. While a guy who is 14 CFIs deep and hitting commercial qualifications during primary training is sus, this also illustrates how you're not gonna get the most qualified and competent CFIs if you're sitting on 250hrs and haven't passed a PPL checkride. Student owned airplane - he wasn't giving up. I truly appreciate the grit. But churning through that many instructors who presumably have said in one way or another "you should not be a pilot, I will not endorse you" is also a message. Ironically this accident wasn't the fault of the owner directly, but he presumably wasn't a good pilot and could only attract 13 good instructors in a row. At the 14th (probably sooner), I'd argue his ego was pursing something he's just not cut out for, and it cost him the plane. Thank God nobody was killed.
i’m a ppl student with only about 30 hours and i don’t see why the cfi wouldn’t have just pitched the nose down to get enough speed. it didn’t look like they were about to stall, he could’ve just pitched down to gain airspeed and cleared the trees easy in my not so professional opinion.
Anything this dude wrote about the student is irrelevant. He was running the show and decided to either not read or completely ignore the cautionary guidance in the Chart Supplement that states "TGL [touch and go landings] not advised. Avoid taxi ops on ground when saturated" . To me that means full-stop only (no go-arounds). Taking a student pilot there was dumb.
FIREWALL THE THROTTLE PITCH DOWN ACCELERATE IN GROUND EFFECT TO THE LAST SECOND THEN PITCH UP TO CLIMB IF I WAS FASTER THAN VX I WOULD HOLD THAT TO CLEAR
The terrible student (a dozen instructors and lots of hours) was making the correct choice to go around and the instructor messed up? Maybe they deserve each other?
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
800 hour private IFR rated pilot here. Since you asked, I've watched it at least 15 times, and from the video I just don't see them not clearing those trees. If he levels it off for a moment to get speed (which will build fairly quickly) he could then have pulled for a Vx climb and from what I see cleared the trees. This is backed up by doing some geometry and math.
The CFI nosed it over with about 700 feet of runway left (using the runway markings in the video and Google maps). The plane is already 20 feet or so in the air. The Cherokee 140 at max gross has a takeoff distance over a 50 foot obstacle of around 1200 feet. There's another 700 feet or so of clear area off the end of the runway before the first trees. So that's 1,400 feet of total room. 200 more than the plane needs to get 50 feet in the air from a dead stop at 0 ft AGL.
Now I do see there is slightly rising terrain off the end of the runway and the trees maybe taller than the proverbial 50ft obstacle, but honestly every time I watch it I'm thinking if they had just brought the nose down a little bit, they'd have gotten speed and been able to clear. But then I wasn't the one in the cockpit so maybe it looked a lot different, maybe the plane wasn't climbing as well as it should. IDK. Either way, it's too bad that this will end up on the CFI's insurance and his record.
I agree with you...good comment...😊.
Too bad, but the cfi instructor was the one who brought it upon himself. We hold records of people's mistakes for a reason.
The cfi instructor was pilot in command and let the less experienced student pilot fly the plane into such a degraded flight profile that even a more experienced pilot taking controls apparently was not enough to right the situation. That is neglect and the fault of the pilot in charge of the airplane.
PPL student here, thanks for the insightful videos! Keep them coming!
Thank god nobody was hurt. This should be a learning experience for all of us. Don’t laugh this can happen to us all . Humility is a hell of a teacher.
Me as a 1400 hour CFI I definitely would not have taken a student pilot to an airport with such a short runway. Especially a student with 250 hours and has gone through 14 CFI's. I don't know what he was thinking; must have been a relatively new CFI.
Is that so atypical? When I did my ultralight training it was out of a 1000 foot grass strip. A STOL ultralight doesn't need much room, but 1000 foot was still pretty tight, and there were obstacles at both ends. We all just got used it and learned to either make our approach dead on or go around (and we all got a lot of practice doing go arounds).
The reference to Stick and Rudder, actually page 85 where Wolfgang has the heading Holding It Down, is a good one. Wolfgang is discussing an application of his principle the law of the roller coaster. He is answering the airspeed vs altitude argument clearly on the side of airspeed. He, in my day before PTS which predated ACS , was showing why airspeed (on the takeoff or go around) is more important here. He was, without knowing it, explaining why we had more incidents and accidents but no more fatalities. "If the take-off is from a small field surrounded by tall obstructions, the working of the roller-coaster effect can be quite dramatic--if an experienced pilot is at the controls. The inexperienced pilot has a strong tendency to point the nose up steeply and simply hope that the airplane will climb out. But it is easy to overdo this and by trying to get too much altitude too quickly, to kill one's speed and stall, perhaps 50 feet off the ground. The experienced pilot will therefore point his nose up only as high as absolutely necessary to clear obstructions. In fact, if the take-off is from a very tight field, he will often point the ship's nose actually at the obstructions --maybe a half height of the trees. This does not help the airplane gain height, but it does help it gain speed. And the experienced pilot does not worry because he knows (without thinking about it) that speed and height are two forms of the same thing, and for various reasons he prefers to have that thing in the form of speed. And he knows that he can always at the last moment convert speed into height by pulling the nose up; the airplane will then 'zoom' and clear the obstructions."
Wolfgang is explaining what crop dusters do on every takeoff and every spray run. He is taking about the absolute best short field technique developed by experienced pilots and not by mathematicians. He is explaining how horribly later PTS and ACS Vx or Vy as appropriate thinking non experienced pilots could endanger students and their instructors. He was explaining, without even knowing it, why we still have the same number of fatalities with fewer incidents and accidents.
Yes, I would have talked to the student about being too fast for short field landing, that the POH is too fast for short field landing, that ACS is too fast for short field landing. And when he passed over the numbers, I would have said go around and I would have blocked any attempt to pitch up. I would have yelled, "level in low ground effect," the same as on every takeoff and every go around until something forced pitch up to zoom over with the outcome of the maneuver never in doubt.
I just realized, Munden, that you don't see such short strips with trees out your way, except in the Wilderness areas. The advantage of the mountains and high desert is that airports are long and down drainage egress is good. To take Wolfgang's, and mine, techniques to the ninth degree, in your country we would just continue in ground effect, in a loaded Ag plane anyway, out over the desert an on to the crop to be sprayed. Back here in the Midwest and East, finding the down drainage egress is more difficult but still relevant. In this accident, landing and taking off the opposite way with a little tailwind would have been appropriate because of no obstructions and down drainage egress.
Thank you so much for taking the time to share all of this. Super insightful. Reminds me to finish reading Stick and Rudder.
I flew with a glider pilot once who came just short on an approach for landing behind a treeline.
He simply pointed his nose down before the trees, gaining speed and pulling it up to "camel back" over the tree line and land comfortably behind the tree line.
I have always kept that experience in my mind, just in case I would come short during an engine out emergency landing.
When I was learning to fly ultralights, one time my instructor says: "Okay, tell me when you think you can make the runway and we're going simulate an engine failure." I tell him when and he pulls power to idle. It's all good at first, but I start thinking I'm too low after a while and I want to abort, but he tells me I'm carrying extra speed and I don't even need to flaps, so I retract flaps, level out, and we make it over the road and into the airfield at a pretty normal approach speed and I manage a nice smooth landing. The instructors at that school liked giving us surprise challenges like that and it wasn't the only time they gave me one.
The airplane definitely looks like it's climbing (0:56) when the instructor pitches the nose over. So with ~900 ft available (4 strips + 300 grass) the likelihood of climbing over the trees is good. BUT, we're sitting here in comfortable chairs with no stressors and unlimited time to run calculations on maps.
Good point, if it was even questionable, probably best to try to live another day.
I think he could have made it over the trees. I would have just pitched down a little to gain speed and then climbed away at VX
Vx kill pilots and instructors on takeoff and go around. It is too slow for maneuvering flight. If messed up just a little, we will climb slower than Vso in ground effect. Climbing out of ground effect and into the beginning of height above ground no longer in ground effect, we first mush and if pitch up is then increased stall. So we have quickly climbed high enough to kill in a stall.
Keep the kids interruptions. It's hilarious
I second this
I haven't read a lot of these NTSB reports, but now I'm interested to do so. The CFI's statement sounds pretty defensive, but also thoughtful and probably very appropriate. This student sounds like a piece of work: bought an airplane and went through 14 CFIs and 250h of flight time, and reading between the lines, it sounds like there was an antagonistic relationship between them.
I don't see the math adding up to him not clearing the trees or the plane not having enough performance.
The take off distance for a PA-28-140 over a 50 foot obstacle is 1220 feet. The plane was already airborne and flying when the go around was initiated, and it appeared to be done at around 1/3 of the runway. The CFI claimed they were doing 60mph, and there appeared to be no performance issues with the airplane, lack of power, engine issues, etc. A normal take off roll is 800 feet, and the trees are 800 feet away from the runway end according to Airnav.
Using that math, when the go around was initiated, they should have had close to 2000 feet of distance, while airborne, to climb 60 feet, which is more than the 1220 required to climb over the obstacle, when starting from stationary.
The take off distance is 800 feet and to clear a 50 foot obstacle is 1220 feet, so while flying, it should only take 420 feet to climb over a 50 foot obstacle. They had close to 5x that distance.
There are some nuances here, like the trees are 60 feet high and the takeoff distance is based on a 50 foot obstacle. But, overall, I don't see anything based on the POH and the airport information that should have prevented a successful go around with a pretty large margin.
Am I missing something here...? The numbers don't add up for the go around as far as I can tell, but of course I wasn't there...
If you are low enough to be in ground effect when you initiate a go around, you can use that ground effect to gain speed up to Vx. Then climb at Vx until clear of all obstacles, then accelerate to Vy to continue the climb. And keep it smooth to preserve as much energy as possible.
That’s a much better way to do it than pushing the nose forward, gaining as much speed as you can until right before crashing into the trees, then zooming up to clear the trees, and then nosing over again. I don’t know anybody who would recommend that approach.
Not being in the cockpit at the time, hard for me to say, whether it would have been possible to clear the trees, but I IMHO, poor decision-making in the first place, to even consider going to that airport, all things considered. Use a better airport with a longer runway, fewer obstructions, and a larger buffer for mistakes until the student pilot is REALLY good with short field landing and takeoff techniques. THEN try it out on a shorter runway.
It appears they would've had sufficient distance to accelerate, retract flaps to recommended best setting for a Vx climb, then climb at Vx over the trees easily. However, I am not personally familiar with the performance of that aircraft, so if the instructor truly believed they weren't going to make it by claiming the "inefficient wing" and lack of power played factors, possibly he was correct. But I still think he let himself get into a bad situation by letting the student pitch up a bit too much on the go-around, I always advance the nose down until I am level over the runway, usually in ground effect, to accelerate then retract flaps and go. It appears the instructor had to lower the angle of attack enough to where they began a descent instead of leveling off as to not stall, and by then, the amount of runway/clear area to accelerate was getting slim. If the student had not pitched up as much, according to the instructor as he said the airspeed fell below rotation speed, I think they would've made it.
It does seem from the video that the trees would have been easily cleared. However, I do believe landing on remaining grass is the best call if there’s any doubt in your mind. Flying into the top of the tree at 70 knots is fatal; rolling into their bottoms at 25 knots is almost certainly not.
Student with ~90 hours dual/solo combined. They only needed 20ish kts to climb out at Vx. Stay in ground effect and climb out, careful with those flaps though. It just doesn’t look like the trees would be an issue. I wonder, did the CFI get spooked? Over react?
The CFI blaming the student on this one is wild. Who was the PIC here? CFI admits the aircraft floated half way down the runway, then makes corrective action with 1/4 of the runway remaining... lots of red flags. It was only when they had already used up 3/4 of the runway that the CFI took action... Seems like lots of excuses in the report but they don't add up. You float with excess airspeed, not a tailwind right? Your groundspeed will be higher but it doesn't mean you somehow magically float.
I agree. The student with 250 hours 14 cfi is bonkers. I would never instruct him.
My opinion the cfi should have said my plane and initiated a go around before they even come into frame. I would imagine he should know by the time he crosses the threshold if he’s stable or not.
I know right? Who wants a CFI that lets things deteriorate, smashes your airplane into the dirt, then jumps out with a big red arrow and sign that says "LOOK NTSB, THIS STUDENT IS A MORON! NOT MY FAULT!". Then adds insult to injury (damaging your airplane) by disclosing your personal training history while throwing you under the bus!
My favorite Simpsons quote is when Ralph Wiggum says, "My teacher said she's tired of trying!"
I'd like to hear your thoughts as a CFI on this take, what did they do with the flaps? I noticed flaps weren't mentioned in the FAA report. If you watch the video, even though grainy, I believe you can see the flaps retract during the go around and they go in and the plane begins to descend in a nose high attitude. Flap retraction seems to be an issue with go arounds, and watching the actual flaps here and just the reaction of the plane itself, I believe they retracted the flaps fully and early on initiation of go around (engine revs and then the flaps begin to go in). I don't fly a cherokee but I know on the 172 if you initiate a go around and dump the flaps before you gain speed, it will drop just like this plane did. they should have had more than enough runway and power in that plane with two people in it to complete that go around successfully. I think one of them dumped the flaps during the go around and lost the lift due to slow speeds.
That was the first thing I said when I saw the altitude drop was they probably retracted the flaps too soon.
I read about this a while ago on Kathryn's report, because I was checking for everything that has happened mentioning airports near me. Cool to find video of this finally!
I've actually taken off from the CFI's home base (1B9) and have an (unconfirmed) guess what school this would have been. If my guess is right, I switched away from that school to another school after they didn't seem forthcoming in response to questions about their aircraft, instructors or maintenance, and I observed a worrisome amount of oil on the undercarriage of the plane during preflight. I felt I needed perspective to judge if I should be trusting the CFI when he said "It's fine." I did trust him that once, and nothing bad happened, but I watched the oil gauge like a hawk the whole way. (My CFI was not the one in this video unless he changed his name).
Once I got to do a pre-flight on another Cessna and found it was comparatively dry underneath, I knew I had made the right call to try another school. To be fair, I will say that the instructor I abandoned did seem to have better stick and rudder skills than the new one. He was faster and smoother with trimming and configuring the plane and had smoother landings. Still happy with the trade, safety first.
Soon after I read about the accident in this video I watched something that suggested that some students however earnest aren't cut out for piloting. With that level of hours and number of CFI's it seems likely someone should have had a "difficult talk" with him... or perhaps several instructors already had given him the talk and he responded by finding a new instructor.
The burning question is WHY? I’d argue that this strip is pushing limits for a PPL student, regardless of ability and aptitude. Simply not enough margin if things don’t go right… as demonstrated in this video. Can a student land at a strip like this? Of course. Is it a good way to instruct (benefit vs risk)? Experience is crucial in airmanship, something a student (or low time certificated pilot) has not yet accrued.
As a student pilot with an insignificant amount of hours, I would like to think that I would attempt a short-field landing and initiate a go-around if I miss my first touchdown point.
This is weird. First, Appreciate the videos man I’ve been enjoying them. Best of luck on your journey. I’m just starting mine finally after 3 years working to get to this point. What’s weird is,
I’m from nj. I’m up in mass and have a 1958 175 in pre buy. I drove up late wed night and slept at a rest stop just a few minutes from Mansfield airport. I wake up, go to the airport and have breakfast. Then I ask where such and
Such shop was and the guy was like no one here by that name. I realized I was at the wrong airport 😂.
It was at a similar named airport thankfully not that far away. I did my pre trip planning just before falling asleep to take a nap before leaving. It made me realize just that easy it can happen with avionics and I had a whole discussion with the seller who is a cfi and experienced pilot. So it was good to bring added awareness to my mind. I won’t ever forget that now.
I had an engine failure with a turned rod bearing not oiling right on a 400 SMOH GO-300 coming out of Santa Fe. The mechanic who rebuilt removed and replaced the engine at Santa Domingo Pueblo, where I landed and flew it back out, said pilots run it too slow. 3200 max rpm on the engine, 2300 on the prop I think. I ran it fast because I was always in the mountains, but had had it for a short time.
@ yea I’ve learned a lot about this setup. Lol. With the gear box and 6 cylinders they need high rpm to keep cool. I’ve read if they make it past their half life they were ran properly. Fortunately this one has a good history. Previous to current owner bought it from his relative and the proper information seems to have been passed down.
We’ll see how this deal plays out. Had to send out oil. Was little bit of brass/bronze color material in oil filter.
BUT it’s the first filter and change with filter. It was on just screen prior. So this could even be from breakin.
Sellers are amazing so I authorized rest of inspection. We’ll figure it out and I think it can be sorted out.
If in the end I get a 0 time plane I’ll raise my price a bit. Otherwise they agreed to do whatever is necessary to make it 100%.
Lot of brass bronze parts it could be. Lab should hopefully tell us more.
Im currently reading the same book 😊… I’ve had it for years but never read more than a few pages of it but since im about to finally start flight training again in a couple of months i figured i would read it in its entirety.
Good on you. Read the whole thing and then read it again. Wolfgang was still a bit German grammar oriented so a bit awkward, but he knew flying. His principles, the law of the roller coaster, what the airplane wants to do, etc. were my bible before PTS. Having learned those excellent energy management principles and teaching at high DA airports in the trainers with small Continental engines, those principles and that excellent energy management was 50% of my total energy on most takeoffs with a student. Fuel energy was the other 50%. ACS are testing standards not safety standards. Once you have get that license to learn, get with an old crop duster and learn the better energy management we old guys learned from Wolfgang without the idiotic Vx or Vy as appropriate mathematically. Math does not take human factors, the rivers of air we fly in , and that the tactical situation can become fluid into account.
@ Thanks for the advice! I live in Arkansas and see crop dusters all the time, never considered approaching them for learning, I will definitely utilize that resource.
@@dareallyst Talk to everyone you can - just be aware that some people have better advice than others. Foundations like Stick and Rudder are extremely valuable.
@@jimmydulin928 thats great advice. I'm going to keep this on my radar
I think the cfi screwed up looked like they would have made it just fine .
Flying is not for everyone 😖💰
Many years since I owned a plane and flew as a low time private pilot, I would have pitched down to level flight at the FIRST INDICATION that the student had pitched up. Level flight would have generated air speed (and kinetic energy) to then trade for increased altitude to get above the height of the trees. Then return to a shallow incline to establish positive rate of climb over the trees.
Im only a commercial rated pilot but if the student struggled with go arounds and this runway was short with obstacles, why not do a full stop taxi back?
Gut feeling is he could have made it but it's hard to really tell for sure from the video. I would have finessed it, like you read in Stick and Rudder. I've been in these underpowered planes but if you're familiar with them you can feel their edges and get them to do a lot more than you might expect. But only with some specific experience! Maybe in this case the student had more experience than that CFI!
I am not a pilot, but you look like a cool dude, and your videos are really good. 😀
Tough spot. That airplane has about a 600 fpm perfect world rate of climb and he stated they were already below rotation speed with a tailwind. That means he would have maybe gained 35-45 feet by the time he reached the trees. What is the density altitude there? I am okay with his attempt to land straight ahead, but the lack of judgement was flying down wind with a known problem student on a short field. All the other dots lined up against them starting from there. They already shot a go around and yet it is as if he was caught off guard on the second attempt.
so weird. I started watching these kinds of videos about two years ago and can’t get enough. There’s no way I could afford to drop 15 grand or whatever it is to learn to fly, but I sure have learned a lot about flying that I never would have known. More importantly, I have learned not to just jump in an airplane with just anybody. Ha ha.
My only experience is about 150 odd hours in ultralights years ago (solod and finished my certificate shortly before life got in the way). I mostly flew an Aeroprakt A-22 which is a small plane with a comparatively big engine, and always out of sea-level airfields. That little plane could accelerate down the runway and get into a climb so fast that I found it quite challenging to actually perform all the steps of a proper take-off quickly enough. It was all over almost too fast for my brain to even perceive all of it. It was like an anti-jet. The only thing it _didn't_ do quickly was cruise. So my perceptions of a normal take-off are probably kind of atypical. Watching something like a 172 take-off looks like slow-motion to my eye.
To me, aborting the take-off at that point looks like utter madness. At first I assumed it was an engine failure because otherwise it makes no sense at all. The plane was climbing, if rather slowly, and it looked like it was about half way to tree top height. My eye is telling me it had plenty of room to make it over the tree line even at that rate of climb, and the time taken to land again and come to a stop seems like it would give enough time to put the nose down gain quite a bit of airspeed in level flight. I just can't see how landing at that point could possibly take less space than clearing the tree height would.
On the other hand, I'm used to an airplane that gains airspeed and altitude almost _too_ eagerly.
12:54
Now like
I’m not a pilot
However I do flight sim & am studying in an online ground school
So what I _think_ I would’ve done is:
Pushed the nose down to fly straight & level over the runway while applying full throttle (military style)
Then climbed at Vx to clear the trees
Then either climb at Vy _or,_
pitch down again after the trees to gain _even more_ airspeed (if I was close to stalling), then climb at Vy
Where is munden located at?
Yeah, there was a balloon, but I'm really not seeing it as bad as was described in the report. The report makes it sound like the plane was pointed straight up. It was overpitched, but doesn't look near a power-on stall. The ballooning results in trading airspeed for extra altitude, but if you correct it, you get that energy back as airspeed. Climbing out at an airspeed below Vx is inefficient, but again if you correct it quickly, the total amount of energy lost is small. If the situation is such that you can only just barely make it out on a go-around with 2/3 of the runway remaining with absolutely perfect energy management, then I agree it's simply the wrong airport to be operating at.
The CFI with less than 100 hours instructing is the only source for the "14 CFIs" number. If the student had started training, stopped due to life getting busy, then restarted 250 hours is not super crazy.
The CFI, despite being PIC and responsible for ANYTHING the student does - and training for these scenarios - stood behind the student and gave him a shove when he heard the NTSB bus coming round the corner. And disclosed personal details he has no right or business disclosing. What a clown.
I agree they could have made it but there's no reason to a) accept the students suggestion for such a short runway then blame the student. You're the CFI ya jackwagon, students make fatal suggestions all the time. It's your job to say NO.
b) You don't let the aircraft get 75% down the runway then call go-around. As CFI you should have margin to account for aggressive pitching and call it earlier. In fact you should have mentally noted several decision points on the runway, knowing you'd takeover if you pass the decision point in a bad state. You say pitching aggressively has been a problem (more dissing your student)... then why weren't your hands on the control following him just in case?
The other thing I'll say is you seem to take the brand new baby CFI's description of events as fact but don't even give the student's version a single thought.
What if the CFI really did panic just a bit? What if the CFI is mis-remembering?
Crikes for all we know the 14 CFIs thing could have been hearsay the CFI got from the intake people or an outright lie. We have no idea. Even if the student is unfit to be a pilot the student might still be correct about this situation.
@@xenadu02 Totally agree - the CFI should have seen that there was a tailwind, and should have seen that they had too much energy to make that landing long before they got to the runway. Even at 150HP and two bubbas in there, they had plenty of time to clear those trees. The length of that runway was enough to land if they did everything perfectly, but if anything was out of place, an early go-around was the right answer. Also, it's really easy to practice short field landings on a long runway - once nailed there, go to an actual short runway. My view is the CFI needs more training.
I really think I would have done a go around and made it in that situation. Although I can’t really be sure because it may have looked very different in the airplane.
CFIs detailed report has no details on the most pertinent factor….flaps. How much and how operating???
Idk man… it looks like from the video that the student was having trouble landing on the smaller runway, did a perfectly normal go around, and then the CFI panicked, took controls and crashed them into the field ahead.
To answer your question. With the camera angle it’s hard to tell and of course not being in the plane it’s easy to say this or that. My argument is that he should have already initiated a go around by the time he comes in frame if the approach wasn’t stable. Clearly it wasn’t and they were behind the airplane from what it seems there.
HOWEVER forget all of that because if when I am a cfi, a student came to me and had 13 previous instructors, I would not instruct the student or let them in my plane.
It really depends on ho much energy he need to clear the trees and how much time etc... but it seem like there was an easy way out
You would be surprised. I have passed up many instructors because of lack of skill. Bunch of kids that are just building hrs. Not actually trainining. Been thru over 20 instructor's until i found one i liked and was gonna be around. Most leaving for airlines..... Is another hige issue
So what's the rotation point on this runway on say a hot summer day? This is filmed in December. 140hp isn't stellar but he's already halfway up the tree height before the CFI panics and takes over controls. And he has half the runway left plus the grassy area at the end of the runway. It might take more skill to hit a tree at the end of the runway than to avoid it.
I'm sorry but the CFI panicked here. That poor plane & engine. While a guy who is 14 CFIs deep and hitting commercial qualifications during primary training is sus, this also illustrates how you're not gonna get the most qualified and competent CFIs if you're sitting on 250hrs and haven't passed a PPL checkride. Student owned airplane - he wasn't giving up. I truly appreciate the grit. But churning through that many instructors who presumably have said in one way or another "you should not be a pilot, I will not endorse you" is also a message. Ironically this accident wasn't the fault of the owner directly, but he presumably wasn't a good pilot and could only attract 13 good instructors in a row. At the 14th (probably sooner), I'd argue his ego was pursing something he's just not cut out for, and it cost him the plane. Thank God nobody was killed.
i’m a ppl student with only about 30 hours and i don’t see why the cfi wouldn’t have just pitched the nose down to get enough speed. it didn’t look like they were about to stall, he could’ve just pitched down to gain airspeed and cleared the trees easy in my not so professional opinion.
Anything this dude wrote about the student is irrelevant. He was running the show and decided to either not read or completely ignore the cautionary guidance in the Chart Supplement that states "TGL [touch and go landings] not advised. Avoid taxi ops on ground when saturated" . To me that means full-stop only (no go-arounds). Taking a student pilot there was dumb.
I'd expect to be able to fly over the trees, even with a tailwind and an anaemic engine - stay low and accelerate to a safe speed.
Been there with the kids
FIREWALL THE THROTTLE PITCH DOWN ACCELERATE IN GROUND EFFECT TO THE LAST SECOND THEN PITCH UP TO CLIMB IF I WAS FASTER THAN VX I WOULD HOLD THAT TO CLEAR
There is 600 yards of concrete - it is small but it isn't TINY. Flying off a small runway should enhance most people's skills.
Some people are just not meant to fly!
The terrible student (a dozen instructors and lots of hours) was making the correct choice to go around and the instructor messed up? Maybe they deserve each other?
I think he could’ve if he put it in ground effect
Yea it was totaled. Your fine your little one isn't hurting the video lol.
Another eg of someone not feeling the aircraft thru the ass. Sure you need the knowledge but sometimes you gotta be at one with the kite.
You're not very smart CFI M!!
Never claimed to be! Thank you for the comment!
What on earth are you yapping on about. He’s very knowledgeable.